Controversy and conspiracies II

Part II:

Thanks Mike:

Saw the disclosure about reimbursed £30 to Nicholas Kollerstorm...It is nice that the BBC did that.

Controversy and conspiracies II, there always been around and we need to investigate them to see if they are REAL or NOT REAL...

Hello Mr Rudin,

The BBC is in a no-win situation whenever it comes to stories surrounding the Terrorist atrocities committed by Islamic extremists on 9/11.

The anti-US brigade have done everything to ignore the facts and just regurgitate obviously false claims that it was 'the American Government Wot Done It'.

And on the other-side we have another group of conspiracy addicts who will claim that the BBC is biased towards terrorists, especially those of an Islamic nature.

I look forward to the programme and hope that it is as informative as previous films in this series.

Finally Mr Rudin, be prepared for a deluge of complaints by the conspiracy believers who will not accept any conclusion apart from one that agrees with their rather illogical views.

On behalf of 9/11 Truth Norway: Thank you!

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

A conspiracy? What nonsense! Old Bin Laden must be laughing into his beard at the suggestion by the Bush-hating wackos that the U.S. Government had conspired to fly those planes into the twin towers. Do you suppose that they will all be voting Democrat in November - is that a no-brainer or what?

Re comment 4

It says explain next to the moderator warning so, yes, please explain why it was referred to the moderators, and once referred do they ever come back?

Thanks for responding to my point Mike.

I can see that you're in a tricky situation in terms of what you're investigating and how you present it. Effectively, you're always going to be getting it in the neck from both sides.

If, for instance, Panorama were to investigate the collapse of Building 7, the BBC would be absolutely lambasted for daring to 'even go there', irrespective of the conclusion it reached.

Whereas broadcasting it under the unmistakable umbrella of "conspiracy theory" makes it less un-acceptable/unpalatable, because the X-files titles and all the rest of it suggest you're not taking the theories themselves 'too seriously' (you treat them and the subject matter respectfully, of course, but the viewer is always aware that you're not giving the alternative theories too much credibility).

And I think for many people, therein lies the problem (part of that damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't thing) - the problem of the inherent bias towards the official version of events, every time.

We can only hope that, if you ever did - to put it bluntly, 'uncover a conspiracy' - that you (or those higher up in the BBC) would have the courage to follow it through and broadcast it.

At the moment, I have to confess I have my doubts that you (or the BBC higher-ups) would. Particularly if there was the risk of major ramifications to social order, as might be the case with the revelation that the US was involved in the planning and funding of 9/11, or the UK in 7/7.

The BBC would be placed in an immensely difficult situation as to the most responsible course of action, given the monumental shockwaves and possible political instability that would follow.

I like to think that truth would win out, that revelation would be worth it, and you'd go ahead and broadcast. But as I say, I'm yet to be convinced that you would - or if you would, I have my doubts that those higher up the chain would let you.

dotconnect

Your post #7 is excellent, and more or less summarises my views. Like you, I am not convinced of the BBC's necessary courage, in exposing state wrong-doing, particularly since the risible Hutton Inquiry and Report. And, it is now well known that not only was the Intelligence (which took this country to illegal war with Iraq) concocted (never mind sexed-up), but so was the twice-changed legal advice of Lord Goldsmith, Attorney General at the time of the invasion on 20 March 2003. Goldsmith should have resigned (which would have spelled the end for the Iraq adventure of Bush and Blair et al.) - instead, he appears to have chosen to allow himself to be leaned on, and finally mis-represented at the fateful Cabinet meeting and subsequent debate in the House of Commons which swept this country to illegal war - aggressive war on a sovereign state, based as it was on concocted Intelligence and legal advice, is the "supreme international war crime" according to the Geneva Conventions.

Why has the BBC not drawn attention to these unpalatable facts?

I'm pretty sure that even if a moral and upstanding member of the bbc was to uncover that 9/11 was a inside job there is categorically NO WAY it would be broadcast.

I think people who believe in the official report feel that they are banging their heads against a brick wall when they talk to people with "alternative theorys" (conspiracy theory is an offensive term and should not be used in a non biased investigation) but they have to recognise that alternative theorists feel the exact same way.

Even if the american government didnt actually plant explosives in the trade centre buildings there is still so much evidence to support al-qaeda is a CIA "asset" that it would hardly even matter if the trade centers were brought down by CD.

The trade centres are merely an interesting and easily studied part of the CIA/al-qaeda alternative theory. Please for anyone who hasn't read "crossing the rubicon" i suggest you do.

Dotcotton and zeus.

Sorry its not good enough for me. Your man Mike is meant to be a journalist, his only concern should be the truth.

If we were dealing with a conspiracy that was involving the transfer of footballers then fine, But we are dealing with events that look like they might culminate with a nuclear attack on Iran.

Already we have seen millions be killed in our name, for profit and power. i would suggest you read the accounts of those who have been through the rape/torture prison camps that we have set up in iraq. Read the story of the 13 year old who was used as a rape toy by soldiers for months on end before being dumped in the desert with a handful of cash. Her crime was walking by a house that was being raided and then try and justify the actions of our media in making themselves complicit in this horror.

I have never felt such shame for being part of this country as i do now. I am now faced with either joining Mr Haws outside Westminster or leaving the country but i cannot consent either tacitly or directly to this anymore.

May God forgive us for that we do (or Allah if thats your thing)

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

Hank_Reardon

I agree with you - there is so much that's totally unacceptable - I have also considered leaving MY country, even renouncing my British citizenship (I have dual nationality - British and Swedish), because I am ashamed of what has been done in my name.

But, we have to start somewhere, and I was surprised that my post #8 was published. Some people are very angry indeed over Iraq, and much else, and politicians and journalists would be wise to take notice of those who dissent.

I believe that the only responsible way to investigate something like this is to first determine *what* happened, and then move on to "who", "how", etc.

Did Building 7 collapse naturally as a result of fire, or was it brought down by controlled demolition? Or is there another theory?

If it is found to be controlled demolition, who was responsible? Was al Qaeda able to plant secondary devices throughout Building 7 prior to 9/11, or did the US Government have something to do with it?

ETC.

Under no circumstances should the question of "who" influence the discovery of "what".

There is a simple way to approach this. If this is the kind of interviewer/producer that is going to insist on pulling out speculation from the scientists as to why the explosives were planted or who did it, then it is likely a biased hit piece.

Let's face it, droplets of molten steel permeate the dust at the WTC site and have been recovered numerous times and analyzed. They show the chemical signature of thermite/thermate. Molten iron at the end of steel beams not yet whisked away to China also show chemical evidence of thermite/thermate.

Rudimentary physics requiring a grade school degree would rule out fire and plane impact simply because of the complete annihilation of the buildings and their contents.

The bottom line is that if you deny or ignore the existence of molten iron in the dust and in the basements of the three towers, then you have adopted a religion. That religion is the 'war on terror.'

I WOULD LIKE TO DRAW ALL YOUR ATTENTION TO THE FOLLOWING VIDEO I FOUND ON YOU TUBE THE OTHER DAY

911: TOTAL PROOF THAT BOMBS WERE PLANTED IN THE BUILDING

NUFFRESPECT

IF YOU HAVE THE TIME TO WATCH THIS PLEASE DO AS IT REALLY DOES PLACE A WHOLE NEW SIDE OF THE STORY

ALSO I HOPE YOUR ALL GOING TO WATCH

FABLED ENEMIES WHICH IS BEING RELEASED AT THE BEGINNING OF SEPTEMBER THIS YEAR

THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS THE BBC IS A PUBLICLY OWNED COMPANY AND THEREFORE ALL INFORMATION THAT THEY HAVE IN THERE ARCHIVES WITH RESPECT TO THE SUBJECT OF 9/11 AND ALL OTHER ATROSICITIES SHOULD BE MADE PUBLICLY OPEN FOR US THE BRITISH PUBLIC TO VIEW

AT THE END OF THE DAY WE ALL PAY OUR TV LICENCES AND WHY ALL WE EVER SEEM TO GET IS LIES AND DECEIT NEVER THE TRUTH WHAT WOULD THE BBC DO IF EVERYONE WAS TO BOYCOTT THE CHANNELS IN THIS COUNTRY???

Mike,

Thanks for the blog. Especially the mention about the symmetrical collapse and dust. I hope you also bring out the molten steel found underneath WTC 1, 2 and 7 too.

I hope you don't go too easy on the BBC either. The BBC is supposed to be a news organisation and while I believe that were not involved in any conspiracy per se, they should have logged the information they were receiving and from who, and so give a decent answer to the question: who told you that WTC7 had collapsed (before it did).

I'm looking forward to the documentary.

The real danger, in my view, with all this public probing of 911 (and indeed any event that brings into question the integrity of government) is one of boredom!

We have seen this happen in the Diana investigation, where most people feel in their gut that something ain't right. The establishment cover the story relentlessly staging mock trials and pointless re-enactments, (without ever divulging too much insider information that would point to the real culprits), until the public are simply fed up and switch off.

We are now 7 years down the road to tyranny resulting from the initial shock of 911. When, if ever, will the public wake up en-masse and see the truth behind these sort of events. It seems the more we probe the more we move away from actually solving the situations arising from them. We are still debating The Kennedy assasination for goodness sake!

Until things get a whole lot worse and more obvious in our degeneration toward global fascism, the masses are not going to be convinced by "conspiracy" arguments (and maybe not even then). As Ian Williams Goddard has rightly said, "A society whose citizens refuse to see and investigate the facts, who refuse to believe that their government and their media will routinely lie to them and fabricate a reality contrary to verifiable facts, is a society that chooses and deserves the Police State Dictatorship it's going to get." Nuff said.

This is a new low even for BBC. This is one more proof that BBC now ranks with the sensational tabloid trash newspapers and magazines. BBC will suggest that it is possible that the United States government attacked the World Trade Center. This puts it in among the lowest of the low in the world, al Qaeda and other flagrant America bashers. Have a nice day.

I think the whole of your documentary hangs on this line from your blog:

Quote:
We have then taken their questions and arguments and tested them.


"Tested them". How and by who? By researchers deeply into the the subject using scientific method? Trained engineers, architects, demolition experts? Using proven mathematical models?

Er... I suspect "tested" by politicians and apologists for the official story. Therefore I'm still deeply skeptical of anything close to this being a fair investigation. And I bet they will have the last word on the documentary...

ynda20

Well, if the BBC think that they can choose the questions and arguments, ""test" them,
and then draw a line under the whole thing, they are wrong. I hope they have learned from their last attempt at a programme on 9/11 that they must not underestimate their audience.

In my opinion, the only reasonable conclusion that the BBC could draw is that there MUST be a PROPER investigation into the terrible events which constitute 9/11, the consequences of which have brought untold misery not only to the people of Afghanistan and Iraq but to the people of the whole world.

Most importantly, perhaps because of the power of the Internet, reasonable people no longer trust their governments. This is a very, very serious matter, the importance of which cannot be overemphasised.

The eyes of the world will be watching the BBC. Its very reputation hangs on how it performs on 6 July 2008. Let us all hope that proper investigative journalism in the mainstream media is reborn, courtesy of the BBC (for it is not just the BBC which has been pulling its punches in these desperate times).

"we have interviewed at length the architect Richard Gage, the former professor of physics Steven Jones and the writer of Loose Change Dylan Avery.

We have then taken their questions and arguments and tested them.
"


thats great . how about interviewing bush, cheney, NIST,lee hamilton, etc... and testing them too?


this doc sounds biased already..
the whole program is designed to make a spectacle out of 'conspiracy theories' , like the people who don't believe the official story are part of some amazing cult-like group.

I hope some the facts at least get some exposure in the mainstream media though. some good could come out of this

Dear Ministry of Truth hack,
It doesn't really matter what you say beforehand. It's obvious that the programme is biased just from the name.
The term 'conspiracy theory' is an emotive term which has been repeated so often by repeaters like yourself that it creates a pavlovian repsonse in most people who hear it.
When the non-thinker sees that good old auntie beeb is dismissing 9-11 truthers they can go back to watching sports and drinking their fluoridated water, while giggling about it all being a conspiracy theory.
Just by calling your series the conspiracy files immediately sets the bias - and you know it full well. Words have power, they program the mind.
Personally I don't want to debate technical engineering issues with a journalist like yourself because I know full well you're not qualified to answer them. And you know it too.
I also don't want some unqualified hack working for popular mechanics telling me 'trust me, I can't give any evidence why I'm saying this but it's not a demolition.'
I'm a qualified engineer and I know a demolition when I see it.
As a BBC fee payer I want you to report the facts, not distort and edit and lie.
I predict that you will put out some obvious distortions and patently false information and blow your cover.

Its hard not to believe the program will be unbiased, especially after Rudin or one of the shows producers was on the Alex Jones radio show and was basically backing the official line and not sufficiently answering questions about the 911 omissions and anomalies. For each anomaly the tiresome "that doesn't prove the govt was involved" line was used over and over. But common sense tells you the laws of chance and probability can only take so much abuse before it starts to really stink. Like rolling a double six 100 times in a row. It doesn't prove you have dodgy dice but you wouldn't want to stand in court and defend it as coincidence. People get the electric chair/lethal injection in America on much less evidence. And sorry to say an analytical and unbiased look at 9/11 shows a high level conspiracy. It's as plain as the nose on your face. Deniers are either in denial, support the policies therefore cede the actions as justified but wouldn't hurt the cause by giving the conspiracy facts (the real facts) any credence. Then theres those that just haven't looked close enough and refuse to be shaken from their perceived vision of reality and how the world works. Just look at history for how the world works. For gods sake we only have to look back as far as the 1800's to see how the "lower classes" were really regarded. Not even that far back. We may have turned another century on the dial, and the general public may have changed and become more sophisticated and more humane, but I don't think the powers that be have. We're here to serve. to be led, to be obedient, and serve our masters. The way its always been. Half the population is waking from slumber, the other half are chewing down more microwave dinners and sucking up as much banal television as they can. And of course our leaders wouldn't kill us, that's insane talk. And of course American government isn't really that corrupt is it, no, of course not. that's ridiculous. I bet there's not a single case of government and corporate interests and apathy towards the population overlapping is there? You see!! It's all good.

Is this little gem in your BBC documenatry on 911?

BBC foreknowledge of the WTC-7 collapse---

BBC Reported Collapse of WTC Building 7 Early-- TWICE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mxFRigYD3s

ROBBINZO and anoldusername

ROBBINZO and anoldusername

Your posts #23 and #24 respectively are excellent. Your honest desire for the truth shines out of every line.

Moderator - you may delete my post #26 - I clicked on "post comment" in error, too early!

Mike,
The point is not that you are some nefarious and untrustworthy figure, it is that you only have one option.

Let me break it down:

1. The remit of the 'Conspiracy Files' programme is to 'debunk' conspiracy theories. You were no doubt made aware of this when you signed on to the task. You can make all the protestations about the show being objective as you like, it won't change the fact that the sole purpose of the show is to argue against such theories and not to present a balanced case. The formular is to present only the easiest to answer elements of an argument, or the most leftfield and bizzare minority theories. Then without any right to reply roll on a debunker to make a weak argument against it. Then to conclude with some ameteur psycho-babble about 'what people want to believe conspiracy theories' (in other words its nothing to do with evidence - it's a mental deficiency).

2. Imagine that you looked into WTC7 as part of your research for the programme and concluded as virtually every sane person who has researched this topic has that it was a controlled demolition. Are you free to turn in a show concluding same? Do you really expect us to believe that your senior editiors would rubber stamp that programme? Of course they would not and you know that very well. You have one option - to deny.

3. The information regarding WTC7 and every other suspicious element of 9/11 has been in the public sphere for a long time and has been universally ignored by the mainstream media. The BBC, in the last conspiracy files programme and through its whole sale and deliberate neglect to report the facts has very much set up its stall. Why should anyone now expect an episode of a 'debunking' show to do anything but continue that tradition? How many towers fell on 9/11? You ask in the trailer - seemingly oblivious to the fact that the reason almost no one knows the answer to that question is the failure of the BBC among other mainstream broadcasters to make even a throwaway attempt to inform the public regarding 9/11.

These three points might explain why your programme has been condemned before it has come out. Why should anyone consider for a second that the show might conclude what is so patently the truth?

I hope you prove me wrong, but I think you know as well as I do that you are very right.

Mike,

I hope you can end the film by leaving it up to the viewer to decide if WTC 7 was a controlled demolition.

Why John Kerry said as much when quizzed about it. "I think they had to bring it down" was the quote in resonse to a question about WTC 7 I think.

Beacause of the ramifications of course you cannot conclude WTC 7 was a controlled demolition but a way to sneak in the back door is to allude it was and leave the film hanging.

Upon another note, I think personally Mike you have got two copies of your film, one copy that offers the debunking and plays the govt line, and the other explosive version put together in secret for the historical record.

I know I am right because your instinct makes you do this, you in some way want the expose version to leak out, but career considerations make you reluctant.

The thing is, have you got the balls to switch tapes and allow the Expose version to air ???

Dear Mr. Rudin,

The principle strategy of the corporate media on both sides of the Atlantic in dealing with the 9/11 questioners, is to name-call and fire cheap insults. To date, this methodology has worked very well with a large section of the general public, who are presumably uncomfortable with the notion that material on this subjects presented by Government officials via a complicit media might be incomplete, fabricated or even untrue. Its a bit like someone denying that their favorite uncle is a serial killer, even when the evidence clearly points to such.

As you are (I assume) an employee, or contracted to the BBC, a UK Government body, it would be reasonable to expect you are under some pressure to conform to officially endorsed opinion, as regards controversial material that could possibly implicate UK/US officials/agencies in criminal or terrorist activity. I recall the disgraceful treatment of the popular former BBC Director General, Greg Dyke, who was forced to resign in 2003 for a far lesser controversy than to question the official narrative of the 9/11 (or 7/7) attacks. And since the British Government is very closely allied to the US Government, especially in the so-called "war on terrorism", might it not be reasonable to expect that the BBC as a whole, is under severe internal pressure to comply, while making it appear on the surface, re. the the public perception, that is is being "fair and balanced"?

The power of the edit can change history, especially in today's media driven world. The BBC currently has a track record of presenting "hit pieces", skillfully wrapped up to make it appear fair, when dealing with 9/11 and 7/7; leading skeptics have been interviewed, but their words have been edited to either omit damning material, or even twist the meaning of what they have said, both subtly and blatantly. Once a pattern has been set, it is logical and reasonable to expect that the forthcoming BBC treatment of WTC 7 will follow similar lines.

When 9/11 happened, I believed the official story, but having studied it in depth during the last few years, it is most clear that, at the very least, it was allowed to happen. President Bush (and others) were aware of the time, date, nature and locations of the attacks months in advance. German (BND) intelligence reports of April 2002 have confirmed this, as have numerous reports from other agencies in other nations, but these reports have never been aired in the mainstream media in either the US or UK. Can the BBC ever present such damning material, which represents merely the tip of a very ugly iceberg, in a fair and balanced way? Of this, unfortunately I doubt, because the BBC's credibility is on the line as regards a large section of the public whose perception of the attacks is now set in stone, as a result of being denied any facts which cast doubts on the veracity of the official conspiracy theory.

Yours very sincerely,

Nik D. Green

As an after thought:

The hardline neoconservative agenda of the Bush Administration was omitted from the Bush election platform in 2000 because its authors were aware that such overt ultra- rightwing radicalism would have been electoral suicide; the huge majority of Americans are politically moderate. However the day after Bush was inaugurated, plans to invade Iraq and Afghanistan were on the table, and VP Cheney's ultra secretive energy taskforce was discussing plans to topple the Taliban in order install a government friendly towards US corporate/oil interests.

The authors of the neoconservative agenda (which included a huge "weapons in space" program, the US military takeover of oil rich middle eastern nations, and a massive escalation in the US "defense" budget) admitted in their essay "Rebuilding America's Defenses" that such extreme policies would have little chance of congressional or public support "absent a catastrophic, catalyzing incident, like a new Pearl Harbor". In other words, the motivation was clear, and after 8 months of what was looking like a "lame duck presidency", 9/11 happened. In an instant, this previously unheard-by-the-public Bush agenda accelerated off the starting blocks like a drag-race car on nitrous.

It is essential that we ask the questions re. 9/11 (and 7/7). The official stories are merely conspiracy theories, and pretty wild and wacky ones at that. Why is the mainstream media in both the US and UK going out of its way to defend these officially endorsed conspiracy theories, when they rely so heavily on so many impossibilities, unlikelihoods and improbabilities, bizarre coincidences, and even violations of the law of conservation of momentum (as regards the collapses of WTC 1 and 2?)?

This is becoming difficult, but here goes:

I can understand the argument that the mainstream press have to be responsible over what they say, otherwise the press alone could generate social disorder or even anarchy, for no reason at all.

But, given that we now have war criminals in power in both the United States and the United Kingdom [Bush and Blair agreeing in 2002 to "fit the Intelligence around the policy" re war with Iraq, and the subsequent concoction of that Intelligence (though the British Government claimed that they had not even sexed it up!?), and the concoction of the infamous twice-changed legal advice of Lord Goldsmith, the British Attorney General (the Americans apparently told Blair, after Goldsmith's pre-invasion visit to the US, that "we had trouble with your Attorney General but ...", or similar], and given that the American neo-conservatives (Bush, Cheney et al.) published a document called PNAC (Project for the New American Century) in the late 1990s, calling for American domination of the world, but saying that that could not be achieved "absent a Pearl Harbour-type event", the very least the BBC could and should do in my opinion is to call for a PROPER investigation into 9/11. In a single stroke this would restore the reputation of the BBC, in the eyes of the very many people around the world who have grave doubts re the official story propagated by those currently in power in Washington and London, and who feel that they have been betrayed by the BBC (whose duty primarily is to inform the public, not to protect, especially in extremis, the politicians who the people have elected to SERVE them).

There is much, much more which one could reasonably write but ... for the moment, let us confine ourselves to this: we know we are being governed by war criminals and some (not I) seem prepared to accept that. The burning question is are we also being governed by traitors, prepared to indulge in huge false flag operations (9/11, and, yes, the 7/7 bombings in London ARE also a worry) against their own citizens, in order to justify the global ambitions of those traitors? For this reason, we MUST get to the truth of this matter ie 9/11 (and while we are at it perhaps get to the bottom of what really happened to Dr David Kelly?), BEFORE we can move on. It looks to me like we NEED an orderly purge, and I think many reasonable people feel the same.

So, together, and with courage, let us search for the truth, wherever it leads, for the sake of our children. I do not see the problem - if we do not do the necessary now, things will only become inexorably worse, and then there will inevitably be an even bigger long-term price to pay.

Something else has always troubled me about this whole 9/11 thing. If the only three buildings in history to have ever collapsed from fire all collapsed perfectly and symmetrically into their own footprints, why the heck do we need controlled demolition experts.

If anything 9/11 proves that we have no need for these so called demo experts and any buildings that need to be brought down in future can simply be brought down by any old bloke with some firelighters and some petrol. it would save millions.

no need for weeks of planning and expert placement of explosives. just start a fire. simple. sorry controlled demo experts, looks like your job was never needed in the first place.

I will tell you straight i no longer think the BBC has any credibility left.You reneged on your duty to expose government lies over Iraqi WMD,S,you reneged on your duties over Dr David Kelly and you are reneging on your duties when the same liars are saying the same lies over Iran.If you address this subject in a fair and open minded way then i will congratulate you but i am not holding my breath.Are you going to address the eutectic reaction that occurred in the steel samples?i wager you don,t.This event did happen even though it has never occurred in an office fire before and the fact that it did happen and been relatively ignored is truly shameful.I do hope you don,t mention diesel fuel but i wager you do.If indeed you do mention diesel fuel you are contradicting NIST who have already acknowledged Diesel fuel played no part in the collapse.I am expecting the same tired worn out drivel just like last time.True investigative journalism is long dead,your programme just might be the final nail in the coffin.Maybe i am wrong,please let me be wrong.

It's nearly 7 years since that fatefull day in New York and Washington and the BBC are now about to present a programme to establish some credibility to story which is so bazzare and ridiculous that young children wouldn't be convinced by it.

Professional pilots have agreed after getting the data from the black box of flight 77 the 757 which allegedly flew into the Pentagon that it was nigh impossible and that the aircraft would have flown over the building. Even if it had hit the building the damage would have been massive and the lawn in front of the building would have had two large furrows where the engines ploughed their way at over 500mph.

If you're going to do this programme at least give the viewers some credit. Many people like me have researched 911 since it happened and we know when we're being made into conspiracy theorists.

When I was young the BBC was the beacon of truth thoughout the world try to get at least an inkling of that hard earned credibility back.

9/11: Total Proof That Bombs Were Planted In The Buildings!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8n-nT-luFIw

WE, THE PEOPLE, DEMAND to reopen the 9/11 investigation.

- USA

We all know what this programme is - propaganda. In the not too distant past the state-corporate media could ignore dissenters from the official narratives, now they are forced to engage but always (crucially) on their own terms.

It's encouraging to see that the majority of the replies on this thread are reasonable, well-informed and "conspiratorial". However, anyone who is even hoping (e.g. EdSoup) that the programme will be anything but a smokescreen is either hopelessly naive or just doesn't understand how their state-capitalist society works.

It is appears more and more likely that popular pressure in NY (from Sen. Gravel, the Jersey Girls, et al) may lead to an open, independent inquiry into 9/11. One can hope that, in time, this will result in some answers to the many glaring contradictions of the official narrative. Possibly this will lead on to criminal prosecutions for those involved in commiting the acts, assisting them, or knowingly covering them up.

It may be that the Cheney-Bush junta has already commited its crimes. It will be interesting to watch Mike Rudin and the BBC commit theirs.

Mike,


Even if you have already done a great documentary. You'll be too late. NewYorker is reprting covert agents already in Iran causing destruction of Iranian facilities. (Er... not reported by BBC).

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/07/07/080707fa_fact_hersh


Other sources claim 4th July as the launch of the Israeli attack on Iranian nuclear facilities. Your documentary airs July 6th - therefore will be lost in the noise...

Another success for the Ministry of Truth, even if you do reveal the "FINAL" mystery (as if any of the other mysteries have ever been established with a proper independent inquiry), it will be too late before the Neo-Cons have completed their agenda...

Mr Rudin,

What I hope to see in your documentary is a step by step investigation of the elements of the non-conformist 9/11 claims. These should include:

* The collapse of WTC 1 and 2
* The collapse of WTC 7
* The molten steel in the debris
* The stand down of US air force interceptors
* The foreknowledge of the US administration of the impending attack
* Plans for just such an event made well before 9/11
* The published essays by PNAC and who they are
* The size of the Patriot Act, how long it would take to write, and when it was produced
* The shutdown of WTC 1 and 2 one week before the attack for maintenance activities
* The former residents of WTC 7
* The level of skill required to pilot an aircraft into WTC 1 and 2
* Witness tesimonies of the observed level of skill of the alleged pilots
* The level of skill required to pilot an aircraft into the Pentagon
* Witness tesimonies of the observed level of skill of the alleged pilot
* The damage to the Pentagon versus predicted damage by an aircraft
* Eyewitnesses in the Pentagon on the number and timing of the explosions
* A detailed analysis of the timeline on 9/11 including, for example, the Pentagon stopped clocks
* Interviews with the FAA on why they cannot substantiate aircraft identification numbers in the black boxes involved
(there's a lot more)
*** plus balancing interviews with NIST etc, to get their point of view on the government explanation.

On the other hand, I would be disappointed (but not surprised) to see any time given to the obviously silly theories, for example, anything that Dr Judy Garwood says, etc etc.

I will watch your programme with interest.

Mike

Thanks for an intersting article. I look forward to watching the programme next week to see what it is all about. It is a justifiable angle of enquiry and, if these claims have surfaced, they should be subject to journalistic investigation.

Having read through the comments here though, I fear that there is no chance of the self-convincing circle of conspiracy theorists being discouraged. I suppose that once it became pretty unarguable that Diana died in a car driven by a drunk, pursued by morally ambiguous news hounds and, by proxy, their customers...it is now obvious that this would be the next port of call. It's almost suspicious isn't it.

As ever I'm left wondering at the bizarre motives behind these supposed conspiracies. Why would people want to do it . Why is that the government agencies that are routinely lampooned for various cock-ups (e.g. failing to predict the fall of the Berlin Wall) can suddnely pull-off not only a feat of technical and logistical brilliance; but at the same time manage to maintain a veil of silence over a conspiracy in which the numbers involved would run to thousands. It just ain't credible.

If, as some maintain, the CIA has been able to manipulate people's minds for years. Why go to the difficulty and expense of constructingg these vast conspiracies in the first place. Unless it's to hide the fact that they can manipulate people's minds in the first place...clever.

It always telling that you don't see any women (Ithink) commenting in these types of discussions

37 Mike

Mike...thanks for the tip-off about the strike on Iran dated 6th July. I'll make sure that I sell all my shares just to be on the safe side.

Mind you...how will we know if has happened?

Anglophone -

Thank you for your comment, because you have reminded me of something else that should be in the content - a historical brief of false-flag attacks, allowed/intentionally provoked attacks, or plans conducted by previous US administrations.

For example, they could look at the plans to shoot down a remote controlled passenger airliner over cuba, the naval attacks that started the Vietnam war, the actions of the Gardio group in Italy, or even (if brave) at Pearl Harbour itself.

The point would be that what is being suggested is not some far-out wacky idea, but something that has historical precedent.

I hope that the presentation is in the form of examining the issues analytically, and not a "this is the theory and this is why it is stupid" format.

Anglophone - I understand why you're saying that, the theories around Diana's death were often far out and flew in the face of the evidence. But take a look. Eliminating the silly ideas, many of the issues surrounding 9/11 are genuine. In many areas, the official explanation is as impausible as those of the sillyness brigade.

Let's put this another way. 33% of Americans believe that their government was complicit in actions that resulted in the immediate deaths of several thousand of its own citizens, the destruction of a major landmark, and significant damage to one of its most important military buildings. They also believe that on the basis of this deliberate action, their country and others declared war on two sovereign nations, resulting in the deaths of thousands more US soldiers, hundreds of non-US allied soldiers, and tens of thousands of enemy solidiers, hundreds of thousands of civilians, and the displacement of millions. This is not an issue that should be dismissed out of hand, it is probably the most serious charge brought against any government since the second world war.

So please, don't draw a parallel with the theories around Diana's death. It's not in the same league.

K

Anglophone,

Please follow the link I provided to reputable newslink

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/07/07/080707fa_fact_hersh

and it is also discussed on CNN. The July 4th date is supposition on my part based on less reliable sources. Sorrry, if sounded alarmist but I am alarmed with Bush edging for a war with Iran (which is widely reported in the mainstream media).

As for comment on 39, I agree with Kiliwizz, no 41, the Diana story is not in the same league. (Let's face it: the Diana investigation was necessary and long overdue!) I am content with due process.

But there has not been any with 9/11... and it somewhat more serious and the number of Mysteries too amazing. While the forthcoming documentary is billed as the "final mystery" - none of the all the previous mysteries have been solved:

- How did WTC1 and 2 come down? (NIST can't explain it. They don't even acknowledge the molten steel found at the base of 1, 2 and 7 and yet it widely reported. NIST or the 9/11 Commission Report do not even comment on the numerous explosions heard on the day coming from within the buildings.

- Moving on from NIST and 9/11 Commission report (where the authors themselves have distanced themselves from the findings), what about air crash investigations? (None), Judical inquiry (none), Investigative journalism on the many, many funnies of the day (planted evidence, identities of the hijackers, the fake Bin Laden video, the fighter stand-down, discrepancies in official stories about why procedures were not followed) - only done by amateurs! Why has the Mainstream Media been so quiet? The BBC report on Hijacker identities suddenly went dead! No conclusion at all (except the FBI have the right people) - implying the BBC reporter on the case was stopped from doing a follow-up.

The motives for 9/11 are all explained by the Programme for the New American Century (PNAC). (Plus the bullion under the WTC which was never recovered, the insurance scam, the $2.2trillion overspend announced by Rumsfeld on 10th September! (One of the only departments hit at the Pentagon was the audit dept investigating the overspend!) Yes, think about the HUGE amounts of money mentioned above and at least Hundreds of people being involved. Check the money supply figures for the US economy: HUGE ($billions) unexplained blip in August 2001...

All this information can all be checked and verified on the internet from OFFICIAL websites with just a few google searches.

So, yes again, sorry about being alarmist. If you can provide a suitable explaination for WTC 1, 2 and 7 collapses then maybe I can relax a little.

The present situation is frightening. We are facing WWIII. It will take one nuke to pretty much end our world as we know it.

The fact that after 7 years we 'officially' still don't have an understanding of 9/11 makes it all the more worrying. Now 'We are change' know and millions others know what's going on. But the masses in this country seem to not have a clue.

In the States though they are waking en mass. It will be good to see what sort of numbers they get on the 12th of July when they walk on washington with the intention of upholding the constitution and demanding the federal Govt. be abolished as it has become tyrannical. It is the first step of the second American revolution(third if you count Ludlow).

Please anyone who reads these comments on this page, do the research and make your mind up. Only the most illogical of minds could reach the official versions of the truth.

Sadly though i think it is all too late. When we bomb iran, We being the west, it will mean we will have real terrorists after us not the CIA brand of terrorists. We will upset a lot of people and they will fight back and who knows how they will do it.

My only prediction is that if a rouge nuke goes off it will be from those that went missing during the unreported Minot/Barkinsdale nuclear flights.

So this is the situation we find ourselves in NOW and we are still waiting for the BBC to tell us what happened 7 YEARS AGO. So what hope have we of them telling us what's going on now or telling us what the plans are for tomorrow.

Given a choice between the Lindsay Williams of this world and the Mike Rudins, I know which one I trust to give me the truth.

Sorry Mike either tell all or walk away. This is not a game, people are dying every day as a result of the lies. It must stop.

The reason there is so much of an outpour prior to the episode being released is because of the terrible job made of the previous 9/11 hit piece!! The subject matter was a side note, everyone who had a counter argument was made out to be a crack pot and it was almost unbearable to watch with an open mind as it was obvious you had your own agenda to push.

It’s strange you say you were accused of being part of the 9/11 conspiracy, I’ve never seen this accusation from the “truth moment, what that group of people asked was “who or where did the BBC get the story of building 7 having collapsed prior to the building collapsing”, which you have answered to an extent. I don’t recall reading anyone stating the BBC, you or the presenters of that program knowingly put out a false story?

What I find supportive of the “let it happen” is documents like “Project for a New American Century”, “rebuilding America’s defenses”. As far as planes being flown into a building, the declassified ‘Operation Northwood’s” is worth reading along with several other declassified pieces.

I think the “conspiracy theorists” have a good point in the fact that never before has a steel building collapsed due to fire in history, so that is what you are investigating, not a conspiracy! The building’s collapsed a fraction from freefall speed, hence there was no resistance at all, and it was just a total collapse of 3 buildings that caused the concrete to be “pulverized” to dust.

If you don’t believe the government would “lie” then why did they tell all the police/firemen, officer works and children, that the air was safe to breathe and reopened the crime scene, when it clearly was not safe.

I'll be very, very surprised if this episode is any different to the previous one where all I watched was people’s characters being attacked rather than there’s evidence or facts and ultimately made out to be a crack pots!

Mike,

I had a look on t'interwebs to see what else was out there.

Oddly enough, this http://debunking911.com/pull.htm piece seeks to debunk the conspracy theorists, and does seem well done.

Is your programme based on any of these questions, perchance?

I also looked at

http://debunking911.com/pull.htm

And this is typical of the apologists explainations: trying to stop debate by ridicule and not looking at all the evidence.

"Not a shread of evidence" is one of the claims made by the debunker when in fact they concentrated on hearsay and not looked at physical evidence and other matters:

a) How did the fires start and why did they persist? (This was the NY mayor's emergency bunker after all! (Coincidence No 1). Sprinkler system set onto "test" or something? Surely not) (Coincidence No 2)

b) Free fall collapse (Coincidence No 3)

c) Building occupants (CIA, secret service, and fraud dept) (Coincidence No 4)

d) Thermite residue found in dust (Coincidence No 5) Concrete turning to dust (Coincidence No 6)

e) First steel building to collapse due to fire and minor structual damage (Coincidence No 7)

f) Molten steel at bases of WTC 1, 2 and 7 (Coincidence No 8)

g) Electricity supply disconnects (Coincidence No 9)

h) pre-knowledge of collapse by firefighters, media etc (Coincidence No 10)

i) Silverstien's (and repeated by John Kerry) comment about Controlled Demolition (Coincidence No 11)

j) TV transmission cut at time of collapse (Coincidence No 12)

h) Barry Jennings story of explosions before WTC 1 and 2 collapses (Coincidence No 13)

i) Barry Jennings changing his story (Coincidence No 14)

j) The "unusual building architecture" argument - same as for WTC towers to explain their collapse ((Coincidence No 15)

Say each coincidence has a probability of 1 in 5, then the probability of the official story is 1 in (5 to the power of 15) (a very conservative estimate)

Mork Anthony, News night forum

"Astute observers of history are aware that for every notable event there will usually be at least one, often several wild conspiracy theories which spring up around it. 'The CIA killed Hendrix', 'The Pope had John Lennon murdered', 'Hitler was half Werewolf', 'Space aliens replaced Nixon with a clone' etc, etc. The bigger the event, the more ridiculous and more numerous are the fanciful rantings which circulate in relation to it.


So its hardly surprising that the events of September 11th, 2001 have spawned their fair share of these ludicrous fairy tales. And as always, there is -- sadly -- a small but gullible percentage of the population eager to lap up these tall tales, regardless of facts or rational analysis.

One of the wilder stories circulating about September 11th -- and one that has attracted something of a cult following amongst conspiracy buffs -- is that it was carried out by nineteen fanatical Arab hijackers, masterminded by an evil genius named Osama bin Laden, with no apparent motivation other than that they 'hate our freedoms.'

Never a group of people to be bothered by facts, the perpetrators of this cartoon fantasy have constructed an elaborately woven web of delusions and unsubstantiated hearsay in order to promote this garbage across the internet and the media to the extent that a number of otherwise rational people have actually fallen under its spell.

Normally I don't even bother debunking this kind of junk, but the effect that this paranoid myth is beginning to have requires a little rational analysis, in order to consign it to the same rubbish bin as all such silly conspiracy theories.

These crackpots even contend that the extremist Bush regime was caught unawares by the attacks, had no hand in organizing them, and actually would have stopped them if it had been able. Blindly ignoring the stand down of the U.S. Air Force, the insider trading on airline stocks -- linked to the CIA -- the complicit behavior of Bush on the morning of the attacks, the controlled demolition of the WTC, the firing of a missile into the Pentagon and a host of other documented proofs that the Bush regime was behind the attacks, the conspiracy theorists stick doggedly to a silly story about nineteen Arab hijackers somehow managing to commandeer four planes simultaneously and fly them around U.S. airspace for nearly two hours, crashing them into important buildings, without the U.S. intelligence services having any idea that it was coming, and without the Air Force knowing what to do.

The huge difficulties with such a stupid story force them to invent even more preposterous stories to distract from its core silliness, and thus the tale has escalated into a mythic fantasy of truly gargantuan proportions.

It's difficult to apply rational analysis to such unmitigated stupidity, but that is the task which I take on in this article. However, it should be noted that one of the curious characteristics of conspiracy theorists is that they effortlessly change their so called evidence in response to each aspect which is debunked. As soon as one delusion is unmasked, they simply invent another to replace it, and deny that the first ever existed. Eventually, when they have turned full circle through this endlessly changing fantasy fog, they then re-invent the original delusion and deny that you ever debunked it, thus beginning the circle once more. This technique is known as 'the fruit loop' and saves the conspiracy theorist from ever having to see any of their ideas through to their (il)logical conclusions.

According to the practitioners of the fruit loop, nineteen Arabs took over four planes by subduing the passengers and crew through the use of guns, knives, box cutters and gas, and then used electronic guidance systems which they had smuggled on board to fly the planes to their targets.

The suspension of disbelief required for this outrageous concoction is only for the hard core conspiracy theorist. For a start, they conveniently skip over the awkward fact that there weren't any Arabs on the planes. If there were, one must speculate that they somehow got on board without being filmed by any of the security cameras and without being registered on the passenger lists. But the curly question of how they are supposed to have got on board is all too mundane for the exciting world of the conspiracy theorist. With vague mumblings that they must have been using false ID -- but never specifying which IDs they are alleged to have used, or how these were traced to their real identities -- they quickly bypass this problem, to relate exciting and sinister tales about how some of the fictitious fiends were actually searched before boarding because they looked suspicious. However, as inevitably happens with any web of lies, this simply paints them into an even more difficult corner. How are they supposed to have got on board with all that stuff if they were searched? And if they used gas in a confined space, they would have been affected themselves unless they also had masks in their luggage.

"Excuse me sir, why do you have a box cutter, a gun, a container of gas, a gas mask and an electronic guidance unit in your luggage?"

"A present for your grandmother? Very well sir, on you get."

"Very strange", thinks the security officer, "that's the fourth Arabic man without an Arabic name who just got on board with a knife, gun or box cutter and gas mask ... and why does that security camera keep flicking off every time one these characters shows up? Must be one of those days I guess ...."

Asking any of these basic questions to a conspiracy theorist is likely to cause a sudden leap to the claim that we know that they were on board because they left a credit card trail for the tickets they had purchased and cars they had rented. So if they used credit cards that identified them, how does that reconcile with the claim that they used false IDs to get on to the plane? But by this time, the fruit loop is in full swing, as the conspiracy theorist tries to stay one jump ahead of this annoying and awkward rational analysis. They will allege that the hijackers' passports were found at the crash scenes. "So there! They exalt triumphantly, their fanatical faces lighting up with that deranged look of one who has just a revelation of questionable sanity.

Hmm? So they got on board with false IDs but took their real passports with them? However, by this time the fruit loop has been completely circumnavigated, and the conspiracy theorist exclaims impatiently, "who said anything about false IDs? We know what seats they were sitting in! Their presence is well documented! And so the whole loop starts again. "Well, why aren't they on the passenger lists?" "You numbskull! They assumed the identities of other passengers! And so on ....

Finally, out of sheer fascination with this circular method of creative delusion, the rational skeptic will allow them to get away with this loop, in order to move on to the next question, and see what further delights await us in the unraveling of this marvelously stupid story.

"Uh, how come their passports survived fiery crashes that completely incinerated the planes and all the passengers? "The answer of course is that its just one of those strange coincidences, those little quirks of fate that do happen from time to time. You know, like the same person winning the lottery four weeks in a row. The odds are astronomical, but these things do happen.

This is another favorite deductive method of the conspiracy theorist. The 'improbability drive', in which they decide upon a conclusion without any evidence whatsoever to support it, and then continually speculate a series of wildly improbable events and unbelievable co-incidences to support it, shrugging off the implausibility of each event with the vague assertion that sometimes the impossible happens -- just about all the time in their world. There is a principle called 'Occam's razor' which suggests that in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the simplest explanation is most likely to be correct. Conspiracy theorists hate Occam's razor.

Having for the sake of amusement, allowed them to get away with the silly story of the nineteen invisible Arabs, we move on to the question of how they are supposed to have taken over the planes.

Hijacking a plane is not an easy thing to do. Hijacking it without the pilot being able to alert ground control is near impossible. The pilot has only to punch in a four digit code to alert ground control to a hijacking. Unconcerned with the awkward question of plausibility, the conspiracy buffs maintain that on that September 11th, the invisible hijackers took over the plane by the rather crude method of threatening people with box cutters and knives, and spraying gas -- after they had attached their masks, obviously -- but somehow took control of the plane without the crew first getting a chance to punch in the hijacking code. Not just on one plane, but on all four. At this point in the tale, the conspiracy theorist is again forced to call upon the services of the improbability drive.

So now that our incredibly lucky hijackers have taken control of the planes, all four pilots fly them with breath taking skill and certainty to their fiery end, all four pilots unflinching in their steely resolve for a swift meeting with Allah. Apart from their psychotic hatred of 'our freedoms', it was their fanatical devotion to Islam which enabled them to summon up the iron will to do this. Which is strange, because according to another piece of hearsay peddled by the conspiracy buffs, these guys actually went out drinking and womanizing the night before their great martyrdom, even leaving their Korans in the bar -- really impeccable Islamic behavior -- and then got up at 5 o'clock the next morning to pull off the greatest covert operation in history. This also requires us to believe that they were even clear headed enough to learn how to fly the huge planes by reading flight manuals in Arabic in the car on the way to the airport. We know this because they supposedly left the flight manuals there for us to find.

They have to explain how the Arabs also engineered the elegant vertical collapse of both the WTC towers, and for this awkward fact the easiest counter is to simply deny that it was a controlled demolition, and claim that the buildings collapsed from fire caused by the burning Kerosene.

For this, its necessary to sweep aside the second law of thermodynamics and propose Kerosene which is not only impossibly destructive, but also recycles itself for a second burning in violation of the law of degradation of energy. You see, it not only consumed itself in a sudden catastrophic fireball , vaporizing a sixty-five ton plane into nothing, but then came back for a second go, burning at 2000 degrees centigrade for another hour at the impact point, melting the skyscraper's steel like butter. And while it was doing all this it also poured down the elevator shafts, starting fires all through the building. When I was at school there was a little thing called the entropy law which suggests that a given portion of fuel can only burn once, something which is readily observable in the real world, even for those who didn't make it to junior high school science. But this is no problem for the conspiracy theorist. Gleefully, they claim that a few thousand gallons of Kerosene is enough to:

- Completely vaporize a sixty-five ton aircraft

- Have enough left over to burn ferociously enough for over an hour at the impact point to melt steel -- melting point about double the maximum combustion temperature of the fuel

- Still have enough left over to pour down the elevator shafts and start similarly destructive fires all through the building

This Kerosene really is remarkable stuff! How chilling to realize that those Kerosene heaters we had in the house when I was a kid were deadly bombs, just waiting to go off. One false move and the entire street might have been vaporized. And never again will I take Kerosene lamps out camping. One moment you're there innocently holding the lamp -- the next -- kapow! vaporized into nothing along with the rest of the camp site, and still leaving enough of the deadly stuff to start a massive forest fire.

These whackos are actually claiming that the raging inferno allegedly created by the miraculously recycling, and impossibly hot burning Kerosene melted or at least softened the steel supports of the skyscraper. Oblivious to the fact that the black smoke coming from the WTC indicates an oxygen starved fire -- therefore not particularly hot -- they trumpet an alleged temperature in the building of 2000 degrees centigrade, without a shred of evidence to support this curious suspension of the laws of physics.

Not content with this ludicrous garbage, they then contend that as the steel frames softened, they came straight down instead of buckling and twisting and falling sideways.

Since they're already re-engineered the combustion qualities of jet fuel, violated the second law of thermodynamics, and redefined the structural properties of steel, why let a little thing like the laws of gravity get in the way?

The tower fell in a time almost identical to that of a free falling object, dropped from that height, meaning that its physically impossible for it to have collapsed by the method of the top floors smashing through the lower floors. But according to the conspiracy theorists, the laws of gravity were temporarily suspended on the morning of September 11th. It appears that the evil psychic power of those dreadful Arabs knew no bounds. Even after they were dead, they were able, by the power of their evil spirits, to force down the tower at a speed physically impossible under the laws of gravity, had it been meeting any resistance from fireproofed steel structures originally designed to resist many tons of hurricane force wind as well as the impact of a Boeing passenger jet straying off course.

Clearly, these conspiracy nuts never did their science homework at school, but did become extremely adept at inventing tall tales for why. "Muslim terrorists stole my notes, Sir." "No Miss, the Kerosene heater blew up and vaporized everything in the street, except for my passport." "You see, Sir, the school bus was hijacked by Arabs who destroyed my homework because they hate our freedoms."

Or perhaps they misunderstood the term 'creative science' and mistakenly thought that coming up with such rubbish was in fact, their science homework.

The ferocious heat generated by this ghastly Kerosene was, according to the conspiracy theorists, the reason why so many of the WTC victims can't be identified. DNA is destroyed by heat -- although 2000 degrees centigrade isn't really required, 100 degrees centigrade will generally do the job. This is quite remarkable, because according to the conspiracy theorist, the nature of DNA suddenly changes if you go to a different city.

That's right, if you are killed by an Arab terrorist in New York, your DNA will be destroyed by such temperatures. But if you are killed by an Arab terrorist in Washington, your DNA will be so robust that it can survive temperatures which completely vaporize a sixty-five ton aircraft.

You see, these loonies have somehow concocted the idea that the missile which hit the pentagon was not a missile at all, but one of the hijacked planes. And to prove this unlikely premise, they point to a propaganda statement from the Bush regime, which rather stupidly claims that all but one of the people aboard the plane were identified from the site by DNA testing, even though nothing remains of the plane. The plane was vaporized by the fuel tank explosion, maintain these space loonies, but the people inside it were all but one identified by DNA testing.

So there we have it. The qualities of DNA are different, depending upon which city you're in, or perhaps depending upon which fairy story you're trying to sell at any particular time.

This concoction about one of the hijacked planes hitting the Pentagon really is a howler. For those not familiar with the layout of the Pentagon, it consists of 5 rings of building, each with a space in between. Each ring of building is about 30-35 feet deep, with a similar amount of open space between it and the next ring. The object which penetrated the Pentagon went in at about a 45 degree angle, punching a neat circular hole of about a 12 foot diameter through three rings -- six walls. A little later a section of wall about 65-feet wide collapsed in the outer ring. Since the plane which the conspiracy theorists claim to be responsible for the impact had a wing span of 125 feet and a length of 155 feet, and there was no wreckage of the plane, either inside or outside the building, and the lawns outside were still smooth and green enough to play golf on, this crazy delusion is clearly physically impossible.

But hey, we've already disregarded the combustion qualities of jet fuel, the normal properties of common building materials, the properties of DNA, the laws of gravity and the second law of thermodynamics, so what the hell -- why not throw in a little spatial impossibility as well? I would have thought that the observation that a solid object cannot pass through another solid object without leaving a hole at least as big as itself is reasonably sound science. But to the conspiracy theorist, this is 'mumbo jumbo'. It conflicts with the delusion that they're hooked on, so it 'must be wrong' although trying to get them to explain exactly how it could be wrong is a futile endeavor.

Conspiracy theorists fly into a curious panic whenever the Pentagon missile is mentioned. They nervously maintain that the plane was vaporized by its exploding fuel load, and point to the WTC crash as evidence of this behavior. That's a wonderful fruit loop. Like an insect which has just been sprayed, running back and forth in its last mad death throes, they first argue that the reason the hole is so small is that the plane never entered the wall, having blown up outside, and then suddenly back flip to explain the 250 foot deep missile hole by saying that the plane disappeared all the way into the building, and then blew up inside the building -- even though the building shows no sign of such damage. As for what happened to the wings -- here's where they get really creative. The wings snapped off and folded into the fuselage which then carried them into the building, which then closed up behind the plane like a piece of meat.

When it suits them, they'll also claim that the plane slid in on its belly -- ignoring the undamaged lawn -- while at the same time citing alleged witnesses to the plane diving steeply into the building from an 'irrecoverable angle.' How they reconcile these two scenarios as being compatible is truly a study in stupidity.

Once they get desperate enough, you can be sure that the UFO conspiracy stuff will make an appearance. The Arabs are in league with the Martians. Space aliens snatched the remains of the Pentagon plane and fixed most of the hole in the wall, just to confuse people. They gave the Arabs invisibility pills to help get them onto the planes. Little green men were seen talking to Bin Laden a few weeks prior to the attacks.

As America gears up to impeach the traitor Bush, and stop his perpetual oil war, it's not helpful to have these idiots distracting from the process by spreading silly conspiracy theories about mythical Arabs, stories which do nothing but play into the hands of the extremist Bush regime.

At a less serious time, we might tolerate such crackpots with amused detachment, but they need to understand that the treachery that was perpetrated on September 11th, and the subsequent war crimes committed in 'retaliation' are far too serious for us to allow such frivolous self indulgence to go unchallenged.

Those who are truly addicted to conspiracy delusions should find a more appropriate outlet for their paranoia.

Its time to stop loony conspiracy theories about September 11th."

41 Kiliwiz

Forgive me if I don't suddenly experience a blinding epiphany over the wicked elitist American cabal and its plans to conquer the whole world. I would have thought that the types of policy "ideas" (note the stress on ideas) that were floating around neo-con circles in the early noughties have now been revealed as pathetic hubris rather than as some sort of "work in progress" by forces with power beyond our imagination!

In these circumstances, everyone starts quoting from "official" websites, whatever that means in practice. Just as in the now minor-league Diana cover-up, endless "facts" appeared on websites regarding the status of CCTV, post-mortems etc etc., hardly any of which stood up to robust analysis. I imagine that many of the 9/11 "facts" have simply taken on a similar mythological status among the true-believers. Equally, the sequence of events and actions of individuals in the heat of the moment probably don't stack up very logically. People behave strangely under stressful conditions, sometimes they do heroic things, mostly they just make mistakes.

...and what could it have been for? The immediate fall-out of 9/11 was military action against the Taleban Government. This was already a generally embargoed regime but offered zero real threat to US interests from a country with no oil. The later, clumsy attempts by the Bush Administration to put the finger of blame on Saddam Hussein had very little traction at the time.

The Neo-cons simply wanted a regime change which they believed would transform the Middle East (hubris again). They could have mounted such an attack on the pretext of WMD and Saddams "previous" without demolishing the World Trade Centre and killing thousands of their own citizens.

If the whole purpose of 9/11 was to attack sovereign Iraq, why didn't the conspirators lay a trail back to Saddam. Why did they wait nearly 2 years to take action?

Sorry guys...you have simply demonstrated the overwhelming need for the BBC rather than the clamour of partisan newsgroups that populate the internet. If the slow death of truth is taking place, then it is happening in cyberspace, not on Capitol Hill.

Standing ovation catty.

Anglophone,

Let me get this right, you believe the official story of 9/11, 7/7 iraq war etc etc etc

But the Lisbon Treaty and the shennanigans around that your willing to believe there is a hidden agenda.

you don't need to quote a website or anything else to prove the official story of 9/11 is nonsense, just have an understanding of basic physics. Unless your now saying Newton was wrong on some aspects of the basic physical laws of this planet, in which case that is a whole different argument.

It doesn't help us understand what did happen or who did it, all it means is that the official story is a nonsense.

But i guess it is easier to just ignore the physical laws of the planet and just believe what your told, makes life a lot simpler and means that you can hold onto your pride and ego and say that you were not fooled by this 'inside job'.

How long do you think ignoring the truth will work for you?

47 Cattymccat

Wow! Excellent prose. I simply cannot match you for writing ability and deep knowledge of the real truth, but I do have some puzzling questions. I simply don't have enough green ink to match your volume of output.

...like, what about all those people on the crashed 4th plane. It planes weren't involved, why did one of them crash conspicuouly in a field? Who managed to persuade all those terrified passengers to call home and to persuade their loved ones that they were involved in a massive hoax by the mysterious cabal behind the plot.

Another one is that setting fire to aluminium, a common component in aircraft, can cause very high temperatures indeed. It's difficult to set fire to but leave enough kindling around in the form of kerosene and office fittings and I think that it could go up. Not possible, ask any Falkland veteran about the horrible discovery that the Royal Navy's modern aluminium warships burned like a magnesium flare when hit. At the same time all the PVC mattresses, cabling etc gave off copious quantities of the thick black smoke that you claim rules out a high temperature blaze. One could go on and on.

I will not be joining you in the fruit loop as I have some paint that I need to watch drying.

With 'Conspiracy theories' there is a tendency to fill in the blanks, and thats where they start to become pure fantasy.

With 9/11 I have no idea what really did happen- but I definatly know what didnt happen and it aint what is written in the 9/11 comission report.

Who you gonna believe George Bush or Newton?

48 Anglophone

"Forgive me if I don't suddenly experience a blinding epiphany over the wicked elitist American cabal and its plans to conquer the whole world."

Straw man: A caricature of the claims of some in the 9/11 Truth Movement.

"I would have thought that the types of policy "ideas" (note the stress on ideas) that were floating around neo-con circles in the early noughties have now been revealed as pathetic hubris rather than as some sort of "work in progress" by forces with power beyond our imagination!"

Faith-based reasing: No offer of evidence to substantiate.

"In these circumstances, everyone starts quoting from "official" websites, whatever that means in practice"

Demonstratably false generalization.

"Just as in the now minor-league Diana cover-up, endless "facts" appeared on websites regarding the status of CCTV, post-mortems etc etc., hardly any of which stood up to robust analysis".

Red herring: Possibly true, but completely irrelevant to the discussion.

"I imagine that many of the 9/11 "facts" have simply taken on a similar mythological status among the true-believers."

Faith-based reasoning: No evidence offered for the claim.

"Equally, the sequence of events and actions of individuals in the heat of the moment probably don't stack up very logically."

False analogy: Personal opinions on 9/11 "facts" have no bearing on "the events and actions of individuals in the heat of the moment".

"People behave strangely under stressful conditions, sometimes they do heroic things, mostly they just make mistakes."

Red herring: Possibly true, but completely irrelevant to the discussion.

"...and what could it have been for? The immediate fall-out of 9/11 was military action against the Taleban Government. This was already a generally embargoed regime but offered zero real threat to US interests from a country with no oil. The later, clumsy attempts by the Bush Administration to put the finger of blame on Saddam Hussein had very little traction at the time."

Red Herring: The discussion is the mechanics of the 9/11 attacks (the programme focusing on the destruction of WTC7) not the possible motivations for 9/11.

The Neo-cons simply wanted a regime change which they believed would transform the Middle East (hubris again). They could have mounted such an attack on the pretext of WMD and Saddams "previous" without demolishing the World Trade Centre and killing thousands of their own citizens.

Faith-based reasoning: Claim to know what the Neo-cons wanted without offering supporting evidence.

"If the whole purpose of 9/11 was to attack sovereign Iraq, why didn't the conspirators lay a trail back to Saddam. Why did they wait nearly 2 years to take action?"

Straw man: Who in the 9/11 Truth Movement is making such a claim?

"Sorry guys...you have simply demonstrated the overwhelming need for the BBC rather than the clamour of partisan newsgroups that populate the internet. If the slow death of truth is taking place, then it is happening in cyberspace, not on Capitol Hill."

Personal opinion: No attempt to supply evidence to justify it.

50 Hank Reardon

No I'm not a physicist, but I'm surprised by the assertions that a 100 tonne aircraft travelling at c.200 mph would not do a lot of damage to a skyscraper. I would refer you back to Newton on that one.

I still just don't get the motive. If such supreme logisitical and clandestine skill existed to pull off such a plot undetected and to remain undetected. Why wasn't this skill used to knock off Osama, Saddam or whoever, without the expense of wrecking downtown Manhatten. Surely there must be a better motive than the CIA shorting on airline stocks?

The fact that 30% of Americans believe that the Federal Government had a hand in it? Well it would be interesting to see the question but I am reminded that one in four Americans believe that they or someone they know have been abducted by aliens. That extra 5% on 911 gives all the necessary extra credibility don't you think?

You are are using the conspiracy theorist's, Emperor's Clothes defence..."if you can't see what's happening then you must be really stupid". Hmmm, I hope that you look better naked than I do! ;-)

53 Monsterland

My friend. Thank you for your incisive deconstruction. I'm not in your club so it would have been helpful to know where I was going wrong.

I don't have time to trawl the historical documentation to find the small inconsistencies or misconstruable statements to back up my wild, unsupported ideas. So I rely instead on good old fashioned common sense.

I will have to go now. I have a very long list of subversive movements to destabilise in any one day and this one is loopier than most. The evil genius in the Oval Office pays me well to suppress the truth!

You do yourself a massive diservice anglophobe, your another one who seems to think they should argue against alternative theories when having no understanding of even the basic facts.

Not only do you admit you have no understanding of physics but you dont even seem to know what speeds the planes were going according to the official story.

best you watch your paint dry and let educated rational people discuss this one.

56 Hank...if you're so very very educated and up on the facts, it's noticeable that you couldn't even pay enough attention to get my name right. Doesn't sound like stickler for the facts to me.

Your claim to education is not borne out by your spelling either...but that's a common bloggers cheap shot, so I apologise.

You say tomato, I say tomatoe
You say rational, I say self convinced

What speed were the planes going in the official story? I only saw the film faked by the CIA so I wouldn't know.

55 - Anglophone

Touche.

Sarcasm seem to be the last refuge of the cornered intellect.

58 Monsterland

You can't be meaning me then.

No offence meant guys. I just can't resist wading in to these things where everyone is heartilly agreeing with on another. You are all clearly much, much cleverer than me!

I promise to watch the programme and see what they say. Must go and feed the kids now...earthly stuff!

Pip pip!

its all a bit of a joke eh, angolphool.

i never understand you guys who think mass murder is funny.

but then again at leest you can spell

60 Hank

Given your nom de plum it is very unwise to start a spat on who can think up the funniest play on words for each other's name.

That being said, the word that springs to mind does neatly encapsulate my views on conspiracy theorists...but that is like shooting fish in a barrel.

I don't find mass murder remotely funny. It's even less funny than mass-hysteria. I don't like cover-ups either and I remain deeply sceptical on many aspects of the execution of the so-called "War on Terror". I keep coming back to the question though..."what on earth would the motive of the alternative 9/11 actually be?". To simply rule this question out of the discussion is no different from the causes of the Iraq war being ruled out of the Hutton Inquiry.

To Hell with physics. I know enough about quantum theory to know that large parts of the "laws of physics" have been in a big mess for some time. To reduce 9/11 to a debate about the physics of a collapsing building is equally dehumanising as trying to trivialise the event. The truth, whatever it is, must be sought in the "why", not the "how"

It makes you hanker for Princess Di (geddit?)

Anglophile the WHY is simple it was a false flag to generate sympathy for a pre-planned attack on Afghanistan , Iraq and almost certainly Iran . Neither the Iraq or Afghanistan operations have been successful so the Iran crime will have to be postponed as a complete invasion but a partial attack is likely.

The 9/11 operation was as we all know a complete mess, nothing went right because only a few knew the whole plan and they hoped they could ad-lib as they went along.

The 757 flying over the Pentagon provided the eyewitness accounts of seeing a large aircraft etc. but the idiots forgot to do their homework with the actual building and the damage which would have been done.

The three towers falling in free fall time which clown thought of that one.

NORAD being grounded is the most telling of all that the operation was planned by the Bush people.

And so it goes on, how anybody could believe such a fairy tale is beyond comprehension.

Anglophile, cell phone calls from a metal aircraft are impossible above a certain height and speed. A cell phone system works on a very local basis, they have a very small output just enough to interagate the nearest tower. Now imagine a person at 30,000 feet with a velocity of 500 mph trying to contact a tower. First of all the receiver checks the authenticity of the caller then starts the process of directing the call to a destination meanwhile our caller is out of range. Of course the weak signal has to pass through metal which is a bit of a problem with electromagnetic waves, they just aint up to it.

Believe me the events of 11 September 2001 were not carried out by 19 arabs.

Sorry, but this is absolutly mind-boggleing, I really do wonder what type of edivence some people need. Witnesses can say one thing, be confused, be lying, give different accounts or be threatened to change what they say. You can discredit them by their character, their job or their past.

You cannot do this with the Laws of Physics, they are none negotiable and yet this isnt strong enough edivence for you?

Please tell me, what would it take? there is so much edivence out there, there really is somthing for everyone, but nothing as concrete as the laws of the universe!

Anyways to answer your question, motivation is theories, but I feel it is jumping the gun a bit, I mean thats where the real detective work comes in. I could point the finger all day long- and that is where most 'Conspiracy theorists' start dealing in 'Theories' and not 'Facts.'

Think of it like this: Police are called to a house where there is a dead man, he is at the bottom of some stairs with 2 gunshot wounds to the head, and yet the police believe he died from natural causes, by falling down the stairs.

Do I have to find someone how has a motivation for murdering this guy before the police will even begin to consider the gunshot wounds?

If it makes you feel better- whos not to say that Al-Qaeda got into the Twin Towers and WTC7 and planted the bombs?

61 Anglophone wrote: "To Hell With Physics".

You would prefer George Bush's story than to something that can be proven with science? We are dealing with "Laws of Physics" not theories. You really ought to know the difference.

Ok how about Psychology if Physics isn't your bag.

Psychology 101: a) I know everyone wants to believe Authority: Nurses will administer lethal doses of drugs if a doctor tells them to. Or randomly chosen students playing guards and prisoners adopt the roles instantly. But guess what George Bush told us the whole 9/11 story on the day it happened. It was Bin Laden! Ok, where is the proof? The FBI doesn't have any!

Psychology 101: b) Almost everyone complies with their peers. If everyone says "mobile phones can be made from planes" yet the physics says otherwise, then people will still believe you can make mobile phones from planes. This peer pressure thing has been tested again and again. For example, students sitting an exam and smokes appears under a door and nobody moves. In fact there was only one test subject in the exam - less than 10% of test subjects actually buck the peer pressure and leave the room. So, if you have a mainstream media (such as the BBC) who re-inforces the official story, then MOST people will continue to believe that story despite the evidence of their own eyes of impossible collapses and Impossible crashes. If the impossible has happen, wouldn't you want Overwhelming proof of that?

So where do you get your certainty from? You have the politicans story and the media and er... the 9/11 Commission Report (based on torture and "set up to fail" according to its own authors).

The NIST still can't explain the twin towers collapse and we have waited 7 years for the WTC7 report!!! They are finding it hard to explain mainly because the most obvious explanation, the use of explosives (secondary devices were reported on the day by fireman and others on the day) were specifically ruled out of the investigation!

Aren't you interested in what the relatives of the victims have to say? (Most want a new independent investigation of 9/11) . Don't you think this is an important subject to have some investigation, some science, some physics, some truth?

Anglophone

You are the thread shill, aren't you? You argue disingenuously.

66 Zeuszeus

You've got me there...what's a thread shill? Should I be insulted?

Pistonbroke2

I still don't get it. Why fabricate a pretext to invade Afghanistan...a turbulent wasteland without known oil reserves? As a potential route to export pipeline gas from Turkmenistan?...it's been talked about but has never been seriously considered. Then wait 18 months trying to find a case via WMD or a risable link to Al Queada to invade Iraq. Why not simply accuse Saddam straight away? Why divide your force in a pointless unwarranted attack on Afghanistan that has seen off a few armies in its time?

There are numerous examples of manufactured pretexts for going to war as people point out, but they are usually border incidents, vessels fired upon, etc. To manufacture a vast, slowburn conspiracy, pointing the finger at the wrong country, involving thousands of deaths among your own people, with thousands of witnesses and collaborators to be hushed up, with the most dreadful consequences if discovered. And then to pull off this triumph of logistics and clandestine operations....it's a very long way from the Iran Hostage debacle indeed. All together, the holes in the motives mean that this just doesn't stack up for me.

I am a scientist by training and not a total dunce at physics. There are clearly some odd things happening here that warrant more investigation, but the idea that the laws of physics don't get challenged is touching. Unaccountable phenomena occur frequently, based mainly upon our increasing ability to observe and record these things happening i.e. they have always existed, we just hadn't noticed them before.

Mobile phones? I've heard them go off in planes (to everyone's astonishment). I don't know that the plane was flying at 30,000 ft and how do you account for all the people who received the calls? Are they in on the conspiracy as well. Or don't they exist at all?

I'm new to this conspiracy malarkey and it does sound as if a second inquiry should be initiated. We shall have to wait for Barack Obama though...unless he's in on it as well!

Congratulations- we have a compassionate member of the human race after all.

Any resonable person who takes the time too look at the edivence (which you really should do- and dont just rely on this BBC program as my expectations are not high) will agree that a second inquiry is needed- or should that just be an inquiry as the first attempt could not really be called that.

Conspiracy theorists will always be conspiracy theoriest, they think everything is a conspiracy and if you disagree you must be in on it or being paid to disagree.

Obviuosly there will always be those people out there, but the majority of people who believe 9/11 was highly suspect are just ordinary reasonable people, despite the people who the mainstream media always use from our movement to portray their sterotype.

At least this time they have Steven Jones and Richard Gage- in my opinion they are a more accurate representation of the 911 truth movement.

Controversy and conspiracies, how else do Country's Government work?

Crimes bred into you, generation after generation. The very world that your head is filled with isn't real at all. There is no thought that hasn't been given you. Just as easily, it is taken from you.

The government owns the money and the major stocks of business is controlled. Only a police state actually exist. Government violence is paraded in the streets and their savages are demanded to applaud it.

Gods and falsified science is given the populous so they will not be aware of what humanity can do.

Lifetimes are so unjust that oblivious rewards for their long suffering are taught the world citizen acquired after they die.

I fight to think, and what I write, is the truth I see. If you don't like what I write, then you change the world.

You are carrying on the fine tradition of the BBC to do investigative journalism and report the facts. You should be proud.

I, for one, do believe that the Administration at the very least knew of an impending attack and did everything within its power to let it happen. There is just too much verifiable evidence of that. Many wars have been started by these "false flags" including Hitler's staged attack on a Germany radio station by fake "Polish" troops.

It is all about the oil - suppliers have greatly exaggerated how much oil is left and now countries around the world are doing anything/everything possible to secure every last drop of oil for their country.

Keep up the great work and whether the towers where tampered with or not is useful information. We need to know that too. Thank you Mr. Rudin.

Hi Mike, I am glad the BBC is on the case of 'Conspiracy'. However, can I make a point that an interesting documentary to make might be called "The 'Conspiracy Theory' Conspiracy Files" - along the lines of what makes people more or less prone to accept or argue against the whole idea of Conspiracy Theories.

Almost by definition, these are theories where the evidence on either side is scant or ambiguous, and where people tend to have strongly held opinions in relation to the subject matter. Hence people tend to be agitated and argue what essentially boils down to their point of view - basically arguing whether a glass is half-full or half-empty. The kind of argument that would lead both parties to feel like they are right and are banging their head against a wall!

The term 'Conspiracy Theory' is a great example of what you might call an argumentum ad hominem - argument against the man - i.e. many anti-conspiracy people label someone as a Conspiracy Theorist to imply that they believe that lizards rule the planet, hence any view they hold, however sensible (such as that maybe governments do, on occasion, lie to us?) must be nonsense. A very lazy, disingenuous and inadequate form of argument.

Why is it that some people have a strongly held belief that the world is how it looks on the surface, whilst others tend to have a need to dig deeper?

Solving that dilemma may go someway to 'solving' some Conspiracy Theories.

Anglophone, I think for the most part you're making valid and good points above.

Personally I'm not (yet) ready to believe most of the 9/11 alternative theories involving controlled demolition, missiles, etc - not because I'm not psychologically prepared for it, but rather I've yet to be convinced by the evidence (and I realise how inflamatory that sentence will be to many here!) Essentially, I currently feel that it's quite feasible that the hijackers themselves executed it more-or-less as we've been told.

I do however think it not an entirely far-out suggestion that those hijackers may have been in the pay of some element of the US that wanted this to happen. (Note: "some element of" - that's not even saying Bush or Congress knew about it - I've always presumed there's a higher-up layer of people with rather more intelligence and responsibility running things - maybe that's just wishful thinking on my part!)

Essentially, the idea that 9/11 may have been planned and funded (but not executed) by an element either within the US, or with the US's future interests at heart. I don't yet fully believe this, but neither do I think it as far-fetched as others might.

As tragic and awful as 3,000 lost lives are, is it really that inconceivable that a greater good may have been deemed to warrant it? After all, we have no problem believing that 100,000's of lost Iraqi lives were deemed by the US to be worth "a greater good". In terms of sacrifice, the only difference is surely nationality, which is something of a meaningless construct when it comes to human life?

My point here is that 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 much less likely to be revealed?

(In that sense, many of the common 9/11 conspiracy theories could quite feasibly have been seeded and circulated as disinformation in order to discredit anyone who might be sniffing around elements of this much simpler conspiracy. )

The motive is the obvious next question. How about to usher in a new era in which the occupants of the all-important Middle East - Muslims - were to become the new boogeymen, the enemy, the pretext for "regime change and liberation". So it wasn't so much an excuse to get into Afghanistan or Iraq per se - but more generally, the beginning of a long long campaign involving the whole region - Iran, Syria, Pakistan?

In an era characterised by the rise of China as a superpower, the increasing scarcity of natural resources (and everything that hangs on that, which is to say, a devastating amount), the economy so delicately balanced on petro-dollars and yes, even the prevalence of hostile regimes that believe the values of the West are utterly deserving of contempt - I can see how there might have been enormous benefit to painting Muslims as the new 21st century enemy, in order to "re-make" that part of the world in an image favourable to ourselves. Of course it all becomes a lot easier when most of us stop seeing Muslims as one of us and start seeing them as "them".

Bush and Blair have in the past remarked that their problem isn't with Islam but rather the warped strain of Islamism. In practice, many of us know that's not how people typically react, as we can gauge merely from reading the BBC's Have Your Say boards or listening to any phone-in show. Anyone who allegedly planned this would have been fully aware of our tribal tendency, the polarising of debates, the retreat to extremes, be it a more conservative strain of Islam or a more vehement anti-Muslim sentiment. Just look at the way people now dismiss "Muslims" in broad generalised ways, as if they're one single lump, all harbouing terrorists and all ready to be offended by x, y and z. If this schism was their intention, it's certainly working.

Well it's just a theory anyway. I'm guessing a starting point would be to follow the money, look at the funding and transactions, really investigate al-Qaeda.

Even the NORAD/FIA stand-downs could have some relevance here.

The problem of course is that, in the absence of uncovering something blatantly damning, it eventually boils down to us just accepting the word of the secret services, that they operate within the law and never do such things.

So perhaps that should be the starting point - an investigation into the history of false flag ops and pretexts. Clearing up once and for all whether Northwoods was all it's been baked up to be, looking at what really started Vietnam and how that compares with what people were told at the time. Not a biased testing of theories, but an investigation.

Getting more clarification of these things is probably a valuable first step, whatever the reality of 9/11.

Hello Mike
I have a new concept that I posted to some govts - My concept guarantees renewed power, on a daily basis..and in its expanded form, will markedly reduce gas dependance.
I heard I can be 'dead' for conceptualising anything that threatens gas companies revenues...and I have heard of real life instances where people have disappeared.
My concept , by implementation is effectively more generative than wind power etc..and only limited by the installations, which can really be done much more easily,and in more places than wind,solar, or hydro..and can even reduce the need for biofuels.

Can you help me contact someone thats actually SERIOUS about new power? Even if my concept costs the world $1 billion..thats really a dot compared to what it can generate overall.

Im hoping to contact Germany ( because they're engineering specialists..and serious) ..or UK.

72 Dotconnect

I think that we are fairly similar ground so I must be careful to avoid "passionate agreement". My basic premise remains, given the amazing sophistication of the "alternative plot", people with this level of intelligence and skill could get what they want without demolishing Lower Manhatten. I'm with you on the simpler explanation that, if elements in the US wanted to spark a massive change in foreign and defence policy, then it is possible that they could have "put-up" the hijackers in the conventionally understood plot. Possibility does however not automatically equate with plausbility and I struggle with the motive.

You talk, hopefully a little tongue in cheek about the "extra layer" of intelligent, responsible people, running the world. At this point we have to part company. The sad thing is that Government is basically about as dumb and self-interested as the population at large. Huge governmental organisations make comical errors (it happens in in large corporations as well). If these hyper-bright people existed, they wouldn't need to manipulate oil markets...they could simply charge billions for agreeing to fix the NHS. I fear that this seductive theory of shady hyper-intellects running the show is just a God substitute. Perhaps Richard Dawkins could be persuaded to comment.

Your causus belli argument is a good one and the desire of governments, in particular the US government, to actively point out enemies over the years is marked. There have been notorious "faked" acts of aggression in the past, but I stick to the point of view that 9/11 dwarfs any other examples in terms of scale and the number of participants required by several orders of magnitude.

You're right in pointing out the crude xenophobia about muslims that has emerged. Was this a deliberate attempt to create a schism, as you suggest, and a convenient new bogeyman? Possible, but equally, if not more plausible is that extreme Islamists, fearing the erosion of traditional practice and the "Westernisation" of their culture, would attempt to create the selfsame polarisation for their own purpose. Either way, this has been regrettably very successful.

These arguments always seem to run back to some document, quote or remark that "sparks" the whole thing. I'm sure that politicians, policymakers and thinkers in the US will have postulated the galvanising effect of a Pearl Harbour type incident. You often hear people in this country talking about the need to adopt a Blitz Spirit, but I don't think that anyone is seriously proposing night-bombing as a social engineering tool! Likewise, the fact that writers in the US have talked about such things, doesn't mean that they will have gone on to exceute them.

Lastly, if these events were the work of such sophisticated "Grand Strategiests", why has the aftermath been such an eye-wateringly expensive, blood-soaked failure?

73 Efectnevi

When you talk about "gas", are you talking about natural gas or gasoline?

I work for an oil company and I suspect that barring a heroic investigation into the political connections of Gazprom, you are unlikely to wind up dead in a ditch if you have some breakthrough idea.

I suggest that you first make sure that your patents are secure, then speak to the technical or strategy directors of any of the publically quoted diversified energy companies.

If your idea is more conceptual, then talk to one of the independent design and research houses in the US or Europe...even seek government sponsorship in the UK or Germany. Both are rabbits in the headlights of energy security and will not be remotely worried about upsetting oil companies if you've genuinely got a non-nuclear option on the drawing board.

Anglophone, good points. Just to elaborate on a couple - I completely agree with you that possibility does not automatically equate with plausibility.

And this "extra layer" of intelligent people to which I alluded - it wasn't tongue-in-cheek actually, but neither was it meant to suggest (in case it did) a kind of Illuminati or anything like that. Rather, just people operating within various intelligence services who have considerably more skill and are better qualified to influence the direction of a country than the President. Security services, advisors, people like that. As I said, it may well be wishful/hopeful thinking on my part (and as a firm atheist and great admirer of Dawkins, I try to keep that type of thing in check!) but neither was it intended to sound like anything Bilderbergian!

Anglophone, xylophone, our monikers are of no consequence.

Your argument against any 'alternative thoery' seems to be two fold.

You see no motive, Ok apart from, the insider trading and the building insurance, a money motive, and apart from giving a reason to head into afghanistan and build pipelines and military bases. It could be argued that without 9/11 there would have been no 2nd iraq war, even if the Whitehouse never did manage to find a link between saddam and osama.

So we have money as a motive, and we are talking billions here. We have securing oil as a motive, again we are talking about billions in revenues. You could even say that 9/11 brought about the john warner act, so the motive could also be internal control in the US.

So there are clear motives and they are bit more realistic than, 'they hate our freedoms'.

i know it is wild that in this modern world anyone could be motivated to do wrong for the love of money, i know, what a crazy idea.

you also seem to have some breaking news on the changed laws of physics. Please advise me to the new rules as i am still living in a world governed by the old set of laws, silly me eh.

Its good that your here to help us understand the changing nature of our physical universe.

But best of all you tell us you work in the oil indusrty. So you will know doubt have been aware about the plan to keep raising the price of oil.

I learned of the present oil crisis about 2 years ago, did you.

I would recommend you watch lindsay williams lectures (he worked in the oil industry for a good 30 odd years and he has some very interesting things to say about it.

So anglophone, any conspiracy in oil prices you want to tell us about. Or can you just not see the motive for it.

Your arguements take the usual tract of anyone defending the official theory, in that you don't defend it at all. What you do is examine and seek clarification of any other theories when you have not applied the same test to the 'Kean Commission'

tsk, tsk, tsk.

So you start with the usual mockery then
Denying the laws of physics then
try shifting the argument to anything else other than the facts, oil patents, NHS.

You also call the aftermath of Iraq a failure, which means you are once again believing what you are being told, You often say you are dubious about the war yet you will take their word on the planned outcome, without question.

I have argued with folks like you many a time and what i have learned is that you waiting to be told by someone else, someone official what happened, For whatever reason you wont familiarise yourself with the facts, (this is clear from many glaring factual errors you argue, plane speeds and mobile phone calls as an example.) instead you just argue blindly picking holes in unoffered theories.

I don't know what happened of 9/11 but i know the Kean commission is not the story of what happened, it even contradicts itself.

Why you feel the need to counter us 'truthers' without actually learning up on the subject is beyond me.

But then again you do seem to see it all as a bit of a joke.

pip pip and all

74 Anglophone

"Lastly, if these events were the work of such sophisticated "Grand Strategiests", why has the aftermath been such an eye-wateringly expensive, blood-soaked failure?"

Although this statement itself is a glaring non sequiter (just because a stratgey fails does not mean it wasn't meticulously planned) it is worth examining further.

From whose perspective was the aftermath a 'failure'? Sure, if you happen to be a dead Iraqi civilian or US Serviceperson then the scenario certainly failed you. However the elites of the state/corporate world have a curious way of not viewing success/failure in the same way as brown-skinned people in poor countries, or working class grunts with guns.

So in terms of 'successes', take your pick from: doubling of military budgets, record profits for defence industry, US military power establishing permanent presence in the Middle East, Iraq unleashing billions of dollars in contracts (oil, infrastructure, security) to US companies. There are others.

I would recommend Michael Parenti's analysis.

http://worldviewsblog.blogspot.com/2008/02/is-bush-failure-michael-parenti.html

78 Monsterland

If there is one thing that is obvious it is that whatever happned in the years following 911, it wasn't meticulously planned.

Perhaps we could add to the "successes". How about, ridiculed adminstration, departure of most trusted presidential aides and advisors, collapse in global standing, collapse in oil production capacity and hike in prices, economic recession, renewed stand-off with resurgent Russia, run on the dollar...the successes for the industrial/political elites just go on and on. It's blindingly obvious that they did it.

Liked the bit about brown skinned people and white trash...very emotive all of a sudden. It simply doesn't quite match up with all those white-skinned corporate high-fliers and the very heart of the capitalist financial system pulverised in the Twin Towers. You're just resorting to standard left-wing lingua-franca without thinking what you're saying i.e. "let's kill loads of people just like us so that we can go on to bomb foreigners and deplete our brave working classes"

So far we have arrived at...911 was an incredibly sophisticated plot, with a cast of thousands, designed to boost the profits of a few oil services companies close to the Administration. This plan, to boost energy prices, would be incredibly beneficial to the US economy which is a net energy importer?? The plot was carried out with seamless efficiency but the subsequent attempt to gain control of major oil producers started with the invasion of a country with no oil! Only 2 years later is an attempt made to invade a country, already subject to controls on oil exports, with the apparant purpose of increasing oil production thus lowering the price and boosting the profits of international oil companies errr errrr.

Thousands are pointlessly killed. Halliburton is disgraced and still not an extra barrel has been pumped from Iraq due to the fact that it is simply too dangerous for IOCs to work there. All oil production remains reliant upon old wells, old equipment and old data. As we write, the Iraqi Oil Ministry has only just got around to putting out Production Sharing Contracts to tender. (For those who don't know...a PSC is a means by which an oil company is licenced to produce but not own oil reserves, which remain in the hands of the host government. The oilco typically recovers its capital costs then earns a percentage of the produced oil as a form of profit, which is subject to tax in the host country).

Surely, in conspiracy land, the oil would already been in production and being piped away onto tankers chartered by the CIA with the Iraqis not receiving a penny. Clearly another failure in the grand strategy that underpins 911.

Got to deal with Hank now.

78 Hank_Reardon

Have you been working on this all day?

I agree with you...hey!...I doubt that the 2nd Gulf War could have taken place without 9/11, but I contend that US plans for a confrontation with Saddam were a result of 9/11. Not a cause!

That certain neo-cons were fantasising about a new Pax-Americana and spoiling for a fight is hardly in doubt. 9/11 provided the opportunity that, like all good opportunists, they seized!

Invading Afhganistan, a ravaged basket-case without oil that would undoubtedly absorb billions in aid? Why do it? I love the way that you latch onto the so-called TAP gas pipeline as the reason. What was the US going to do with this gas? Even if you could get as far as the coast you would still need to construct LNG liquefaction facilities to export gas from one of the most distant points on the globe from US markets (LNG vaporises in transit and there is, unlike oil, a distance beyond which it cannot be economically transported). The US market will be supplied with gas from the closer, much larger, much cheaper and much easier to develop North Field in Qatar.

Military bases? Why when you have already constructed massive facilities in Qatar that are far handier for dealing with Iran (it suits the Qataris too for the same reason!).

It's all debit so far and we haven't even spent the money invading Iraq, squandering billions on bodged and corrupt deals yet.

As I explained in my previous post, the idea that a country can "secure" someone elses oil and simply spirit it away unpaid-for is a little out of date. Colonial relationships might have worked this way to some extent but getting host countries to sell their oil for anything less than top-dollar these days is a big ask. Or is it that the grateful political placemen would be so grateful to the Americans for liberating them that they would hand over the black-stuff without a murmer? Using that logic, France would be the US's closest, ever-grateful ally.

I'm starting to wonder if I was being a bit too modest about my knowledge of physics in your case. To my knowledge there are many things in physics that defy explanation from the serious question of co-determinancy to the trivial mystery of reverse swing in a cricket ball. The point that I was trying to make is that odd phenomena do crop up often. Some can be coralled back into the "Laws" as you put it. Others cannot be immediately explained. Scientific laws are a framework of thought, not a straitjacket. By your standards, the Sun would still be orbiting the Earth...something that was an immutable law in its own time. I'm not saying that what you assert for the 9/11 "science" is wrong...I'm just always a little suspicious of "unshakeable facts".

You do seem a little worked up about all this. It could be that I haven't understood the details in the same way as you do..I certainly haven't studied it in the detail that you clearly have. Possibly I have a more informed, wider view of the oil business, international relations and still have the capacity to keep an open mind on difficult questions.

Anglophone:

I might chip in with an alternative story of success or failure, since we're departing from factual stuff and delving into the world of speculation:

The definition of "success" or "failure" as we see it is not the definition that the people at the top have. We look at things such as the strength of the economy, the popularity of the government, the happiness of the people, and so on. The really difficult thing to do is to look at these from a totally different point of view.

First, some history. You may or may not be aware of the Bush family history, and the things granddad got up to. They involved funding the Nazis, and plotting to overthrow the US government and replace it with a totalitarian regime. Fortunately, they failed.

The view of some is that those involved did not give up, but passed the gauntlet on to their descendants.

So, imagine that your purpose is to bring in a totalitarian regime, but with the consent of the people, or at least the ignorance of the people to what is going on. What might you do?

You would of course need an enemy against whom you can fight endlessly. That enemy must of course be a believably terrible one, so you'd have to ensure that they are able to shock and awe your population into a state of fear.

You would need to take advantage of this situation to change the nature of your democratic nation steadily, one step at a time, towards a totalitarian regime. You'd put the building blocks into place. However, you can't make that final step without another major emergency.

The US administration have been doing just this. PD-51, for example, sets out the declaration of martial law and suspension of the consitution in the event of a major emergency. The administration has been holding a successing of briefing events for community leaders, instructing them on how to enforce martial law. The immigration authorities have been putting into place the infrastructure for "Operation Endgame", whereby millions can be transported and detained in huge camps, and which according to their own (published) plan is due to be enacted later this year. The implosion of the economy that is under way helps this along too, because it makes people desperate for change that would help them out of their own personal hole. Various human rights have been steadily eroded, even to the extent of the repealing of haebeus corpus rights. All of these have only been allowed because of 9/11.

So, if a totalitarian state is your objective, then 9/11 would be the first move, that opens the door to pushing through the changes in the structure of government. Then, another atrocity would be needed to finalise the deal. Maybe one that would be provoked by attacking another country on dodgy grounds, one that already has known widespread terrorist networks.

Let's all of us hope that this imagined scenario is wrong, eh?

Somebody mass murdered nearly three thousand people and used it as pretext to mass murder hundreds of thousands of people.

It might not be obvious on first take, but we are actually testing our own humanity with this one.

79 - Anglophone

"If there is one thing that is obvious it is that whatever happned in the years following 911, it wasn't meticulously planned."

Provably-false statement: You can say "obvious to me" but not "obvious" as this implies everyone thinks as you do - which they clearly don't.

Personally, I make no claims to knowing whether there was meticulous planning or not. My point in the previous post was trying to showing the illogicality of your assertion that 'failure (as you see it) implies lack of planning'.

You may take this to mean that I believe that the 'meticulous planning hypothesis' but, again, this does not follow logically. I may agree with your beliefs, just not your reasons. For example, you may say "Apples are green because it's my favourite colour" - I would reply "The fact that your favourtie colour is green does not prove that is why they are green - we could look at the chlorophyll hypothesis". I am NOT however, argueing that "the apple is not green" - and you continuing the discussion under the illusion that this was my belief would be your mistake, not mine.

"Perhaps we could add to the "successes".

"ridiculed adminstration" - Why would they care?

"departure of most trusted presidential aides and advisors" - Why would they care?

"collapse in global standing"- Why would they care?

"collapse in oil production capacity and hike in prices" - Collapse is good for increasing prices. Price increase is good for US oil companies.

"economic recession" - Why would they care?

"renewed stand-off with resurgent Russia, run on the dollar" - Good for Military-Industrial complex.

"...the successes for the industrial/political elites just go on and on. It's blindingly obvious that they did it."

Presumably sarcastic statement.

"Liked the bit about brown skinned people and white trash...very emotive all of a sudden."

Point taken. Was merely trying to point out that 'success' is a relative term.

"It simply doesn't quite match up with all those white-skinned corporate high-fliers and the very heart of the capitalist financial system pulverised in the Twin Towers."

True. My point wasn't meanging to suggest that the state corportate elites 'care' about the white -collar workers either. But I can see how this conclusion could have been drawn.

"You're just resorting to standard left-wing lingua-franca without thinking what you're saying i.e. "let's kill loads of people just like us so that we can go on to bomb foreigners and deplete our brave working classes""

Straw man: I never said this. IF the Bush-Cheney administration did kill the people in the WTC they would not have been killing people "like them" they would have been killing workers.

"So far we have arrived at...911 was an incredibly sophisticated plot, with a cast of thousands, designed to boost the profits of a few oil services companies close to the Administration. This plan, to boost energy prices, would be incredibly beneficial to the US economy which is a net energy importer??" The plot was carried out with seamless efficiency but the subsequent attempt to gain control of major oil producers started with the invasion of a country with no oil! Only 2 years later is an attempt made to invade a country, already subject to controls on oil exports, with the apparant purpose of increasing oil production thus lowering the price and boosting the profits of international oil companies errr errr"

The problem, as I see it, is your refusal to extend your analysis beyond "state actors" to a more detailed (realistic?) view of how the world actually seems to operate. For example, you mention the "US economy" as if it were one thing. Its perfectly possible for some sectors of the US economy to benefit (i.e. elites) while others do not (i.e. joe sixpack).

"The plot was carried out with seamless efficiency but the subsequent attempt to gain control of major oil producers started with the invasion of a country with no oil!"

Sometimes, in order to control oil (or other natural resource) one must control areas that a) may threaten those supplies or b) may have to be used to transport (i.e. pipes, etc) oil through. An attack on Afghanistan is consistent with these aims. (n.b. I am not saying this PROVES anything, just pointing out that your statement doesn't DISPROVE anything).

"Only 2 years later is an attempt made to invade a country, already subject to controls on oil exports, with the apparant purpose of increasing oil production thus lowering the price and boosting the profits of international oil companies errr err".

Why would oil companies want to lower prices when the emergence of more consumers (India, China,etc) mean that it is a seller's marke?. I don't know anyone arguing that that US invaded Iraq to 'lower the price of oil', but rather to control the oil there and have a stronger presence to nearby oil-producing areas - notably Iran and Saudi Arabia.

"Surely, in conspiracy land, the oil would already been in production and being piped away onto tankers chartered by the CIA with the Iraqis not receiving a penny."

Your "conspiracy land" implies a homogeny in 911 truth movement which you surely know does not exist, it's also a pejorative term.

No one in the 911 truth movement (from what I am aware) offered the prediction that "the oil would already been in production and being piped away onto tankers chartered by the CIA with the Iraqis not receiving a penny" so we must take this as another Straw Man.

"Got to deal with Hank now."

On a more personal note, I am replying to your posts because I think they deal with important issues that need addressing. However, I do not think that the sarcastic tone of some of your comments is either necessary or productive.

"Got to deal with" is rather an arrogant comment and I don't think compatable with a respectful debate.

I claim no innocene in this respect and apologise if I have said anything that has offended you. However, if we are to continue debating these points can we at least do so in a way that sticks to the issues as expressed and not a caricature of them?

Sorry to quote myself but I feel this is revelent and you guys obviously missed it whilst arguing-

"Think of it like this: Police are called to a house where there is a dead man, he is at the bottom of some stairs with 2 gunshot wounds to the head, and yet the police believe he died from natural causes, by falling down the stairs.

Do I have to find someone how has a motivation for murdering this guy before the police will even begin to consider the gunshot wounds?

If it makes you feel better- whos not to say that Al-Qaeda got into the Twin Towers and WTC7 and planted the bombs?"

At this stage motives are not important, all the 911 truth movement wants is a new investigation. When the investigation takes place then people can start being interviewed, questioned and interrogated.

But until then your jumping the gun and filling in the blanks yourself to try and make the equation work.

Just look at the facts people, not the circumstances (yet). Then we might stand a chance of not being called 'Conspiracy Theorists' can you call someone a 'Conspiracy Factualist?"

You could choose one of a number of reasons for the Iraq war, I personally go for saddams threat to turn petro-dollars into petro-euros, but 9/11 was certainly used to sell the war to the people. As for not pumping the oil, anything that keeps the price high is good for those who cream the oil money. As long as they control it they don't need to pump it, control is the key

You also seem to be underneath the assumption that it is America that behind all this, The bush boys, big oil and big business are the ones who invaded Iraq, They used the American Military to do it, and the us media to sell it, they even rigged an election to make sure it would happen.

The concept of Nations has gone did you not notice, we live in under the New World Order, its why we have private armies in Iraq, again your waiting for someone on the telly to tell you.

So yes, Countries don't secure peoples oil etc etc, but big business does, the haliburtons of this world will happily use the CFR's the PNAC's and CIA's of this world to help them do their dirty work and its not hard either, because the same guys who sit on the boards of the corporations are the same guys who decide foreign policy. They don't control the entire US military, hence why they have to steal Nukes from themselves

So, If you think America is behind the war you are more naive than i could imagine, but then again you also seem to think that the law of falling objects and paths of least resistance is defied three times in one day it something to do with cricket bats.

And yes, you will be much more informed in the oil business, because i have no doubt you spent many years studying it and then working in the oil industry. I spent my years at Uni studying Politics and international relations, I did very well, I then worked in broadcast media for many years, so we both have areas where we know what we know, well done to us.

The reason I get worked up, is because because people are being killed on a massive lie, and many folks refute attempts question this lie, without checking it out for themselves.

The only analogy I can think of is telling your neighbour his house is on fire and him calling you liar, telling you that he can see no motive for anyone to start a fire, without even turning his head to check his house aint in flames.

I apologise for getting worked, but mass murder does that to me.

What you should do is take your open mind, which is a good place to start, fill it with all the information you can about 9/11, from all sources you can find and look at it all and then make a rational decision of your own.

Do this first then join the argument

My criteria for believing the official story:

- Graphical and mathematical models of the WTC buildings 1,2 and 7 collapsing created by an independent team of structural engineers
- Explanation of the dust and molten steel
- Open and independent air crash investigations
- Open and independent judicial inquiry on the alleged hijackers
- Open and independent inquiry into pre-knowledge of the attacks including stock options
- Open and independent inquiry into who produced the "fake" evidence such as the fake Bin Laden videos, "magic" passports that survived the plane crashes and evidence left in the boot of the car.

What would make you believe the official story?

83 Monsterworld

Monstermatey...sorry if I sound a bit sarkie but I do have to lay it on a bit as you are actually impervious to a bit of good old irony. You leave me no choice because when pressed on questions of the wider picture you simply fold up into semantics and start doing the pedantic "strawman" thing.

You are labouring under the misapprehension that the Western "independent" oil majors have a big influence on global oil trends. Look up the reserves figures...it's not exactly a position of strength when compared to the State-Owned big boys.

I've learned my lesson. This what someone else called the fruitloop and I'm starting to understand how it works. I don't think that it's my sort of thing.

Do not expect any answers.
We still do not know why Abraham Lincoln was assassinated in 1865 and JFK assassinated in 1963.
All theories are conspiracy theories.

85 Hank

Saddam exchanging dollars for Euros? It would make sense in 2008 but not in 2003...look at the exchange rates.

If the Bush dynasty is behind this, why didn't they finish the job in 1991? Probably because GB Senior had much better advice on not getting embroiled.

Enriching "elites" whoever they are? It occurs to me that for every Bush Boy, Oilco executive and all the other supposedly guilty men, there are hundreds of senior people from other parts of the economy. An economy deliberately stifled by the greed of just one sector would be in revolt pretty quickly. If the oil interests sabotaged the wider economy purely for their own gain, then elite manufacturers and financiers would be crashing planes into Exxons headquarters.

Tyrannical New World Order...I'd be more worried about the behaviour of British politicians. "Tyranny is always delivered in the form of public safety" and we've a lot of that going on in our own country. If there was a period for delivering police state powers on a terrified and grateful populace, then surely it was the Cold War? I think that the Red Army was a bit more frightening than a few guys with hairdye bombs. Why now in particular?

Killing hundreds of thousands of people...it makes me angry too (you don't have a patent on outrage). But looking around I see that the bulk of victims are poor muslims, mostly killed by other muslims...and where do want to start the counting from? Do you want to include Saddam's victims, his own people and the poor Iranian kids poisoned by chemicals supplied by German companies? Should we take the count back the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and all the subsequent death and dislocation?

You feel that you have the franchise on the truth and the sole user licence for moral outrage. We can all feel this. We don't all necesarilly follow your line.

Please don't reply. I've decided to rejoin my life.

good luck with that

Kiliwizz

Your post #81 is very good indeed.

I would add this: I am worried that Bush et al., with all the machinary for totalitarian government (unbelievably) already in place, will create a situation (through attacking Iran, and/or allowing or carrying out a second 9/11-type event on US soil) which will enable them to declare martial law and cancel the coming elections in the good old US of A, with its formerly much vaunted WRITTEN (ostensibly water-tight) constitution.

All those who are so confident that 9/11 was not a false flag operation - are you so confident about 9/11 that you don't worry a little about this nightmare future scenario? - don't you think that Bush et al. might fear for their necks and be tempted to make a grab for power? - after all, why else would they have bothered to decimate the American Constitution? Are you sure that the last two elections were not rigged? Are you sure that Bush et al. intend to go quietly? I am not. Perhaps someone can reassure me?!

We have treason (deception and propaganda included).

We have mass murder.

We have lengthy war of aggression (fear and terror included).

We have war profiteering.

We have theft (loophole if you wish).

How do you folks perceive it? Do you call it ''Pax Americana''?

zeuszeus:

That's kind of the reason why the US has guns.

The UK doesn't - which possibly accounts for why the UK is already a virtual totalitarian state.

Funny how that works out, innit?

Far be it for me to even think of suggesting that the UK has managed to sleepwalk into a belated "1982" and is quite merrily falling for the aeon-old bread and circuses of government pacification of the masses, of course.

It might not be much reassurance to you, given the way the media tends to report certain issues regarding the US, but I'm pretty sure than any de facto coup such as the one you describe wouldn't get very far very fast.

Oh, and Hank? Go read up on the Committee For The Present Danger, then compare membership rolls with "names" in the past 7 years :)

Umm, governments can't commit treason, since treason is gross acts of disloyalty against a government.

Mass murder ... that's one way of judging the deaths in a war - murder however requires it be "unlawful", and since no court has said the war is unlawful, it can't be murder - unless you're talking about the deaths in terrorist acts, which are murder yep.

War of aggression ... this is such a redundant title. War is aggression, unless you happen to have an example of a war of fluffiness handy.

War profiteering is the improper sale of goods and materials to parties at war ... unless the US is supplying Al Qaeda, it doesn't really apply.

Theft ... What exactly is being stolen, other than a bunch of opportunistic Iraqi politicians siphoning off reconstruction funds to pay for their second homes in Cornwall?

I think the phrase for all of this is "Business as usual since the moment the first proto-hominid picked up a rock to bash his mate over the head with so he could swipe the guy's girl".

Anything else is simply stage dressing.

Albright, its high treason then… treason against country and its people it is.

States sponsored terrorism is not acceptable, mass murder for self gain is not acceptable.

If you're so unsure go and seek Downing Street memo for dummies.

Theft, as if why is gasoline so overpriced, and theft as who stole my electric car… theft as theft of privacy… theft of sustainable and decent future… we could go on…

What you call ''business as usual'' I'll designate as atavism… on long run, if one is not capable of taking care of his own offspring, he is really an evolutionary failure.

Lay down the arms.

The programme was a whitewash, however, it was so poorly done I believe many viewers will go online to investigate the facts. In doing so they will discover the BBC avoided asking dozens of questions which can not be answered by people working for the US government. No pilots were interviewed to say that the manoeveurs of those planes were impossible (they have their own website: http://www.pilotsfor911truth.org/) No mention of thermite. No mention of insider dealing on 9/10. No mention of the Israeli company which DID tell its staff not to go to work. No interviews with world politicians (e.g. Michael Meacher). In fact I won't bother listing these, they are all mentioned in the amazing documentary, 9/11 coincidences:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Odp1FO0Vmuw

I will say this for the deviousness of the Beeb: very clever having a spotty boy as the main protagonist in the documentary.

Having just watched your programme I was interested in the research you have done although I did feel your presentation was one-sided in your choice of interviewees.

I believe you should have highlighted the fact that the officially sanctioned explanation is one of 'conspiracy', but by Al Qaeda rather than elements within the U.S. government.

Therefore to use the term 'conspiracy theorists', with associated negative connotations, on the basis that they believe in a conspiracy from a different source seems a little rich.

Secondly I would like to ask why you did not address the much discussed reporting of the collapse of WTC7, by the BBC, before it in fact did collapse, and subsequent reported loss of the tapes by the BBC.

Lastly why was there not more discussion of the remit of the investigatory bodies employed by the government and their findings so far.

Many thanks,

Alex

Hi Mike,

July 1st - just seen your Conspiracy Files program and there was some of the 9/11 conspiracy theories (not including all the evidence) and then finding a person to stand up and dismiss the theory (with the missing evidence). Don't you think there are enough mysteries there to justify a conclusion: all this needs a new transparent investigation. You included one of the "magic" passports as evidence that the official story Must Be Right (rather than er... it must be planted!), Also you ended up that these theories distress all the relatives of the victims, when in fact, at least some relatives are calling for a new investigation. See the Jersey Girls' "9/11 Press for Truth" movie.

I also do not cling to conspiracy theories - my acceptance of the official story is given in post 86 - but I do worry about the consequences if the official story is wrong...

Naive : having or showing a lack of experience, judgment, or information; credulous. I see.. attack by fanatics.. world trade towers destroyed.. thousands of americans dead.. something missing - could there have been a conspiracy? BBC, what has become of you? How far has a once mighty broadcaster fallen. A very low shot - do you not feel a little embaressed to host such unbelievably naive drivel? I don't know whether to laugh or cry.

Moonwolfe,

I like the way you brush everything off as 'business as usual'. I am guessing it is easy to have this view when your the one wearing the jackboot, Your opinion might change when you realise the american 'business' has gone bust.

Then again i get the feeling even when you watch veterans of the war being left without care you will find all this business as usual, and the first responders who are dying slowly poisoned by asbestos receiving no help, business as usual again.

And the war is illegal in the US because the constitution says only congress is allowed to declare war, and congress didn't declare war. I think it is the main reason why Kuccinich has put forward 35 articles of impeachment.

Treason is committed against the sovereign, which in the US, being a republic, would mean the individual states can sue for treason.

Mass murder should be quite apparent, thats when you bomb lots people from great heights for made up reasons, and kill them in great numbers. Both the US and the UK excel at this.


A war of aggression I would imagine when you ignore all the lessons from nuremberg and the fundamental ideals of the UN Charter and just make up a reason to attack a sovereign nation.

Theft, well apart from having had their country divided up and the infrastructure handed over to contractors I guess nothing has been stolen.

And you may have your guns now but even that right i being slowly taken away from you. Unless you join blackwater of course.