Paul Reynolds, the BBC News website's world affairs correspondent, wrote on Wednesday about 9/11 conspiracy theories. He has been deluged with e-mails since then. He writes:
"I knew when I wrote this piece that it would draw out the conspiracy theorists and I have not been disappointed. As it happens I was already in e-mail exchange with one of them before the latest Pentagon video frames were released and she had startled me by suggesting that the missing passengers (after all, if no plane hit the Pentagon, what did happen to them and where is Barbar Olson who called her husband from the plane?) might have been taken away to be "gassed". The e-mails are along simlar lines. I attach one below. Each and everyone of the theories has been exposed and I only wish I had the time and space to have gone into each.
COMMENTS: Paul Reynolds says:
"The [conspiracy] theorists do not believe eyewitnesses, physical evidence, engineering studies or even the claims of Osama Bin Laden, so it is unlikely that they will be convinced by grainy video frames."
Erm... hello? What planet is he on?
The people who do not believe the government's version of events (a theory that there was an Al-Qaeda conspiracy on 9/11), commonly called "conspiracy theorists" by the media, certainly DO believe eye witnesses and the physical evidence.
Unfortunately most of the physical evidence was either (a) removed and destroyed as soon as possible or (b) withheld by the government for no apparent reason, eg the video tapes (all 88 of them) that they confiscated of the supposed plane hitting the Pentagon. Another example is the firefighters' tapes which they said didn't exist because their radios had malfunctioned, but some firefighters rebelled and leaked the tapes anyway. Why would the government lie about such a seemingly trivial point, unless there was something to cover up? This lie is surely is also material evidence, and it this, and other such evidence, on which the "conspiracy theorists" base their thinking.
The government line, on the other hand, ignores this and other physical evidence that it cannot explain, eg the pools of molten steel at the foot of the twin towers, remaining red-hot even some weeks after the impacts, the seismographic
evidence, and the free-fall time of the towers' collapse, which would be impossible if the pancake theory is correct, and we haven't even started talking about Larry Silverstein saying that he, along with a fire chief, made the decision to "pull" building seven, which meant that it had to have been wired for demolition BEFORE 9/11. Isn't all this more "physical evidence" that should be taken into account? In a court of law it would all be valid.
So... why ignore this evidence if there is nothing to hide?
Further, what engineering studies is he talking about? All but one of the studies that I know of, including the opinion of the chief engineer of the twin towers, says that it is impossible that a single impact by a jet liner could cause the towers to collapse, and that they were designed to withstand impacts by multiple boeing seven-oh-sevens, fully laden with fuel.
And finally, the ridiculous notion that Bin Laden had anything to do with 9/11 is so absurd that it brings the whole story down. Bin Laden actually said he nothing to do with it, in a well-publicised video shortly afterwards.
Your article is a sick joke, and is completely inaccurate.
The BBC is famous for well-researched stories and accurate, unbiased reportage. Unfortunately this one really lets the side down.
I request that you withdraw it immediately and replace it with one that is objective and accurate.