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

Conspiracy theories

Host Host | 12:06 UK time, Thursday, 18 May 2006

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.

From: David
Country: UK

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.




"I knew when I wrote this piece that it would draw out the conspiracy theorists and I have not been disappointed."

...or is that just what you want us to think?

  • 2.
  • At 04:35 PM on 19 May 2006,
  • Martin Lewes wrote:

Did you know some aircraft con trails were actually chemical tests by the US government to see if they can slow global warming by increasing cloud cover....

  • 3.
  • At 08:43 PM on 05 Jul 2006,
  • Gilgad2900 wrote:

Ever since I heard that theory I knew that it was true and scary to a certain extent. As a result of 9/11 George Bush as invaded Iraq to get more oil. I now George Bush had it in him.

  • 4.
  • At 07:21 AM on 09 Jul 2006,
  • mcbamm wrote:

I think Osma bin laden was created by the american goverment.
If i was asked how to scare the worlds population into trusting its 'elected' leaders,so that they could subvertly get what they wanted-
i would create a terror orginisation on a global scale and give it a leader(sounds like a james bond film plot, dont it!)

like in any game of chess,
If Mr bin-laden was waging a war against capitalism im sure he would have made more moves by now. With all the planning that went into 9/11 you would think there would be plans to keep striking while the iron was hot to achieve your aims, but this hasnt happened. why?

Because all the pieces on the board are the same colour.

  • 5.
  • At 12:41 PM on 08 Sep 2006,
  • vikingar wrote:

Ref mcbarmm #4

Ah herm.....

The Russians were defeated by the mujuhadeen, for several reasons: 1) international pressures undermined the USSR venture; 2) the fighting tenacity of the Afghans & others 3) such was matched by fiscal & logistical support of the Americans.

To this extent alqaeda as an organisation formed for war, was the result of the response to USSR illegal invasion.

Today in Afghanistan, the Taliban, Alqaeda & other Sunni based Islamic Extremists are not in anyway similarly funded/supported (except by rogues elements of Pakistan agencies) & private network of funding. Nor do any of these terrorist groups enjoy the support of the International Community.

By the nature of the way such extremists fight, their aims & their means of support - they have a very limited time life of effectives i.e. Jihad Fad & spent force (the extremist candle can only burn so bright for a short time).

Todays intervention of Afghanistan is a legitimate internationally sanction effort, operating under UN mandate, support of EU & NATO countries & most of all sanctioned by the democratically elected government of Afghanistan.


  • 6.
  • At 01:56 PM on 27 Oct 2006,
  • Chris Brown wrote:

It's all about perspective

Nelson Mandela was first labelled a "terrorist" before being dubbed "freedom fighter". Probably even Jesus was referred to by some as a "trouble maker" in his time. In the same way the questions that are continuing to be raised about 911 are "conspiracy theories" until such a time that the consensus changes.

You can think about Iraq & "Weapons of Mass Destruction" or Pearl Harbour as examples.

We know what conspiracy theory means in a dictionary but it is also an emotionally loaded term - mention it and people immediately (through no fault of their own) carry associations with far-fetched hollywood films or the X-files. For this reason I think it is irresponsible for the BBC to report on the investigation into 911 using terms that approach being sensationalist. The flurry of responses and Mr Reynolds apparent glee in "drawing them out" is clear evidence. I think this sensationalist labelling shows editorial bias.

After literally 7 months of correspondence with Mr Reynolds and various other parts of the BBC I am disappointed that no-one seems able to understand this let alone respond intelligently.

  • 7.
  • At 03:52 PM on 27 Oct 2006,
  • DTS wrote:

"Each and everyone of the theories has been exposed and I only wish I had the time and space to have gone into each."

Sure! Find "time" (or, rather, real evidence) and bring it on! In reality, the one that is sinking, and fast, is the Official Conspiracy Theory , and THAT is making some people nervous. Join Penn & Teller and Popular Mechanics for damage control and, please!, continue to ridicule yourself in public like they do.
Lies have short legs and the only truth is Reality. Face it!

  • 8.
  • At 05:50 PM on 27 Oct 2006,
  • vlad wrote:

I'm not offering an opinion one way or the other. But one thing always puzzles me: why is it that "conspiracy theorists" always seem to get so emotional when someone questions their beliefs? There's just no sense of professional detachment.

Coming from a scientific background I find it very hard to take anybody seriously who uses such emotive language. "Your article is a sick joke, and is completely inaccurate."
Just who do you expect to persuade with that kind of comment? It may appeal to readers of the gutter press but it's hardly likely to bring an intellectual round to your point of view.

Maybe I've read too many dry theses on unemotional subjects, but I find the total lack of objectivity displayed by so many "conspiracy theorists" causes me to question the provenance of their "facts," to suspect their judgement and to doubt most seriously the conclusions they draw.

But maybe this is all just a sham, part of a conspiracy by the government to make us disbelieve the "conspiracy theorists" who actually are speaking the truth?

  • 9.
  • At 08:01 PM on 27 Oct 2006,
  • John Mason wrote:

David (from the UK) seems to have this subject well in hand. If the top twenty floors of the building had to pick up and carry down the floors below them as they fell, they would take longer than free fall to reach the ground. The mass of the floors below would slow things down even if they did not have to be broken off from any support. They still would need to be accelerated. This is simple physics, and not contempt of evidence or fact. Next step would be to look at the film clips of the building that was "pulled" coming down. Is it correct that the official review did not comment on this building? Like others, I haven't seen any answers to such questions of physics.

  • 10.
  • At 09:43 PM on 27 Oct 2006,
  • Mistah wrote:

Nice to see that yet again the BBC is contributing a completely unbiased report for the readers to make up their own minds, rather than just shamelessly tarring all that question the 'official' story with the same brush.........

  • 11.
  • At 11:49 PM on 27 Oct 2006,
  • Mark Tellion wrote:

Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda is brave men.
Do you think they scare to claim 9/11 action if they really did it?

  • 12.
  • At 12:38 AM on 28 Oct 2006,
  • Paul wrote:

Well written.
One can only wonder at the "conspiracy theorist" psycho-pathology behind such widespread urges to "invent" the null.
Much like religions, these beliefs persist not because of any "proof" but rather a need to see the world in a fashion that conforms to their view of "belonging". Like cosmetic surgery for the mind- a nip and tuck of ones reality can do wonders for self-esteem: pity it's a facade.

Recent fMRI work on memories confirms we "manufacture" memories from available stimuli and then "recall" them to suit. No, we don't invent all memories; just tweak them to suit ourselves. Yet, as with all contrary data this brilliant work will be dismissed, by those that invent the null.
"Built to withstand aircraft impact...". Man Oh Man!! Utter garbage, but now someones sprouting it as truth.
Enough material here for a PhD.

What really concerns me is 48% of Yanks believe we're in "The End time" - sometimes known as "The Rapture/2nd coming" [Andrew Denton - ABC Australia, mate]. And there's 300 million of 'em. That's a lot of sicko's.
Ultimately, along with the moon freaks, they offend with no respect for facts, or empathy.
Little minds, with tiny little agendas.
Had lunch with a "patient" recently. We discussed the "fact" [to him] it wasn't airliners, but military jets flown by US forces. He'd seen the footage, you see guys. No mention of the footage billions across the globe have seen, though. It seems footage can be "qualified" based on what it suggests.
Just like I've seen the starship Enterprise crashland at hyperspeed, I pointed out. And Frodo fight Gollum on Mount Doom whilst evil Orks patrolled feet away.
"It's on the internet" came the reply, as if that was confirmation.

As I deconstructed his argument, he became more and more frustrated - as every morsel could be torn down with childlike ease - until I was suddenly accused of belonging to some group of "easily led sheep", and words were put in my mouth.
Now I was a such and such, and I believe this and that, and I feel the world must go in this direction, and so on...
All because, I have an opinion in dissonance to his.
And that, dear story-tellers, is what lies at the root of your dellusions. A burning desire to be "special", or part of some "powerful" movement, because you can't stand to not be heard, nor stand to have others even hold differing thoughts to the ones in your tiny minds.

That's a polite way of saying you're a little unwell. Get help!!

"Gassed...." love it, just love it!!!

"Where the bloody hell are ya"?
In la-la land, it seems.

  • 13.
  • At 06:36 AM on 28 Oct 2006,
  • Bernard wrote:

Paul Reynolds. You ridicule people (conspiracy theorists) for trying to determine the truth about 9/11, although you do nothing to find the truth yourself. I will agree some of these people come up with ridiculous things, but I think they are government Shills.

I suggest you educate yourself before deriding other folks investigations. You could start by reading what experts and professors have investigated and reported.

You could start with this one:

Scholars for 9/11 Truth

An influential group of prominent experts and scholars have joined together alleging that senior government officials have covered up crucial facts about what really happened on 9/11. The members of this new non-partisan association, "Scholars for 9/11 Truth" (S9/11T), are convinced their research proves the current administration has been dishonest with the nation about events in New York and Washington, D.C.

Another is:

9/11 Truth.Org

TO EXPOSE the official lies and cover-up surrounding the events of September 11th, 2001 in a way that inspires the people to overcome denial and understand the truth; namely, that elements within the US government and covert policy apparatus must have orchestrated or participated in the execution of the attacks for these to have happened in the way that they did.

When you have seen the real evidence perhaps you will not be so quick to dismiss truth. Also watch this documentary about the London bombings please:

Ludicrous Diversion

When you have watched it, could you please put your journalistic skills to use, and find the answers to the questions it raises. Now, that would be real journalism.

I am not having a go at you personally Paul, I am having a go at mainstream media in general.

"The truth will set you free." [Jesus]

  • 14.
  • At 07:00 AM on 28 Oct 2006,
  • Phil wrote:

I wonder what Paul Reynolds REALLY thinks and what he has to say in public in order to keep his job?

  • 15.
  • At 10:34 AM on 28 Oct 2006,
  • Dave Parker wrote:

The real conspiracy is how little we hear about the thousands of US-sanctioned Muslim deaths that predated 911: hundreds of thousands in Iraq, unknown thousands in Somalia (where only 19 US dead are remembered) and Sudan (through the 1998 US bombing of the country's main drugs plant just as malaria was spreading afresh).

Here's how it goes: I kill 600,000 of yours. Then you kill 3000 of mine. So I kill another 600,000 of yours. But you're the aggressor. It makes 911 theories a bit academic, really, involving as they do a quarter of one per cent of the deaths.

But that isn't really a conspiracy, just the sloppiness that comes of assuming "we" must be somehow right and that history miraculously started in 2001. It didn't.

  • 16.
  • At 10:52 AM on 31 Oct 2006,
  • Dave Barker wrote:

9/11 skeptics are often met with ridicule, rather than debate. There are too many things wrong with the official story. I won't be discouraged from demanding a real investigation as a result of petty namecalling.

  • 17.
  • At 05:59 PM on 31 Oct 2006,
  • Daniel Lopez wrote:

"Our Mission: To Expose the official lies and cover-up surrounding the events of September 11th, 2001 in a way that inspires the people to overcome denial and understand the truth..."

Bernard's comments reveal the inherently flawed approach of conspiracy theorists: seek a predetermined conclusion and mold the facts to fit the end goal.

  • 18.
  • At 11:44 PM on 31 Oct 2006,
  • another john conner wrote:

Don't believe any rants. I didn't.
For anyone interested in researching I found the following problematic to ignore:
NB: The Conspiracy of Silence. Yorkshire TV documentary...narrated by Martin Lewis.
NB: Grandfather Prescott Bush and the Union Bank....1.5 million dollars from the Nazis in 1942? (The Guardian site has an article and refs.)
Previous form:
NB: Operation Gladio. BBC2 timewatch documentary. NATO's Italian 1950's black ops.
Previous Form 2:
NB: The Tomkin Gulf incident...apparently faked pre-cursor incident that lead to the Vietnam War.
Previous Form 3:
NB: attack on the U.S.S. Liberty (US warship, 1967, Isreali/Arab war)

NB: A simple one. Find out how mobile phones work. How cell-masts pass on a conversation from a moving phone. Now speed up to 500 mph and try it at altitude..think the cell masts can pass a conversation along? Phone engineers seem to think not RE: Flight 93.

  • 19.
  • At 05:12 PM on 01 Nov 2006,
  • Richard Boyle wrote:

I guess i'm one of the wacky conspiracists you have been inundated by over email. Guess what? So are you.

I am sick and tired of being ridiculed for asking simple physical questions. The idea that 9/11 was pulled off by some secret, global islamic fundamentalist regime with a coordinated agenda, is a conspiracy theory. So its merely a choice between the conspiracy that gets peddled by the american government, or the alternative. And for all the paranoia, the unofficial theories do at least dabble in physical plausibility, unlike the official ones.

The statement "conspiracy theorists do not care about physical evidence" is absolutely true. But who are the conspiracy theorists?

As an example of what i mean, recall that you and i have corresponded by email in regard to the pentagon attack. I asked for a specific answer to the question "a 757 is 38 metres in width and 100 tonnes in weight. the impact point was approximately 16 metres in width (maximum 18). wing "vaporisation" (sublimation) is impossible as it would have required a 2000 celsius instantaneous fire to occur - inconsistent with the largely unmarked lawn. So not all the plane went in the building. yet there are no wing pieces outside at the impact point. How does this work?"

You responded (with evident exasperation) "the plane broke up!". Er, how do you know? Show me the pages in the NIST report that explain how a plane creates a hole smaller than itself. Show me an engineer's report with calculations of inertia, shear stresses etc etc.
You could not direct me to such a report because it does not exist (the purdue university "study" was a computer graphics department working on the a priori assumption the official story was true, drawing a picture. nothing more.) What precedent do you have for saying "the plane broke up"? Who says? how? why? I want to see a scientific study by an impartial engineer. You say "the plane broke up!". That's enough for you, as a bbc journalist, that's an adequate level of scrutiny for you. Which one of us is most interested in the physical evidence?

This dismissive attitude will not do. saying that a 9/11 conspiracy is politically implausible (which it is, because politics is a fiction), does not give the bbc a license to just abandon a provable, defencible physical case. Conspiracy theories in general are silly. But in this case, it can be proven is the physical evidence is isolated from the political propaganda. You have some work to do. Please stop ignoring it.


  • 20.
  • At 12:41 PM on 14 Dec 2006,
  • JIM BOLTON wrote:


  • 21.
  • At 01:32 PM on 15 Dec 2006,
  • Chloe wrote:

Fair play to you Paul,

For the first time in ages I agree with comments made by a BBC employee!!.

I find it baffling that people actually believe the so called 'facts' presented by so called 'experts' who seem to link any unexplained death with either a combination of the US, Israel, MI5 or the Daily Mail (delete where appropriate).
Why is it always the left brigade who seem to have an issue with facts?.
Reading some of the comments posted in this blog you would think that terrorists never kill innocent people, and especially not in the name of whatever religion they are hiding behind, instead you would think that they should receive the Nobel prize for Peace!.
I find it disrespectful to the families of the victims of terrorist outrages to have these 'cranks' deny everything just to fit their own disturbed agendas.
I note that the' cranks' have now shut up about Diana as all their 'facts' have now been proved wrong, my colleagues in the Netherlands, Germany, France and Greece find the 'claims' of the conspiracy fans to be baseless and unsupportable....

Molten pools of steel ? My foot.

The buildings pancaked and conspiracy theorists mistook the compacted debris of several floors mashed together and misrepresented what it was.

It would have taken miles of cables and thousands of charges to carry out controlled demolitions on the twin towers and on WTC 7 and this in buildings with thousands of people at work every day ??? I do not think so.
And if there had been explosive charges, there was a big fire started by fuel, explosives are designed to burn, they would have caught fire and gone off prematurely. The conspiracy theories are not plausable, are full of logical fallacies.

If anyone wants to know the truth, they should go look at this:


And this:

  • 23.
  • At 08:36 PM on 15 Dec 2006,
  • Philip Lundquist wrote:

I remember the Bruce Willis film which came out before 9/11, "Mercury Rising". The scene in the wine cellar was interesting, where Alec Baldwin (top NSA official) tells Willis (FBI) that "thousands will die" for the FBI's misplaced priorities. In "Enemy Of The State", Jon Voight - another beknighted NSA official - is born on September 11th (1940). I wouldn't saddle you with conspiracy theories, even if I knew precisely what I was talking about, such as the U.S. Government's incestuous collusion with the multi-billion-dollar film industry, one of the greatest unacknowledged scams in history. I wrote U.S. Senator Russell Feingold about it a couple years ago, with very specific corroborating details(one film I mentioned was Nicholas Cage's "The Weatherman", which came out about a year after I had viewed a film about The Weather Underground group, which included a lengthy interview with Mark Rudd, one of its leaders. I wrote an innocous letter to him afterwards. The FBI still intercepts his mail, and - true to fashion - a derisive multi-million-dollar film ensued). A week later during televised Senate hearings into covert Government programs, he asked the FBI representatives, "Is there...any other major program you have not told us about?" The three men turned nervously to one another - then insisted upon a closed session. So much for President Bush's claim to the world that "America is a transparent society". Want to know more? It'll cost you - not money, but time.

  • 24.
  • At 09:55 PM on 15 Dec 2006,
  • Erik wrote:

Support the 9/11 families.

Watch the new film documenting their struggle for truth.

"9/11: Press for Truth"

The Story

“We felt the country was at risk from terrorists and from incompetence…and maybe worse.” —Lorie Van Auken, September 11th Widow

Following the attacks of September 11th, a small group of grieving families waged a tenacious battle against those who sought to bury the truth about the event—including, to their amazement, President Bush. In ‘9/11 PRESS FOR TRUTH’, six of them, including three of the famous “Jersey Girls”, tell for the first time the powerful story of how they took on the greatest powers in Washington—and won!—compelling an investigation, only to subsequently watch the 9/11 Commission fail in answering most of their questions.

Adapting Paul Thompson’s definitive Complete 9/11 Timeline (published by HarperCollins as ‘The Terror Timeline’), the filmmakers collaborate with documentary veterans Globalvision (‘WMD: Weapons of Mass Deception’, ‘Beyond JFK’) to stitch together rare overlooked news clips, buried stories, and government press conferences, revealing a pattern of official lies, deception and spin. As a result, a very different picture of 9/11 emerges, one that raises new and more pressing questions.

What actions were taken by top government officials who received dozens of specific warnings before the attack? Was Osama Bin Laden and his top al Qaeda leadership allowed to escape U.S. forces in Afghanistan? And what has been the reason for the deliberate obscuring of evidence for state sponsorship? Perhaps the most important one of all: Why, five years later, are so many of the families’ questions still unanswered?

Watch the trailer for this film at the official website (2 minute running time)

Watch the entire film at Google video (1 hour 24 minute running time):

I would say that proof of Bin-Laden's guilt in the 9-11 atrocities would at least be something that was legally admissible in a court of law......

The document presented to Britain’s parliament on October 4 by Prime Minister Tony Blair has been hailed by the media as proof that Osama bin Laden and his Al Qaeda network planned and carried out the September 11 hijack-bombings in New York and Washington. In fact, Blair’s dossier is a clumsy patchwork of assertions that provides no actual evidence establishing the guilt of bin Laden or the complicity of his Taliban protectors

This document does not purport to provide a prosecutable case against Usama Bin Laden in a court of law. Intelligence often cannot be used evidentially, due both to the strict rules of admissibility and to the need to protect the safety of sources. But on the basis of all the information available HMG is confident of its conclusions as expressed in this document.

NEED I SAY MORE? Not woth the paper it's written on...

As for the "trail" of evidence....

In an apartment rented by Ziad Jarrah and Ahmed Alhaznawi, the FBI finds a notebook, videotape, and photocopies of their passports. [Miami Herald, 9/15/01]
In a bar the night before 9/11, after making predictions of a attack on America the next day, the hijackers leave a business card and a copy of the Koran at the bar. The FBI also recovers the credit card receipts from when they paid for their drinks and lap dances. [Associated Press, 9/14/01]
A September 13 security sweep of Boston airport's parking garage uncovers items left behind by the hijackers: a box cutter, a pamphlet written in Arabic, and a credit card. [Washington Post, 9/16/01]
A few hours after the attacks, suicide notes that some of the hijackers wrote to their parents are found in New York. Credit card receipts showing that some of the hijackers paid for flight training in the US are also found. [Los Angeles Times, 9/13/01]
A FedEx bill is found in a trash can at the Comfort Inn in Portland, Maine, where Atta stayed the night before 9/11. The bill leads to Dubai, United Arab Emirates, allowing investigators to determine much of the funding for 9/11. [Newsweek, 11/11/01; Times of London, 12/1/01] The hijackers past whereabouts can even be tracked by their pizza purchases. An expert points out: “Most people pay cash for pizza. These [hijackers] paid with a credit card. That was an odd thing.” [San Diego Union-Tribune, 9/3/02] “In the end, they left a curiously obvious trail—from martial arts manuals, maps, a Koran, Internet and credit card fingerprints. Maybe they were sloppy, maybe they did not care, maybe it was a gesture of contempt of a culture they considered weak and corrupt.” [Miami Herald, 9/22/01] Note The New Yorker's quote of a former high-level intelligence official: “Whatever trail was left was left deliberately—for the FBI to chase.” [New Yorker, 10/1/01]
People and organizations involved: Saeed Alghamdi, Ahmed Alhaznawi, Ziad Jarrah, Nawaf Alhazmi, Huffman Aviation, Mohamed Atta, Marwan Alshehhi, Washington Dulles International Airport, Federal Bureau of Investigation

It started the day after the attacks on the twin towers, with the discovery of a flight manual in Arabic and a copy of the Koran in a car hired by Mohammed Atta and abandoned at Boston airport. In the immediate shocked aftermath of the attacks, these findings were somehow reassuring: American intelligence was on the case, the perpetrators were no longer faceless.

In less than a week came another find, two blocks away from the twin towers, in the shape of Atta's passport. We had all seen the blizzard of paper rain down from the towers, but the idea that Atta's passport had escaped from that inferno unsinged would have tested the credulity of the staunchest supporter of the FBI's crackdown on terrorism.

Yet we were still in the infancy of coincidence. On September 24 2001 the belongings of alleged terrorist Zacarias Moussaoui threw up a cropdusting manual, while four days later came Atta's suicide note, the one with the counsel to shine your shoes before you meet your maker - a piece of advice which seemed suspiciously Norman Rockwellesque. It was here, too, that the stuff about 72 virgins awaiting him in heaven first started to circulate.

In December 2001 the laughing, boasting video of Osama bin Laden was unearthed in a house in Jalalabad. The new year saw no let-up in this serendipitous trove - January turned up an email sent by "shoe bomber" Richard Reid from a Paris cybercafe (and found on its hard disk) shortly before boarding the Paris-Miami flight in which he claimed responsibility in advance for downing the plane. (Luckily or carelessly, depending on your perspective, Reid had pocketed a business card from the cybercafe.),11209,669961,00.html

  • 26.
  • At 12:25 AM on 17 Dec 2006,
  • Martin wrote:

There are 2 conspiracies here, fighting it out - a conspiracy of nutters who will adapt or reject anything that doesn't fit their own pathological fantasy, and a conspiracy in 'the establishment' and most of the mainstream media to present these nutters as the only people worried about some very significant unanswered questions.

It's so depressing that these two groups manage so well to divide the whole discussion between them, leaving no space in the middle for reason and objectivity.

  • 27.
  • At 06:50 AM on 18 Dec 2006,
  • Michael wrote:

Bernard (#13) writes that Paul Reynolds should read what experts and professors have investigated and reported and links to "an influential group of prominent experts and scholars who have joined together etc". But what about the experts and scholars who have 'debunked' evolution or vivesection etc. There are whole groups of people out there who aren't the experts that they might superficially appear to be. The fact that there are a handful of professors and people with PhD's who support a particular position doesn't mean they actually know what they're talking about.

The malaria is a group illnesses. Sharp attacks of a fever and an anemia are characteristic. Activators of a malaria are carriers - blood-sicking a mosquito. WBR LeoP

  • 29.
  • At 04:23 PM on 10 Feb 2007,
  • exc wrote:

911 was an inside job a self inflicted wound carried out by the illuminati it is a part of thier plan known as the new world order george bush is just a puppet controlled by the rockefellas rothchilds the cheneys the kissingers but dont believe me do your own research

  • 30.
  • At 03:05 AM on 19 Feb 2007,
  • mark wrote:

Thanks Peter Weaver for the links. I was starting to believe all the conspiracy stuff (so much of it out there). I now realise how full of holes most of the ct 'evidence'is.

  • 31.
  • At 10:03 AM on 19 Feb 2007,
  • robert wrote:

why wasn't Silverstein (owner of world trade centre and successful insurance claimant 2$ billion)shown admitting pulling wtc7?
why wasn't there any structural engineers explaining why the only three steel buildings to collapse through fire were the three on that day?
The BBC used the trick of deflecting conspiratorial questions ie why was there no debris seen on the day at the crash of united 93?
(deflect)some say it was shot out of the sky and debris was found 6.9 miles away. then trash that theory "its was only one mile away all that was found was paper blown there" and quickly skip to the next theory.
I cant wait for next weeks episode, Alistair Campbell will be proud of you BBC.

  • 32.
  • At 12:42 AM on 11 Sep 2007,
  • random wrote:

Everything to do with the 9/11 bombings are a complete fabrication. Ther london bombings were not very different, do you find it strange that we only saw a few highly shady pictures of some arab guys with bags? espically since london have 1 CCTV camera for every 16 people. Also i would like to point out the the picture of the bombers at Luton station is fake.(take a look at the leg of the man at the back and ul know what i mean.

The demonization of "conspiracy theorists" is absurd and fallacious.

ALL of the "theories" about 911 are "conspiracy theories" --including the official conspiracy theory that was put forward so assiduously by Mssrs Blair and Bush.

What is "al Qaeda" if not a conspiracy?

Sir Thomas More --now a Saint --described a "conspiracy of rich men" to "procure their commodities" under the cover of commonwealth. But, of course, More was just a crazy "conspiracist", I suppose.

In the end, the truth will come out and the Blair/Bush fairy tales will all be proven to be a load of codswallop.

  • 34.
  • At 09:35 PM on 17 Sep 2007,
  • gregor aitken wrote:

Paul you say all the conspiracy theories have been proved to be false, where and when did this debate happen, i must have missed it.

The 911 blogs are still massivly active on your editors blog section and yet i have seen nothing bar one comical debunkumentary which Skirted round the issues and managed to disprove theories nobody had actually come up with.

Could the BBC please remember that the impetus for this this can be traced in a line back to the jersey girls, the wives of victims.

You can call us all crazy all night long, we crazy mass want answers and you are still way short of delivering anything close to satisfaction.

If you can spare a few million for stictly come dancing i am sure a few quid can be spent checking the validity of the findings of the commision report into 911.

i think the BBC has reached a point where entertainment is their output in both news and all else.

Put both sides in a studio, let them put their cases and let the masses decide, and that would be a cheap programme to make, you think it woudl appeal!

Whats to fear

  • 35.
  • At 09:28 AM on 18 Sep 2007,
  • Ynda wrote:

One of the problems with the official theory and the CT debunkers is a refusal to discuss the evidence and indeed the name calling of anyone that asks questions. There is plenty of evidence that a) the towers easily withstood the initial impact of the 757s (and they were designed to do so) and b) there was molten steel in the basement (evidence: testamony from workers at the site, contemporary news reports, NASA infrared photos and the 911 "meteorite" - part of the 911 "collection" - waiting for a museum to house the artefacts) c) there were explosions (the first report didn't even mention them, the debunkers say that it isn't important - a natural consequence of fire! (Still does not compute though))

Debunkers also say that "many" steel frame skyscrapers have fallen due to fire and yet have not identified one such example.

Can we even agree the basic facts? Apparently not.

  • 36.
  • At 11:35 AM on 18 Sep 2007,
  • John R wrote:

What I don't understand is how the US government, which has failed to demonstrate even reasonable competence in virtually all other areas, is supposed to have successfully accomplished this particular extremely complicated series of events. And when you add elements like "missiles projecting holographic images of planes" and "missing passangers" you really have to wonder.

The words "p***up and "brewery" spring to mind...

  • 37.
  • At 09:11 AM on 20 Sep 2007,
  • Ynda wrote:

Yes, where is this "proven to be false" bit? Where is the scientific evidence that gives us "proof"? There are Debunkers to the Conspiracy Theories, sure. But they too have effectively been shown to be no more accurate than the original account (they are always very rude to people who ask questions too). Just read David Griffin's scholarly and well argued book "Debunking 911 Debunking". I would love some "proof" one way or the other: ie science, with evidence, and open to question. Surely that any explanation given by a dodgey politician requires some independent examination? (Remember the treatment given to global warming?)

This post is closed to new comments.

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

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