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

Conspiracies won’t go away

Mike Rudin Mike Rudin | 10:44 UK time, Friday, 15 December 2006

Nearly three years of investigation, at a cost of £3.7 million, and yet the report by the former Metropolitan Police Commissioner, Lord Stevens, into the death of Diana, Princess of Wales, will not end the conspiracy theories about her death.

The conspiracy theories live because questions remain, encouraged by missing evidence and failures in the investigation. The theories live because an increasing number of people distrust official sources of information, and also because some people just cannot bring themselves to believe the official explanation no matter what.

The Conspiracy Files series is looking at four modern controversial conspiracies: the death of Princess Diana, 9/11, the Oklahoma Bomb and the death of the government scientist Dr David Kelly (episode details here). We chose them because important questions have been raised about the official explanation. That is not to conclude either way. We set about trying to find the evidence. Alison Peterson, commenting on my blog entry last week, implores us to find and analyse the facts. I hope that’s what you saw in the first programme How Diana Died (BBC Two last Sunday).

Just because an official says something does not make it true, but equally it does not make it false either. We need to know the sources of the information we use and we are always looking for corroboration. We spend a lot of time working out what the real story is and how much weight to place on any particular piece of information.

Valid questions have been raised about the death of Princess Diana - why was the road reopened just four-and-a-half hours after the crash? Why was there no CCTV footage available from any of the cameras along the route? Why has a crucial witness, who drove the Fiat Uno which was hit by Diana’s Mercedes, never been found?

But in the end we did not find any convincing evidence to support the conspiracy theory that Princess Diana was murdered by the secret service on the orders of the British Establishment. We revealed a vital new piece of evidence that the French authorities had carried out DNA tests on the driver’s blood and found it matched his parents. This evidence makes it clear that the blood samples, which showed that the driver, Henri Paul, had three times the French drink drive limit, could not have been switched in an attempt to cover up a secret plot. What is more, the evidence suggests Henri Paul was driving too fast on a difficult section of road, he lost control before he hit the second car, and that neither Dodi Al Fayed nor Princess Diana were wearing seat belts, and yet they could still be alive if they had worn them.

Other commenters included Laurie Phillips, Gareth Williams and Gary Scott who suggested that we attacked straw men. Yet in the programme about Princess Diana we tackled and answered all the key questions - whether Princess Diana’s driver was drunk, driving too fast, part of a secret service plot, whether a second car was also part of the plot, and whether Princess Diana was about to get married or was pregnant. We did not dodge any of those important questions. Furthermore, we pointed out information that is difficult for the authorities, such as the absence of CCTV footage.

A number of you looked forward to the other programmes in the series, which continues in the New Year, especially the programme about 9/11. To answer questions about what we are covering in the 9/11 programme, we are covering all the key issues, including World Trade Centre 7, which was not hit by an aeroplane but which collapsed. And yes we did contact Professor Steven Jones, but he did not want to be interviewed for the programme and instead we interviewed the co-chair of Scholars for 9/11 Truth, Professor Jim Fetzer.

Some wondered if the BBC was somehow part of the cover-up. I hope you’ll see that the evidence we produced about Princess Diana’s death, and my background, show that is a daft suggestion.

I produced a series of Panoramas with John Ware which did not pull their punches but equally did not assume every official statement is necessarily false. A film on the Hutton Inquiry and the events surrounding the death of Dr David Kelly (“A Fight to the Death”) was critical of both the BBC and the British Government - hard to see how I was part of a conspiracy there. Another Panorama examined in detail the case Tony Blair made for taking Britain to war with Iraq (“Iraq, Tony and the Truth”), and quoted for the first time from the Downing Street memorandum of July 2002 which revealed that the Head of MI6, Sir Richard Dearlove, as saying that the intelligence and the facts regarding weapons of mass destruction in Iraq “were being fixed around the policy” by the Bush Administration.

Oh and by the way, in answer to one comment, no I am not and have never been a spy.

Comments

  • 1.
  • At 12:07 PM on 15 Dec 2006,
  • Nick Reynolds wrote:

Conspiracies also live because they provide people who have had a very traumatic experiences with emotional comfort.

It's difficult to accept that something which is deeply important and meaningful on an emotional level to you has a simple, even a banal explanation. It's easier to believe that the explanation is complex and hidden.


  • 2.
  • At 01:21 PM on 15 Dec 2006,
  • John wrote:

One feels for the grief of a man losing a son, but, whereas it is obvious from the results of the Stevens Inquiry that nobody in the Establishment is in any way responsible for the events of that night,it is distressing to have Mr Fayed denying his own, albeit minor, part in the tragedy to pass the blame onto innocent people. Had he had a more sympathetic attitude to the other bereaved people involved instead of feeding on the Diana mania prevalent at the time he might have a more sympathetic attitude from everybody instead of just those who believe anything to the detriment of tjhe Royal Family

  • 3.
  • At 05:01 PM on 15 Dec 2006,
  • Chloe wrote:

Yet another so called conspiracy proved to be no conspiracy,why not STOP WASTING MOENY on these idiotic fantasy's, I have lost my socks in the washing machine on more than one occasion perhaps I should be looking towards Mossad, MI5 and the Teletubbies as the reason why I keep losing them?.

CHloe, direct from planet rationale

I am sick to death of the repeated nonsense that conspiracy theories live because "It's difficult to accept that something which is deeply important and meaningful on an emotional level to you has a simple, even a banal explanation. It's easier to believe that the explanation is complex and hidden."

Quite the opposite is true; it was comforting to believe, for example, that the JFK assassination was the work of one lone demented individual. It is threatening in the extreme to believe what the evidence was telling us.

The same goes for 9/11. The official story is full of holes, and some aspects of it are literally impossible, but many people find it easier to believe it than to accept the fact -- which was quite obvious on the day (to anyone with sufficient background knowledge) -- that what had happened was altogether different than what we were told.

I don't agree with everything Jim Fetzer says but I am glad you talked to him. And I probably won't agree with everything you say, but I'm glad you're on the case(s).

Good luck with your upcoming episodes and best wishes.

Please don't read my blog.

  • 5.
  • At 06:39 PM on 15 Dec 2006,
  • James wrote:

I hope your 9/11 series is more than a (corporate owned) Popular Mechanics-style hit piece. Address the anomalies in a fair and balanced way, please!!!

  • 6.
  • At 07:18 PM on 15 Dec 2006,
  • julian wrote:

Only reason conspiracy theories wont go away is because journos like you go on and on about them, I assume because real journalsim is too much like hard work.

  • 7.
  • At 07:52 PM on 15 Dec 2006,
  • Mohammed wrote:

The Queen has the right to defend her monarchy at all costs. Just as the Arab monarchy. Otherwise they wouldn't be doing their job properly. It is for the greater interest of their people and country. Therefore this is a no-win situation, what ever the cause of Dian's/Dodi's deaths. May their soles rest in peace.

  • 8.
  • At 08:27 PM on 15 Dec 2006,
  • David wrote:

Diana was a thorn in the Royal side, and paparazzi would not leave her alone.

Suppose the Queen and Diana made a deal. Stage an accident, make it look like Diana is dead. She can go to S. Africa get a nose job, change eye and hair color. She gets rid of paparazzi and the Royals are happy. Kids go visit Diana's brother in S. Africa once in a while to see their mum.

That's my conspiracy theory.

Diana Lives :)

  • 9.
  • At 09:05 PM on 15 Dec 2006,
  • Charlene wrote:

Mr. al-Fayed may find it difficult to accept that his son would still be alive had he noticed Henri Paul's drunk state. However, he doesn't have to resort to a conspiracy theory to rest his mind; some drunks are perfectly capable of fooling the casual observer into thinking that they're sober.

A drunken person may not actually look or act drunk until he has to do something that requires a certain amount of co-ordination. Alcoholics can sometimes surprise onlookers by appearing and acting completely sober until tested. Hence the need for police sobriety tests, Breathalyzers, etc.

  • 10.
  • At 10:29 PM on 15 Dec 2006,
  • nehad ismail wrote:

To eliminate conspiracy theories, you need to have complete and full disclosure of all the relevant facts which is an impossible task. If a key character is implicated or knows something about the particular situation and he dies for any reasons two things usually happen: first whatever secrets or knwoledge he or she has goes with him/her to the grave or the crematorium.

2nd: a sub plot starts to surface to explain that the death is somehow linked to the situation in question.

Therefore one has to take the long term view and wait 30 years when the records are made public and in some cases one has to wait 50 years as was the case with the Suez fiasco.

Conspiracy theories will remain and continue to thrive for ever.

  • 11.
  • At 10:51 PM on 15 Dec 2006,
  • anders wrote:

I really hope you'll be putting in the FACT that the attacks has an intellignces service sponsor in the shape of the ISI, this is not conpsiricy it's FACT, this came to light because the Indian intelligence services exposed it as the real reason why the ISI head mahmoud ahmed "retired" from, his posistion.

It just so happened that the head of the ISI was in the whitehouse on 9/11 meeting with top officials.

Why not get in touch with 9/11 whistle blower and world record holder for the most gag orders, Sibel Edmonds ?

I really hope this isnt a lame strawman documentary focussing on hologram planes and pod planes or space beams etc.

I hope you mention the CIA were running war games that were happening on the same day simulating hijcakings and planes crahing into buidlings ?

i hope you've researched the fact Bush entrusted Vice President Cheney to head the new Office of National Preparedness, a part of FEMA. This office is supposed to oversee a “national effort” to coordinate all federal programs for responding to domestic attacks. Bush entrusts Vice President Cheney to head the new Office of National Preparedness, a part of FEMA. This office is supposed to oversee a “national effort” to coordinate all federal programs for responding to domestic attacks.

I hope you put in Norman Minettas testimony to the 9/11 comission - "the plane is 50 miles out, do the orders still stand ? the plane is 30 miles out do the orders still stand ?the plane is 10 miles out do the orders still stand ?"

Cheney whips his neck around and says "of course the orders still stand have you heard anything to the contrary " the plane hit the pentagon, the orders had to have been not to scramble jets or shoot the plane down.

I have no oubt this will be a a documentary which thinks it has figured it all out and that nothing un-toward happened on 9/11 and all 9/11 truthers are nothing but nut cases and paranoid blah blah blah, i no for a FACT the BBC wouldn't actually make a serious claim that the US had Foreknowledge or complicity, thats just not going to happen, even theough there IS EVIDENCE which contradicts the official story.

  • 12.
  • At 11:02 PM on 15 Dec 2006,
  • anders wrote:

Conspiricies don't happen

Iran contra never happened

Gulf of Tonkin wasn't a compeltly fabricated attack to esculate the Veitnam war which led to 58 thousand americans and some 2million vietmaniese deaths, even though Robert Macnamara now even admits it never happened, it happened.

Watergate scandal never happened.

Operation Northwoods document doesn't exist, the US govenment wasn;t planning on attacking it's own population and staging false flag attacks to justify the invasion of Cuba.

Saddam did have babies thrown from incubators even though it's been prooven it was a hoex to drum up a wave of indigation amongst the American population and garner support for gulf war part 1.

Operation Gladio never happened.

9/11 didn;t benefit Bush and his WARMONGERING cabal of neo-cons, even though all there plans(PNAC document : re-bulding America defences) hinged on a 9/11 style attack, otherwise pretty well all there plans(multiple wars) would have been redundant.


CONSPIRICIES NEVER HAPPEN ;)

Sometimes conspiracies thrive because there is a wealth of evidence suggesting them. Considering this is the BBC I suggest adding 7/7/05 to your "conspiracy files". I think everyone can agree that Peter Power's statements about running terror drills at the exact same tube stations at the exact same time is suspicious. And then when
we find out that the #30 bus was the only one diverted that day, well thats alarming. Once it is seen that the police won't produce what should be copious amounts of CCTV footage, well now we have a full blown conspiracy. If only people would trust their governments and state/corporate controlled media more.

  • 14.
  • At 12:18 AM on 16 Dec 2006,
  • anders wrote:

“We stand today at a unique and extraordinary moment. The crisis in the Persian Gulf, as grave as it is, also offers a rare opportunity to move toward an historic period of cooperation. Out of these troubled times, our fifth objective -- a new world order -- can emerge...”

— George "the Elder" Bush, September 11, 1990

“This is a moment to seize ... The kaleidoscope has been shaken, the pieces are in flux, soon they will settle again. Before they do, let us reorder this world around us and use modern science to provide prosperity for all.”

— Tony Blair, October 2, 2001


"We've been offered a unique opportunity and we must not let this moment pass."
— George W. Bush - State Of The Union Address - January 29th, 2002

  • 15.
  • At 01:19 AM on 16 Dec 2006,
  • Triana Elan wrote:

Diana's letter regarding her concern over the Establishment's attempt to kill her in a car accident was certainly a concern, and it may be more convenient to have Diana out of the way. Still, her death was a tragedy to millions, but most of all to her sons. Whatever happened, she can't be brought back and people need to move on but also remember what she stood for, regardless of the mistakes she made in her personal life. I don't know many women who could have risen to the occasion of being a 'nobody' one day then the most pursued woman in the world the next. I will always think of her fondly and with great affection. Diana was a true treasure, and the initial grieving of the British public proves that, no matter how silly they feel for displaying such emotion after the fact.

Hey BBC,

A bottle of whiskey,
a couple of beers
and a fast car have killed
many a people
here in the States.

The evidence of the J.F.K.assination, in Dallas,
is overwhelming obvious.
One disturb man pulled the trigger and Camelot came to an abrupt end.
Such events almost become unimaginable and surreal.

How could a Hero die?

"You can't say Dallas doesn't love you Mr. President..." - Mrs. Connelly
(and she was right.)

When the Beloved
come to a tragic ending,
it's always easier to deny
the clear evidence,
the truth
that sit's before all of us.
Then except the knowledge that
'great people die too'.
(Just like all of us.)

Let them Rest in Peace.

For bad things do happen
to good people.
And only in our constant vigilance
to see how things really are,
will we be able to open the door,
to see the world as it really is,
and then denial can be cast aside.

Steve

  • 17.
  • At 04:34 AM on 16 Dec 2006,
  • AH wrote:

Why do you think Diana's driver would get himself so drunk before getting into a car with the Princess? That's what seems so bizarre.

Don't you think if he was 3 times the legal limit in France (I am sure France is pretty generous about that limit too), that it would have been obvious? Would you let your friend drive you around if he was staggering and drunk? I doubt it. Or wouldn't you at least hurry to put on your seat belt as a knee jerk reaction?

It sounds like maybe he was drugged. Maybe the drug has the same effects as alcohol. I am sure there are drugs like that available. A drug that reads as a high alcohol count in the blood, but he didn't have to drink the alchol.

What about all his bank accounts around over the world? And the huge pay off from Britain just weeks before he died? And the fact that the French have already acknowleged that Paul was an informant for them. Why would somebody work at a hotel as a driver if they were working for the government? These are very good other questions.

Sorry but you didn't answer that many questions BBC. Their are too many unanswered ones to say case closed at this point. But nice try. And good for you for looking into it closer.

  • 18.
  • At 09:25 AM on 16 Dec 2006,
  • david wrote:

Sorry did not see the programme. Hope it will be repeated or streamed on the net. But I have now read most of the 870 page Stevens report.

I dont think the Police are the right people to Investigate Intelligence services. Who are? Seems like exceptional investigative journalists who can find a Deep Throat like Bob Woodward did for Watergate.

Interestingly the book by Jon King and John Beveridge was inspired by the fact that they were approached by an American giving them advance warning of the accident one week before it happened.

I think anyone looking for the truth on this one needs to focus on the USA with that methodology.

Focussing on physical evidence which Stevens has done, repeatedly claiming in his report one hundred times "there was no evidence" or "there is no evidence" does litlle to convince me that highly trained operatives could not pull off a stunt like this.

Stevens searching SIS/MI6 computers for 2 weeks and finding "no evidence" just makes me smile. If it was a "put up" job would it have been likely there would be any trace anyway if you are masters of misinformation and disinformation? Even more so if, as has been suggested, you would be using an "outside outfit" which would seem highly likely in this case

The Mafia have got rid of people leaving little or no trace for decades if not centuries and the authorities usually never find out nor can pin it to the people at the top.

Anyone connected with the dirty dark world of the intelligence community seems to uneqivocally agree likewise from my own experience.

Rational logic does not apply in these situations because they will inevitably operate in mysterious bizarre ways just like the extreme forces of Good & Evil do every day of the week.

  • 19.
  • At 10:50 AM on 16 Dec 2006,
  • Dan wrote:

Credit to the BBC for stating that “DNA tests on blood samples *appear to prove* the driver of Princess Diana's car was drunk on the night of her fatal accident”. However, hundreds of newsfeeds immediately took up this story as definitive proof that the driver was drunk, which it was not.

DNA tests can only prove that the sample came from driver Henri Paul. They cannot prove that the sample was not tampered with or adulterated in some way, and therefore cannot alone provide definitive proof of intoxication.

This same “objectivity” was displayed when Dr David Kelly was found dead in the woods. Most of the media quickly informed us that he had “committed suicide”, long before anyone had the vaguest idea how he had actually met his death.

  • 20.
  • At 07:52 PM on 16 Dec 2006,
  • ConsDemo wrote:

I just hope the BBC doesn't treat the 9/11 conspiracy nuts with kid gloves. Look at the totality of their claims, when you piece it all together it would have required the cooperation of many hundreds perhaps even thousands, yet none of the perpetrators can be identified. Look at their motivations, it is mostly hatred for America. America is far from perfect, but America's imperfections do not make these ludicrous assertions true.

  • 21.
  • At 12:07 AM on 17 Dec 2006,
  • Martin wrote:

Maybe you should make a fifth programme about Litvinenko...?

Tom Mangold's 'exposé' today of the Putin mafia running Russia, after Mr Litvinenko and his kelptocrat friends were kicked out or jailed, is itself part of a sort of 'conspiracy' to reinvent the Cold War in the British Media. You don't, like Litvinenko, have to be employed by a man who made billions from corrupt business until escaping to London after Putin started to change the rules, to be part of this latest conspiracy.

You just have to be docile and unimaginative, and easily frightened by old ghosts, and prepared to follow the general tone of the UK news agenda.

This is another factor in the public distrust of 'authority', including the BBC. They know that when things come to the crunch - as with Iraq, BAE, and so much else, the 'establishment', including, yes, the BBC, unthinkingly closes ranks.

You may think you're immune - but perhaps that's precisely the first assumption you should try to question - as Tom Mangold lamentably failed to do today.

  • 22.
  • At 12:13 AM on 17 Dec 2006,
  • marc wrote:

Whatever has been discovered and investigated about these incidents has been done so under no small pressure resulting from conspiracy theories. These theories are vital in maintaining public interest and, hence, pressure on these events. It has taken this long for confirmation that various Intelligence Services were actively involved in the death of Princess Diana and, probably, in the subsequent coverups thereafter. Even though the guilty parties will probably never be called to account for their crimes, these theories do help in raising valid and, as yet unanswered, questions. Questions which the official investigations and inquiries blissfully avoid.

  • 23.
  • At 04:26 AM on 17 Dec 2006,
  • Julia wrote:

Surpising that the BBC would lack understanding in this, but apperantly you need to be informed that the dictionary defines a conspiracy as:

1. the act of conspiring.
2. an evil, unlawful, treacherous, or surreptitious plan formulated in secret by two or more persons; plot.
3. a combination of persons for a secret, unlawful, or evil purpose.
4. Law. an agreement by two or more persons to commit a crime, fraud, or other wrongful act.
5. any concurrence in action; combination in bringing about a given result.

With that, the offical explanation of the 9/11 attacks was ALSO a conspiracy. Except that THAT fable falls far short of the facts.

Come ON BBC, how much longer can you pretend that the United States government is benign on this issue? You have people of all ages, of all classes, of all backgrounds, of all nationalities BEGGING you to put your journalistic wisdom into action. Is it so hard to conjure up some courage, roll up your sleeves, and dive into this issue with no holds bar? Seriously! It is a SHAME that the BBC has gone this long pretending like the bush administration is worthy of any respect when all they do is lie. Nixon would be so proud.........

  • 24.
  • At 06:23 AM on 17 Dec 2006,
  • Dusty Wilder wrote:

There are at least three serious lessons the general public could learn from Diana's tragic car crash. First, beautiful or ordinary, rich or poor, we will all die. Second, driving while under the influence of alcohol is extremely dangerous. Third, the only person to survive the crash was wearing a seatbelt!

There will always be high controversy and unending drama when a fairy-tale princess dies tragically and was followed incessantly by a pack of journalists who unwittingly contributed to her sad death. The fact that the princess outshone all those around her added to the glitter, glamour but very tragic death. Had she lived she would most certainly have brought the Royalty closer to the British people and the world at large. Compassion, charm and charisma are a rare combination and the Princess had them all.

  • 26.
  • At 01:39 AM on 18 Dec 2006,
  • Cameron Keogh wrote:

"...we are covering all the key issues, including World Trade Centre 7, which was not hit by an aeroplane..."

This sounds well and good Mr Rudin but I do hope ALL the key issues are investigated individually and then as a whole to see whether the official story sounds plausible.

For example, I don't want to hear that WTC7 colapsed because the south face was damaged yet fail to question the symetrical collapse at freefall. Or that the diesel caused the steel to weaken (not melt), but forget about the molten mental being found at WTC's footprint days later.

911 has changed the world forever. People want answers to some pretty serious issues and will never stop until they get an adequate explanation.

Never forget that the pendulum tends to swing back.

  • 27.
  • At 07:11 AM on 18 Dec 2006,
  • Carman wrote:

I don't support troops who won't say "No!" and I don't support journalists who won't say TRUTH. If the BBC ignores the obvious lies we have been fead about 9/11, then I will stop relying on BBC for information. It's not like the BBC has really proven themselves worthy ever since that government take-over when the murder of Dr Kelly happened.

  • 28.
  • At 02:23 PM on 18 Dec 2006,
  • Swingdangler wrote:

Will you be providing the video footage from the local news broadcasters right after the OKC 'bomb' that you discuss?

Where the local TV news stations report on authorities removing another bomb from the structure?

Or where they reported on additional bombs on site?

etc, etc.

As we can already tell, this won't be a fair and balanced report.

  • 29.
  • At 02:46 PM on 18 Dec 2006,
  • Dan wrote:

Dusty Wilder wrote: “...the only person to survive the crash was wearing a seat belt!”

Sorry Dusty, but you must be mistaken. On page 2 of the introduction to the Stevens’ Report, it clearly states that “None of the occupants of the car was wearing a seat belt at the time of the impact.”

This report cost £3.69 million of taxpayer’s money to prepare, so it must be the truth, mustn’t it?

  • 30.
  • At 05:50 PM on 18 Dec 2006,
  • RJ wrote:

Some interesting comments here. Hopefully, the BBC will do the right thing and answer the unanswered with honesty. I've noticed that the news content on your website lingers for days. As if there isn't much to report on in this world. Which is, of course, only an illusion. While I do learn a lot here, I feel like I'm being cheated much of the time. I know that you have to appeal to many types of view points (and in that you get a much higher rating than, say, CNN) but there are some things going on in this world (false flag attacks are on my mind) that need to be faced with open eyes. Because many lives have been and will continue to be destroyed until we are able to be honest about our reality. You have built up a lot of hopeful expectations by finally covering alternative views on the 9-11 attacks. People are going to be watching to see if the BBC really is unbiased. It's up to you whether or not you let us down. Regardless, though, I do appreciate the BBC for bringing this up and I also appreciate having the BBC around to provide some of the going-ons in this world (the pictures section is my favorite!).

  • 31.
  • At 09:10 PM on 18 Dec 2006,
  • Steve wrote:

Hi Mike

I have a question I'd like to ask you...

If your forthcoming investigation and programme on 9/11 were to lead you to the conclusion (however unlikely) that the events of that day were, to some extent, either conceived and/or orchestrated with some level of domestic involvement - how would you and the BBC handle it?

If you discovered that the theory had enough evidence to support it, would you or the senior management of the BBC honestly be prepared to put yourselves on the line and broadcast something so explosive?

I'd be interested to know if you've ever asked yourselves this, because its ramifications would obviously go much further than if you were 'just' exposing, say, football manager corruption or cash for honours or something like that.

I have no firm view one way or the other about the 9/11 conspiracy theory, but I'm just curious to know whether you acknowledge the heavy unspoken pressure on you to *not* find truth in such a weighty theory, given what you'd likely stir up?

I don't doubt your own professionalism and integrity, but it seems almost unavoidable that there will be a necessary bias in your upcoming programme.

Would love to hear your reply to this.

  • 32.
  • At 11:11 AM on 19 Dec 2006,
  • Des Currie wrote:

The most peculiar facet of the accident is the first point of impact of the vehicle. If I could get that resolved away from being a peculiarity I could get all thoughts of conspiracy out of my mind.
All the subsequent damage in the accident may well be accidental, but it seems impossible to determine how that first impact took place without outside cause.
Des Currie

  • 33.
  • At 01:47 PM on 19 Dec 2006,
  • Lewis Graham wrote:

The best test for any conspiracy is to apply Occam's Razor. In a nutshell, it states that the most likely answer to a problem is the one that most closely fits all the known facts.

Diana's death? A drunk driver, going twice the speed limit with passengers not wearing seat belts fits the facts pretty closely. The extra spin to make it an assassination (swapped blood, white Fiat Unos) require a whole heap of coincidences or risks that quickly stop making sense.

Sometimes things are that simple.

Mike

I am the author of the first 9-11 novel - "The Yogi Footballer" - this novel is of the 1984 school of thought and helps, like Orwell, to introduce teenagers and young adults to the concepts of False Falg Terrorism.

I just want to say I hope that you mention the three web-based BBC news articles from September 21st-23rd annoucing that many of the hijackers are alive and well. I have taken these BBC news stories to many MPs and you can see the blood drain from their face when they realise that even the BBc were reporting on this. Many MPs are ill-educated about 911.

I could go on but I am glad you are mentioning WTC7 and also hope you mention the true timeframe of the attacks - it is not just Bush who failed to respond when at Booker School - the Secret Service failed to remove him there and then - hence they have to be complicit in knowing that Bush was not a target that day.

I just really hope this is not a stich up and that you cover the obvious points and dont just go for the really wacky theories that will mean most people ignore the very damning evidence for US complictness in the attacks.

  • 35.
  • At 12:43 AM on 20 Dec 2006,
  • Martin Smith wrote:

Sorry mate, stating you are not part of the conspiracy means that you must be, syands to reason doesn't it?

  • 36.
  • At 03:38 PM on 20 Dec 2006,
  • James Hogg wrote:

You are questioning a Professor of Philosophy on a topic engineering? Great way to find the truth.

The conspiracy quiz on the site is fascile in the extreme. as if the bbc is saying if you believe in conspiracy theories you are clearly mentally deficient.

the beeb did a good programme on the anthrax attacks in 2002/3 that clearly pointed the finger at the US military, will this be considered as part of the 9/11 debate?

The 9/11 debate should be focussed getting the real truth and deconstructing the crazy and improbable official conspiracy theory;
for example:
1) why were all the airliners not reconstructed as part of an air-accident investigation and why was the wtc crime scene disposed of without proper investigation
2) what about the full facts re the war games being carried out that day
3) how can NORADs failures be explained that day
4) there are dozens of accounts of warnings given to the US government why no action.
5) if negligence is accepted as an explanation then where are the scalps in the relevant organisations
6) why has the US government been so obstructive in releasing info
7) why has video film of flight 77 hitting the pentagon never been released
8) why was Sibel Edmonds gagged
9) Why did the FBI recently close the case on OBL and 9/11 citing lack of evidence/
10) what of the coded threat to the President on airforce one?
11) etc etc

  • 38.
  • At 03:47 PM on 22 Dec 2006,
  • nietzsches closet wrote:

I find the methodology seemingly employed in this test to be both faulty, and by extension, overtly insulting to the intelligence of the user. I believe that Kennedy was killed by a conspiracy and that Western Intelligence/Security networks were complicit in 9/11 because of a) the facts from the events, and b) their gradual, aggressive suppression - not because I suspect my friends of lying to me or any other facile inclusion in this test - but because I have read many books by notable authors, and have analysed the central question: qui bono (who benefits?). When will the BBC garner the courage and the intellectual scrutiny to perform their immediate function and service the public need to know? I doubt that these programmes will be anything but whimsical ('look what some people think; deary me') episodes, with absolutely no address of the serious and urepenting facts of the events. When will the BBC grow a new set of teeth and recoil from the 'dodgy dossier' (wait a second, we were right!) fiasco?

  • 39.
  • At 04:03 PM on 22 Dec 2006,
  • nietzsches closet wrote:

Also, objectivity is not statistical. Applying guilt or blame equally is not an objective process. It is not radical, or 'biased' to condemn a conspirator. And I cannot believe that as a representative of the nation's primary public information channel you still accept the 'bumbling' narrative on Iraq. Fact: Downing Street Memo; forged Niger documents; Castle of Lies at the UN Security Council (now released by Colin Powell's ex-aides); Farcical Aluminium tube story; Dodgy Dossier affair - all of these and more point to the undeniable fact that the War Powers manufactured the case for war. There was no threat posed by Iraq, and Rice, Cheney, Rummy et al all confiremed this in 2000. Iraq had never had relations with the CIA-ISI controlled al Qaeda branch, and neither did they show signs of enduring one. The war is based on a lie. It is aggressive and illegal. It has no confirmed purpose, and all of its stated goals are fasifications, cynically designed to pass for acceptable justification.

  • 40.
  • At 12:02 AM on 23 Jan 2007,
  • Vini O'Connell wrote:

November 10, 2001 - President Bush Speaks to United Nations
G.W. Bush:
"Let us never tolerate outrageous
conspiracy theories concerning the attacks of September the 11th;
malicious lies that attempt to shift the blame away from the terrorists,
themselves, away from the guilty."

Hmm... Sorry George, but i believe in honesty and justice.

9-11 = A LIE

  • 41.
  • At 09:44 PM on 12 Feb 2007,
  • Nicholas Ille wrote:

One only needs to watch the collapse of WTC 7 on Youtube to clearly see that this building was brought down by explosives.

JFK was shot from the front, just look at the video evidence. Officially he is said to have been shot by Oswald from behind.

As for Lady Diana, her death is the result of being driven too fast.

The Diana story should not even be in the same series as 9-11.

  • 42.
  • At 07:14 PM on 13 Feb 2007,
  • GreenMachine wrote:

The upcoming documentary does, as others have clearly stated, give the BBC the opportunity to highlight the issues still pertaining to the 'conspiracy' that was and is 9/11. I can only hope that the journalists involved present the context and facts surrounding the event in a way which is neither judgemental nor allows instant dismissal by those watching. The 911 Commission report should be referenced closely as this is the 'official' narrative. Serious shortcomings and questions arise from this narrative (evidence the books by D R Griffin). Avoid the way out and wacky 'no planes', 'beam weapons' et.al. If the programme looks at WTC7, 'Put option' sales, FBI whistleblowers,PNAC documents/members, ISI-Saeed Sheikh-Atta links, Saudi funding of terrorism, the geo-politics of Oil/Energy and looks at the evidence from Norman Minetta, Richard Clarke, Joints Chiefs, FEMA,Rudy Guilianni, Indira Singh, Robert Wright, Colleen Rowley viewers will be better placed than ever before to make informed decisions and the BBC will have done the job the taxpayers of the UK fund them for!
One can only hope.

  • 43.
  • At 07:49 PM on 13 Feb 2007,
  • Dan Wells wrote:

I'm glad that the BBC is making a program on what actually happened on 9/11. I am 15 and understand false flag terrorism, and the motives of the neo-cons. I think it is essential that young people should be educated about false flag terrorism.

We should be taught the truth in our schools, for instance in history lessons, when studying world war 1, we are always taught about the assasination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand was the main cause to the start of the war, however the actual reason was because Germany was building a railroad from Berlin to Basra in Iraq (yes it is true, look on the Dorset's Regiment website) and this railroad was intended for transporting oil, and this would be Germany would be the dominant role for oil in Europe, and Britain didn't like that. World war 1 was an invasion of Iraq, that is where the first troops were sent.

Education is a powerful thing, as Stalin and many men in power knew, and they used that to their advantage, and still do.

I have no doubt in my mind that this was purely a pre-text for war with Iraq, so to invade the middle east and for UNICOW to build the oil pipeline.

Back to 9/11, the planes were all planned to take off at the same time (within 5-9 minutes) so that they could not get any warning of planes being taken over by terrorists, however, flight 93 taking off from Newark was 41 minutes delayed, and the passengers recieved information of terrorists taking over flights and they were aware of the twin towers being hit. I have heard a phone call from a person on board, and it said 'we have a pilot on board, we're overwhelming the terrorists, we can land', and as soon as NORAD and the FAA heard this, along with the CIA and the interceptors, a decision was made to shoot the plane down over Shanksville. They had to do this otherwise they would have witnesses and they would have to interrogate the terrorists.

As for the twin towers being hit, the buildings collapsed in 10.7 seconds, that is free fall speed- how can steel go through steel through concrete etc without the use of a substance like thermite? It is physically impossible, as defined by Galileo's falling man law.

I could go into much more detail, but the information is out there, all you have to do is look.

Dan Wells

History is the key to understanding the future.

  • 44.
  • At 12:57 AM on 14 Feb 2007,
  • Anthony Lawson wrote:

The the third paragraph of the blurb relating to 9/11: Conspiracy Files reads:

"Incredibly some believe the American Government allowed or actively helped the attacks on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon."

The first word says it all. Doesn't the word mean: not having credibility; unbelievable? The blurb must have been written after the programme was completed, so we should know what to expect.

  • 45.
  • At 08:32 AM on 15 Feb 2007,
  • Mel Ayton wrote:

I experienced the same kind of conspiracy mind-set we see on this blog when I posted on a related BBC blog about allegations that the CIA was involved in the assassination of Senator Robert F Kennedy.I provided a link to my History News Network article debunking Shane O'Sullivan's claims - (https://hnn.us/articles/32193.html.

Despite the fact that I provided incontrovertible evidence from the purported CIA agents' close acquaintences and friends many bloggers refused to accept the truth. Why?, you might ask.

The answer is simple - there are too many vested interests involved in the conspiracy industry including publishing houses, websites, writers and supposed experts who peddle their wares to a gullible pubic.If in doubt, access any JFK conspiracy website to learn how the alternative (and common sense) view is brushed aside.

  • 46.
  • At 11:33 AM on 15 Feb 2007,
  • Philip Yonge wrote:

I am a scientist & have been meticulously researching peak oil production & 9/11 for five years. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that criminal elements within the American, British, Pakistani, Saudi& Israeli governments & secret intelligence agencies were involved in 9/11. I hope you're programme on the 18th Feb. will look at the cold, hard facts. Failure to do this will help to further brainwash the British public into supporting the pro-genocide fossil fuel tyrants & make the future of humankind even more perilous. Time is running out for ALL of us.

  • 47.
  • At 05:00 PM on 15 Feb 2007,
  • James Arbuthnot wrote:

Too little, too late from our faithful BBC. It is going to be very difficult, in my opinion, for the BBC to rescue its credibility by questioning 6 years late, what news agencies should have done as part of their jobs.

The true champions of these revelation are the ordinary men and women, students and campaigners who have tirelessly campaigned in the face of a shamelessly feckless media, to expose the truth about the world we currently live in.

Even though this programme is unlikely to be fair and unbiased, all publicity is good publicity. The more people try to rubbish 9/11 truth, the more people that hear about it.

  • 48.
  • At 10:03 AM on 16 Feb 2007,
  • Nick Buchanan wrote:


I believe that the integrity of the BBC as a democratic institution might be about to be compromised. This is not hyperbole. I am a Lecturer in the North West – and sensible and level headed.

911 marks one of the darkest days in the worlds history, and it has produced some of the fastest mandates for war ever conceived. The glaring anomalies in the official line are obvious. Those who simply seek scientific answers to simple questions are treated like so many oddballs and crackpots. Yet the official line would have us believe that:

------------------------------------------

19 Arab muslims outwitted the most sophisticated military defence system in the world - 4 times in succession


They defeated the laws of physics - by having collapsing buildings fall at free fall rate


They defeated the laws of chemistry - by melting steel girders [2750F] with aviation fuel [1517F]


They brought down THREE WTC buildings (#1,2 and 7) by hitting only TWO of them


Each building happened to fall neatly into its own ‘footprint’


All of the hijackers were on board - we’re not sure yet why none of their names appeared on any of the flight manifests


At least five of the hijackers turned up alive and well, after their suicide missions on 9/11 - they now live in the middle east

- some interviewed by the BBC


A plane hit the Pentagon (one of the most guarded buildings in the USA) - Unfortunately no CCTV footage of the actual plane exists

(the wreckage, plane parts, luggage and bodies were never found)


Cell phone calls were made at altitudes and speeds that are usually impossible (over 2,000 feet / over 230 mph).

We still don’t know how they did this

------------------------------------------

Does the above sound reasonable and plausible to you, or to any journalist and broadcaster?

I understand that there are 2 versions of the "Conspiracies" documentary about 9/11. Some people in your organisation still adhere to standards of truth and journalistic integrity, but others want to produce a “sanitised version.” I understand that the main person backing the sanitised version is a Mr Garth Ancier. https://business.guardian.co.uk/story/0,,2013028,00.html

To me, this calls into question the honesty and integrity of the BBC. And it raises SERIOUS QUESTIONS about professionalism. We know that there are those who won’t calmly asses the official line which is shown to be scientifically absurd. The EVIDENCE points clearly to 911 being an inside job.

How can an executive have such a say in what the British people can or can’t see? And why is he allowed such control?

I am writing therefore to insist that the honest version be broadcast on Sunday – and if it isn’t then the BBC’s good name will forever be degraded and flawed.

Because people like Michael Meacher, David Shayler, Annie Machon, Professor David Ray Griffin, William Rodrigueez and thousands of scholars (engineers, scientists, lecturers like myself) are speaking out clearly about the truth – it will soon gain critical mass and most people will know that 911 was an inside job. If the BBC do anything to prevent the truth from coming out it will never be forgotten and instead will take away all credibility from your organisation.

As a lover of the BBC and of democracy, I am watching keenly to see which version is shown, but also I am watching to see how every 911 story is reported.

Yours sincerely,

Nick Buchanan

BA(Hons), Cert.Ed., NLP Master Practitioner (INLPTA

  • 49.
  • At 12:51 PM on 16 Feb 2007,
  • Ravi wrote:

Nick in post 47 mentions that as a lecturer he is not into hyperbole, sorry Nick your entire unbalanced article is one long hyperbole.

What gives you the right to dismiss anyone who disagrees with your point of view?, all your 'facts' are NOT substantiated, you bring zero proof to your rant.

And the definition for hyperbole is: deliberate exaggeration or overstatement, so as you bring no empirical data to support your view, I'm sorry but you clearly fit into the category of 'hyperbole'.

Better luck next time with your views, but next time bring real data to support your arguments, not the rubbish spouted by anti-American PC idiots who cannot see past their own prejudices, which you also fit into, and before you ask here is the definition of prejudice: An adverse judgment or opinion formed beforehand or without knowledge or examination of the facts.

Unlike you, I admit I also fall into this category as you make me so angry with your arrogant and bias views.

  • 50.
  • At 06:03 PM on 18 Feb 2007,
  • Vini O'Connell wrote:

So BBC, hows it gonna be?

Are you gonna treat the idea of 9-11 as an inside job as a conspiracy?

Where really the conspiracy theory is that al qaeda committed the attacks on 9-11. The people will find out sooner or later, its entirely up to you BBC.

Think about it, governments dont care for people, they see us as facts and figures.

Were just puppets.We are told "the truth" by people we dont know and have never seen.

!!!!oh yeah by the way!!!

The word government means mind control, look it up, theres a world of secrecy and deception out there.

  • 51.
  • At 10:49 AM on 19 Feb 2007,
  • Jo wrote:

I'm not sure which version of the 911 documentary was broadcast last night but whichever one it was, it left an awful lot out. Fifteen minutes into the documentary and the narrator was still scratching around on the fringes.

Then we saw a warehouse full of scrap iron supposedly from the towers but nothing about how the metal was tested or how it was brought there or even whether there was any proof that it actually came from the towers.

It left out all the eye-witness accounts of people actually in the buildings who say they heard bombs going off, it left out firemen accounts. It mentioned nothing about all footage from buidlings surrounding the Pentagon being confisgated by government officials. It failed to interview or get a view from anyone about why we ARE allowed to see planes going into the towers but not the one going into the Pentagon. It failed to investigate other buildings that really were engulfed in an inferno for a lot longer than the towers and yet they didn't fall. It failed to talk about the consideratble insurance taken out on he buildings just before 911. It failed to mention anything about the inordinate increase in the betting for American Airlines stock prices to fall leading up to and culminating on day before 911.

I do not mean to say that every single thing said about the 911 incident by those who support the idea of a government conspiracy is true but what I do say is that if this was a murder investigation, there would not be one single stone left unturned to get to the bottom of it. Yet here, there are just too many unturned stones. Too many anomalies, too many "coincidences". There is also a clear set of motives not to mention a wealth of history that categorically proves dark conspiracies hatched by past governments not only of the US but around the world. In the face of this, and in the words of that wonderful TV detective Columbo, "we need to tie up all the loose ends". The little things which added together, make a very big thing indeed.

If the conspiracy theories are unfounded, the US government only needs to do one thing. Make available all footage of the Pentagon being hit. Do we have a deal. Do we hell.

Basically, I think what I'm trying to say is that the documentary FAILED, full stop.

  • 52.
  • At 03:15 PM on 19 Feb 2007,
  • Brad wrote:

I hope not everyone is going to log on and bash corporate media like ABC, NBC, BBC, CBS. I mean, even if they whitewash how our governments are screwing us over, they still do pretty good at reporting the weather.

Good job mates at BBC, my suede shoes are still smashing!

  • 53.
  • At 03:16 PM on 19 Feb 2007,
  • Rahman Al-Raheem wrote:

Dear Mike Rudin,

It is the oldest trick in the controlled media and works every time: To dilute and ridicule a genuine public concern, label it as a "Conspiracy".

BBC2 9/11 programme should have examined the wealth of physical, verifiable and undeniable facts and evidence of 9/11. The official US government version of what happened on 9/11 flies in the face of all known laws of physics that hold our universe together.

FACT 1: No other Steel-Concrete structure, before or after 9/11, has ever collapsed neatly onto its own footprint as a result of open fires or sporadic explosions at free fall speed other than the three WTC buildings. I challenge anybody from anywhere around the world to provide physical (not computer simulation) evidence to the contrary. Building number 7 was not even hit by a plane.

FACT 2: In all air accidents in the history of the world aviation before and after 9/11, due to either mechanical failure or collision or onboard fire or explosion, the wreckage of the plane is CLEARLY identifiable and almost ALL the parts are collected and re-assembled for investigation. The main parts that survive such accidents relatively intact are the engines the tail and the cockpit. On 9/11, four commercial aeroplanes vaporised with almost no trace into thin air as a result of so called collision with buildings and/or jet fuel fire. The passengers also vaporised into "nothing". THESE ARE PHYSICAL IMPOSSIBILITIES. Do you remember the Lockerbie plane explosion? Human corpses were found still strapped to their seats and almost all of the plane was re-assembled. once again, I challenge anybody from anywhere around the world to provide physical (not computer simulation) evidence to the contrary.

FACT 3: A 60 foot plane can not go through a 19 foot round hole in the side of the Pentagon. Try that for yourself - Try pushing your two fists into your mouth at the same time! THIS IS A PHYSICAL IMPOSSIBILITY. The collision would have left at least a 90 foot scar, (plane hit at an angel), with almost all of the wreckage and passenger remains recoverable. Steel, Titanium, even flesh and bones do not disappear into thin air in an anticipation of a collision. According to the official story, what we were left with conveniently was one of the hijacker's half-burnt passport and a bandana allegedly worn by one of the culprits. In the future, can we not make aeroplanes from a composite material made from passports and bandanas?! Once again, I challenge anybody from anywhere around the world to provide physical (not computer simulation) evidence to the contrary.

There are numerous other inconsistancies and omissions in the official report that fly in the face of known laws of physics. But for now, let us concern ourselves with just the above three. BBC you have a moral responsibility and legal obligation and accountability to us, the license payers, to produce objective programmes.

  • 54.
  • At 09:06 PM on 19 Feb 2007,
  • John Wilson wrote:

What a pity the BBC channel two 9-11 conspiracy programme was so shabby and short of any real context or objective presentation. It could have been written by the USA government.

A much better format for the programme would have been to show the whole of the film "loose change" and had really challenging interviews with people on both sides of the argument afterwards. Those to be interviewed should also include expert scientist and structural engineers as well as air accident investigators.

Anything as big as 9-11 (probably the bigest event of this kind in the last hundred years) which has had input and comment from experts and others from all over the world, deserved something better than the badly put together programme on channel two.

  • 55.
  • At 05:23 AM on 20 Feb 2007,
  • Tim Wilkinson wrote:

The 9-11 programme was a disgrace.

The focus seemed to be more on personalities than issues. A few - mostly outlandish - claims were superficially examined, with a total lack of clarity or forensic analysis. The examination - if it can be called that - of the issues selected was rambling, disorganised and constantly shifted focus.

I came out none the wiser, except for the distinct impression that the programme makers, consciously or not, aimed to cast the sceptics in a bad light. For just one example of clear partiality, the irrelevant issue of the supposed hurt feelings of victims' relatives was repeatedly mentioned - without evidence and in an accusatory tone.

The BBC should sack the producer and re-employ one of its erstwhile investigative journalists instead of palming us off with this kind of sub-ITV mush. I am incensed that my license fee is going to produce something which, quite independently of the content, is of such poor quality.

Shame on you.

  • 56.
  • At 06:59 AM on 20 Feb 2007,
  • GUY FOX wrote:

CONSPIRACIES ABOUT 9/11 CONTINUE BECAUSE SOMETHING $TINKS. IT'S NOT UNLIKE A DEAD RAT ROTTING IN THE WALLS OF YOUR HOUSE. YOU CAN'T SEE IT, BUT YOU KNOW IT'S THERE!

The constant judgemental tone of the 'conspiracy files' was very annoying. It evokes certain questions of credibility. Its slapdash conclusions manage to achieve the opposite reaction to these theories.
It was cringy to watch a so called pyschiatrist who is somehow an authority on suicide cases, can tell exacty how Dr Kelly's feelings led him to kill himself just by reading the emails he wrote in the morning of his death! He's not even met Dr Kelly once in his life, does not know what kind of person he was.
Furthermore, another 'expert' uttered a lot of uncertain and unconclusive nonsense about how much blood needed to be seen with the type of cut would cause the actual death, and managed not to answer the question.
And most hilarious of all, the programme mentioned that there was no plot to kill Dr Kelly?!
Programme maker is gullible to assume that we are all gullible to take this patronising rubbish seriously. What a waste of money. Our money!

  • 58.
  • At 02:25 PM on 26 Feb 2007,
  • Dr Michael Boyes wrote:

I was puzzled by the ommissions from the Kelly file, details of position of his body, state of clothing, whether tidy or dishevelled.Amount of observed blood loss, on clothes and soil.Footprints nearby. instrument used to cut wrist. Any bruising on forearms indicating struggle resisting restraint. The theory that an injection may have been possible into a blood vessel in the front of the wrist (extremely difficult) then disguised by a gash is hard to believe.What do other viewers think?

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.