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

9/11 questions

Mike Rudin Mike Rudin | 11:10 UK time, Wednesday, 14 February 2007

Lots of questions have been raised about 9/11:

Why was the hole in the Pentagon wall so small and why was there so little damage to the outer wall?

Why does it look like there is no plane at the crash site in Pennsylvania where flight United 93 came down?

Why did a building called World Trade Centre Building 7 collapse even though it was never hit by an aircraft?

And why was America so unprepared when terror attack warnings had been received?

Through the internet and the media generally, allegations of complicity by the US government in the 9/11 attacks are intensifying.

We've just finished a new series called The Conspiracy Files which will start this Sunday on BBC Two at 9pm with a programme about 9/11.

We’ve talked to a number of the people who question the official version.

Dylan Avery, the 23-year-old film-maker behind the internet film Loose Change says the US government “will willingly kill its own citizens for whatever gain it seems necessary and then lie as much as they need to cover it up.”

Alex Jones, a Texan nationally syndicated radio talk show host, tells the programme “9/11 is an inside job… a false-flag terror operation.”

Jim Fetzer, former US marine and retired university professor, who helped found a coalition of academics called Scholars for 9/11 Truth repeats the Sherlock Holmes quotation “when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.”

There has been an official fightback of sorts.

President Bush is on record imploring people to reject conspiracy theories: “Let us never tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories concerning the attacks of September the 11th” which he said were “malicious lies that attempt to shift the blame away from the terrorists, themselves, away from the guilty.”

The US State Department has a website to debunk conspiracy theories – not just about 9/11 but a whole range of stories circulating on the internet.

But we found that simple requests, such as asking to see the plane wreckage of flight United 93 at Shanksville, or flight American Airlines 77 at the Pentagon, were refused after months of delay by the authorities.

Yet if we had been able to film the wreckage from flight AA77 we would have had extremely strong evidence that a Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon.

Trying to prove or disprove these alternative theories is not easy.

Officials are loathe to engage, thinking that any response will only fan the flames of popular conspiracy theories, and yet no response seems to be worse still.

9/11: The Conspiracy Files travels across the United States investigating the allegations and talking to witnesses wherever possible.

Ultimately you can’t beat speaking to eyewitnesses, such as the local coroner at Shanksville, Wally Miller.

Wally Miller tells the programme how comments he made about the wreckage at Shanksville have been misquoted on the internet by people who do not “take the trouble to come here and ask me about it.”

Miller is quoted as saying, “I stopped being coroner after about 20 minutes because there were no bodies there”; yet he also said it was perfectly clear that the manner of death was a plane crash, and the point he was trying to make was that it had become a large funeral service.

The Conspiracy Files also talked to Senator Bob Graham who co-chaired the Congressional Inquiry into 9/11 which detailed the failure of the CIA and FBI to use intelligence it had received about Al Qaeda before the attacks.

Senator Graham told us there was a “collaboration of efforts among agencies and the administration to keep information out of the public’s hands.”

“Within 9/11 there are too many secrets” adding that “withholding of those secrets has eroded public confidence’ in security”.

And crucially we may not have learned about that conspiracy without the questioning of every aspect of the official version.


  • 1.
  • At 11:48 AM on 14 Feb 2007,
  • Chris Townsend wrote:

The biggest problem with conspiracy theories is that they do not have to prove anything in order to gain widespread credence. They simply have to appeal to the popular belief that 'They' have something to hide. Further, once a conspiracy theory takes root, any attempt by 'Them' to answer it simply serves to prove the initial hypothesis - that 'They' are trying to hide something. As an intellectual exercise, engaging with conspiracy theorists is a fruitless and unappealing exercise precisely because few if any of them have any respect at all for proper, logical analysis of the available facts.

However the biggest problem for me, specifically relating to the tangled web of 9/11 conspiracy theories under discussion here, is that they derive a fair degree of weight from the fact that there are simply so many of them. The depth and breadth of conspiracy theories is, sadly, easily mistaken for depth and breadth of evidence in support of them, and the result is they are taken far more seriously than they ought to be. When you consider that many of the theories are in direct contradiction of each other (for example, some say the Pentagon was hit by a missile, while others, forced to take account of eyewitness accounts of the airliner that hit it, maintain that the 'hijack' was a Government plot), and should therefore be treated in isolation, the overall effect is to rob the 'conspiracy' of almost all of its impact.

But then you wouldn't have much of a TV show would you?

  • 2.
  • At 12:07 PM on 14 Feb 2007,
  • Steve E wrote:

A more interesting conspiracy, of course, is why BBC journalists continue in their efforts to undermine the integrity of the United States government (and – by extention – their most reliable allies such as the British) by broadcasting this tosh. September 11 was the defining event of the 21st Century watched live on television by a global audience. However much conspiracy-mongers would like us to believe that the unfolding tragedy was manipulated by shadowy forces, the truth is self-evident. America was attacked by militant Islamists intent on killing as many innocent civilians as possible.

  • 3.
  • At 12:15 PM on 14 Feb 2007,
  • Sam wrote:

We will probably never know the truth. And the truth is probably somewhat different to all the allegations of the conspiracy sites.

But there is no doubt that the Bush Administration are covering somthing up, somthing that would be unacceptable to everyone. This of course doesn't mean that 9/11 wasn't an act of terrorism as officially stated. But there is somthing there they are hiding.

  • 4.
  • At 02:24 PM on 14 Feb 2007,
  • Mark wrote:

The biggest conspiracy question is why those in Parliament who oversee BBC have allowed it to degenerate from a respected news organization to the lowest level of tabloid press trash possible. The 9-11 attacks a conspiracy staged by the US government? There's only about fifty thousand reasons to not believe it. First there were the eyewitness accounts who saw the planes crash into the buildings. Then there were the eyewitness accounts of those on the plane which crashed in Pennsylvania, people who were on their cell phones to their relatives during the hijacking. And then there was Osama Bin Laden's admission and gloating over the plot on videotape broadcast around the world. BBC should be emptied of its entire staff and actual journalists should be hired to replace them. The janitorial staff can stay.

  • 5.
  • At 02:47 PM on 14 Feb 2007,
  • Simon Ward wrote:

Read this very carefully. This sort of program is an insult to the innocents who were murdered on that day and I am absolutely outraged that I am forced to either finance it or go to jail.

  • 6.
  • At 02:50 PM on 14 Feb 2007,
  • Chad H wrote:

Err.... Steve E, how could you watch the September 11 attacks on Live TV? That would involve a TV network a) knowing it was going to happen, b) having a camera ready on the scene, and 3) cutting in with a live feed before the attack too place. Course, that would be a true conspiracy.

There are still a lot of unanswered questions on September 11, lets all rememember that a large bomber once crashed into the Empire state building, and last time I checked, it was still there.

  • 7.
  • At 03:24 PM on 14 Feb 2007,
  • Mark wrote:

It would make more sense for the BBC to scrutinize the official theory rather than look at conspiracy thoeries. Not everyone who questions the AL Queda theory have their own version of events, most just want to find out more about what happened that day. Bush said he would provide evidence for the Al Qaeda theory but none came forth just dubious videos aired by television station who should have known better than to broadcast a tape when they had no idea if it were genuine. Even more damning is the lack of willing to give the Al Qaeda suspects fair trial. If the theory is correct surely by prosecuting the hundreds in Guantanamo bay would iluminate the matter? Sadly this has not happened, is it any wonder that some people construct their own version of events when the US government don't bother to prove theirs and a compliant media just chants it like mantra. Loose Change is fanciful but there are far better films made but 9/11 skeptics. Paul Thompson's 'Press for Truth' sticks to known quantities and investigates the questions that 9/11 victims families have raised but the official report has not answered.

Personally I think that making tv programmes like this is sick.

  • 9.
  • At 03:57 PM on 14 Feb 2007,
  • Darren wrote:

I agree with what Sam says. The US government is without doubt covering SOMETHING up with 9/11 but we will never know what.

I, for one, cannot wait to watch the BBC's programme on this on Sunday.

  • 10.
  • At 04:02 PM on 14 Feb 2007,
  • Martin G wrote:

Steve E (2) is probably correct in stating that 'America was attacked by militant Islamists intent on killing as many innocent civilians as possible.' However, what is more difficult to understand and accept is the way in which this cataclysmic event happened and unfolded. I have read the 911 Commission report and others by FEMA/NIST. I am still troubled by the complete lack of depth and rigour evident in these official narratives. David Ray Griffin's book highlighting the distortions and ommissions in the Commission report makes sense to me and attempts to avoid pointing to specific culprits. Questioning official accounts does not make anyone 'anti-American'. What is required, as Mike Rudin points to in his introduction, is the publication of evidence (CCTV footage,Wreckage, Passenger lists, Autopsy reports, DNA evidence, Forensic analysis, Eyewitness reports, Audio files,Financial transactions, Leads to Saudi A and Pakistan followed-up, FAA evidence, NORAD evidence etc.). Without this evidence many people, including myself, without any 'axe-to-grind' remain sceptical and suspicious with good reason!

  • 11.
  • At 05:10 PM on 14 Feb 2007,
  • Josh Weinstein wrote:

You bring up a lot of good questions here and I'm eager to see your coverage.

To Chris I would ask, if 'they' have nothing to hide, why are 'they' hiding everything? If they want to quell the theories, why don't they show the public ALL the video tapes from the pentagon?

  • 12.
  • At 07:00 PM on 14 Feb 2007,
  • Almir wrote:

Has the BBC got nothing better to discuss?, every week you bang on about this, I do not for a second think that the Americans caused this outrage. Islamic terrorists are the cause, why not try reporting real news?, not everyone in the UK wants your PC version rammed down their throats.
Oh and before I have the Guardian brigade telling me I am wrong, I want to point out two more things......I am Muslim, my family is Muslim and not one person I know has any doubts about who caused this outrage, and although it pains me to say it, it was other Muslims.
The BBC is doing a dis-service to the memory of all those lost and should understand that it is causing huge issues with how people in the Muslim world try and face up to these evil people.

  • 13.
  • At 07:13 PM on 14 Feb 2007,
  • Cincy911Truth wrote:

Like many Americans, I witnessed the events of 9/11/01 on television and was mesmerized yet extremely bothered by what I saw happen that day. Things just didn't seem to make sense. How could four hijacked airplanes travel in american airspace for over 90 minutes without any type of interception from our $40 billion air defense industry? Then the Twin Towers both completely collapsed. Then I thought "How in the hell could The Pentagon by struck by an airplane“? The Pentagon is the very symbol of our military. When the television crews were showing the 'crash site' of Flight 93 in Shanksville, PA, I found it impossible to believe that a large airliner could crash and disintegrate into such a small hole. Later that evening when I returned home from work and turned on the news I saw the collapse of WTC building 7. Very suspicious! So I had so many nagging questions from that day on...

In the summer of 2002 when the Bush administration started talking about the threats posed by Iraq concerning WMD, I kept listening to the contrary words of Scott Ritter and Hans Blix. Of course, Ritter and Blix were proven to be right. I started researching the 9/11 attacks in late 2003.

So my question to those who criticize the 9/11 Truth Movement is simply this: given our government's pre 9/11 history which has been involved in so many criminal adventures and lies ranging from; the medical tests on the Tuskegee Airmen, the CIA's Operation: MK-ULTRA, Operation Ajax (the 1953 overthrow of Iran), Operation Northwoods, the JFK assassination/Warren Commission Report, the Gulf of Tonkin lie, Watergate, the 1980 October Surprise, the Iran-Contra Scandal, Iraq-Gate, the false claim of Iraqi soldiers throwing Kuwaiti babies out of their incubators and onto the floor to die (which was the pivotal lie coercing the American public to support the 1990-1991 Gulf War), the entrapment of Randy Weaver at Ruby Ridge, the massacre at Waco, the Oklahoma City Bombing cover-up (whatever happened to John Doe #2?,) then given that after 9/11 we've had the PATRIOT Act, domestic spying/wiretapping, extraordinary renditioning, torture, fraudulent elections, the lies leading us into Iraq etc.... YET, we are too believe that the events of 9/11 were solely brought about by 19 Islamic hijackers led by Osama bin Laden in a cave in Afghanistan?

So what those so vehemently opposed to the 9/11 Truth Movement are saying is "Ok, our government has been caught many times in the past doing illegal and immoral activities but on this particular Tuesday of September 11, 2001, our government was telling it's citizens the ABSOLUTE TRUTH. Then after 9/11 it went back to it's lying ways again?

You'll have to excuse me if I find that argument incredulous.

Please support the 9/11 Families petition for a new, thorough and independent investigation. We all deserve the truth.

  • 14.
  • At 07:18 PM on 14 Feb 2007,
  • umar tosheeb wrote:

It would be impossible to hide an event as big as 9/11. There is not a single thing in this world for which there are no conspiracy theories. I don't know why the author is wasting his time for writing about this issue.

  • 15.
  • At 07:28 PM on 14 Feb 2007,
  • Simon Harris wrote:

The so called conspiracy theorists could so easily be silenced by the government and it's agencies simply providing the answers to so many of the unanswered questions. Yet they don't and won't. 9/11 was an inside job.

  • 16.
  • At 07:30 PM on 14 Feb 2007,
  • Michael wrote:

If your initial reaction to this BBC documentary is to direct your anger at the producers of the show, then you are in a state of denial. The proponderance of evidence that a cover-up has taken place is overwhelming! Set aside emotion for a moment and please take the time to SERIOUSLY consider the facts behind the 'conspiracy'. Ignorance is not always bliss.

  • 17.
  • At 07:36 PM on 14 Feb 2007,
  • Simon Harris wrote:

The so called conspiracy theorists could so easily be silenced by the government and it's agencies simply providing the answers to so many of the unanswered questions. Yet they don't and won't. 9/11 was an inside job... and whatsmore more and more people are waking up to this fact. Why is the US at war in Iraq? Because of 9/11 with which Iraq had nothing to do with. Why is Osama Bin Laden not on the FBI's most wanted list any longer? Imperialism, war for profits and oil fronted by a phoney war on terror. Wake up. Iran's next.

I am amazed by some of the negative comments above.

Over half of the family members do not believe the "official" story and ALL want a real investigation.

Conspiracies do exist, a short look back in history proves this.

I quote "Bill Manning" of the Fire Engineering Magazine (Jan 2002).

Fire Engineering has good reason to believe that the "official investigation" blessed by FEMA and run by the American Society of Civil Engineers is a half-baked farce that may already have been commandeered by political forces whose primary interests, to put it mildly, lie far afield of full disclosure.

But what do they know...

As any good detective would state, follow the money and who benefits.

All the data is out there, awaiting a real investigation.

9/11 was a catalyst for proven illegal wars and a clamp down on personal freedoms.

I commend Mike and the BBC for a much needed investigation, that's all that millions of people around the world are asking for.

  • 19.
  • At 07:39 PM on 14 Feb 2007,
  • Max Kaye wrote:

I really resent paying a licence fee for tosh like this.

  • 20.
  • At 07:46 PM on 14 Feb 2007,
  • Mark wrote:

The organisation 'Judicial Watch' lat year forced the US government under FOI statute to release that limited CCTV security footage supposed to prove flight 77, a Boeing 757, hit the pentagon September 11 2001. Well I've looked at this film many many times and ,for the life of me, cannot see a 757 hitting that obscure side of the facility. Does anyone dispute my judgement? and if you do can you explain why?

  • 21.
  • At 07:50 PM on 14 Feb 2007,
  • MJ wrote:

This is a disgrace.

Get it into your heads - there is no conspiracy. It happened. Thousands died. To make a programme such as this is cynical beyond belief.
I am thoroughly disgusted with the BBC, sadly not for the first time.
If you have any decency and respect for the feelings of the bereaved you will not show this programme, and hang your heads in shame for having made it.

  • 22.
  • At 07:56 PM on 14 Feb 2007,
  • ctb wrote:

"The problem with conspiracy theories": that's like saying "the problem with politicians" or "the problem with middle-class white people" or "the problem with asians".

The problem with the way conspiracy theories are handled is that they are not considered on the ground of their own individual merit (if there is any and this can only be decided through investigative research, not presumption or ignorance).

In the case of 9/11 I believe there to be merit in spades: I think anyone who has the intelligence to look into the event properly will, ultimately, find seriously troubling questions they will want answered.

I hope this program is not a whitewash. I suspect it will be. The fundamental issues behind the most prominent and credible 9/11 theories deserve attention from the whole world: i.e. the vested interests, share dealings, the pentagon strike plane wreckage (or lack of it), the "pulling" of WTC 7 (fact: the building had been pre-wired for demolition), and the issue of the diagonally thermite-cut supporting steel columns of WTC 1 & 2, among others.

I suspect these points will not be given the room they need. Rather they will be drowned out by the convenient white-noise of truly marginal, truly crazy 'conspiracy theories'; theories the overwhelming majority of the truth movement do not entertain seriously; theories which will allow the truly pressing issues to be swept away under the carpet.

I'll happily eat my words. I dream of eating my words.

  • 23.
  • At 08:13 PM on 14 Feb 2007,
  • steve wrote:

911 was and inside job period

  • 24.
  • At 08:17 PM on 14 Feb 2007,
  • ctb wrote:

A problem with the critics of the '9/11: inside job' theory is that very often they have not perused the available evidence. Rather they make very emotive, damning generalisations; most often without a shred of supporting evidence other than the official line.

This suggests one of four things:

1/ they are in on it.
2/ they are in fear of what they might find.
3/ they are ignorant, arrogant, foolish people who think by feeling strongly about something they can refute, and ultimately dispell, damning evidence against their personal viewpoint.
4/ (I think the most likely) they are so emotionally perturbed by the awful magnitude of this event, they are unable to even contemplate the idea that such an atrocity could be sponsored by the state.

All of these possible reactions to the 'inside job' theory should be reason enough to consider it after having EXAMINED it's most valid and plausible points.

Just watch the films '9/11 mysteries' or 'Terrorstorm' or 'Loose Change 2nd Edition'.

I dare you.

  • 25.
  • At 08:32 PM on 14 Feb 2007,
  • Bill wrote:

Chris and Mark:

The biggest problem with the OFFICIAL conspiracy theory is that none of it has been proven.
Sure the 9/11 Commission Report, and the accompanying FEMA and NIST reports spend thousands of pages on the topic, but they both start with a presumed theory, only show evidence to support the official theory, and simply ignore evidence that does not support the official story. Does that sound like scientific method to you?

If ANY major aspect of the official story is questionable, then you have to agree that it is worth opening a new, and impartial investigation.

David Ray Griffin, in his book "The 9/11 Commission: Omissions and Distortions" makes it abundantly clear that there are MANY omissions and distortions in the official story.

Sure there are lots of theories of what really happened. The breadth of theories does not in any way discredit all of them. Some of them (e.g. controlled demolition brought down on all three towers that fell that day) are very compelling to me...

Do you know that NIST's story of the collapse of the twin towers CONTRADICTS FEMA's account?

FEMA called it a pancake collapse. NIST disavows the pancake theory and asserts that fireproofing weakened the steel, which led to the inward buckling of the floor trusses which pulled the trusses from the supporting columns.

How about the FACT that NORAD has at least THREE accounts of their actions (or lack of it) on the morning of 9/11, all of which contradict each other. The current NORAD story, asserted in the 9/11 commission report, essentially means that the first two stories are wrong. Were these stories, upheld for years, wrong, or were they lies?
If they were simply wrong, how can they be wrong when they were testified by NORAD officials in front of the 9/11 commission? And why has no one been held accountable?

In any court of law, self-contraditory statements tend to shatter credibility.

NO ONE, including the US government, has been able to explain how Building 7 fell.

Here are 3 simple facts about 9/11:

1 - WTC 7, a massive skyscraper, completely disintegrated, on the afternoon of 9/11, at near freefall speed, even though it was hit by no plane and sustained relatively little damage.

2 – There has been no government account for WTC 7. The commission omitted it entirely, NIST passed the buck on it, and FEMA could only speculate and admits that it's best hypothesis "has little probability of occurrence."

3 – There is only two opinions about WTC 7: on one side you have those that think it was blown up, on the other side you have those that don’t want you to even look at it.

  • 26.
  • At 08:35 PM on 14 Feb 2007,
  • colonel kurtz wrote:

You guys should really listen to what your saying, there are about a million unanswered questions about 9/11 and finally somebody in Britain finds the nerve to do it and everybody jumps on the idea.

Somebody mentioned earlier how Osama Bin Laden gloated on video tape on how he masterminded the 9/11 attacks. Are you talking about the same Bin Laden that was about 5 stone over weight, wearing a gold ring (which is forbidden in Islamic law) and using his right hand (Bin Laden is left handed). If you believe that was Bin Laden well then you're an idiot, oh and don’t forget that Al jazeera received conformation six days after the attack from Bin Laden him self that he had nothing to do with the attacks.

What about the firemen on the day of the attacks hearing multiple explosions coming from all around the twin towers. News channel reporters claiming that they heard explosions and footage featuring blatant evidence of explosions coming from within a building.
The way the buildings collapsed in total free fall and directly onto there own foundations and the fact that at least 9 of the 19 hijackers turned up alive.
How is it that jet fuel was able to bring down iron and steal but a passport owned by one of the "Hijackers" made of paper was found unscathed on ground zero.

July 4th 2001 Osama Bin Laden wanted by the United States since 1998 received medical attention in hospital in Dubai where he was visited by the local chief of the CIA as reported on by the guardian. Not to mention that Osama was a CIA asset during the cold war, the Bush family had dealings with the Bin Ladens and on September the 11th the entire remainder of the Bin Laden family in America were flown out of the country even though flights were suspended.

And that’s just a few facts for you, watch loose change watch terrorstorm, read a book or research on the internet. It’s that easy to find out that the official half baked lie is the real conspiracy theory.

  • 27.
  • At 08:36 PM on 14 Feb 2007,
  • Stuart Murray wrote:

Chad H wrote :

"Err.... Steve E, how could you watch the September 11 attacks on Live TV? That would involve a TV network a) knowing it was going to happen, b) having a camera ready on the scene, and 3) cutting in with a live feed before the attack too place. Course, that would be a true conspiracy."

Err... Chad H, the first plane crashed into the World Trade Centre, and funnily enough American broadcasters decided to cover the scene on a live feed. Some time later the second plane went into the other tower - live on TV.

Try thinking next time.

This program is an absolute disgrace.

I have loved watching BBC TV programs and listening to BBC radio all my life. However, the dumbing down of BBC1, and the not even subtle anyone political bias in favour of a liberal agenda has resulted in me completely resenting having to pay a tax to fund this once great corporation.

If the BBC continues in its present form then I can only hope that some time soon it is abolished.

  • 28.
  • At 08:48 PM on 14 Feb 2007,
  • ray wrote:

Anyone who knows anything about buildings and watches video segments from 9/11/01 can't help but wonder how the official story is believable. The buildings exploded into dust symetrically. When I drop a chunk of concrete onto a piece of steel, the steel doesn't turn to dust. When I cook a steak in my cast iron bbq, the bbq is there to cook another steak tomorrow. Wake up and smell the stink. I applaud the BBC for their inquisition into this controversial topic.

  • 29.
  • At 08:48 PM on 14 Feb 2007,
  • Ben wrote:

Anyone who thinks a program like this trying to determine what actually happened on that day is sick, must surely be sick themselves. Surely, out of respect to the thousands who died on that day (RIP) the official story must be scrutinized as it simply does not make sense. Bush's own official accounts of his whereabouts and such are outright lies (could not have seen the first plane on tv when he said he did). So, out of respect for the dead please investigate further, and don't give up when you are stonewalled by government officials, though I'm sure you have and have dismissed the conspiracy theories as "outrageous" (I'm surprised Bush managed to say that withit creating another Bushism).

  • 30.
  • At 09:20 PM on 14 Feb 2007,
  • John wrote:

I love when people dimiss these conspiracy theories and then you ask them what they know about that day and usually all they can say is that 19 (usually cant even get the number right) Hijackers flew planes into buildings etc. Then they dont know that 15 of the 19 hijackers were saudi's yet you dont hear about any investigations into that connection, because the saudis and the Bush's go way back. Not to mention the relationship between the Bin ladens and the bush's, sure osama is one of like 53 kids, but i thought family was so important to them, you really think that the bin laden family would approve of us killing thier son, unless it was all just a setup and he was suppose to be the fall guy? And this is not a left, right thing either, Clinton was no better. Most people that dismiss these theories know no more then they have seen on TV. that havent read the commission report, fema report, nist reports, they have genrally done no research at all because why would the goverment lie to us? Cough Cough, Gulf of Tonkin. The bin laden tape that people say proves it was them; only thing is it really doesnt look anything like bin laden and he is writing with his wrong hand, so dont tell me thats definitive proof because its not. Other then that, what info has the american goverment released that cleary proves that it was Al CIA'da.
None. why cant they release the other 40 videos of the plane hitting the pentagon, dont tell me its a matter of national security, what harm would that do? The people that dismiss these theories are the people that buy a support our troops bumper sticker, stick it on there car and make themselves feel proud because they support the troops when they probably know nothing more about the war then they hear on Fox, or ABC.
It is not our fault that people choose to be Willfully ignorant to these situations, and lack the ablity to bounce around these ideas in their head, because if true, it would shatter their idealistic views on how america is really suppose to be and how it is portrayed.
If you are insulted by people questioning the events of that day and think its dis-graceful, then you need to get over yourself, 5 years have passed, and we really dont know anything more then we knew 5 years ago, officially. You brits should look more into the 7/7 bombings as well, im sure alot of you dont know half of the "oddities" of that day.
Hitler was Times person of the year in 1938, he rises to power passing legislations similar to the patriot acts, homeland security etc... He keeps his people in the dark about what they were doing to the Jews. the German people had no clue. Bush was time person of the year 2000, 9/11 happens we get patriot act, military commissions act, homeland security. now granted there is no mass genocide happening, but its what they do tell us that is amazing, that we are openly torturing people, inlcuding children, not even hitler told his people that they were torturing people. Prescott Bush had dealings with the Nazi's before, during and after the war.
Finally, look at the people who are in power now, or use to be, cheney, rumsfeld... all those people were in positions of influence back in the late 50's, 60's and through out, up till now, Bush senior was director of the CIA. When did all these extremist start to show thier faces. late 50's and so on. Im not saying they had september 11th planned back then, but they for sure were planning for the future.

  • 31.
  • At 09:50 PM on 14 Feb 2007,
  • Todd Linderman wrote:

Thank god the BBC finally did something good and most wise for the people!

I can't wait to see this programme as it should help spread the pressure to get the truth exposed. There are many unanswered questions that remain. They must be answered and if takes millions of people to get them, then so be it. that day is going to come!

For all you that are against us asking questions about what happened, go back to sleep, go back to your fox news. We have a job to do here! No amount of complaining and no amount of personal attacks will stop us from asking questions and demanding that a real investigation gets made by a real independant team.

I for one want to see all the video footage surrounding the pentagon. I want to see the plane wreckage. I want the names of the short sellers published and interviewed by law enforcement. I want the coroner put under a lie detector test. I want the steele analyzed. There are millions of people like me. We are not terrorists, we are not even conspiracy theorists. That is an insult to those who just simply seek the truth. We love our country and we want to restore freedom and have honest government and we want closure on 911.

The only truth we have right now is that neither side can come to any conclusion. The government must partner with the truth movement and satisfy them or else we will dismantle the government one person at a time until we get a government willing to tell the truth.

Mark my words! This issue will divide the nation in half and break this countries back if not resolved soon.

  • 32.
  • At 10:47 PM on 14 Feb 2007,
  • Richard wrote:

This is really, truly sick. Not only have the conspiracy theories been spread widely on the internet, so have the perfectly straight answers to the questions asked.

For example, not only was the damage to the Pantagon wall entirely consistent with being hit by an airliner, but anything larger would have been unexpected.

"Why does it look like there is no plane at the crash site in Pennsylvania where flight United 93 came down" is based on a lie. It looks like there is a plane there. It is in parts, but they are easy to recognise, if you actually know what parts of an aircraft look like.

Why were your researchers unable to find all this on the internet, if they managed to find the conspiracy theories?

I am a professional pilot. Not only do I know far more a broken aircraft when I see it, but my life, like those of many in the aviation industry, was very badly affected. It offfends us, let alone the people whose relatives were killed, when the BBC spreads lies.

  • 33.
  • At 11:22 PM on 14 Feb 2007,
  • jeremyp wrote:

What motive would the US Government have for 9/11? I always thought that George Bush was after Saddam Hussein and yet, 9/11 led directly to a long and costly occupation of Afghanistan. Surely you don't want that when you are already intending to invade Iraq. Surely you'd frame the Iraqis, not Al Qaeda.

I also notice there are numerous complaints about the programme itself. I'm mystified about that as it hasn't aired yet. A conspiracy maybe?

  • 34.
  • At 11:40 PM on 14 Feb 2007,
  • Gabe Elton wrote:

Ask yourself this: could the known cia asset Osama Bin Laden given the order for NORAD to stand down? Could he call the mayor of San Francisco Willie Brown and warn him not to fly? Could they have gotten the Joint Cheifs of Staff to cancel their meeting in New York that morning due to warnings? Could they cause Larry Silverstein to admit on the PBS documentary "why the towers fell" to admit that building 7 was demolished? Could they have given the order to remove all bomb sniffing dogs from the world trade center complex the Thursday before 911? Could they have been running more than three drills on the morning of 911 that included the pentagon, CIA, and Norad of which two of the drills had planes crashing into buildings? Could he have admitted two of the hijackers into the Pensacola Naval Airstation for flight instruction?


  • 35.
  • At 11:43 PM on 14 Feb 2007,
  • anon wrote:

"But there is no doubt that the Bush Administration are covering somthing up, somthing that would be unacceptable to everyone. This of course doesn't mean that 9/11 wasn't an act of terrorism as officially stated. But there is somthing there they are hiding."

So provide evidence in support of your view, or else don't say there is "no doubt".

As for conspiracy theories, most of them are simply anti-Bush. You didn't have this sort of thing after the first attack on the WTC in 1993 when Clinton was President.

A theory has to be proven by those who posit it. None of these theories get close to proof so why is the BBC giving them airtime? And why does the BBC only give airtime to theories that bash the US?

Watch "Loose Change 2"
Watch "9/11 Mysteries"
Watch "Painfull Deception"
Read "David Ray Griffin"

There are a lot of evidences that proof that official version is false !

It is so easy to critisize without having watch or read anything about this subject.

And for you english people, about London attack, watch this :
"Ludicrous Diversion - 7/7 London Bombings Documentary" :

  • 38.
  • At 12:02 AM on 15 Feb 2007,
  • Neil wrote:

A conspiracy has to start somewhere, this is where i think it stemmed from.

1. The US government said that they had no prior knowledge of the terrorist attacks BUT the day after 9/11 they found all photos and information about the 19 hijackers, how were they so quick in finding but totally incompotent at stopping prior 9/11.

2. At least 7 of the hijackers have been found safe and alive, which has been reported on BBC NEWS and Mohammad Atta whose passport was found on the ground amongst a pile of debris, concrete dust and paper is also alive.
AND how exactly can a passport go through either a jacket pocket or a bag in the overhead luggage compartment, through the plane, through the fire, through the building and then land safely on the ground.

3. Why were no jet fighters sent out to intercept any of the planes, one air base was only 10 miles away.
They had a time of 1hr 52min to do something.

that is why thousands or millions including know they are lying, sadly the truth will probably never be told and justice for the families of loved ones lost on the tragic day will never be.

  • 39.
  • At 01:30 AM on 15 Feb 2007,
  • Susan Kipping wrote:

I look forward to watching your program.
I have absolutely no doubt that September 11, 2001 was an inside job. This is beyond Bush, he is just a tool.
People need the truth and others need to be held accountable.

Thank you for the energy you put out on this project.

  • 40.
  • At 01:40 AM on 15 Feb 2007,
  • drew wrote:

hey, quit being dumb. how could militant islamists get NORAD to stand down while 4 airliners flew around hijacked in the most protected airspace in the world. Because they didnt, because the american government is 100% involved

  • 41.
  • At 02:05 AM on 15 Feb 2007,
  • Chihaya wrote:

Well, I've got to wait if this documentary was made in a fair manner or not. But it is great that BBC is going to air comments from Alex Jones, Dylan and Prof. Fetzer. There are so many unanswered questions and most recent is how a 23 year old, young man, a son of a firefighter who perished on the day died on one morning in his bed. He just finished a documentary to tell people who was the real culprits. It is not a disgrace for the victims and their families to find out what really happened on the day, and who commited this crime. When you think about who gained out of this, it should be obvious. Mind you, it's "THEIR conspiracy."

  • 42.
  • At 03:04 AM on 15 Feb 2007,
  • Elizabeth wrote:

Why so quick to dismiss all the questions? They are legitimate and since a government is by law a servant of the people, I believe the people have a right to all the information.

Why won't the government of the US release photographic evidence that they claim to have? They presumably allowed the good folks at Popular Mechanics see these phantom pictures when they wrote their 'debunking 9/11 conspiracies' article... why keep them so secret if they do prove, once and for all, what really happened?

All of you who brush of the questions or mock those who ask them are simply... well... simple.

America shot itself in the foot and cried wolf to start an illegal war because it's out of oil and now must live within its means or conquer the Middle East.
Meanwhile the gov'ts of Canada and Mexico are bought and fixed to consolidate access to their neighbours' reserves.
Soon there will be another 9-11 which they will blame on Hugo Chavez.

  • 44.
  • At 03:26 AM on 15 Feb 2007,
  • Jack Morgan wrote:

"It would make more sense for the BBC to scrutinize the official theory rather than look at conspiracy theories."

I absolutely agree, Mark.

For all those implying that asking questions about 9/11 is "sick" and "an insult to the innocents who were murdered on that day", for goodness sake, the official account IS A CONSPIRACY THEORY. It is a theory which supports the idea of a conspiracy. It has not been accompanied with any compelling evidence, except a blurry "bin Laden confession" videotape which was found in a house in Jalalabad, where a "fat" bin Laden is being filmed talking about 9/11 in conversation. This confession tape was contradicted by clearer tapes, obtained by Al Jazeera, of bin Laden denying involvement in the attacks.

The 9/11 Commission was a complete farce. It's mere existence seemed unlikely before brave families of the 9/11 victims took action day and night to make sure the crimes were investigated properly. They were not. Please do some research on the Commission. I will mention the single most outrageous disgrace of the whole thing:

The collapse of Building 7 was not mentioned in the 9/11 Commission Report, not even in a footnote.

  • 45.
  • At 05:08 AM on 15 Feb 2007,
  • JLofta wrote:

'The biggest problem with conspiracy theories is that they do not have to prove anything in order to gain widespread credence. They simply have to appeal to the popular belief that 'They' have something to hide.'

I agree; case in point - WMDs in Irak. They were there because they could not find them; the fact that they could not be found was 'proof' that they were very well hidden, according to the Bush regime. Conspiracy theories always sound this crazy, but alas, they even get widespread credence from the press, and then... the public! On the other hand, branding sound evidence (including circumstancial evidence) as «conspiracy theory» is sure to appeal to the popular belief that 'they' are insane.

  • 46.
  • At 05:38 AM on 15 Feb 2007,
  • mark d wrote:

I would urge anyone who thinks that questioning the official version of the events of 11th september 2001 is "sick",to visit the website set up by some of the American air traffic controllers and pilots who were working on that day.(
These people are not conspiracy theorists.They are highly respectable professionals who have raised some very serious questions which demand immediate
I'm amazed by the almost complete silence about these questions in the mainstream media.Given that the events of 911 have been the justifiction for 2 disastrous wars which have resulted in massive loss of life(and continue to do so),I think it's vitally important to ask questions.Unfortunately most journalists seem to be sleeping on the job......

  • 47.
  • At 06:43 AM on 15 Feb 2007,
  • Jorgen wrote:

I dont understand some of the logic to those people who outright ridicule people who has a different opinion than themselves.

When there are a lot of people on record saying that they heard and/or saw evidence of bombs going off inside the WTC complex, while the official story says there were no bombs in the WTC complex, should we then outright believe the official story? Without an ounce of scepticism? Wouldnt it be prudent to allow some credibility to all these people who where actually on site and inside the buildings? Cause if there where bombs going off there, the official story is simply not true! Then we are being lied to. Nobody can deny this simple inconvenient fact!

If you want to dispute this by saying well there might be gas explosions which could have been mistaken for bombs ... wouldnt that statement be an insult to a person who was there?

  • 48.
  • At 07:44 AM on 15 Feb 2007,
  • Omri wrote:

Here's my question: why are BBC journalists so lazy that they can't google for the claims made in the Loose Change video and see for themselves that they have been debunked months ago?

  • 49.
  • At 08:32 AM on 15 Feb 2007,
  • nehad ismail, camberley, england wrote:

I don't buy conspiracy theories in connection with 9/11 events. Bin Laden and his assciates boasted about it in Arabic.

If people say, Bin Laden and his Al-Qaeda thugs unwittingly served the interests of the Neo-cons,I say yes, and if people believe that the 9/11 served the interests of the fundamentalists in the Bible Belt and the Evangelical South, I would say definitely. If someone claims that the biggest beneficiary of the 9/11 outrages was Ariel Sharon, I must say absolutely.
But I reject the view that somehow Bush and the Pentagon concoted a plan to kill 3000 Americans, most emphatic NO.

  • 50.
  • At 08:58 AM on 15 Feb 2007,
  • Andy wrote:

Grow up.

  • 51.
  • At 09:15 AM on 15 Feb 2007,
  • Alan Clark wrote:

It seems that most posters here have decided that the forthcoming programme will be biased in favour of the Conspiracy Theorists rather than factually investigating their claims - I do hope this is not the case.

As someone who has spent a large part of their life on building sites and has an appreciation of engineering I know most of the 911 anti-official offerings to be utterly ridiculous and they could be easily shown to be so but hopefully in better form than the "Watch with Mother" approach we see in "Timewatch" or "Horizon."

  • 52.
  • At 09:47 AM on 15 Feb 2007,
  • Agostino Faggiotto wrote:

Thank God we live in the era of the Internet! How would otherwise have been possible to share the wealth of information and accurate analyses brought forth by so many people on so many aspects of the September 11 tragedy. I am only disconcerted that, in spite of the ever accumulating evidence, America has remained and remains largely lethargic, and so the majority of the Countries in the world. Bush is by no means a modern era Napoleon. Rather he seems (tries) to comply to Dick Cheney's directions on a New World Order plan initiated by Bush Senior. I praise BBC for the effort of presenting the available evidence on the many disturbing facts surrounding 9/11 and wish that the show on Sunday will stir renewed emotions and rekindle all the initiatives that care for truth, hopefully spreading overseas. I dream of a true independent 9/11 commission, of impeachment, of justice in the name of all the victims of the "attack", of all the fallen soldiers, and of the shamelessly betrayed American people.
A hopeful hello from Italy,

  • 53.
  • At 10:43 AM on 15 Feb 2007,
  • anonymous wrote:

911 was most definately an inside job. The somewhat brainwashed and simple people above (with zero engineering knowledge or qualifications) who don't want to believe the truth should just stick to corporate Murdoch et al news for their daily brainwashing. The towers fell at freefall speeds. Marvin Bush looked after security of Dulles airport and the WTC complex. Numerous eyewitnesses report numerous secondary devices. 911 was a Reichstag event - an event designed to safeguard/hijack remaining oil and gas supplies in an era of peak oil and gas.

America was either complicit or they designed the whole event. The demolitions caused greater humiliation and increased the Americans lust for revenge.

Wake up.

I have a BENg (Hons) from Brunel and an MEng from Imperial.

  • 54.
  • At 10:50 AM on 15 Feb 2007,
  • Mike Corbeil wrote:

Well, now, seems I disagree with not all, but nevertheless most of the first ten comments posted; disagreeing with those faulting BBC for making this documentary and doing the investigation for it; as well as those more-or-less pretending that a people, population of a nation which is by law a democracy does not have the not only right for ACCOUNTABLE govt, but also a very important obligation to demand this.

Unfortunately people with views contrary to the latter really are ... what ... pro-fascism!

NOPE, there are enough quite excellent theories debunking the false official story, for which the Bush administration has made bloody sure to refuse to be held accountable on or about.

That refusal to be held ACCOUNTABLE is verifiable FACT and totally inexcusable in a democratic nation. It's also inexcusable under the laws of the USA, the Constitution.

"Nice" to see that most people berating BBC in the above comments are such pro-fascists. Yeah, real "nice".

BBC's article states very clearly that the chairman of the US Congressional Inquiry was refused full co-operation on the part of the Bush administration and FBI, if not also others.

To refuse to show the evidence of the planes that crashed in Pennsylvania and at the Pentagon is to illustrate very clearly a complete disregard for accountability. And people are wrong to think that this is okay. It stinks of cover up and nothing better or else.

If Bush et al are truly honest with regards to the 9-11 attacks, then there is absolutely no excuse for refusing to fully cooperate in any inquiries on 9-11. There is also, f.e., no excuse for the NIST not addressing the fact that WTC building number 7 also collapse, without having been at all hit by any plane or serious object of any other kind, and that it was not fire that caused the collapse of this smaller tower.

And, no, jet fuel did NOT cause the collapse of the number 1 and 2 WTC towers. Saying the opposite without proving that it indeed can be duplicated, on smaller scale and with some old building that is sacrificeable, f.e., this is to claim that others are to believe us on mere hearsay, our word alone, as if we are somehow blessed with being God. That is, it is to LIE, misinform, ....

There are enough solid theories. If people haven't read through these yet and carefully so, then this is not the fault of the 9-11 truth movement; it's the fault of these others not doing their homework, not making any serious efforts at all to get informed about what all of the best, of the best, theories are. To go with the junk theories alone and then claim that these reflect the quality of the best theories is to be seriously incompetent, and very ignorant of the solid theories.

The best folks of the 9-11 truth movement also had to give time to debunking plenty of the junk theories thrown in, and like some of these debunkers said, it sure seemed like at least some of the junk theories were deliberately inserted in order to ridicule, ..., the 9-11 truth movement.

To claim that investigating the 9-11 attacks to try to learn and then expose what really happened is an INSULT unto the victims is BUNK; just another junk theory.

Don't believe that? Check out the 9-11 Widows, the Jersey Girls, and the many survivors of victims of the 9-11 attacks who constitute a very, very important segment of the 9-11 truth movement!!!

They are the ones who pushed for the initial 9-11 inquiry to take place. Without this work by them, it's very possible if not likely that the inquiry would not have happened.

Those women and their like allies are NOT lying, exaggerating, etc. They are very, very careful in their words, and don't pronounce much for theories, only demanding for full investigation, full accountability, and for the evidently deliberately flawed investigation to be finally re-opened.

They have full cause for making that demand. Even the chairman of the Congressional Inquiry clearly said that the FBI, etc., refused to cooperate.

The naysayers are either awfully flawed in terms of their homework abilities, or critical thinking abilities, or I guess are pro-fascism and strongly so.

It's easy to say one's not pro-fascist; but when that is how one speaks, then others can assess that the pro-fascism is indeed REAL. But appearances can be deceiving, so maybe it's just a question on the order of either of the above two critical alternatives or matters, homework, or thinking; LACK of it, or both.

  • 55.
  • At 10:52 AM on 15 Feb 2007,
  • cludgie wrote:

There are still a lot of unanswered questions on September 11, lets all rememember that a large bomber once crashed into the Empire state building, and last time I checked, it was still there.

Compare the size, weight and maximum speed of a B-25 Mitchell bomber (which hit the Empire State Building) versus a Boeing 767. Then tell us you're still trying to make a vaguely serious point.

Unless of course you happen to believe it was a B-52 (which didn't even exist at the time of the incident) like the first version of 'Loose Change' accidentally said it was.

  • 56.
  • At 10:55 AM on 15 Feb 2007,
  • Anthony wrote:

9/11 was one of the most defining events in modern history. It was also the catalyst for US military action in Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as the introduction of the Patriot Act and Homeland Security. There is now worldwide disapproval of American foreign policy, especially, but not only, in the muslim world.
At the Congressional hearings on "The 9/11 Commission Report", Senator Mark Dayton highlighted "Serious discrepancies between the facts that you've (the 9/11 Commission) set forth and what was told to the American people, to members of Congress, and to your own Commission by those, some of those authorities."
We know that the Bush administration lied to the UN about the Iraqi threat. We are still assured that depleted uranium is safe. We were also assured that agent orange, asbestos, thalidomide, etc. were safe.
Opinion polls in the USA have shown that many Americans do not believe the government version of 9/11. We cannot expect the so-called conspiracy theorists to provide the absolute truth of what happened on that tragic day, but there is an obligation to continue to search for the truth.

  • 57.
  • At 11:11 AM on 15 Feb 2007,
  • Nicholas Zart wrote:

Its great how some people know what's true or false without needing to see the evidence. Remember it took the church 400 years to apologise to Galileo Galilei who simply asked them to look down his telescope and assess the situation. He got prison instead.

Come to terms with the idea that your most basic sense of security is about to crumble. It isn't tabloid trash, its a series of facts and questions from eye witnesses and researchers with far more credence than anything you will have been told by those you foolishly trust.

Building 7 would have taken any demolition team weeks to prepare yet it collapsed inwards after Larry Silverstein said (on the record) "Pull it"

Never in history has a steel strucured building collapsed from fire. A jet has never vapourised upon impact with a building before, and never before has NORAD stood down from intercepting flights more than two minutes off course, never mind those forty minutes into a direct run at the Pentagon. Remember the arab passports found by the CIA, having survived temperatures that "melted steel" ? Remember how six of the hijackers were found alive and well in the east. Also remember that you have never seen the passenger list and its complete lack of arab names.

The news on the actual day (9/11) contained numerous eyewitness reports about bombs in the building. William Rodriguez, the janitor and the NY fire dept are quite sure they saw and heard floors exploding one after the other.

Until you can answer these questions with facts instead of opinions, kindly shut up, your children can thank us later.

  • 58.
  • At 11:44 AM on 15 Feb 2007,
  • Tom wrote:

The BBC should be ashamed of itself.

  • 59.
  • At 12:07 PM on 15 Feb 2007,
  • Antony Palmer wrote:

You just know the BBC and in particular this documentary team are going to downplay all these theories and will not cover the most damning evidence because at its heart the institution is total establishment and riven with security agents. The idea the BBC has an independent investigative unit is laughable. It's news coverage of the Iraq war was deemed even more rabidly pro war than US Networks like Fox and CNN. You can count on one hand the number of BBC films that did countenance the 'truth' namely the power of nightmares and 'Dead in the water' about the President Johnson sanctioned attack by Israeli armed forces on the USS Liberty. These programmes unfortunately are always marginalised and never repeated once first shown. I understand a BBC film on the Menezes shooting has been ditched by the BBC presumebly because even an organisation as blinded by lies as the beeb couldn't come up with a convincing piece of fiction.

Some info on the 911 commission by the way. The executive director of the commission was one Philip Zelikow who just happened to be on the National security council alongside Condoleeza Rice. Both served under Bush and Zelikow is a rabid zionist who has publicly defended the attack on Iraq. As executive director he was the nominal head of the commission and as noted by Max Cleland; one of the 911 commissioners who stood down, he sanctioned numerous files as inadmissible.

Ah, 9/11...

We went to war on this, our governments lied repeatedly and thousands have died and hundreds continue to die every week.

If the war was a lie who is to say that 9/11 wasn't?

Until all of the questions are answered completely, openly and in a transparent manner I can never believe that a group of 'terrorists' could ever get so lucky. WTC 7, Pennsylvania and the Pantagon, there are just too many questions, The Bush family hosting the Bin Ladens on the same day in Washington, dozens of top ranking officials told to take the day off from WTC, flights out to Iraq, Afghanistan and God wnkows where when everything else was grounded... Within a week of the invasion of Iraq the contracts to divvy up the oil and rebuilding work had been signed and mostly by Bush's friends and allies...

Too many questions, Bush, Blair and co needs to answer all of them. Now.

  • 61.
  • At 12:44 PM on 15 Feb 2007,
  • Chris Fagg wrote:

Can't wait to watch this tv show, and to hear what they have found to disprove/ prove the accusations found in loose change, etc. I think a lot of people need to open their eyes! Living in a free democratic society allows us to raise and explore important questions! The American goverment have nothing to worry about if they have nothing to hide! (They look worried to me)

  • 62.
  • At 12:54 PM on 15 Feb 2007,
  • James Boley wrote:

It's very easy to prove that Dylan Avery is totally wrong.

He's still alive.

Seriously, if the US government was prepared to kill 3,000 people to further its own interests, surely adding one more to the list wouldn't exactly be any trouble for them?

  • 63.
  • At 01:00 PM on 15 Feb 2007,
  • Frode wrote:

When there are a lot of people on record saying that they heard and/or saw evidence of bombs going off inside the WTC complex, while the official story says there were no bombs in the WTC complex, should we then outright believe the official story? Without an ounce of scepticism? Wouldnt it be prudent to allow some credibility to all these people who where actually on site and inside the buildings? Cause if there where multiple bombs going off there, then the official story is not true!
How can this simple inconvenient fact be ignored?

  • 64.
  • At 01:02 PM on 15 Feb 2007,
  • Christopher Flack wrote:

Ah, Thank you NZ, I had forgotten about the 'arab' passports that managed to fall to the ground from jet fuel fireball unharmed, its wonderful how they make passports so durable these days...

For those who continue to repeat that "Bin Laden" boasted about 9/11, please check your facts.

In the days and weeks immediately following 9/11 there was a self imposed media blackout on reporting any "Bin Laden" statements as they supposedly contained coded messages to his followers.

This caused the following statement made on the 16-Sep-2001 by "Bin Laden" to be missed.

I would like to assure the world that I did not plan the recent attacks, which seems to have been planned by people for personal reasons

Source :

Just wanted to put the record straight.

Thanks to Mike and the BBC for addressing the world changing event.

  • 66.
  • At 01:46 PM on 15 Feb 2007,
  • cludgie wrote:

Never in history has a steel strucured building collapsed from fire. In the Madrid example that CTs are so fond of the steel structured parts did collapse. The bits that didn't had a concrete core.

A jet has never vapourised upon impact with a building before,

Show me another example of a 757 or 767 hitting a building at 400kts and I might agree with you.

and never before has NORAD stood down from intercepting flights more than two minutes off course, never mind those forty minutes into a direct run at the Pentagon.

In the only previous incident where NORAD did scramble planes (the flight on which golfer Payne Stewart died after suspected decompression of the cabin) it took over 40 minutes for an armed aircraft to intercept.

Remember the arab passports found by the CIA, having survived temperatures that "melted steel" ?

Along with thousands of other personal effects found near all the crash sites. And no one ever said temperatures were hot enough to melt steel. Thats just a straw man argument invented by CTs who think steel has to melt to lose strength.

Remember how six of the hijackers were found alive and well in the east.

People with similar names. Try reading the articles and blog on the BBC site regarding this.

Also remember that you have never seen the passenger list and its complete lack of arab names.

and you have?

The news on the actual day (9/11) contained numerous eyewitness reports about bombs in the building. William Rodriguez, the janitor and the NY fire dept are quite sure they saw and heard floors exploding one after the other.

Rodriguez thought he heard two explosions when the plane struck his tower, the first of which was in the basement. No phyiscal or other witness evidence backs up his version of events, nor does the presence of a bomb in the basement make any sense when the building collapsed from the top down.

As for other eyewitnesses, most of those put forward by CTs were misquoted.

Until you can answer these questions with facts instead of opinions, kindly shut up, your children can thank us later.

Thank you for your lies, half-truths and misquotes?

  • 67.
  • At 02:00 PM on 15 Feb 2007,
  • Mr Law wrote:

It's a Pandora's box. An Ex CIA man runs the tube for a while. A survivor of 7/7 talks about bomb damage condusive to the bomb being under the train. A bus that diverts to Lord Tavistock's Russel Square.. an eye witness who reports that "injured victims" were in position prior to the bus blast at Russel Square. A demolitions van near the bus. Visor consultants running a faux terror operation at the exact stations involved on 7/7 on the morning of 7/7. The New York Mayor and George Bush in town. Lions and tigers and bears oh my!

Our government is willing to blow us up for a greater good/bad. Rip our limbs off. Maim us. Lie to us. Shoot us. Treat us with contempt. Dumb us down.

So much about Islam bothers me, but I am 100% confident that 9/11, Madrid, and 7/7 were ALL inside jobs i.e. not muslim perpetrated. Two of the Madrid bombers were police informants. Osama said he didn't do 9/11 and even the CIA has not formally charged Osama with that crime. How curious. Something about lack of evidence.

Look at the recent story with the supposed plot to kidnap a muslim soldier. Apart from the fact that it conveniently took the cash for honours story out of the news, it also served to further demonize the bad muslims. Only this time there was an attempt to create a sympathetic hero out of a good muslim British soldier (who likely never existed). What was the purpose of this story? Demonize muslims but with some effort to ease growing racial tensions? To keep the boys in Iraq for that bit longer? To take Bliar out of the newspapers? To wage war for Iran's oil? To make us frightened?

The official version of events regarding 911 is bogus science and engineering. Really it is, and I stake my 8 years of further and higher engineering qualifications on it, just like Professor Jones and several others. The official version of events is in itself a daft conspiracy. Now since the three largest oil fields in the world: Gharwar, Burgan, and Cantarrel are known to be at or near peak, and our very own North Sea peaked in 1999, we should then begin placing together the pieces of a far more probable story. Economic growth can only happen with a plentiful supply of energy. An energy deficit of 2% or 3% is all that is needed to halt our economic growth. A deficit of 5% is enought to plunge us into depression. Alternative fuels cannot save us. Really they can't. Not all of us anyway.

911 was a Pearl Harbour or Reichstag or Operation Northwoods event designed to consolidate and control remaining oil and gas supplies in an era of peak oil and gas. There is no exit strategy in Iraq. The Americans have won that war - they just need to get that oil flowing and keep the Iraqi’s fighting themselves. Divide and conquer.

Marvin Bush, impossible physics/engineering in the official story, eyewitness reports of bombs, the fact that no steel framed building has ever fallen because of fire; yet on 911 three fell (one of which wasn't hit). Etc etc etc.

We live in a dumbed down society. Most people are unable or unwilling to do their own analysis and research. The BBC is as guilty as Bush and Bliar when it comes to the lies regarding 9/11 and other events, but this documentary is a step in the right direction....

  • 68.
  • At 02:26 PM on 15 Feb 2007,
  • Marc wrote:

One thing that can't be disputed is the official story stinks on ice. Instead of labelling things as "conspiracy theories", it might be better to look at the facts. There is simply no way that 4 highjacked planes could bypass American air defenses.

The butler did it.

  • 70.
  • At 02:56 PM on 15 Feb 2007,
  • Sam wrote:

Mark #4

Whats your problem? Your clearly an American and you of all people critisize the BBC for being bias?

ALL American news outlets are right wing biased for more so than the BBC is left biased.

That leftist bias concerns me becuase i'm English i have to pay for it but what has it got to do with you? You don't pay a license fee, you don't live in England.

Mind your own business, if you don't like it then don't watch it, it not here for you anyway unless as i suspect you secretly admire and adore the BBC because why else would you come on here so often?

  • 71.
  • At 03:25 PM on 15 Feb 2007,
  • Steve wrote:

An important point: not everyone who suspects insider involvement in 9/11 is the same.

For instance...

I totally reject the Alex Jones stuff. In fact he's the last person I'd go to for measured analysis. (But I guess he makes for great TV... )

I totally reject all this talk about zionism and new world order, the kind of conspiracy stuff TruthSeeker above was saying.

I think Loose Change, in its current edition, has far too many holes and does the "movement" a great disservice through lazy assumptions and theory presented as fact.

I pretty much accept that the Twin Towers were brought down as the official version states, and not by demolition.

I pretty much accept that a Boeing did indeed fly into the Pentagon, and not a missile.

And yet - I still think there's a good case to be made that the events of that day may ultimately have been orchestrated by elements from within the US establishment itself.

Essentially, the attacks were carried out as we've been told - but quite possibly on instruction.

In that instance, only a very small number of very important people would have had to know about it. Even Bush may have been excluded (to my mind, Presidents are merely figureheads anyway).

And who knows, the reasons for sacrificing 3,000 of your own countrymen may have been as compelling as the reason to send 300,000 of them to fight in Iraq where hundreds or thousands would almost certainly be expected to die. We can only speculate as to the reasons, but I'm willing to accept that they may exist.

(Not simplistic notions of lining Halliburtons's pockets or some nebulous sense of "evil" - I'll leave that stuff to Alex Jones and his ilk)

Note to BBC commissioners: the story of Omar Saeed Sheikh would make a very interesting programme, I'm sure. Might reveal more than you expect - and you don't even have to take the "9/11 conspiracy" angle with it. He's the guy who, at the behest of the head of Pakistan's ISI, wired $100,000 to Mohammed Atta, the leading 9/11 hijacker, before the New York attacks, as confirmed by Dennis Lomel, director of FBI's financial crimes unit. The same guy who's sentence for the beheading of journalist Daniel Pearl in Iraq has been adjourned indefinitely following an unusual 32 appeals.

In the meantime, it's a real shame that there's so many crazy theories - and no doubt deliberate disinformation - out there that will keep all this genuinely explosive (but more complex) stuff under wraps while people are scrutinizing strawmen which will be easy to discredit.

Don't be surprised if a trump card emerges - the US releasing footage of the actual Boeing hitting the Pentagon. At which point the whole suggestion of insider complicity will come crumbling down thanks to all those who were a little to hasty in presenting theory as fact. (That could even be the reason why they're holding back from releasing all the Pentagon footage that we can be reasonably sure would exist - just a thought)

Seriously - everyone needs to tighten up their critical faculties on this, or it will forever be buried alongside real nonsense like faked moon landings and lizard people. A conspiracy this explosive would never be carried out without a solid plan of disinformation to fog the truth.

Let's not just turn this into a battle between lazy believers and lazy non-believers.

  • 72.
  • At 03:57 PM on 15 Feb 2007,
  • The NWO sucks wrote:

I have looked in to the various claims made about 9/11. To dismiss the allegations that the US government did not tell us the truth is plain ignorant. There are so many inconsistencies in the official claims.Questions that could be easily answered if US officials decided to. Their silence just confirms the doubts we have. The whole thing stinks. I have little faith that the BBC documentry will be balanced or fair to 9/11 truth seekers.
9/11 was a 'conspiracy',that is a FACT. The question is which one do you believe,the official one or one of the many others? I know which one I do not believe,namely the official 'conspiracy theory'.
We are told the 'terrorists' hate our freedoms,yet it is our own governments that are using fear to take those freedoms/rights away. If people are so stupid that they can't see that then they do not deserve freedom. Our fore fathers died in their millions to get those freedoms,our children will curse us for allowing a hand full of NWO neo cons to take them away.The US bill of rights is now just 'a peice of paper'. The 'terrorists' are winning. Wake up! Question everything that proven liars have to say.

  • 73.
  • At 03:59 PM on 15 Feb 2007,
  • Richard wrote:

Jack Morgan

Professional structural engineers have studied the fall of building 7, and it is perfectly well-understood. It relates to the working of the heating systems that were damaged, and the fires they caused. Are you a professional structural engineer? I am not, so cannot myself judge, except to say that it does not contradict what I know, as a science graduate.

I am, as stated, a professional pilot, and I do know bits of aeroplane when I see them. I also know how fragile airliners are when they hit anything solid at high speed. I also know how much JetA1 fuel they carry, and it's a lot, and the sort of temperatures that can burn at, which is very high. As a science graduate I know what high temperatures can do to materials long before they reach melting point. So I think perhaps I know more than you; I certainly know more than most conspiracy theorists and arts-graduate BBC journalists.

You have not completed your research. You have found the "questions" of the conspiracy theories, but you have not found the answers given by far better qualified people, who use all the available evidence, with all the detail rather than only using the broad-brush photos and their own, ill-informed assumptions. Those answers are available on the internet as easily as the conspiracy theories, but for some, if it does not fit their pre-existing assumptins then they will ignore it!

Classic example is that nice wide photo of the Pentagon they use, asking where is the aircraft? What they fail to refer to is the openly-available photos taken far closer to the scene, which show large pieces of a large aircraft, certainly an airliner although my expertise does not go so far as to identify the type (see, those of us who are honest admit to the limits of our knowledge).

The rest of us, whose initial assumptions are based on the fact that far too many people would know for this conspiracy ever to work, do not ignore the questions even so. We study them, assess them. Fortunately they can all be answered without too much trouble. The answers are available to any who is willing to look.


NORAD did not stand down. This was an unprecidented attack, and as I keep saying I actually know what i am talking about when it comes to aircraft, unlike most here, and without special alert in expectation of such an event there is no way that any of those aircraft would have been intercepted other than by pure luck.

  • 74.
  • At 04:02 PM on 15 Feb 2007,
  • The NWO sucks wrote:

I have looked in to the various claims made about 9/11. To dismiss the allegations that the US government did not tell us the truth is plain ignorant. There are so many inconsistencies in the official claims.Questions that could be easily answered if US officials decided to. Their silence just confirms the doubts we have. The whole thing stinks. I have little faith that the BBC documentry will be balanced or fair to 9/11 truth seekers.
9/11 was a 'conspiracy',that is a FACT. The question is which one do you believe,the official one or one of the many others? I know which one I do not believe,namely the official 'conspiracy theory'.
We are told the 'terrorists' hate our freedoms,yet it is our own governments that are using fear to take those freedoms/rights away. If people are so stupid that they can't see that then they do not deserve freedom. Our fore fathers died in their millions to get those freedoms,our children will curse us for allowing a hand full of NWO neo cons to take them away.The US bill of rights is now just 'a peice of paper'. The 'terrorists' are winning. Wake up! Question everything that proven liars have to say.

  • 75.
  • At 04:04 PM on 15 Feb 2007,
  • Simon wrote:

Aren't we all getting a little ahead of ourselves here? The programme isn't even on for another two days! Let's wait to see what it says before we either say "This programme is an absolute disgrace" or "I applaud the BBC for this inquisition".

  • 76.
  • At 04:40 PM on 15 Feb 2007,
  • Eric McCastre wrote:

I think it's creepy to mix personal feelings with belief in conpiracies in the conspiracy test. Especially to give a result on the final score without analysing the answers.

It really betrays the agenda of the author so easily it makes one wonder why it was used.

  • 77.
  • At 05:00 PM on 15 Feb 2007,
  • David wrote:

Does the general tone of many of these comments make you wonder if this programme was a good idea?

Like many of my friends, family and colleagues, and presumably many BBC TV staff, I switched on my TV on the afternoon of Sept 11th 2001 and watched, horrified, the live broadcast of the second aircraft hitting the WTC and the later collapse of the building and deaths of hundreds of people.

Everyone, including thousands of media professionals in the US and elsewhere, saw and knew what happened at the time beyond any reasonable doubt.

By pretending to investigate these "conspiracy theories" you are effectively indulging an unfortunate alliance of the gullible, the ill educated , the mentally disturbed and those with more sinister motives who would like to foment anti American feeling in this country.

The BBC should be ashamed of promoting this garbage and encouraging the beliefs of the unhinged minority who are sadly well represented on this thread.

I for one will be complaining to OFCOM and my MP about this appalling waste of licence payers money.

  • 78.
  • At 05:04 PM on 15 Feb 2007,
  • Roger Button wrote:

1 I am a civil engineer. The NIST pancake collapse theories are plausible, but not supported by the visual evidence. When the N tower collapses the radio mast fixed to the core of the building starts to fall first. This suggests there must have been explosives located near the cores near the level where the plane crashed. The explosives need only be the size of a few fridges or filing cabinets, easily introduced by a small team of people. Who were these people? Why have they not been invistigated?
2 I understand that the airlines produced passenger lists soon after the crashes, but the highjackers' names were not on them!
3 Planes nowadays are not flown by human pilots but by autopilot. No flying skills were required to hit the targets, only the skills needed to enter the relevant co-ordinates into the flight computers.
I remain extremely sceptical of the 'offical story' and congratulate the BBC on undertaking this project.

  • 79.
  • At 05:53 PM on 15 Feb 2007,
  • Mike Salter wrote:

No Doubt in 20 to 30 years time the truth will surface...whatever it is (personally I lean towards the inside job theory, its not a few million Dollars were talking here, its Billions all lining a few peoples pockets).And we the public will all go..never..really...well its all a long time ago now...they wouldnt do that to us now would they...try telling that to the familys of young boys that died at Pearl Harbour, and In Vietnam..

  • 80.
  • At 05:56 PM on 15 Feb 2007,
  • Mike Speason wrote:

For all those here simply to try and debunk these theories - why the hell are you here? The program hasn't been aired yet and alreay you are whinging. If it's not your cup of tea, then don't watch it.

Anyhow, it would appear, from listening to interviews with Alex Jones, Craig Bartman and Jason Bermas that the program was not particularly interested in hearing what they had to say. It was more a case of demanding that they defend some of the wilder theories that arwe being pushed (no planes, Israeli citizens being forewarned etc).

  • 81.
  • At 09:12 PM on 15 Feb 2007,
  • tin wrote:

So you haven't spoken to Dr Steven Jones, hmm, one suspects this show to be as accurate as the official report. Err Mike how exactly did you get this job? I hold hope that i won't have to post 'hmm bbc whitewash... government control? ... scared are we? ... and where's Greg, you sycophants?' we'll see.

  • 82.
  • At 09:41 PM on 15 Feb 2007,
  • Sean wrote:

Yes, the "conspiracy test" clearly illustrates the mindset of the BBC... which is that anyone who doubts the government's version of events is paranoid, distrustful and has emotional problems.

The test is shameless, obvious and insulting to one's intelligence.

In truth, governments have been lying to their people throughout history. To believe otherwise is foolish.

Evil men hold positions of power in every country around the world. We have seen their corruption, lies and propoganda exposed time and time again... often when it's too late.

It's naive to believe that these transgressions are the exception rather than the rule.

  • 83.
  • At 09:43 PM on 15 Feb 2007,
  • Sean wrote:

Read this excerpt from the BBC's own article (you can find the link under 9/11 conspiracy):

"There is no direct evidence in the public domain linking Osama Bin Laden to the 11 September attacks.

At best the evidence is circumstantial."

Any questions why the doubts continue?

  • 84.
  • At 10:05 PM on 15 Feb 2007,
  • Bob wrote:

Simon Ward, how is it an insult to the people who died? I know that has been stated up and down in the mainstream media, but explain to me exactly how saying it was caused by someone else, or for other purposes insults the victims? I just cannot see how. The victims were killed, and regardless of what someone might think about the reasons, it has absolutely NO BEARING on their memory.

In fact, if it turns out that there were other forces behind the attacks, or if it turns out the Bush Administration was fully aware beforehand, like Roosevelt with Pearl Harbor, then wouldn't it be an insult to the victims to NOT ASK QUESTIONS??

  • 85.
  • At 10:15 PM on 15 Feb 2007,
  • Matthew Burdett wrote:

Two major points here:

1) The BBC here seems to have created a programme which discusses the conspiracy theories themselves. The people who are already roundly condemning the BBC for making a "sick" programme have not read to the bottom of Rudin's original post - indeed he argues that information on the internet is being misquoted. The BBC is not presenting the conspiracy theories at face value (which would be disturbing and alarming). Rather, they are engendering and furthering debate by trying to get to the bottom of the issue.

2) The conspiracy theories will not work, so long as a majority of people believe any given version of events. The vast majority of people around the globe today believe it was Muslim terrorists, led by al-Quaeda, that masterminded these attacks. In 2002, the vast majority of people believed Iraq had WMD. This was then disproved, so now the "conspiracy theory" is that there ARE WMD in Iraq. (Which does pose a problem in itself. Why, if the US government could cover up 9/11, did it not go on to repeat for WMD in Iraq?) Finally, in 1933 the majority of people chose to believe that it was Communists that set fire to the Reichstag. Hitler directly benefited. But in all these cases, it is what the majority of people choose to believe that prevails. But is important - just as with any historical event - that there is debate. It is indeed emotive, yes. The debate arises from fluctuations in opinion. Long may it continue.

To Simon Ward. Surely funding the BBC is much cheaper than the funding of the Iraq war. I feel the same way about that as you do about the BBC.

So how about a deal. You pay my taxes, I'll pay your TV licence?

  • 87.
  • At 11:23 PM on 15 Feb 2007,
  • Guy Incognito wrote:

Let's not congratulate BBC yet. Most likely this will be a whitewash and there will be the usually strawman arguments. Let's face it: BBC, along with others news corporations around the world, have not done their job. Rather they merely serve as propoganda organs.

  • 88.
  • At 11:58 PM on 15 Feb 2007,
  • Bob wrote:

umar tosheeb wrote:
"It would be impossible to hide an event as big as 9/11. There is not a single thing in this world for which there are no conspiracy theories. I don't know why the author is wasting his time for writing about this issue."

You easily dismiss any "conspiracy theory" because you just assume that "it's too big to keep secret" but there's a really big flaw with your thinking. By your logic, there would be no way the Sicilian Mafia, the Russian Mob, the Japanese Yakuza or any other criminal organization could continue to operate. Organized Drug cartels could not operate for years, decades, centuries. Yet they do, and all while the full force and authority of dozens of legitimate governments' law enforcement and military are hot on their tails using every power at their disposal to find them, "smoke 'em out" and shut them down.

Besides, even the official story is nothing more than a "conspiracy theory" -- It is a theory because it has never been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, with evidence, nor in a court of law, and 19 people deciding to hijack airplanes constitutes the textbook legal definition of conspiracy.

  • 89.
  • At 12:22 AM on 16 Feb 2007,
  • Ron Tinkham wrote:

Whatever your trying to do to debunk the 9/11 truth movement wont work. the proof is out there and you dont need a onesided documentary to tell what the truth is. People think for themselves and there not listening to the crap anymore. 9/11 was an inside job and everyone knows it!!!

  • 90.
  • At 12:38 AM on 16 Feb 2007,
  • Ron Tinkham wrote:

I really appriciate the people who support the "official version of 9/11". If you believe that you will believe anything. Please take the time to think for yourself. Look at what people in the truth movement are trying to tell you. 3,000 people died that day. Innocent people are dying everyday because of this ever since that day. WAKE UP WORLD! Your next if you dont wise up! 9/11 truth will comeout. And when it does...dont think I wont say I told you so! Lies cant be kept forever! 9/11 was an inside job!!!

  • 91.
  • At 12:40 AM on 16 Feb 2007,
  • Colleen Chafe wrote:

When the noblest pursuit is that of truth, I seriously question anyone who uses subversive tactics to impede that path. It is also very telling that they project the very things that they accuse everyone else of being. When we are being told what to think, that's the sign of a cult. Governments give up the right to be believed and trusted when they are caught lying over and over again. Is wanting the truth really that threatening?

  • 92.
  • At 12:51 AM on 16 Feb 2007,
  • 322 wrote:

Seems a lot of debunkers get on here and complain about evidence not being complete to prove "conspiracy theories" but what they are not noticing is that the same evidence they are quoting is of the same or less value, so therefore not solid as well. The government's story as to what happened is no more complete than the "conspiracy theories" that you are trying to debunk here. For every expert that says one thing there is another that says the opposite, and in that means questions have not been answered with solid evidence on either side, which means what? It means we should re-investigate everything, unless people are just ok with believing thier government on big issues but double thinking and complaining about them lying on small issues. And as far as this "hit" piece about to be unveiled I guarantee it gets debunked and the movement exposes the benefactors as well as thier motives with this. That is all.

  • 93.
  • At 01:31 AM on 16 Feb 2007,
  • garypowell wrote:

Lets put it this way. If I had a theory that your mother was selling child pornography and drugs to your younger sister. Would you take me seriously and still expect your mother to like or trust you, after you both found out I had no evidence?

The BBC by making a program that no serious broadcaster should, is giving reasons to believe that the United States government has deliberately murdered thousands of its own citizens in order to start a world war.

If any of you nutters really do believe any such thing, I sugest you have "issues" that require the help of a doctor. If you are so sure of your sanity. I would leave this planet if I was you, because your paranoia must make this world seem a very dangerous place indead.

  • 94.
  • At 02:50 AM on 16 Feb 2007,
  • chris graf wrote:

the big brother corporation hath spoken. now justice seekers everywhere can be prepared for what they will encounter when explaining the facts in public discourse. there will be the nervous, high-pitched laughter and barrage of unsubstantive insults, 'psychotic, sociopath, nutcase . . .' and the complete avoidance of any of the critical issues. but take heart fellow righteous expounders of the truth. the manipulative elite have strayed much too far from their castles. now it is ours to drive them back behind their gates where they can stew up their next plot.

  • 95.
  • At 03:02 AM on 16 Feb 2007,
  • Bill wrote:

Remember the molten metal in the basement of the WTC? It was so hot that it melted the shoes of the site workers for 2 weeks! Remember the pictures of the support beams in the BASEMENT of the WTC that were cut at a 45 degree angle? How about the testimony of 1,000+ eye witnesses that are sealed for 50 years? Wake up people! We won't be fooled again!

  • 96.
  • At 03:33 AM on 16 Feb 2007,
  • Rick wrote:

For Mr.Morgan, and anyone else who absolutely refuses to accept the truth.... Even a fraction of the evidince out there should be enough to tell you that the official story is a lie, in regards to 911.
The people at BBC will do what they're told, plain and simple, just like fox, cnn, nbc and the rest.

  • 97.
  • At 03:58 AM on 16 Feb 2007,
  • dustin wrote:

if it is so easy to rub off the " conspiracy theroy " then it should be just as easy to rub off the claims and questions which number in the hundreds. yet to date i have not heard anything from the government in the way of cold hard facts to sway me to their side about anything to do with 9/11. "conspiracy theory" people bring up questions and the media and the government , instead of coming forth with all the hard facts , slander and mock them and there claims as ridiculous and unpatriotic. I sat on the fence a long time about this issue. the " crazys " make a whole lot more sense that the government. mountain people flying state of the art planes and hitting 75% of there targets, building 7, " they decide to pull it " and wired it for demolition in a couple of hours so it falls neatly in its own footprint. the norad stand down , americas largest military building and no video that shows something as large as a 747 hit the pentagon sounds like something from a storybook. most people laugh them off but i think EVERYONE should hear both sides and before they decide.

  • 98.
  • At 04:15 AM on 16 Feb 2007,
  • Peter Solinski wrote:

Having been the object of ridicule at the mere suggestion that the government played any part in the events of 9/11, I can tell you that it's not easy being a conspiracy theorist. My tin foil hat is frayed at the edges. But to ignore the overwhelming evidence that the official version of events on 9/11 are not true, is to deny my need to find out the truth and to do what is right. 110 story buildings do not come down onto their own footprint in 10 seconds unless the core support columns are destroyed at their base. The planes hit the buildings at the upper levels. Watch 9/11 Mysteries if this BBC documentary does not satisy your need to know.

  • 99.
  • At 04:21 AM on 16 Feb 2007,
  • David wrote:

Don't listen to the talking heads find out for yourself. 110 storey buildings don't collaspe into dust and leave a hole where a mountain of rubble should be. That's a fact not an opinion.

  • 100.
  • At 05:03 AM on 16 Feb 2007,
  • 911truthdotorg wrote:

There was never a criminal or NTSB investigation of 9/11. There are more forensics done on any "CSI" TV show than was done for the supposed largest attack in US history. Not one person was held accountable for anything.

The FBI has zero evidence that bin Laden was involved, yet there is so much implicating bush/cheney, etc.

How anyone can believe the "official" story is mind boggling to me. It's like a house of cards...remove one card at the base and the whole thing collapses on itself.

Ironically, just like how they made the WTC buildings collapse.

God help America and the world from these barbarians.

  • 101.
  • At 05:09 AM on 16 Feb 2007,
  • Mike wrote:

Let's stop this nonsense talk about proof and debunking. No one is going to disprove the official story. No one is going to disprove an alternate theory. All the science that is involved here can do is show that a theory is possible, and there are always ways to shift around some fringe areas of a theory to make something possible.

What should be focused on are the major points that are most tenable taken in a wider context. For example, why squabble over what the coroner said when the Flight 93 crash isn't even necessary to an alternative theory and when there are loads of better supported data? Why not approach this rationally and only look at the strongest claims that skeptics make? For example, it is clear that there is a history of government use of terror. Just watch Terror Storm (
Once this broader context is established, then look at how the official investigation was conducted. According to family members of the victims of 9-11, the 9-11 Commission was grossly compromised. Just watch 9-11 Press for Truth ( We also have the firemen at the WTC rubble saying that molten metal was running "like a foundry", which is indicative of controlled demolitions ( Also see 9-11 Mysteries for a more in-depth view of controlled demolition theory ( On top of all that, even US airline pilots have evidence that there are severe holes in the claim that a plane hit the Pentagon. See Pandora's Black Box (

Ok, now that we know the broader context and this specific investigation's faults, what would be the most tenable claims of the skeptics of 9-11? It seems there is foreknowledge of the attacks (already outlined in 9-11 Press for Truth), Building 7 which wasn't hit by a plane and has all the signs of a controlled demolition (as we are all familiar with), and there are war games that are a telltale sign of a cover-up (Demonstrated by Terror Storm. Also, Dick Cheney, completely without any sort of precedent, had control of NORAD and ran those drills, which is highly suspicious considering how Norman Minetta claimed that Cheney told the scrambled jets to stand down).

Now we have a broader view of what's going on here and haven't stooped to attacked straw men such as what the coroner said, no planes, space beams, and other fringe or unsupported issues. I can only hope that this BBC documentary takes these foundational criticisms seriously and doesn't resort to "proving the official story" or "debunking alternative theories". All we can do in the end is look at all the evidence and say which theory is more likely than the rest. Which theories account for all of the most relevant data? So far from what I have seen, it is most certainly not the official story, and this is coming from someone who used to ridicule conspiracies and voted for Bush in the last election.

I would also like to add that an argument from the psychological benefits for a conspiracy theorist, or any theory, is a weak form of argument (The strongest being those that actually address the actual DATA). Not only is it false that a government run operation like 9-11 provides comfort to those that hold such a theory, the very same argument can be used against those that adhere to the official story; For it is the subscribers of the official story that have the most to lose psychologically if they have to admit that those that run the government would do such a thing. I, however, will not stoop to vague psychological theories that side step data. I'm just noting the ambiguity of its use.

  • 102.
  • At 05:24 AM on 16 Feb 2007,
  • Tom BRUNO wrote:


A Very Good Author

  • 103.
  • At 05:25 AM on 16 Feb 2007,
  • douglas herman wrote:

Ask yourself this question: How could two women stand on "melting steel" at the edge of the smashed WTC tower, visible to everyone, when that steel was ALLEGEDLY red hot? Web search "The Woman At The Edge of The Abyss" and answer the question.
The towers were brought down, as was WTC-7. As a USAF veteran I am ashamed of NORAD, ashamed of my complicit government. Douglas Herman

  • 104.
  • At 05:46 AM on 16 Feb 2007,
  • Michael Dennie wrote:

The people who are asking these questions are the people who are not getting any answers. There is pleanty of evidence that the government is withholding and not letting out that would easily clear up this mess.

In regards to the plane crash at the Pentagon, why are the video tapes from the businesses not released to the public? They would easily clear up whether it was a plane or a missle. And for the fact of the matter with the video the Pentagon released you cant see any defining characteristics of a plane or a missle. It solves nothing.

The Twin Towers were something of a miss for me as well. When the towers were falling the first thought that came to mind was, "Why are they falling down straight?" It made no sense to me.

To this day the stories that they shill out to the public seem no more plausible to me now than they did back then, and that's because there have been no real answers.

  • 105.
  • At 06:08 AM on 16 Feb 2007,
  • david wrote:

Alex Jones predicted 911 MONTHS before it happened saying they would blame binladen dont believe me go check it

  • 106.
  • At 06:24 AM on 16 Feb 2007,
  • John Roberts wrote:

It's so exciting how many "Sheeple" are out there!

I wish I had a product like the "official 9/11 story" to sell you!

Man, I could get rich!!! :)

I hope people stop researching the history of the Military-Industrial Complex...I'll lose customers. Bummer!!

  • 107.
  • At 06:28 AM on 16 Feb 2007,
  • bri wrote:

this should be interesting sort of like deciding witch pack of liers to believe. Read a little history.

  • 108.
  • At 06:42 AM on 16 Feb 2007,
  • Sandman wrote:

Arthur Schopenhauer stated, "Truth passes through three statges; first, it is ridiculed; next, it is violently opposed; and finally, it is self evident."

The tipping point in regards to the 9/11 truth movement has risen to supernova status. We are in the second stage of of Schopenhauer's prophetic quote.

Cognitive dissonance is a necessary element in the awakening of society at large. The BBC, even in the happenstance of a "hit piece," has done it's part. The advent of the internet with it's unfiltered news has caused this conspiracy to be exposed in quick fashion. This would not happen in China today.

My son was born on that fateful day. I spent duty time at Ground Zero shortly thereafter(state police). I want him to know that I did my part in restoring the Republic that this great nation once was.

Ralph Waldo Emerson stated, " There is no den in the wide world to hide a rogue. Commit a crime and the earth is made of glass. Commit a crime, and it seems as if a coat of snow fell on the ground, such as reveals in the woods the track of every partridge, and fox, and squirrel,"


"Speak what you think today in hard words and tomorrow speak what tomorrow thinks in hard words again, though it contradict every thing you said today."

  • 109.
  • At 07:12 AM on 16 Feb 2007,
  • TLC wrote:

The second jet that hit the second tower struck diagonally through a corner of the building and as you can see in the video, a tremedous fireball erupts to the outside thus burning off most of the fuel. That building could not have been heated as much as the first buliding yet it disintegrated into fine dust like the other one did. (By the way, how many of you have ever had your steel fireplace grate melt or distort and collapse after several hours of red hot burning coals direct heat?)

Bush says the "terrorists" attacked us because they hate our freedom. So what does he do? He introduces the Patriot Act to restrict our freedom yet our southern border with Mexico is still wide open to this day.

And why wasn't Bush wisked away from that Florida school when the secret service knew that the second plane had struck the towers. If Osama was so smart that he could completely bamboozle the greatest military defenses in the world, he certainly could have watched CNN that morning, learned of Bush's itinerary, and dircted a high-jacked Cessna into the school.

  • 110.
  • At 08:00 AM on 16 Feb 2007,
  • Nick wrote:

It's amazing how by blowing up a couple of buildings you can decieve the whole world into believing that the attacks were instigated by someone operating out of a cave in Afghanistan. Perfect excuse to have a bogus War On Terror. It's like Hitler said the bigger the lie the more people will believe it! With any conspiracy ask yourself who benefits and also follow the money? Insider trading on 911 leads back to the CIA. Did anyone notice how they where blaming Osama before the second tower collapsed. This was a setup from the beginning. A psychological operation and the first great hoax of the 21st century! If you want proof the towers were demolished then just watch all the footage on that day. And the smoking gun is the time it took for the towers to fall which was at freefall speed, which requires explosives. And then there's building 7 just suddenly collapsing later that day. The wealth of evidence contradicting the official version is simply overwhelming! Im sure this program will be an attempt by the BBC to confuse and muddy the waters like all good counter intelligence intends and to label those that question the offical conspiracy theory(which it is) as paranoid conspiracy nutters who dare to break loose from the herd and question our media guided reality? I will not be expecting anything new or good on the BBC this Sunday! Wake up to the truth people.

  • 111.
  • At 08:56 AM on 16 Feb 2007,
  • Erika wrote:

I come from a country that largely suffered from a completely fabricated image CNN and BBCmost than others portrayed in order to justify bombings and murderings of civilian population and years of economic sanctions in which thousands perished from sickness and famine. AT the time, it was incredible to us to watch what was being said about us and yet know that it is a complete bag of lies and fabrications. The question we asked was "WHY?". After learning more about the NWO agenda which made me forcedly mature and open my eyes to exactly those "WHY?" there is no doubt in my mind and in my heart to who are the TRUE global terorists. I dont see why would killing a thousand people or so be an obstacle for earning billions out of a war alone. I just cant comprehend how can the rest of humanity refuse to acknowledge what is staring them right in the face. It is sickening but real and present and becoming more and more radical and more and more dangerous. We have to wake up.

  • 112.
  • At 08:58 AM on 16 Feb 2007,
  • Smith wrote:

Ockham's razor

I initially was skeptical about the 9/11 Conspiracy crowd. I thought to my self how would it be possible for the government to cover this up something this big, I thought about how many people would be needed to cover up and execute the plan.... Then I thought about how How Harry S. Truman kept the Manhattan project secret from the entire nation for years, and even from his Vice president. That involved a heck of alot more people.

To belive the official 9/11 Story you have to believe that on 9/11 Four civilian aircraft evaded the most secure and complex air defense in the history of mankind. You have to believe that three steel and concrete buildings fell down primarly from fire on the same day when it has never happend even once before. You have to believe that all three buildings fell at almost free fall speed meeting little to know resistance from the support structures on the way down. You have to believe that the Secret Service failed in executing routine procedure in protecting the President by letting him sit in a school reading my pet goat knowing the nation was under attack. You have to believe that a War game about the World trade center getting attacked by hijacked civillian aircraft just coincedentally happend to be being practiced on 9/11 leading to massive ammounts of confusion about real world problems or exercises. You have to believe that It was fluke George W. Bush Ok'd Invasion plans of Afghanistan on Sept. 10th one day before 9/11. You have to believe that The removal of authority for Generals to issue shoot down orders of hijacked civilian aircraft was taken away in August by coincidence. You have to believe that The President and Vice President were both accidentally removed from the Chain of command just long enough for the two trade center buildings and the Pentagon to be attacked. You have to Believe that building number 7 Containing the New York offices of the CIA and the Opertaional Emergency Command for New york isn't suspicious. I could go on. These are things You can't find suspicious if you are to believe the official story.

To believe in the "Conspiracy Theory" all you have to believe is that George Bush and a few Cronies with the help of a former CIA asset who just happens to belong to a family that was VERY close to the President, and perhaps less than 1,000 millitary or intellegence people executed an enhanced version of Operation Northwoods ( To execute a plan to gain controll of the Caspian Sea Natural Gas and Oil Reserves.

Ockham's razor Says the "Conspiracy Theorists" Have it right.

  • 113.
  • At 09:44 AM on 16 Feb 2007,
  • Mavericosuave wrote:

The 9/11 Commission Report is a complete whitewash. Many people in high standing (current and former U.S. government officials, scholars, etc.), numbering in the hundreds, have harshly criticized the report itself. The victims families, that had to work soooo hard to get an investigation in the first place, are working harder than ever to get a real, independent one. We can all have theories (hypotheses, more accurately) about what actually happened that day. Nobody knows what happened for sure, we know that and everyone who is not blindly ignorant knows that. The truth movement has set its sights on a truly independent investigation; how that is unpatriotic, harmful to the families, or the work of an unhealthy mind, I do not know. Hopefully programs like this will serve to educate the people on what really happened that day. Ya'll know that WTC7 fell down, right? It was not hit by a plane, but it collapsed. Now I don't mean tipped over to the side or fell down in chunks. It fell right into its own basement, methodically, purposefully. Anyone ever see what happens to a building when it falls down from something OTHER than controlled demolition? Look at the photos from earthquakes, or from any other natural disaster that can knock a steel-framed building to the ground. You'll have to look hard, because there are not many, if any. They caught us off-guard with this, and we all need to understand that. If you truly use your open mind and view what little evidence is left after that day, you'll be surprised. But don't expect it to be easy. It took me two weeks of hard, introspective thought to come to the conclusion that I had been lied to. It's pain and suffering, almost like when one becomes an atheist. It kinda sucks, even now, but the truth is paramount. I want everyone to know that.

  • 114.
  • At 09:56 AM on 16 Feb 2007,
  • Maverico wrote:

The 9/11 Commission Report is a complete whitewash. Many people in high standing (current and former U.S. government officials, scholars, etc.), numbering in the hundreds, have harshly criticized the report itself. The victims families, that had to work soooo hard to get an investigation in the first place, are working harder than ever to get a real, independent one. We can all have theories (hypotheses, more accurately) about what actually happened that day. Nobody knows what happened for sure, we know that and everyone who is not blindly ignorant knows that. The truth movement has set its sights on a truly independent investigation; how that is unpatriotic, harmful to the families, or the work of an unhealthy mind, I do not know. Hopefully programs like this will serve to educate the people on what really happened that day. Ya'll know that WTC7 fell down, right? It was not hit by a plane, but it collapsed. Now I don't mean tipped over to the side or fell down in chunks. It fell right into its own basement, methodically, purposefully. Anyone ever see what happens to a building when it falls down from something OTHER than controlled demolition? Look at the photos from earthquakes, or from any other natural disaster that can knock a steel-framed building to the ground. You'll have to look hard, because there are not many, if any. They caught us off-guard with this, and we all need to understand that. If you truly use your open mind and view what little evidence is left after that day, you'll be surprised. But don't expect it to be easy. It took me two weeks of hard, introspective thought to come to the conclusion that I had been lied to. It's pain and suffering, almost like when one becomes an atheist. It kinda sucks, even now, but the truth is paramount. I want everyone to know that.

  • 115.
  • At 10:02 AM on 16 Feb 2007,
  • Nickers wrote:

I have spent a lot of my life in recent months looking into the claims made by the official story, and looking at those claims in a logical and un-emotional fashion.

Logic is something that is easy to achieve for any human (some require practice), but after reading the official accounts it is difficult to keep emotion out of the picutre. Especially when you look at some of the hillarious, but absurd, claims made by the 9/11 Commission.

Many of these claims can be looked at objectively and exposed for the fabrications they are.

Steel in "plane-proof" buildings would not melt or give way, until it reached melting point. Fires burning at very high temperatures produce light coloured smoke. Cool, oxygen starved fires produce dark black smoke. Which did you see on the morning of 11th September 2001? I have had quite a lot of fire training and I can tell you that fire does not melt steel, or cause it to become unstable unless the melting point is close or reached. How do I know this? Look at all the buildings with steel frames that had much higher fires and did not collapse. I have even witnessed a ship fire, where the fire was over 1,000 degrees centigrade (because of the chemicals being carried), and the ships hold/hull did not collapse, or give way to the enormous pressures of the water around it, and the pressure that the rest of the vessel put on that part of the ship.

Further, the Underwriters that produced the steel for the WTC buildings sacked the man that spoke out against the official account! Why would they have done that?

Stop being so blind as to believe eveything your Government(s) tell you, that is exactly how the Communists in Soviet Russia wanted their people to behave. It is how the Communists in China operate.

Read Orwell's 1984... a perpetual war and citizens being told what to say, do and THINK... sound familiar?

Why is there an implication that if you do this sort of research, you have some sort of mental afflicion? I have a healthy life, healthy relationships, and I'm not "mentally afflicted" as is being implied by this program and its makers.

Look at the claimed "facts", then look at all the possibilities, then do a Sherlock Holmes. Eliminate the impossible. Whatever remains, no matter how improbable is the truth.

i.e. THE US GOVERNMENT ARE LIARS! THE UK GOVERNMENT ARE LIARS... THE BBC ARE ASSISTING THE LIARS. WHY? That's what we should ask now. We pay the licence fees. Demand answers.

A final thing to think about is that the UK Government pays the BBC's wages... (through the stealth tax of licence fees) sounds like the old USSR Government run propaganda machines to me.

  • 116.
  • At 10:24 AM on 16 Feb 2007,
  • Mr H Russell wrote:

Why was Alex Jones not allowed to discuss operation Northwoods? Why did you waste considerable time focusing on Frank Spotnitz the producer of the X Files , when you have ignored and disregarded legitimate questions? Why was there no focus on the emergency workers at 911 who heard explosions in the building? Why no focus on building 7? Why no focus on all the evidence from the twin towers being shipped to foreign shores within a day or two? Why no focus on why Dick Cheny told a military employee to stand down any jet fighter interception. And these questions are just the tip. Your show will just show that the BBC is not capable of reporting what is happening in this world. A sad day.

  • 117.
  • At 10:29 AM on 16 Feb 2007,
  • Jowe wrote:

When in the hell did it become unacceptable to want to know the truth? That in itself is terrifying.

I totally agree with a point made earlier that all conspiracy theories cannot be lumped together to be either dismissed or given weight, rather the evidence (or lack of) in each case needs to be examined.

This process is simply a quest for the truth and I don't see how that can ever be an unhealthy thing.

Delve in, examine ALL OF THE EVIDENCE you can find and THEN draw conclusions.

  • 118.
  • At 10:33 AM on 16 Feb 2007,
  • Steve Black wrote:

BBC forces money from us so we can watch TV.

Why would they ever bite the hand that feeds them?

Being critical of the 'official' opinion on 9/11 (or anything) is unlikely.

  • 119.
  • At 10:33 AM on 16 Feb 2007,
  • Dave, Newcastle wrote:

Does anybody remember Mr Powell and his little speech at the UN and how he was going to provide a white paper providing conclusive proof that linked Usama Bin Laden and his gang to the crimes of 9/11? It was never presented. Also the FBI's web site holds no details linking Usama Bin Laden to 9/11, why, because of insufficient proof! Instead a very public myth has been rammed into minds, created by a hand picked commission. The first choice to lead this commission was Henry Kissinger, anybody remember him. That aside, the report lays blame with the government drawing the charge of neglect and complacency. Can anybody tell me which governmental heads rolled for this? I thought not.
To engage the 9/11 truth movement with nothing but slander and disbelief is very easy however I am yet to see a debate where these “officials and experts” actually deal with the very disturbing questions raised by the movement.
Let’s put the issue to bed and hold a truly independent, international investigation and if its all as has been stated, the leaders of the free world will have nothing to hide and would welcome such an investigation. Let’s include London 7/7 and Madrid as well, as the civil servant’s narrative again only serves to confuses and ignore issues that won’t go away.
The truth movement yearns for peace not global conflict, endless wars, big brother states and racial tension. Peel back state sponsored terror and realise there are clear reasons for the world of chaos in which we live and these reasons are not the over simplified rants of puppet leaders such as Blair and Bush. You only have to look at history to find examples of similar lies and deceptions. Its called propaganda and we are all subjects to is power. We have to change our perceptions of the world and stop ignoring the fact that in a world of plenty, the elite holds the wealth and reigns of power while using fear and systems of economic control ensuring the people are kept in line. History also points out the good men and women of the past and present who challege these are silenced, ridiculed and murdered. 9/11 is not just a conspiracy theory that won’t go away, if exposed it is potentially a key to a better world, the truth can and will set us free.

  • 120.
  • At 10:45 AM on 16 Feb 2007,
  • Mojo Hendrix wrote:

Well, Lets see what this program has in store for us... as the BBC has now become a government mouth piece, I suspect it will just tow the line and give us some more smoke and mirror tricks and discredit the truth movement. The more I listen to and watch BBC coverage, the more I realise how shallow it has become...merely mindless parrots repeating the party propaganda.

  • 121.
  • At 11:02 AM on 16 Feb 2007,
  • paul franks wrote:

anyone who wants to develop their knowledge and understanding of what happened before, during and after 9/11 and the unanswered questions surrounding this incredible day need only look at the works of david ray griffin, 30 years a theology professor and someone who has no truck with 'conspiracy theorists' but who bases his arguments upon logic and facts.

i'm not a nutter but a history teacher who believes it is important to question official accounts of events because they quite often turn out to be false.

think of: WMD, the murder of Jean Charles de menenes, the idea of camouflaging a US plane in Iraq, the U2 spy plane, hiroshima and nagasaki, the Gunpowder Plot, the storming of the bastille and the march of the women on versailles, the winter palace, Gulf of Tonkin, the Moscow and Madrid bombings. all stories where the full story did not or has not emerged or events that have been mythologised to suit the purposes of the authorities.

i'm sorry to disillusion people but -guess what - governments tell lies.

  • 122.
  • At 11:23 AM on 16 Feb 2007,
  • anonymous wrote:

Many people here seem to be missing the big picture. The US government, evil as it is, is not in charge of things.

Check out this link (no reading required) to learn how 9/11 fits into the bigger picture:

Also visit

  • 123.
  • At 11:41 AM on 16 Feb 2007,
  • a.r.lane wrote:

when the government gets the bbc to go to such great lenghs to fabricate anything about 911 or the london shows that they have a connection to the events,and that they have no feelings about the death they caused,this tells me that they are planning something worse besides a possible war with iran.what we should be careful of is that there are no subliminal messages in this documentary.

  • 124.
  • At 11:55 AM on 16 Feb 2007,
  • michael prince wrote:

You know as someone who wants to re-open the 911 Investigation I have been expecting this.

I have considered all of these allegations long before your hit piece came out. Being honest with myself I have already considered these things after all you have to know where you will be attacked next.

I have not seen a program yet that gets experts on to debate the questions of presented at the top of this article.

You did leave out PNAC The Plan For A New American Century, which became the Bush plan.

You have also left out may of the documentaries which expose the press for the government front men they have become being owned by 7 major corporations.

Check out some of the free videos on the information war going on in the new century at question 911 dot COM.

Bring it on.

  • 125.
  • At 12:36 PM on 16 Feb 2007,
  • Joe wrote:

This is most likely going to be a hit piece. I'm sure it will lump in the vast majority of rational, sane, truth seekers, people who simply want an independent investigation into the events of that day with the loons that think that it was the Lizard Queen and her ilk.
Be prepared for some trumped up shrink explaining that we all suffer from some mild psycological problems because we are still able to maintain a healthy skeptism when being fed infomation from the MSM.

  • 126.
  • At 12:53 PM on 16 Feb 2007,
  • paul ginn wrote:

The conspiracy is the conspiracy theory!
The most effective way to debunk any questionable government activity is to just label it a conspiracy - the masses have been conditioned to switch off and dismiss whatever these 'nutters' have to say.

Even if these 'nutters' are some of more intelligent members of our species:

  • 127.
  • At 01:07 PM on 16 Feb 2007,
  • Mert wrote:

Why is it that the first few posts on this strand (i.e. those that most casual browsers will read) are mocking the 911-truth movement and that the vast, vast majority of the rest are not? How is that, it seems, the first posts back the official line of what happened on 9/11 and that the rest are critical of this line? How, when the ratio of 9/11 truth seekers to official story believers, did they manage to get their comments at the beginning?

Why is it that this happens with astonishing regularity on the BBC website?

Shame on you Auntie Beeb and all the drones that sail in you.


  • 128.
  • At 01:52 PM on 16 Feb 2007,
  • David Chadburn wrote:

I am very pleased the BBC has decieded to to try to tackle this subject. There are so many angles to
cover on the whole 9/11 event. As a member of the public we expect to see
honest reporting of worldwide events.
The TV and newspapers that are the main source to get that information.
But what i and most people are realising is the internet is a invaluable source for exchanginging
and sourcing every type of information and media instantly. what
becomes apparent is the scripted and selected information from papers and TV that doesn't make sence or is proven.

It becomes blatanly obvious 9/11 is the biggest criminal act in history
so far with just a few months research. from hearing released unscripted emergancy workers reporting multiple explosions to seeing scientific proof and the physics explained of how its impossible for 3 steel bulidings to fall faster than freefall there is little argument left on those matters alone. A look into history further shows this is not the first time this has happened either. I hope this program is as in depth as
your documentary DEAD IN THE WATER.
which becomes all the more relevant.

  • 129.
  • At 02:07 PM on 16 Feb 2007,
  • Peter Cartwright wrote:

Can I suggest that we focus on just a couple of facts surrounding 911.
1. Building seven came tumbling down in a very neat pile, without being hit.
2. On the stock market thousands of "put" options were placed on American & United Airline stocks -a huge amount in the last hours before the attack.
Sometimes, I think we British think that "dots" are are all a part of a random pattern that are sown in a confused tapestry of life! Any one trying to connect them is a conspiracy theorist and we don't believe in conspiracies, do we?

  • 130.
  • At 04:47 PM on 16 Feb 2007,
  • john conway wrote:

Considering that I pay for my licence, I think the least the BBC shoud do is run a fair and balanced expose on 911. If, according to propaganda, they have two versions of their program ready to air and they run the 'hit' piece, then why should I pay for a licence that doesn't give me impartial news?

  • 131.
  • At 04:48 PM on 16 Feb 2007,
  • Matt wrote:

Occam's Razor.

The conspiracy theorists are falling victim to some very poor logic. Let me try to summarize some of it.

The government wanted to invade Iraq and so they devised a complex and massive scheme that would have to involve hundreds if not thousands of government officials, military, and civilians cooperating to plan, carry out, and keep the operation secret. This overly complex plan is somehow carried out to perfection. The governement then frames Al Queda - an Islamist organization based in Afghanistan, instead of the target, Iraq, a relatively secular state that is obviously not in Afghanistan. The government then presses for an invasion of Iraq citing WMD and broken security council resolutions, not 9/11, as the reason for the invasion.

The conspiracy theories seem to require the government to be both incredibly inept and stupid and incredibly well organised and brilliant at the same time.

  • 132.
  • At 04:48 PM on 16 Feb 2007,
  • Dean wrote:

9/11 was an inside job period

I just hope this documentary is an un-edited and balanced example of investigative journalism when it airs.

Looking forward to it.


  • 133.
  • At 04:49 PM on 16 Feb 2007,
  • Peter wrote:

This kind of trash belongs only on the fringe, not in the "mainstream media". BBC is a disgrace.

To all the single minded sheep out there. Stop going on about the victims families. Most of them do not believe the offical view either.
It is easy for us to sit in our armchairs with our remote controls, sucking up the controlled media. We the researchers spend our time reviewing the evidence. WAKE UP NOW TO THE REAL TRUTH. 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB!!!!!! Baa!!!

  • 135.
  • At 04:54 PM on 16 Feb 2007,
  • S.Haddad wrote:

I am shocked at how many people here are not buying the official story!
Shocked and absolutely heartened. To those who get offended by questioning official 9/11 orthodoxy you might as well support what the whole 9/11 Truth Campaign supports, which is a truly independent and throrough explanation. Then the argument will be over, we will know what happened and we can figure out what to do from there. Attacking those who don't believe the official story does nothing productive. Join the movement so all the questions can be anwered!

  • 136.
  • At 04:54 PM on 16 Feb 2007,
  • David Black wrote:

The BBC, as well as the other mainstream media outlets need to realize that they are not investigating the questions may people have with regards to the war on terror.

911 being the basis was clearly carried out by the government as well as the Madrid and 77 bombings. Check out the facts and do your own research and you will come to this conclusion.

Stop watching the government propaganda machine which is the BBC.

The ongoing polarisation of the population to the Right and the Left while our politicians scramble for the "middle ground". Roll on the civil war.

  • 138.
  • At 05:05 PM on 16 Feb 2007,
  • priapicmouse wrote:

Well personally i will reserve judgement on this programme until ive seen it.I would however hope that the producers came to the correct conclusion that there was no conspiracy.

  • 139.
  • At 10:51 PM on 17 Feb 2007,
  • Jay wrote:

I worked in Manhattan, but that day by chance I was home in Brooklyn readying for a 9:00 a.m. conference call. I was one of the lucky ones. The only person I'm aware of knowing personally walked out of Cantor Fitzgerald in Tower 1 at 8:30 that morning. Everyone he worked with and knew was kileed, over 700 people in that one company.

We Americans desperately need the international media to give this a fair look. Please do not turn this into a hit piece. We get enough grief and attacks as it is just talking about this.

Please look at the facts, not the theories.

Could 110 story skyscrapers collapse at almost free fall speed?

Could jet fuels fires melt steel or damage it enough to make it collapse?

Could any collapse completely atomize all the steel, concrete, aluminum, office furniture, computers, HVAC systems, and worst of all, people into a fine dust?

What made WTC # 7 fall later that day?

Why was FEMA in NY the night before and all set up?

How did a 757 jetliner fit through a 20 foot hole in the Pentagon?

Why won't they show us one of the hundreds of videos clearly showing Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon?

Who placed the thousands of put options on American, United, Morgan Stanley, Lockheed, Boeing in the three days before 9-11?

Why didn't Bush get up and leave the moment he knew it was a terrorist attack? Why didn't the Secret Service drag him out of there by his elbows?

Just try to answer those questions. That would be a fair way to look at the whole 9-11 "conspiracy" issue. We ask all the time. Now you ask, and answer if you can. Show us we're nuts.

  • 140.
  • At 10:53 PM on 17 Feb 2007,
  • Richard wrote:

It will be interesting to see if the BBC present a fair balanced programme with an emphasis on the facts. These facts, as we all know, point to an intricate inside job.

  • 141.
  • At 11:29 PM on 17 Feb 2007,
  • Josh wrote:

We should all know exactly what caused each of those buildings to fall, and those planes to become weapons. Without a full investigation we cannot know, without knowing we risk it happening again. The U.S. Government hiding evidence and lying about things will not only enrange conspiracies, but will take away the trust of the people. What do they have to hide? If they could do nothing to stop it, then they should have no problem with probes and questions, yet they do. If they we're not behind it, then answer the questions people have, that's their job. Yet, they hide.

It's like running from the police, if your running, you've probability done something wrong.

Can we convict U.S. Government or other governments officials of assisting in 9/11? or 7/7?

We will only know when we can catch the criminals and put them on trial. We must investigate! We must have the truth! We are the people of the world and we have been suppressed by power hungry leaders for thousands of years! No one can deny this! Fighting together for the truth is the only way to combat this tyranny.

I as a citizen of Earth, call for a full investigation of 9/11, for all our sakes.

  • 142.
  • At 11:32 PM on 17 Feb 2007,
  • DEBBIE wrote:


  • 143.
  • At 05:14 AM on 18 Feb 2007,
  • Jeff G wrote:

Anyone watching The Today show on 911 saw the first plane hit just over Katys right shoulder and hear a camera man make mention of that fact over live TV that morning. Yet to many ? remain and to many holes are in the official story. I can only hope that a fair and balanced report is done because ?ing an official account of any catastrophy effecting the safety and libertys of any peoples should be the top priority of its populace. Freedom hinges upon the ability of the people to ? those that were put into power. The press should be the voice that screams the loudest and ? the most.

  • 144.
  • At 07:26 AM on 18 Feb 2007,
  • Ross wrote:

I have watched some of the films made about these events and there are a lot of unexplained inconsistencies.

But the thing that really mystifies me is why the editors of "Popular Mechanics" were chosen to see evidence not available to us.

When I was a boy I subscribed to Popular Mechanics to find out about the latest thing in motor cars, motor cycles and other such. What's changed so much in the last 50 years at "Popular Mechanics" that they have become experts in these matters and why would they, the most unlikely candidates in my view, be chosen to present the "official" line?

Are there no publications devoted to air travel or manufacture of aeroplanes that would have been a better choice if the truth was to be made available?

I spent most of my working life as an engineer, including designing buildings, and the collapse of the Twin Towers could only have happened in the way it did if every rule of design had been ignored and sub-standard material had been used throughout. This is rather hard to believe.

  • 145.
  • At 12:55 PM on 18 Feb 2007,
  • garypowell wrote:

I dont design building or demolish them. I dont nead to be an "expert" to work out whether a plane hitting a building should bring the whole building crashing down. Because I have seen it happen in broad daylight. To put forward the view that the leader of the free world deliberately killed 3000 of its own people is compleatly insane. I seriously dont believe even the BBC believe this. However I do believe that BBC have every incentive and desire to cause hatered and mistrust of the USA and its republican government. One main reason for this is because the BBC have been misrepresenting G Bush ever since he stood for office.

If the choice is trust in the BBC, or the American government? Then I trust George Bush. I prefer to sleep at nights not believeing that the leader of the free world is trying to murder me and my children, just to make a fast buck. Quite frankly I think anyone that does believe such compleat rubbish IS INSANE.

  • 146.
  • At 01:15 PM on 18 Feb 2007,
  • James Roc wrote:

9/11 was without any doubt an inside Job. The truth will come out in the end and those responsible will be held fully accountable for this heinous crime against their own people and the world. Millions of people are going to die unless this crime syndicate that is in control of the US is stopped. Please be brave and air the balanced version and not the hit version Garth Ancier and others are putting you under pressure to air,


  • 147.
  • At 02:08 PM on 18 Feb 2007,
  • john bowen wrote:

We should expect a balanced and factual documentary, but I'm not holding my breath. Too many past experiences of being let down by mainstream media.

Not all that relevant in this internet age though - :O) - the cat is not only out of the bag, but through the door, out of the street, and heading for the hills at extreme speed.

  • 148.
  • At 02:24 PM on 18 Feb 2007,
  • Richard Robbins wrote:

Here's D Jowenko, a Dutch demolition expert saying that WTC7 was definitely a controlled demolition:

Jowenko states, "this was a hired job performed by a team of experts."

  • 149.
  • At 03:05 PM on 18 Feb 2007,
  • Ed wrote:

I am looking forward to this BBC documentary on Sunday about the 9/11 issues, but with much scepticism. Over the last few years there have been some serious issues, inconsistencies and conflicts between the government, media and alternative theories alike regarding the events on that terrible day. I think it is time for the BBC and other media to engage in this subject matter in a mature, rational and scientific debate and to stop trivialising these ignored facts. We can all agree that this is a serious issue it is time therefore to find out the whole truth, for the good of all of us.

  • 150.
  • At 05:34 PM on 18 Feb 2007,
  • Set wrote:

Expect this program to be a big hit-piece on the 9/11 truth movement. it will most likely concentrate on the wild
theories with no evidnece backing them rather than the facts of governent knowledge and complicity.

  • 151.
  • At 05:54 PM on 18 Feb 2007,
  • Andy wrote:

9/11 was an INSIDE JOB carried out by the BUSH crime family and other members of the BUSH administration - The CIA and the US Military were also involved in the HUGE cover up. The "illuminate Mafia" are running the show in the US have have been for several decades, certainly since they took over after they assinated JFK. - The "War on Terror" is a complete fantasy, a myth, a gigantic illusion created by this EVIL deception on 9/11. The US never went to the moon either, thats also a FACT. Those lying "Hollywood" astronauts... Amazing what you can learn on the internet.

9/11 was an INSIDE JOB - Our governments cannot lie to us anymore.

I don't see why people struggle with at least the possibility of 9/11 being connected to elements in US government.

For one, the steel from WTC was wisked away and melted down on behest of Mayor Giuliani an ex-prosecutor ...

If any individual had removed evidence of such importance they would be convicted in the public arena under suspicion alone.

Yet coupled with massive amounts of circumstancial and other evidence this hasn't been looked at as would an investigation into an individual.

Operation Northwoods clearly shows the mindset exists within the US system and yet I understand this won't even be covered in tonights programme .... why ... if you are serious about looking into it?

  • 153.
  • At 06:33 PM on 18 Feb 2007,
  • VIC wrote:

I too believe 9 11 was an inside job.I have poured over all the documentation of info from Info and watched Alex jones videos and am still going over the info as it arrives on the web,If you were to type in google- Bush and Osahma you will see that Osahma family have ties in Bush Family oil. Arbusto Energy : Arbusto means "bush"in spanish It is a texas oil company started by George w Bush.
And what about the Bohemian Grove ,,Doesnt take a rocket scientist to see whats going on there,Its not an innocent men hanging out together in my opinion ither!Wake up , if one is to afraid to Face the truths about 9 11 being un inside job,you best look at the concetration camps in every state of the USA,that have been set up in secret and are yet being built! There is a conspiracy and its in our Government. ACT NOW, Thank God for Alex Jones and all the people who want the truth, NO MORE LIES BUSH, NO MORE LIES

  • 154.
  • At 06:41 PM on 18 Feb 2007,
  • Brian wrote:

I have heard that the BBC is getting pressure to air an alternative version of the documentary that undermines the important questions that activists have brought up. The goal is to paint the conspiracy theorists as a fringe cult of fanatics. I think it is important for the BBC NOT to air that version to the American audience. Here is a great chance for the BBC to expose some important questions to the American audience. It doesn't need to indulge the alternative theories completely. But, it is important that the American people understand that there are lots of questions involving 9/11, whether or not they accept the implications or not it is important that they realize the truth about 9/11 is not as clear cut as the the official version of the events.

BBC Please air the balanced piece that highlights and acknowledges the validity of the arguments of the conspiracy theorists.

  • 155.
  • At 07:51 PM on 18 Feb 2007,
  • keith milton wrote:

the most protected building in the world,the pentagon,with thousands of cctv cameras pointing at it,and not one film showing the plane hitting the pentagon,very hard to believe.If they have film footage,why not show it and clear this all up.The reason is,is that no plane hit the pentagon.

  • 156.
  • At 07:53 PM on 18 Feb 2007,
  • Colin Oliver-Redgate wrote:

I am looking forward to seeing this evening's programme about the events surrounding 9/11. I will be looking for the following points to be covered 1)The free-fall collapse of WTC1 & 2; 2)The collapse of WTC7 at 5.30pm; 3)To discuss pre-9/11 PNAC reports, and PNAC participants; 4)A balanced witness testimony, particularly that of the Emergency Services; 5)To query the 'single' entry hole of a 'twin-engined' jet at the Pantagon; 6)To report the testimony of Air Traffic Control personnel who were monitoring the approach of what was alleged to be Flight 77; 7)How the deaths and disabilities from the environmental aftermath are reported; 8)How the ommissions and distortions of the 9/11 report are addressed; 9) the acknowledgement of the rapid growth of the 9/11 Truth Community; 10)Comments on the publications of 'Scholars For Truth', and 'The New Pearl Harbour' 11) Attempts to dismiss the 9/11 Truth Community as psycologically flawed; 12)Comments on the OTC resorting to ad hominem attacks on members of the Truth Community.
I hope you can have the courage of your convictions!

  • 157.
  • At 09:22 PM on 18 Feb 2007,
  • Marilyn Gordy wrote:

Its time BBC. Set an example for the United them that its better to fight for truth than to die for THEIR lies. Remember..........Jesus is watching.

  • 158.
  • At 09:29 PM on 18 Feb 2007,
  • chris wrote:

What s the point of writing you guys if you don t print it. I just don t get it-you people are sad, poor excuse for a news caster no better than fox

  • 159.
  • At 09:43 PM on 18 Feb 2007,
  • Marilyn Gordy wrote:

Watch LOOSECHANGE with your hearts. You will KNOW what is true. Plain and simple!

  • 160.
  • At 09:50 PM on 18 Feb 2007,
  • nathan wrote:

bottom line, this is the BBC's last opportunity to prove its integrity and to earn our respect. it will be certain where they stand following this broadcast. it is essential to their survival that they recognize that the people will no longer support the liars who serve murderers. do what's right BBC, you know what that is so stand up.

  • 161.
  • At 09:50 PM on 18 Feb 2007,
  • Jo wrote:

What on earth has the BBC produced? Not a balanced, evidence related account but a propaganda-led piece ridiculing those who dare to ask questions around this farcical horror.

For those who choose a lobotomy over daring to question the much-lacking evidence of the official account this unbelievable sweeping under the carpet approach will afford many a Mail reader a wry smile in the suburbs of ignorance.


  • 162.
  • At 10:02 PM on 18 Feb 2007,
  • Neil wrote:

Am watching it now and it has got to the bit about the 4000 Jewish people being tipped off not to go to work at the WTC that day.
I have to say that that is the first time I have heard of that conspiracy and they also do not talk about people like Willie Brown who was/is mayor of San Francisco being told not to fly into New York that day.
They do not speak to William Rodriguez who was a janitor at the WTC and heard explosion/s undergound before the 1st plane hit and then seeing his colleague come up with burns to his body or the fact that Bush only spoke to the commission with cheney by his side and not in public and not under oath plus they don't talk about all the families who did lose loved ones on that tragic day fighing for the truth because they know the government lied.

  • 163.
  • At 10:03 PM on 18 Feb 2007,
  • jim wrote:

erm,....terrible, a pathetically lightweight investigation into a serious topic. Really dreadful.
BBC really should be ashamed.

follow the money...

  • 164.
  • At 10:06 PM on 18 Feb 2007,
  • 101 wrote:

The BBC is owned!
Gareth Ancier got his way then.
I hope you can sleep well at night.
The Truth will come out in the end.

  • 165.
  • At 10:09 PM on 18 Feb 2007,
  • Nick wrote:

Just one message to mention about the documentary that I've just seen "COVER UP"

  • 166.
  • At 10:20 PM on 18 Feb 2007,
  • BBC Whitewash wrote:

I have never seen such a one sided waste of time as this documentary.

The BBC is continually preaching about the merits and importance of "balanced journalism" - yet strangely with this subject all that is thrown out of the window.

You'd think that with all the tens of millions of pounds the BBC is given in licence fees every year they could have produced a better interviewee to disprove conspiracy theories than one of the men behind the X-Files!!!!

At it's best that is laughable - at worst sheer incompetence.

This - I am sure - will never see the light of day on the internet - I just hope at least one person at the BBC reads it and stops to think for just one second about how one-sided that programme really was.

  • 167.
  • At 10:25 PM on 18 Feb 2007,
  • S. Taylor - Greaves wrote:

I thought this would be a balanced appraisal of the controversy surrounding 911 .I was disapointed .
Why has the BBC become 'conspiracy de-bunker' instead of 'truth-finder' ?
The programme attemped to disprove the theories by merely regurgatating U.S. Govt. spin . BBC - I'm paying your wages - NOT Uncle Sam !

  • 168.
  • At 10:28 PM on 18 Feb 2007,
  • G I Jones wrote:

After watching your documentary, I couldn't find any difference between official answers given by the US government and answers given by your program. If you think educated people around the world will take yours for answers, then you must have an unfortunate low perception of peoples' intelligence.

  • 169.
  • At 10:29 PM on 18 Feb 2007,
  • Kenneth John Parsons wrote:

Why wasn't the clip shown where Bush was informed by one of his advisors about the towers disaster, whilst sitting in a classrooom of a school that he was attending? Why didn't they show Bush totally stone-cold emotionless.
Why didn't this BBC whitewash reveal how the Bush and Bin Laden family go back years.
Why didn't they touch on the occult activities indulged in by Bush and his cronnies...e.g. Skull and Bones and The Bohemian Grove...these are not theories but provable facts...well attested to and documented.
Shame on the have shot yourself in the foot this time...and showed your Freemasonic leanings.
Of course, the Dr David Kelly documentary will be exactly the same...a big cover-up.

High rise steel buildings have never collapsed before or after 911. The concrete was pulverised into fine dust at ground zero. Drop concrete from a 1000ft and see if it pulverises to very fine dust, it doesn't happen. BYU physics analysis on some metal sample showed evidence for themate cutting charges on the molten metal. The firefighters heard secondary explosions. The buildings fell at free fall speed, approx 11 floors per second, which is another signature of controlled demolition. Are planes and there fuel load enough to cause this to happen? Skyscrapers have been engulfed in hotter fires than that of 911 and they never fell. A ww2 bomber plane lost in fog hit empire estate skyscaper in new york into the 79 floor, July 28 1945 yet the structural integrity of the building was not affected so did not fall.
The world trade centres were built to withstand hurricane force winds and were welded and bolted, a massive construction probably able to take multiple impacts from planes.

  • 171.
  • At 12:55 AM on 19 Feb 2007,
  • Glen Smith wrote:

I have just watched this program and i must say it did not answer any questions and to me was a complete white wash

Shame on the BBC for allowing such right winged junk on our TV

The BBC did do one good show a few years ago called the power of nightmares that was good journalism unlike the rubbish they did with this

why did they not show popular mechanics version of events then alex jones version of events?
I will tell you why because alex jones is more believable.

Why did they not mention that no steal structure has ever fallen due to fire and would never fall at free fall speed

why did they not mention that there were operations simulating the exact situation of planes flying in to buildings on 9/11?

why did they not mention the PNAC documents wrote in 2000 about how they need a pearl harbor type event to get public support to invade Iraq and Afghanistan?

Why did they show the nova simulation but forget to mention that even the simulation does not fall to the flaw in 8.4 seconds and it shows all the steal sticking up where were they on 9/11?

why did they not mention any of the web sites like or so people can make there own opinion?

Anyone who reads this please look at all the evidence and do something that the BBC and there producers did not do

  • 172.
  • At 12:59 AM on 19 Feb 2007,
  • Billy wrote:

Watching this documentary I have finally lost whatever faith I still had in the BBC's ability to produce unbiased coverage. The programme tried to portray 911 truth seekers as basically being nut jobs, backing this up with a farcical theory about us taking comfort in believing that our own goverements are prepared to murder us! When I first started to discover credible evidence that the buildings fell in a controlled demolition, I barely slept for 3 days, staying up all night doing research! I did not feel comfortable! Finally I was forced to concede that something was seriously wrong with the official version of events. This did not make me happy. I tried to disprove it. I watched all the "debunk" films that claim to disprove it for you. I read the NIST report. But the facts are out there, and they basically come down to fairly dull and unglamorous physics.

So please, don't be a sheep. Do your own research. Loose change is made by young guys who like conspiracy theories, and consequently is full of unprovable "theories" which may well be complete nonsense. But there are many academics, politicians, military personell and other "respectable" people out there who are also seriously questioning the official story. Don't believe the propaganda. DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH PLEASE!!! Here's a link to get you started:

  • 173.
  • At 01:10 AM on 19 Feb 2007,
  • Paul wrote:

How I detest the BBC. The sooner this politically biased organization closes down the better.

  • 174.
  • At 02:10 AM on 19 Feb 2007,
  • Monty Freedman wrote:

This was poor TV. If you have the time (which most people don't) you should investigate the plethora of evidence out there concerning what really happened on 9/11. Unfortunately, what the BBC has done is isolate 'theories' that are on the fringe, the ones that are easy to debunk, in order to lead viewers to a false conclusion. 'Descredit the discreditors'. Whether you consider me fortunate or not to have had enough time to read up on this myself, I can say that tonights programme does not cover that major evidence pointing towards 9/11 being an inside job and has in fact deployed theories that I have never heard before. Mmmm, why is this?
If I were charged with producing a 9/11 documentary with two objectives, one being appear objective in your assessment and the other toe the official story line, then my resulting piece of work could not have been better woven than the programme I watched tonight.
We all have such busy lives, so questioning the mainstream accepted truth is something very few of us have time for. If you do find the time then what you find will horrify you. I have come to terms with my horror now leaving only sorrow that the truth will be lost will once again be blurred with disinformation and worse still, the persecution of those brave and/or stupid enough to open their eyes and see the lies upon which our whole understanding of the world we live in are constructed.

  • 175.
  • At 02:11 AM on 19 Feb 2007,
  • garypowell wrote:

I hope you crazy conspiracy people are hanging your heads in shame, now that you have seen the documentary. Do you still think the leader of the free world murders his own people?

  • 177.
  • At 03:13 AM on 19 Feb 2007,
  • isaias rivera wrote:


i live in the bronx newyork, i waited till sunday at 9:00p.m. for this documentory on the bbc, it comes on channel 104, on my cable t.v., my cable providers name is called cablevision,

  • 178.
  • At 08:24 AM on 19 Feb 2007,
  • mark.d wrote:

So which is it? Fear or laziness?Both?
Are you seriously trying to tell us that
you couldn't find anyone better than some guy from "Popular Mechanics" to talk about the Physics involved in the collapse of the Twin Towers?
And what exactly has the producer of the
"x-files" got to do with anything?
Have you spent any time at all researching this subject?Even from watching a few of hours of the stuff on "YouTube",anyone with a functional brain can see that a lot of excellent people have legitimate concerns about almost every aspect of the Official Story.It's not confined to a few "internet crazies".Is Maj.Gen.Stubblebine(see"YouTube")a conspiracy nut?Or how about ex-CIA analyst Robert McNamara,paranoid weirdo?Or Noam Chomsky?The list goes on and on.
There is serious stuff going on here and the BBC is just mucking about.
Ok,we're at war,so we can't really expect honesty from the media.You don't want to lose your jobs.You've got your mortgage to think about....and all the parents of dead Iraqi children....well,I'm sure they'll understand.
The more you pretend this stuff isn't really happening or that it's not important,the more contemptible and irresponsible you look.
T.V. isn't the only show in town anymore.

  • 179.
  • At 08:57 AM on 19 Feb 2007,
  • mark.d wrote:

Actually ex-CIA analyst is Ray McGovern,not McNamara.Essential viewing.
Also "911Press for Truth",the story of the"Jersey Girls" is well worth watching.

  • 180.
  • At 09:04 AM on 19 Feb 2007,
  • A.D. wrote:

The programme was shameful and unscholarly.

No proper balanced scientific debate; just manure for the masses. Shame on you BBC!

  • 181.
  • At 09:43 AM on 19 Feb 2007,
  • Douglas wrote:

I watched it with another conspiricist and two non-conspiricists. Now we are 4 conspiricists. It is that clear cut a case. Nice one beeb, but a truly investigative programme would be good.

  • 182.
  • At 10:15 AM on 19 Feb 2007,
  • David Starr wrote:

I have a point that I would like to raise. Larry Silverstein the leaseholder of the World Trade Centre and Building 7 was recorded on television commenting on why building 7 collapsed. "I remember getting a call from the fire department commander telling me that they were not sure they were going to be able to contain the fire. And I said you know we have had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is PULL IT eeerr AND THEY MADE THAT DECISION TO PULL IT, AND WE WATCHED THE BUILDING COLLAPSE". Please remember that Building 7 was a 47 storey steel framed skyscraper that was NOT hit by a plane.

  • 183.
  • At 10:36 AM on 19 Feb 2007,
  • Peter Leitch wrote:

Shame on the BBC for presenting the events 0f 9-11 in such a carefully contrived way. Where was the discussion of the molten pools of steel in the basements of all three buildings which fell that terrible day. Where was the filmed evidence of police and firefighters who were actually in the buildings and reported hearing multiple explosions. Where the discussion on the seismic evidence that recorded seismic shocks before the buildings collapsed. Where the report that prior to 9-11 no steel framed building ever collapsed due to fire but on 9-11 three did! Remember the hotel in Madrid that burned for hours, the steel superstructure remained intact. Where the discussion on thermate, why no mention of the professors of physics, engineering, chemistry etc who flatly refute the official explanation of 9-11. Where any comment from Boeing pilots who reject any suggestion that people who could not even fly small light aircraft are supposed to have flown with remarkable dexterity, large passenger planes. These comments do not even scratch the surface of unanswered questions that pertain to 9-11. The BBC hit piece was an embarrassment at best.

  • 184.
  • At 10:39 AM on 19 Feb 2007,
  • Derren wrote:

The program was a joke. Nothing moore than a hit piece to make anyone that questions 911 sound like a conspiracy nut. It never looked deep into the facts, depending rather to turn it into an emotional piece of propoganda.

No-one is clutching at something as the programme tried to point out. People want answers to questions they've not been given, that is all.

BBC - you only prove that your strings are being pulled by someone else and the programme gave nothing more than tabloid sensationalist journalism, the kind I'd expect of The Sun.

Obviously, this won't get ptinted or it will be edited but there you go. Freedom of speech so long as it's YOUR speech.

  • 185.
  • At 10:47 AM on 19 Feb 2007,
  • Luke wrote:

I totally agree with David Chadburn's previous post.

Originally I joked with friends that the 9-11 'documentary' would be aired on a conspiracy nutcase themed evening stuck between 'Did we really land on the moon' and 'Was John Lennon killed by the CIA' programmes. Instead it was wedged between 'Top Gear' (that featured their efforts of trying to put a transit van into space!) and the Kurt Cobain documentary that featured a couple of fruit loops who suggested his death was at the hands of another and not suicide. So, I wasn't far wrong!

But seriously like David Chadburn pointed out the real solid scientific evidence that throws doubt on the official story was washed over by the Beeb. And as I first thought was just an exercise to discredit 9-11 truth seekers. Rather than feature the woman who lost her brother and was obviously towing the offical line, why not feature the case of the 9-11 widows from New Jersey who continue to be stoned walled by the US government in their quest for the truth behind the loss of their loved ones.

I believe the Beeb had made two cuts of this programme and the one that was aired had been approved by the new head of the BBC's commercial operations in the US, which says it all.

The conclusion of the programme was that some people find it more comforting and easier to believe it was an inside job rather than a result of terrorist activity. Surely the reverse is true because more people accept the 'Official' version of events.

The purpose of the Beeb programme was to muddy the waters and it certainly achieved that objective

  • 186.
  • At 10:57 AM on 19 Feb 2007,
  • Diane Stewart wrote:


is it possible to that the second 9/11 BBC documentary that you have produced - the proper investigation, will be aired or made available through the BBC DVD? Your programme last night was certainly not your best work and I'm sure you will attest was not designed to be presented as cutting edge investigative journo. Mr Rudin please push to broadcast your best work and instill my and many others confidence in honest professional British broadcasting, brought by license payers such as yourself.
In hope
Diane Stewart

  • 187.
  • At 11:20 AM on 19 Feb 2007,
  • spiepie wrote:

What a waste of licence payers money
you should be sacked!

  • 188.
  • At 11:24 AM on 19 Feb 2007,
  • Ted Baker wrote:

I was extremely disappointed with the findings of the BBC's Conspiracy Files, it was nothing more than an extravagant cover-up of what really happened on 9/11 and an attempt to rubbish all "conspiracy theorists" as losers or basket-cases or both into the bargain. I guess we should have expected as much; the official media is merely a political arm of the government. Funny how general thinking on the net at present is quite the opposite of any 'official' release...

  • 189.
  • At 12:03 PM on 19 Feb 2007,
  • Andy Tedd wrote:


As someone who used to work at the BBC, I thought the programme was far too respectful of the ideas of the conspiracy theorists on it, which do not stand up for even a few seconds.

The ideas are simply not credible when exposed to the most basic journalistic scrutiny and were explained away in most cases with some very simple science and a small amount of legwork (eg measuring distance to the wreckage as the crow flies)

I understand the difficulty you must have faced when trying not to appear partial about these arguments, but in doing so the programme came across as too soft. And will therefore feed into the hands of the 'BBC is anti-US' lobby. These ideas have little more credibility than those supporting a flat Earth. And the people spouting them should have been given a MUCH tougher time.

As it is, for once this thread has been picked up by the 'BBC part of corporate media hegemony' agenda :).

  • 190.
  • At 12:37 PM on 19 Feb 2007,
  • douglas wrote:

Considering the blogs you must have had since saturday that comment from the 19th is really funnily pathetic. A balanced representation I'm sure. It will take arguments and evidence to unconvince people, repeated riducule just ain't working.

What a shame the BBC had the opportunity to create a fair and balanced discussion about the events of Sept 11th, and yet, as is always easier, you just gave us a one sided smear piece dressed up as an even handed, 'sober' account of both sides of the debate. The reality is that you didn't actually deal with any details per se and just decided to gloss over all the major points of contention (if you even mentioned them at all), and painted the 'theorists' as somewhat unstable muck-spreaders.
Frankly, the chap from the X-Files was a complete waste of time, and only served as weak back-up for the idea that the truth-seekers are just 'crazy'. As for the conspiracy about the Jews, i mean please, i have researched this topic heavily, and i've never even heard of that theory. And even if it were a theory do you really think it serious enough to warrant explanation?! No. I'm sorry BBC, but that was a one-sided waste of an hour. None of the issues were suitably addressed, it was clearly bias, the evidence used to dismiss the conspiracy theorists was equally as weak as you claim their evidence is. Where was the in depth analysis of the physics of the towers falling, and you still used the computer simulation that shows the Core STILL standing!
If you want my fees any longer, or my viewing figures, then i suggest you completely re-asses this program and do a follow up with a round table discussion that includes not only Alex Jones, but structural engineers, physics professors, architects and an array of political and social commentators.. And if you do do that, please try and ensure you've invited enough people from BOTH sides of the argument, and give them time to air the genuine issues, as opposed to your blinkered, oversimplistic, ideas on what the theories are and your consequent sweeping generalisations.
Very dissapointed... (and please excuse my spelling and my brisk assessment, but i'm at work and would need much more time to eloquently dissect your piece).

  • 192.
  • At 01:34 PM on 19 Feb 2007,
  • Simon Williams wrote:

As far as the 9/11 ‘conspiracy’ goes, let me tell you something; it isn’t about the conclusion Dylan Avery or his cohorts arrive at or anyone else; it’s the fact a sizeable number of people reject the ‘official’ explanation for 9/11.

If you think your team of BBC researchers can simply spend a minimum amount of time researching this issue and along the way ‘debunk’ the popularist theories behind a movement that disagrees with the official line of 9/11 then you achieved your objective. However, let me say this; that you included the ultra sensationalist Alex Jones at all in your programme simply highlights your own ignorance which frankly borders on stupidity.

I’d go as far to say that you are in fact only interested in ratings. Consider the kind of investigative reporting from the 70’s such as ‘The World in Action’ (which in itself would probably only find a home on the today’s Internet) and now consider how very far away you are from those standards.

The BBC is not unbiased. No one should expect this when the result of the Hutton enquiry effectively put a muzzle on what was left of sincere journalistic enquiry. When you consider the BBC is dependant on governmental ‘goodwill’ for its continued right to a television license and that there are plenty of restrictions about how events in the world must legally be reported, it is a nonsense to suggest so, or even to project an image where gullible people would assume so.

We are all unlikely to ever get to the bottom of what motivates individual actions in the sense that we discover each individual motive behind world events. What can be said however is that whilst you and others like you attempt to portray the world in dualistic terms of black and white, anyone with any sense knows that the greater the picture perceived, the only thing that holds it all together rationally, is self interest and as such world events can be better understood when we view the world in shades of grey.

Good luck with your series, I hope it entertains many people and provides the viewing statistics you hope for. In the meantime, people who themselves have a rational self-interest in understanding the world we live in will get their information from alternative sources, secure in the knowledge they have the ability to accurately discern trend from propaganda.

Well - I would LOVE to comment - However, BBC in their infinite wisdom seem to think that people in Wales would love to watch, on all BBC available channels, damn Snooker instead..
Am I peeved!!
Any chance you folks at the BBC will show this doc again very soon - BBC 3 or 4 or even on BBC Wales..


  • 194.
  • At 02:00 PM on 19 Feb 2007,
  • Peter Cleall wrote:

The programme on 9/11 was a definite 'hit piece'. Many concerns were not addressed - why did none of the names of the alleged hijackers appear on the published passenger manifests? Why did the producers not investigate the 'put options' on United Airlines prior to the event? Why did they not investigate the fact that at least seven alleged hijackers have turned up in several locations around the world since being named? The list goes on and on. The programme was actually a shoddy, cowardly and biased enterprise. There is certainly room for a thoughtful and honest appraisal of the official lies and misinformation about 9/11. This programme was certainly not it.

  • 195.
  • At 02:04 PM on 19 Feb 2007,
  • Chris Vezey wrote:

Not everyone who thinks the US administration is hiding something is a nut.

This list of the great and the good range from Federal Government officials, US military officers, US intelligence officials, senior members of foreign governments.

  • 196.
  • At 02:05 PM on 19 Feb 2007,
  • Alan Johnson wrote:

well done BBC for bringing the subject of a possible 9/11 conspiracy to a wider audience,
however, i was disappointed that you used the "loose change" video as your source for most of the theories,
the loose change video is only one of many videos and websites out there, and has been largely discredited even by conspiracy theorists,
you failed to mention or interview the witnesses who reported working in the basement of one of the towers who were injured in explosions that took place in the basement of one of the towers BEFORE the impact of any plane, also the fact that the towers fell at or near free fall speed, and the fact that at no time in history has a steel framed building collapsed due to fire EVER, before or since, there are many steel framed buildings that have had intense fires raging in them for up to 24 hours and still did not collapse,
yet we are expected to believe that not one...but THREE bulidings collapsed on the same day, one of which wasnt even struck by an aircraft, and what about the EXPERIENCED fire fighters who are RECORDED saying that they could easily control the fires in the both towers, and they also report hearing several explosions inside the towers prior to their collapse,
i realise that time for the programme is limited, but you could have concentrated more on the physics of the collapse of the towers, because conspiracy theorists can speculate till the end of time...but niether terroists nor government agencies CAN alter the laws of physics,
the towers fell at near free fall speed....explain!

  • 197.
  • At 02:15 PM on 19 Feb 2007,
  • Bob wrote:

A german saying is more or less "Whose bread I eat, its song is sing" and this is the question for the (so called) journalists. They don't seem to have a problem to print or broadcast the nonsense of weapons of mass destruction etc.etc. Why don't they do it at least in the same size, when they know it was not true and costs thousands of lifes?
It was their former job to ask questions instead of repeating press releases like a shout box.
I hope they can stand the grandchildren question "What did you do during that dramatic and changing period?".

In response to comment 110; If you were to actually research this yourself, you would find that ALL of the arguments and conspiricies that the doc. tried to debunk, were infact exteme over simplifications of the issues and concerns. Not only this, but really, suggesting that the theories dealt with on the show last night encompassed all the important points is just laughable and exposes your own ignorance on the subject. Rather then sentimantal, compassionate flag-waving, perhaps we could have a balanced forum that deals with the issues at hand (and that have caused all the furore), rather then just what the BBC reckons might be the most pressing issues.

Having done extensive research myself, i can assure you that the BBC doc barely touched on any of the real issues that answers are being pushed for, and really just dusted over the tops of a few relevant issues before going into properly loopy theories like the Jews being responsible. I shouldn't have to pay for programs that are so ill concieved and bias. What happened to proper investigative journalism? I don't care who gets upset by these issue, its about time we had a disscompassionate debate about it rather then jumping on either of the bandwagons.
..... poor.

  • 199.
  • At 02:40 PM on 19 Feb 2007,
  • Ian wrote:

Your documentary was probably the most pathetic thing I have ever seen on TV. It is sad we are forced to pay for the utter garbage you guys produce.

The BBC has shown it's true colours.
Maybe BBC FOX is a more appropriate name.
I am really dissapointed by this propoganda attempt.

  • 201.
  • At 03:07 PM on 19 Feb 2007,
  • Ravi wrote:

"You only have to look at History to find examples of similar lies and deceptions"

-------------------------------------Exactly Dave,

"Within hours of the judgment, the Foreign Office announced that it would not be possible for them to return to Diego Garcia because of a "treaty" with Washington - in truth, a deal concealed from parliament and the US Congress.",,1317945,00.html

The BBC's Sunday night program "The Conspiracy Files" (18th Feb 2007) was an insult to the intelligence of anyone who has seen ALL the evidence for some US government involvement in the controlled demolition of the twin towers and WTC7.

"The Conspiracy Files" Modus Operandi consisted of presenting "wacky" conspiracy theories and then "debunking" them by trotting out the official story, that is, the official story which has been shredded and refuted so thoroughly in (one example) "9/11 Mysteries".

"9/11 Mysteries" takes one and a half hours to present the evidence for controlled demolition, the BBC's program ommited 90% of the available evidence and was a program quite obviously designed to undermine the search for truth.

If only I wouldn't be fined/jailed for witholding my license fee! I hope very much that one of the many TV channels currently making a living without the mandatory support of every TV owner in the country, will take it on themselves to air some of the more detailed, fully researched 9/11 perspectives. When that happens, the BBC's pitiful attempt to further obfuscate the truth will become glaringly obvious,

I have no respect for any organisation which takes money off me by law then uses it to fund deliberately distorted versions of reality, which it presents as an honest attempt at investigation.

  • 203.
  • At 03:22 PM on 19 Feb 2007,
  • Robert Taylor wrote:

I was eagerly looking forward to your show regarding the 9/11 attacks, having myself done some research into the events of that day and the so called 9/11 Truth Movement. There are some pressing questions that I had hoped you might find answers for, or at least bring to light in order to initiate some sort of debate on an otherwise case-closed subject.

The documentary you aired however, was nothing short of a complete sham.

As a lot of the mainstream media at home and in the US have done when 'investigating' this subject, you skirted around the most glaring of inadequacies in the official story, and instead spent time highlighting some of the more erroneous and inaccurate conspiracy claims and speculations, interspersing this with comments from interviewees (such as a script writer from the X-Files (?)) about how desperate conspiracy theorists are to cling on to their wacky ideas. What sort of investigation is this?

  • 204.
  • At 03:27 PM on 19 Feb 2007,
  • angela wrote:

The programme shown by the BBC last night was a farce. Anyone who as done any real research knows 911 was an inside job. The twin towers were the ONLY steel buildings to ever come down by fire. The japanese designer says the buildings were designed to take multiple hits from planes. I keep hearing how disrespectful it is to the victoms families to not let the matter rest but im sure the these families want real answers. Why would the government not answer the questions if there is nothing to hide. The truth will come out one day no matter how propaganda the establishment bombard us with

  • 205.
  • At 09:31 PM on 19 Feb 2007,
  • sctt_penn wrote:

no BBC in my house anymore total white wash of 911....

BBC blair broadcasting co

we know 911 = insidejob.

  • 206.
  • At 09:33 PM on 19 Feb 2007,
  • Callan wrote:

A very flawed and biased programme.
Dylan Avery put the BBC effort to shame with his laptop.
Why didn't your reporters talk to the many engineers,Inteligence service operatives, congressmen and women,who also dispute the "official" story?
Why didn't the BBC interview the many family members of the 9/11 victims who are unsatisfied with the official story and are demanding answers?
Why did your reporters not include the testimonies of the many people who were actually there...and also dispute the "official" story?
Why won't the BBC interview William Rodriguez, the last man out from the twin towers, who's story was on the front page of so many major newspapers and on so many tv programmes until he refused to stop asking "awkwad" questions about 9/11?
Why didn't the programme mention that the NIST did not include the testimonies of William Rodriguez and others who actually survived the catastrophe?
Or mention that the NIST report only answered 27 of the 196 asked?
Shame on you BBC.
It seems independance and objective reporting is a thing of the past.
I watched this programme with people from both sides of the argument...and I know what side I take now.

  • 207.
  • At 09:38 PM on 19 Feb 2007,
  • Rob D. wrote:

Oh, I'd like to remind all the Truthers out there that although WTC 7 did not get hit by an airplane, it WAS hit by a collapsing 110 story (or storey for you Brits) building. Also, because the building housed the OEM command center, it also housed thousands of gallons of generator fuel which burned out of control for hours before the building collapsed.

  • 208.
  • At 09:51 PM on 19 Feb 2007,
  • Jayhawk wrote:

Yes all that, BBC, all that (except number 120 of course; made up name). You really are a joke. Why not put the rest of the series under "Comedy", you'll get great viewing figures. Anyone got the DG's email address?

  • 209.
  • At 10:00 PM on 19 Feb 2007,
  • Mark wrote:

Ahhh Reason...

I wished all people had this faculty.

Why do you nitwits think this was a conspiracy?

Stop it and grow up!

Move on with your lives. Yes maybe in the future we will have implants forced upon us by some draconian entity. But that will be done for a good reason, dont you think?

How could anyone cover something like this up? The world over is made up of whistleblowers and those that want to expose the American Government as evil. Why have they not done this yet?

  • 210.
  • At 10:56 PM on 19 Feb 2007,
  • boogs wrote:

Utterly disgracefull program, CLEARLY designed to protect the US administration.

Completely ignored all the facts, and instead focussed on how people create alternative realities, as the truth is to horrible to bear.

What ? Come again ?

People cant bear that the foreign terrorists were responsible for 9-11, SO INSTEAD they take solice in the fact it was the US government ?

If you are going to try to ignore the facts, at least try to do it with something that MAKES SENSE.

Stupid, illogical, nonsensical conclusions like that, just make the program makers look pathetic.

It was like the german guy , explaining about the plane that hit the pentagon, saying that the fuel would have gone into the building causing damage.

YES, and ?

He totally ignored the fact, that 2 six tonne engines not only disappeared, but made no impact on the building.

Anyone ignoring these very clear facts, and yet insisting they know better, is simply aiding and abetting mass murderers.

  • 211.
  • At 12:01 AM on 20 Feb 2007,
  • Eric McCastre wrote:

Really poor effort. It was so bad I thought it was actually pro conspiracy in places. No one would have swallowed such weak nonsense without spitting it out. Maybe that was the intention.

That's the first BBC programme I've watched for five years. It may be ten before I watch another.

Hhmm.... having read Professor Griffin's scholarly work on the various 9-11 anomalies, and having an MIT physics background myself, I had a really uncomfortable feeling watching the programme last night. Almost a feeling that the BBC has become a "stealth" debunkiing tool of the power elite.

The programme didn't explain the pre-9/11 trading issue on just AA and UA put options stock, or exactly how a modest fire could flatten such a huge building as WTC 7 (a first in history, by the way), or WTC owner Larry Silverstein saying on air that they decided to "pull" this building (jargon for "demolition"). If the Twin Towers HAD pancaked, there would have been huge central columns left standing, and then toppling. All the steel was left in short sections, as in demolitions. The kinetic energy required to create so much fine concrete dust powder does not equate with the gratitational energy of the collapse. Also, the collapse was at near free-fall rate, which completely discounts any pancake collapse. (also, freefall is a symptom of a controlled demolition). Yes, there were so many CENTRAL and CRUCIAL aspects left out of the analysis last night that the programme itself had the well-crafted, emotional pandering and evasive smell of being part of the disinformation cover-up itself. Very sad.

Do people know that one of the longest standing Labour Members of Parliament, and Tony Blair's environment minister 1997 to 2003, Sir Michael Meacher, supports Griffin's courageous and impeccable spade work on this subject? Why leave such a senior politician out of such a programme? Or Professor Griffin? His talk in Sept in Holborn was PACKED. And then he was live on the Gloria Hunniford Heaven on Earth Show!

Shoddy work, suspicious motives. A fundamental and urgent need of the time very badly missed.

  • 213.
  • At 04:18 AM on 20 Feb 2007,
  • david wrote:

Can't say I watched it. Why would I? Does anyone really think that the BBC would blow the lid off this?? Come off it. And any way I don't own a TV licence and I haven't for a long time now and judging from this report published yesterday I'm going to be joined by a fair few others. Don't buy a licence, turn off your TV and stop supporting theses liars.

  • 214.
  • At 04:52 AM on 20 Feb 2007,
  • wrote:

Why was there no mention of Larry A Silverstein insuring the whole complex 6 weeks before 9-11. Why not pick up on the fact that he was the lease holder of these building riddled with asbestos and World Trade No 7 is the only steel building in history to colapse due to a fire... The airline stocks rocketing abnormally on the morning of the attacks and the damage to the Pentagon was misleading...Whatever hit it broke through many layers of reinforced wall which would make it scientifically impossible to have been a plane.

  • 215.
  • At 05:29 AM on 20 Feb 2007,
  • Disinformation TicV wrote:

BBC, lap-dogs of recently appointed US chief Garth Ancier who pressurised the corporation to air the version that portrays the 9/11 truth movement as a fringe cult of mythology in a bid to protect BBC's American market.

Ah' most people wont know that the BBC produced TWO versions of this so called in-depth documentary. The "Whitewash" version was aired at the emphatic insistence of truth evader chief - Ancier.

The leverage(threats) Ancier used to convince the "ministry of truth" were despicable "fear tactics", that the BBC's popularity in the USA could be greatly harmed if the 9/11 truth movement were shown as being anything other than demented kook's.

No mention of Silverstein buying the towers only months before, then increasing the insurance by astronomical proportions, or the fact that the only three Buildings, the other being Building 7,which erm "collapsed" on that day were all owned by guess who folks?..Larry Silverstein!, who also gave the order for Building 7 to be pulled. Pulled with what exactly, long ropes?, it would take a team of army explosives experts weeks to rig a building of that size in order for it to be "pulled". Bit of a give-away eh?, all this information WAS FULLY available to the BBC, draw your own conclusions folks.

No mention of Geb Bush(brother of the erm "president") who was in overall charge of security contractor for the very soon to be "9/11 site" and who's contract miraculously ended guess when folks?....the day of our lord(Silverstein perhaps?) beginning 9th of september...that's 9/11 to the idiots like us as the BBC apparently view us erm VIEWERS.

What another glaring omission???

Oh well, "Operation Northwoods" if googled(hint), will provide documented and now declassified - the pre-meditation,the motives behind, and the various modus operandi that could be employed by the USA's Top Brass, including: the use of "False Flag" terror operations within the USA itself and aimed at US Cities and their own citizens.

But they wouldn't blow up the Twin Towers now would they?, or building 7?, or stage a not so far in the future(spring-ish anyone?) major new "False Flag" attack, perhaps even a low level nuke in a US city with the cries of(2mins after such an alleged attack) "it' was them dirty EYEranians wot done it!" and eye witnesses who will swear they saw everything and that "yes sir, I was the guy who found that 100% genuine EYEraian PASSPORT which fell outta that there Nooklee-ar bomb - it just kinda fluttered on down out of the sky and landed at my feet, it had a card attached to it which read ::Death to Iran kiss kiss::, and that was when I put two and two together sir, they cant fool me no siree, cause i'm an American patriot!" adding "was that good enough sir?, and how long will this here cheque take to clear?"

Joke scenario or not, you decide, but please go check out the REAL facts for yourselves, stop relying on others to tell you what news THEY want you to hear and see.

The TRUTH is not an easy thing to find in this media driven,spin doctored and censored world in which we all live. The TRUTH takes the effort of merely searching, the rewards however are, i must warn you, deeply shocking and disturbing, the journey will both open and free your mind, and it's a well trodden path of Truth that stretches out in front of you folk's, the easy to follow tracks were made by courageous pioneers who simply said - I will not allow myelf to be LIED to ever again.

When is national FALSE FLAG day anyway?

  • 216.
  • At 07:29 AM on 20 Feb 2007,
  • Eric james wrote:

BBC You belong to me...
I don't pay for you to lie to me!
I don't pay for you to stab me in the back!!
I don't pay for you to serve the Government and the corporations!!!

This has really annoyed me..a documentary that poor which does not represent my view in total fairness, seriously undermimes the value of the T.V license...hence my refusal to pay for one! Which at the same time deprives me of the truth Which I would otherwise be paying my License for and the truth is something I am more than entitled to when it comes down to it...

Mr Smith should of given his and everyone else's commonsense a chance by producing a fair and balanced documentary. How come he would use the label "conspiracy theorys" with implications as being something other and contrary to the official story which then makes it into somewhat of a derogatory statement with negative connotations. How can a man such as this be at the helm of the production of an objective and impartial documentary. if anything the opposing view to the official story should not be called conspiracy theory but instead, both opposing views should hold that label.

A more acurate title in line with the content should of been "De-bunking the opposing view to the official 9/11 story" instead of the rather broadly titled "Conspiracy Files" then at least we would know what was in store for us.

No I am not happy and have no choice but to see the documentary as sly and underhand.

  • 217.
  • At 09:27 AM on 20 Feb 2007,
  • Richard Combers wrote:

I was both surprised and disturbed by the documentary into 911. I have looked at all the evidence available over the last 2 years and find it 'worrying' that the BBC convieniently ignored most of the hard facts regarding the attack in a supposedly balanced program - shame on you - where did the impartiality go ? Perhaps the BBC is nothing more now that a lap dog to the real powerbrokers in the US.
Manipulation of the media by a small number of incredibly wealthy individuals is finally putting paid to an organization that was until recently regarded as supreme for 'honest and unbiased' reporting.

In future history books, the BBC will be compared with the Reichspropagandaministerium.

Bending the people into obedience.

  • 219.
  • At 11:22 AM on 20 Feb 2007,
  • Marco wrote:

Those of you who find it hard to believe that the Government had involvement in 9/11 show read a book by Michael C Ruppert called Crossing the Rubicon. It is written by an ex-LAPD policeman in the form of factual evidence rather than theory.

It goes far beyond the scope of the attacks to look at the events prior to 9/11 - i.e when the US and UK government were sending troops down to Iraq to prepare for war (that's right we hadden't declared war yet and the towers were still standing at this point!).

If you still don't believe the truth movement then good luck to you and I hope you enjoy the chip which will soon be implanted in your arm!

  • 220.
  • At 11:49 AM on 20 Feb 2007,
  • John Platts wrote:

So you think the conspiracy theorists are all mad? Watch this video, paste this link into your browser and WATCH THIS VIDEO!

  • 221.
  • At 12:22 PM on 20 Feb 2007,
  • Frank wrote:

It would be easy to dismiss any lingering doubts about the official account of 9/11 and about whether anyone within the government sought to facilitate the attacks.

All you need to do is appoint an independent Commission. But after all the stonewalling, what we got was the 9/11 Commission, the Executive Director of which (Philip Zelikow) is an academic with very close links to the inner circle of the Bush Admin. He was on the National Security Council in the Bush I administration. He co-authored a book with Condoleeza Rice during the Clinton years. He served on the National Security Council's team for the transition from Clinton to Bush II. He served on Bush II's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board until becoming ED of the 9/11 Commission. The Family Steering Committee for the 9/11 Commission called for Zelikow's removal because of his close links to the Admin, unsuccessfully.

Note also that the ED is a key decision-maker in organizing a Congressional inquiry, responsible for choosing the line of inquiry, directing the investigative teams, deciding which witnesses to present to Congressional members, approving witness statements, overseeing the drafting of the report, etc.

I was looking forward to a careful survey of the most troubling elements of the idea that the US government played some role. But the BBC programme focused too much on ridiculous claims (especially the one that Mossad tipped off 4000 Jews... why waste our time?) and on the psychology of conspiracy theorists, instead of more serious issues involving eg the different expert assessments of the structural evidence at the WTC, whether video of the Pentagon crash is being withheld on national security grounds, or the Le Figaro report (31 Oct 2001) by Swiss investigative journalist Richard Labeviere that, two months before 9/11, Bin Laden spent two weeks in the American Hospital in Dubai where he was treated by Dr Terry Callaway and where he was visited by local CIA agent Larry Mitchell and by then-head of Saudi intelligence Prince Turki. On this last report, for instance, the 9/11 Commission unfortunately declined to use its subpoena power to call Dr Callaway to testify, and did not mention him or Labeviere or Mitchell in its report.

Probably most of the doubts about what happened can be answered. But anyone who cares about that wouldn't hide behind the pain of those who lost loved ones or the supposed credibility of US security intelligence agencies in order to deflect the more difficult questions about whether the US government played a role beyond simple failures to react. We need an independent Commission into whether the US government played a role in 9/11 and the failure to call one is obviously troubling.

For a serious and detailed critique, see DR Griffin (with whom I have no connection!), The 9/11 Commission Report-Omissions and Distortions, Olive Branch Press.

  • 222.
  • At 04:47 PM on 20 Feb 2007,
  • Chris wrote:

Just watch the videos of the WTC Buildings collapsing carefully. If you can, pretend you are watching it for the first time. Then watch it several times.

WTC 1 and 2 were among the strongest, most robust structures ever built. If the buildings collapsed because of structural damage and fire, per the OCT, the collapse would have started in the areas weakened by the fires and would have proceeded in a NON-symmetrical pattern - not perfectly uniform and straight down. The top of the tower would have leaned over and eventually fallen off leaving roughly the bottom two thirds of the building [for WTC 1 and2} standing.

The even symmetry, free wall speed of the three collapses, dust, pulverization of ALL the concrete, smoldering fires at temperatures well above what jet fuel or office consumables would support, weeks later, shredding of massive steel columns into convenient two story lengths the entire height of the building, plus the analysis of the few remaining columns conclusively proving that thermate was used leave no possible conclusion other than controlled demolition. Must listen to Sherlock's approach.

All the name-calling and foul language just cannot get around the facts for those with the curiosity and intellect to discover. WTC 1,2, and 7 were bought down by controlled demolition and it is highly unlikely [meaning impossible] that these controlled demos were planned and executed from a cave in Afghanistan.

As for BBC presenting more hyped support of the OCT versus what really happened, the truth will eventually come out and people will remember what BBC elected to do.

  • 223.
  • At 12:50 PM on 24 Feb 2007,
  • Jim wrote:

I was absolutely disgusted at this one sided piece of journalism.

Whatever respect I still had for the journalistic integrity of the BBC is now gone.

I pay my licence fee every year in the hopes that the corporation would continue to bring me the truth or a fair and balanced report. That deal appears to have ended.

I want my money back.

  • 224.
  • At 03:22 PM on 24 Feb 2007,
  • clare wrote:

I completely agree that Bin Laden is not responsible for 911. I applaud anyone in a position of power to have the guts to bring this to light. We all need to stop being narrow minded and see the bigger picture of what is going on in this world.

  • 225.
  • At 05:00 PM on 24 Feb 2007,
  • Tim wrote:

So interesting to see that despite all the major news organisations still claiming (as our governments also do) that 9/11 was masterminded by Osama Bin Laden, and that his confession tape is a testament to that fact.

However non of the major news channels have broadcasted Professor Bruce Lawrence, head of Duke University’s Religious Studies program, considered a leading authority on Osama Bin Laden, has officially gone on the record saying that he believes the so called "9/11 Confession" tape, released shortly after the attacks, is an outright fake that has been used by US intelligence agencies to deflect attention from “conspiracy theories” about 9/11.

You would think such a major revelation as the tape being fake would be headline stuff, but apparently Britney Spears having her hair shaved off is a more relevant subject to cover.

I'm so disgusted with the BBC, and it's shoddy attempt to try and cover up the many ommissions regarding the three official reports of 9/11.

  • 226.
  • At 08:09 PM on 27 Feb 2007,
  • John wrote:

Oh dear BBC although youve turned out this mind control garbage, its fooled very few has it not. Why do you do it? Its far better for you to turn up your frequecies form your transmitters. Thats at least far less obvious mind control! or has that been done as well?

  • 227.
  • At 06:14 PM on 03 Mar 2007,
  • ian wrote:

I do not beleve the goverment story regarding 9/11,It is easy for people in power to say that anyone questioning 9/11 is a crazy person with no freinds .Well if thats the case i am one of those people 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB we all know the facts ok there are some major questions still unawnserd but slowly we are getting there with more people willing to speack out about it.just atke a look at the history books then do your research this is nothing new but we need to stop these people .

  • 228.
  • At 12:32 PM on 18 Mar 2007,
  • Ben DeVere wrote:

The programme was neither fair nor objective. I've been praying for the BBC to report the 911Truth Movement for years and fear this show has done immense damage.

Many of the above comments amaze me. How people can be so forthright in their opinions when they clearly haven't done any research of their own. The ignorance frightens me.

And now the BBC are publishing lesson plans to indoctrinate school kids to the official line.


  • 229.
  • At 10:17 AM on 09 Apr 2007,
  • sean rutledge wrote:

Mainstream media outlets have a vested interest in obfuscating the truth about september 11th. The war on terror (only possible after 911) increased news viewership across the world. The war in Iraq (only posssible after 911) created a similar "windfall" for Corporate Media. This means increased revenues for media outlets.

More importantly, Corporate Media has played an integral part in creating the 911 myth. Evidence contradicting the Corporate Media's official version of events represents a threat to the news medias' credibility and thus their profits. This is dangerous because Corporate Media serves as the governments official propaghanda machine. When vieweres no longer believe what is being fed to them over the Tele they start to ask questions and think for themselves. They wonder, "what else is the government lying to me about?" This a direct threat to the power structure.

The 9111 Truth Movement represents what is most dangerous to Corporate Controlled Governments; the people recognizing the truth and acting on it.

  • 230.
  • At 06:26 PM on 05 May 2007,
  • san wrote:

The official 9/11 report is the official conspiracy theory. 9/11 truth is about facts and only facts. Larry silverstone admits on telly that WTC 7 was a danger and they decided to 'pull' it. In other words they demolished it. He admitted it. The problem with this? - Demolition experts agree that it would be near impossible to organise a demolition in a burning building within a few ours. It takes weeks to organise and place detonators. If Larry silverstone was telling the truth, then WTC 7 had detonators planted before september 11. Weeks before.

  • 231.
  • At 05:20 PM on 14 May 2007,
  • Johnson wrote:

It angers me that the label "conspiracy theory" is carefully placed in front of any observation or hypothesis that is beyond certain comfort zones. Take away the label and admit that besides the impetus of public opinion, there is next to no evidence, credible means motive or oppertunity for the official story to stand on, other than the word of the government and media, which we know to be shameless propaganda artists(WMD).
Ignore everything else, just look at the collapse of WTC7 and its freefall 6 second symetrical collapse with squibs firing up the sides and ask yourself why you choose not to accept that the building was rigged.
Is it because your not used to having to make your own mind up, against popular belief? Is it because you can't see beyond the label of tinfoil hat "conspiracy theory"? Is it because the implications are too scary, and you refuse to accept that you have been lied to consistently and carefully for 6 fearful years.
There is no arguing whether or not it was controlled demolition, the question is whether you choose to accept reality or you choose to hold on to and protect the lie inside you.

  • 232.
  • At 05:16 PM on 31 Jul 2007,
  • Christina Garris wrote:

I applaud the BBC for continuing reports of this nature. Someone must put these questions out there. I know our media in the United States is not. All I see in our news reports is "info-tainment" and nationalistic propaganda, while our rights are taken away one by one.

When you consider 9/11 as a single event, it's easy for me to understand why people refuse the "conspiracy theory" of the 9/11 Truth Movement. It's too scary to consider this possibility for most people because we want to believe that we live in a world where people are, for the most part, good.

However, since nothing that happens in the world is isolated and every event effects every subsequent must consider the entire body of evidence. Not just the evidence from physicists and engineers supporting the 9/11 Truth Movement, but beyond that. One must examine the steps the President took after 9/11 and is still taking to this day.

David Swanson in his recent article entitled "Bush Fulfills His Grandfather’s Dream", summed it up better than I could:

"President Bush has succeeded in weakening or eliminating most of the Bill of Rights in the name of protection from a dark foreign enemy. He even tossed out habeas corpus...and can kidnap, detain indefinitely on no charge, torture, and murder.

The United States under Prescott Bush’s grandson adopted policies that heretofore had been considered only Nazi policies, most strikingly the willingness to openly plan and engage in aggressive wars on other nations.

At the same time, he has accomplished a huge transfer of wealth within the United States from the rest of us to the extremely wealthy. He’s also effected a major privatization of public operations, including the military. And he’s kept tight control over the media.

He has given himself the power to rewrite all laws with signing statements. He’s established that intentionally misleading the Congress about the need for a war is not a crime that carries any penalty. He’s given himself the right (just as Hitler did) to open anyone’s mail. He’s created illegal spying programs and then proposed to legalize them. Prescott would be so proud!

The current President Bush has accomplished much more smoothly than his grandfather could have imagined a feat that was one of the goals of Prescott’s gang, namely the elimination of Congress."

I ask you to consider 9/11 and the subsequent changes Bush has made. The events of 9/11 frightened and angered Americans to the point that they turned and blindly followed their leader. (I did too, in the beginning.) 9/11 made it possible for Bush to attain the power that he has. It was the catalyst.

Now...when you consider it in this light, doesn't it seem less likely that it was just chance?

In all honesty I don't really even care if anyone believes that 9/11 was an inside job or not. I just want people to be aware that we are losing rights daily.

On July 17th, Bush passed an Executive Order which basically allows him to seize the assets and property of anyone "undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq". Which basically means that if the government chooses to, they can seize the property and assets of anyone who protests the war here in our country.

What kind of country doesn't allow non-violent protests? An extremist country. One to the far right or left. To the far left you have Communism. And to the far right, Fascism. If one looks with and open mind and the right mind, it's not too hard to see the direction in which we're going.

  • 233.
  • At 07:14 AM on 04 Aug 2007,
  • Gary B wrote:

First of all it's sad to see fellow Americans bashing the credibility of the BBC when all they ever watch is the "info-tainment", as another put it, solicited so readily by American cable providers. The people denying even the slightest possibility of inside knowledge by the CIA or other intelligence agencies are the ones who still believe Lee Harvey killed Jack Kennedy. Nothing can asuage the sorrow I feel when I read the slanted unimformed views of fellow Americans. We are so quick to act that we never allow ourselves a brief moment of understanding for opposite points of view, I.E. Iraq and the war on terror. The hijackers were Saudi and Bush and his Daddy have been in bed with them Since George H. was CIA Director. We Americans are so full of ourselves "being the greatest country in the world" all the time and we never look at what we've become. I mean as the renowned U.S. journalist Paul Harvey recently put it "130 million Americans are prescribed antidepressants every year, thats one out of three Americans", and as the U.S. Surgeon Generals office stated this year, "Nearly two out of every three Americans are overweight or obese with one out of three being critically obese". That gives us 99.9% of Americans that are either obese or on Prozac. And the worst part is that the government refuses to do anything but make a business out of them. Instead they continue to give huge subsidies to major pharmaceutical companies that are making billions every year on over weight depressed Americans. Not to mention how Bush has dessicrated the American middle class, Education, Medicare and Medicaid, and our Constitutional Rights. Now who's doing the inside job? It's one big scam after another and It is our duty to do justice to 9/11 victims and their families by looking at every possible theory for the events that transpired that tragic day especially if the country they loved so dear has brought harm unto them.

  • 234.
  • At 09:39 AM on 06 Aug 2007,
  • truthtopower wrote:

More and more people are waking up to the fact that 9/11 was an inside job.
This was planned well in advance and crosses party lines because the people who did this have no party only the New World Order.

Now Bush is starting the North American Union. There are U.S. military troops on Canadian soil and they are not allowing the Canadian people to hold a town meeting and talk about what is going on. We will have the Amero, a new super NAFTA highway from the southern border of Mexico up to the Canadian border. They want to destroy our unions. Weaken the rights of our workers. Does this sound like people that care about the lives of their citizens? Bush has had thousands of people killed and tortured for nothing. He still states that Iraq was responsible for 9/11. Why not. He sure isn't going to tell the truth.

The American media has sold out a long time ago. Our media is owned by a few very rich elite that often attend the Bilderberg gatherings. They are Bush's "base." Our elections are broken and detention camps are being build while our rights are being taken away. And we the tax payers are paying for all of this. The mind control in America is down to a science. We want the truth about 9/11. We want the people that did this terrible crime brought to justice. Our politicians do absolutely nothing. We the people can not end either of the unjust wars because Afghanistan did not do this.

Someone in the Media must start speaking for the people. Investigate.
Ask questions. Research. We have. It is obvious to anyone that has that 9/11 was an inside job.

  • 235.
  • At 05:45 PM on 06 Aug 2007,
  • merle wrote:

What's sick is that when the truth about 911 finally comes out in its entirety - which it will - everyone will be rushing to partake in the glory and the profits. Movie studios will tumble over themselves to make 'The Jersey Girls (How a bunch of 911 Widows brought The Empire to its Knees)' and 'Not In My Name: the Cindy Sheehan story', publishing houses will whip out the gold cheque books to sign up John Pilger, Barrie Zwicker, DR Griffin, Michel Chossudovsky and other journalists of integrity who have never wavered from the empirical data, and media organisations will twist themselves into pretzels to say how they never, ever favoured narrative over fact or lied by omission, their hands were tied, etcetera, etcetera. And just as you couldn't find a single apartheid supporter in South Africa the day after Mandela was released, so you will find the Bush-Blair-Osama-mainstream media apologists hastening to announce that naturally, of course, deep down, they had a kind of sort of inkling... etcetera, etcetera.

  • 236.
  • At 03:40 AM on 07 Aug 2007,
  • Guy Fox wrote:

The events surrounding 9/11 $tink. It's like having a bunch of dead rats in the walls of your house. You can't see them, but you know they're there.

They (Amerika's ruling class) are covering up a lot of stuff, and it $tinks.

  • 237.
  • At 11:46 AM on 07 Aug 2007,
  • Sharad Sharma wrote:

As we know - President Bush is on record imploring people to reject conspiracy theories: “Let us never tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories concerning the attacks of September the 11th” which he said were “malicious lies that attempt to shift the blame away from the terrorists, themselves, away from the guilty.”

Actually he is 100% correct, the only questions still remains unanswered which side is using the "malicious lies" to misguide the people? The pre-and-post 911 actions by Bush & Co put together with series of strong arguments laid forward in documentaries like Loose Change certainly brings together a case which is much much more than a conspiracy theory.

In the given circumstances, the current version of US govt., and rhetoric on terrorism and fear by Bush & Co looks more like a very sinister conspiracy in practice.

  • 238.
  • At 08:39 PM on 07 Aug 2007,
  • Andy wrote:

I notice alot of comments saying that it is impossible to believe the US government would conspire to kill its own people. I too find this hard to believe. However, do try to look at the evidence (what little of it that we can since we do not have free access to it). Buildings do not naturally fall down the way we see during 9/11. The twin towers fell as fast as the speed of gravity. Buildings (unless demolished) don't do that. The Towers were designed to withstand the impact of aircraft. We saw the aircraft crash. The building stood firm. The fires were insufficient to bring down the building. The firefighters entering the tower did not fear the buildings falling. Yet somehow they did. Even if you accept the official theory of aircraft impact, fire and "pancaking". It doesn't explain the disintegration of the floors above the impact or... the destruction of WTC 7 building: a substantial 48 floor building - for no real good reason as far as I can tell... except for some of the organisations that it was hosting... Do look at the evidence: collectively it all looks rather fishy...

  • 239.
  • At 10:41 AM on 08 Aug 2007,
  • Alan Ward wrote:

Only people who want to believe in conspiracy theories will argue till the cows come home. The rest of us have long accepted the official versions even if some things don't make much sense. A simple fact is that, any high speed plane crash will never leave much evidence of the aircraft after impact. It disintegrates into little pieces of unidentifiable metal. Remember these planes were flying at close to top speed not coming in to land or just taking off. Often the people in the plane are unrecognisable after the crash. I heard of a plane that crashed in the North African Desert many years ago. The only part of the pilot's body that could be found to be buried was a finger. The rest of the body was swallowed up by the ground, or more likely shredded by the rest of the aircraft. We all saw planes crash into the Twin Towers but precious little of the planes could be identified.

Besides even if you think GWB is not to be trusted, do you seriously think that someone in the know would not have published the so called real truth with documentary evidence by now?

  • 240.
  • At 01:06 PM on 08 Aug 2007,
  • merle wrote:

Alan Ward (#238)- Re: your self-confessed uncritical acceptance of dubious evidence. Yes, some of us do accept things lock, stock and barrel even if 'some things don't make much sense.' Perhaps it makes us feel snug and secure and cared for when we trustingly accept what 'authorities' tell us. I know my 8-year-old still accepts Santa and the Elves though the how-he-gets-through-the-chimney bit doesn't make sense. My 10 year old has analysed the empirical data and moved on.
Mr Ward, the real truth is out there - with meticulously footnoted and documented research - in the form of 'The 911 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions' and 'Debunking 911 Debunking', both by DR Griffin (Olive Branch Press). This author cleaves pretty rigorously to the empirical facts and does not engage with the 'let's-muddy-the-waters-disinformation' out there - 'no planes', 'holograms', 'pods', 'rays' 'disappearing bodies' and the like. Vague statements that do not stick to fact or data - like your 'Finger in the North African Desert' narrative - are precisely what is NOT needed if you want to put pesky 'conspiracy theorists' to bed.
You note, Mr Ward, that planes were coming in at 'close to top speed', which is (a) true and (b) part of the problem. GWB and his 911 Commission have it that amateur Arab pilots, trained on Cessnas and simulators, brought planes in to Washington and Manhattan airspace (a) at close to top speed and (b) with great precision. Any one of the professional pilots who have signed up to Pilots for 911 Truth will tell you why this is implausible. To take the case of 'pilot' Hani Hanjour (who piloted the Boeing 757-Flight 77) - here's what former US Special Forces master sargeant and West Point military scientist Stan Goff has to say. Goff cites several features in the official story that he considers absurdities, but reckons 'the real kicker' is the idea that Hanjour, who could barely fly a small plane, 'conducts a well-controlled downward spiral, descending the last 7 000 feet in two-and-a-half minutes, brings the plane in so low and flat that it clips the electrical wires across the street from the Pentagon and flies it with pinpoint accuracy into the side of this building at 460 nauts' (Stan Goff: The So-Called Evidence is a Farce). Ralph Omholt, a former 757 pilot: 'The idea that an unskilled pilot could have flown this trajectory is simply too ridiculous to consider.' (Both quoted in Chapter 4 of Debunking 911 Debunking, by DR Griffin).
As for the odd digit surviving a plane crash I profess to not having the facts at my fingertips. But if it can be rationally and scientifically researched and reasonably demonstrated to be true by the appropriate expert, I'm sure I might believe it. For the moment, it's just a thumbsuck.

  • 241.
  • At 03:17 AM on 09 Aug 2007,
  • Cam wrote:

Not only that Merle, but how a hijacked commercial airliner could possibly violate P-56 PROHIBITED airspace in order to penetrate the headquarters of the most powerful and sophisticated military force in history, well after the twin towers had already been struck, defies all logic. It certainly appears as if the interceptor pilots were distracted by the many war games and terrorist drills conducted that day such as the incredibly coincidental 'live-fly' exercise under the guise of vigilant warrior.
Rice believed that no one had ever envisaged anything like this before until she was reminded about the November 2000 drill that simulated the crashing a small plane into the Pentagon.
Too many coincidences….
Still waiting for NIST's explanation of WTC7...oh and any BBC comments from Mike or Jane that are well overdue or conveniently forgotten about would be appreciated too. Thanks

  • 242.
  • At 10:13 AM on 09 Aug 2007,
  • Andy Pritchard wrote:

Just a note re-inforcing PM's comment: Griffin's books are meticulous documents. It looks at official explanations and points at their holes. The fact that the official NIST report completely ignored the WTC7 collapse. Other building (WTC 4,5,6) immediately below the twin towers were damaged (but did not collapse) but WTC7 - considerably further away did! How many of the public KNOW that 3 towers fell on 9/11 (not just WTC1 and 2). It makes you feel the story is being managed by the Bush Administration and the Media. How come every little detail of Clinton's Sex Life had to be examined and not this, the most important event of the 21st Century?

  • 243.
  • At 02:57 AM on 10 Aug 2007,
  • gregor aitken wrote:

watched another cracking piece of video on the internet, a nice american lady, lives a quiet life in the countryside. Anyway she watched a lear jet size craft fly over her car and then crash into the distance. She says it flew over her car.

When she got in touch tosay what she had seen two fbi guys come round and tell her she saw a large boeing, she insisted she didn't. They told her she did and left.

A really nice lady, sorry, a crazed lunatic conspiracy theorist who is probably a pinko liberal.

Is that the correct way to attck those who dont believe the official truth.

She semed to me to be a nice lady, like a friends aunt or something

Any chance you could interviw her bbc,

I aint holding my breath

  • 244.
  • At 09:53 AM on 14 Aug 2007,
  • mellie wrote:

Perhaps Richard Porter has a point. People who try to join the dots reveal the sickness of the conspiratorial mindset. No-one has outlined this better than Canadian writer Jeff Wells:

That Hani Hanjour, the pilot of Flight 77, was so incompetent he could not fly a Cessna in August, but in September managed to fly a 767 at excessive speed into a spiraling, 270-degree descent into... the only side of the Pentagon that was virtually empty and had been hardened to withstand a terrorist attack, merely demonstrates that people can do almost anything once they set their minds to it.

That George Bush's telephone logs for September 11 do not exist should surprise no one, given the confusion of the day. This is precisely the kind of meaningless factoid a conspiracy theorist would bring up.

Newsweek’s report that senior Pentagon officials cancelled flights on Sept 10 for the following day on account of security concerns is only newsworthy because of what happened the following morning.

That FEMA arrived in New York on Sept 10 to prepare for a scheduled biowarfare drill, and had a triage centre ready to go that was larger and better equipped than the one that was lost in the collapse of WTC 7, was a lucky twist of fate.

That multiple military wargames and simulations were underway the morning of 9/11 – one simulating the crash of a plane into a building... – and took many interceptors away from the eastern seaboard and confused field commanders as to which was a real hijacked aircraft and which was a hoax, was a bizarre coincidence, but no less a coincidence.

That a recording made Sept 11 of air traffic controllers’ describing what they had witnessed, was destroyed by an FAA official who crushed it in his hand, cut the tape into little pieces and dropped them in different trash cans around the building, is something no doubt that overzealous official wishes he could undo.

Le Figaro’s report in October 2001, known to have originated with French intelligence, that the CIA met Osama bin Laden in a Dubai hospital in July 2001, proves again the perfidy of the French.

That at the battle of Tora Bora, where bin Laden was surrounded on three sides, Special Forces received no order to capture him and were forced to stand and watch as two Russian-made helicopters flew into the area where bin Laden was believed hiding, loaded up passengers and returned to Pakistan, demonstrates how confusing the modern battlefield can be.

That the White House went on Cipro September 11 shows the foresightedness of America’s emergency response.

That the anthrax attacks (Ames-strain that originated from a US Military lab at Fort Detrick)appeared to silence opponents of the Patriot Act shows only that appearances can be deceiving.

That the White House balked at any inquiry into the events of 9/11, then starved it of funds and stonewalled it, was unfortunate, but since the commission didn't find for conspiracy it's all a non issue anyway.

  • 245.
  • At 12:22 PM on 18 Sep 2007,
  • Robert wrote:

There is clearly a problem with the official explanation for the attacks on 9/11. Even a basic understanding of physics can tell you that.

But calling for a new investigation into the attacks doesn't despute the attackers or suggest a huge conspiracy including hidden world powers.

As human beings we owe it to ourselves to understand exactly what went wrong so it doesn't happen again. If that means a new independent study, then that's what it will take.

I think people just take a gut reaction to these things without looking at the bigger picture. If there IS something wrong with building design or how we look towards potential terror attacks... then we should study this.

I watched the BBC Conspiracy Program and did little to examine the true scientific basis for the 9/11 truth movement. Instead it used a fake website to suggest all 9/11 Truth seekers are New World Order obsessed lunatics. Shame on you BBC. I thought you were meant to be fair and balanced.

  • 246.
  • At 08:44 PM on 18 Sep 2007,
  • Ynda wrote:

I can't believe nobody cares... but I do believe that people do not have the time to uncover the details of 9/11. First we witnessed the event, then listened to the Bush Administration's immediate explanation for the event. Then waited years before the 911 Commission Report which basically supported the Bush Administration story and ignored any alternative explanation (because the 911 commission was effectively an extension of the Bush Administration) then as questions are asked, the people that ask the questions are systematically ridiculed for coming up with explanations which actually fit the facts (what few we know). Well I guess if there were something to be covered up, then there would be PyOps to ensure the cover up continued... Its rather amazing that there is anyone actually still asking questions at all or trying to debunk the debunkers (a la David Griffin) at all.

If you walked into a police station and told them a crime had happened twenty minutes before it actually did, would they brush it off as a mistake?

  • 248.
  • At 02:20 AM on 23 Sep 2007,
  • David William Ray wrote:

If the offical story is so solid lets have an open live on air debate were all the snatched CCTV footage is shown, if the goverment has a clear concence what are they so afraid of.

9-11 was a inside job

Dave, R. UK

  • 249.
  • At 02:47 PM on 25 Sep 2007,
  • Ynda wrote:

It strikes me that the BBC spends alot of its time on urgent, seemingly important news items. However in 10, 20 years time, what will be the one news story of the decade? 9/11. And will the BBC's reputation in recording this event be covered in glory? Well, so far all we have is the US politicians story. Where is investigative journalism, the science, the debate?!

  • 250.
  • At 12:15 AM on 27 Sep 2007,
  • GALO wrote:


  • 251.
  • At 05:42 AM on 03 Oct 2007,
  • Oscar wrote:

It's just a relief to me that a greater number of people are starting to ask more questions, instead of just being conditioned into this every day phsycadellic trip...woah whats next, being stripped of our right to bear arms?..havin to carry an id-card that tracks your every move or one day living under a ONE WORLD NATION RULED UNDER THE STF AKA 'BOHEMIAN GROVE '

  • 252.
  • At 03:06 PM on 03 Oct 2007,
  • Paddy Cronin wrote:

Would the holocaust denyers get as much airtime?

Why are US citizens and the US government the consistant target offer dotty aunty beeb?

Two Planes hit the towers Fact.

Why is the loony left and its mouthpiece the Looney Beeb desperate to blame anyone but the men that actually committed the acts?

If you were jumped by skinheads and beaten up obviously the beeb would say it was self inflicted and that you were trying to hurt their boots with your face or that somehow your family or you paid the skinheads to beat the living daylights out of you.

Why can people not accept the premise that the US was attacked by a well organised small group of misguided idiots?

And before the usual 'Bush Administration'cliches get bandied about please remember that the first attack on the towers was actually during the Clinton government. Remember the car bomb in the underground car park.

The majority of the conspiracy theorists are marginalised people with an axe to grind with society. Many will have 'alternative lifestyles' and probably sleep in a pyramid tent with a crystal on the bedside table and a dreamcatcher on the headboard. Or they are 'Wolfie' Smith' suburban revolutionaries with a fixation with Castro.

Face it Marilyn died of an overdose, no aliens landed in the US desert, the Monacan royal family did not kill Grace Kelly Dianas driver was drunk (Thousands die each year in cars why should HRH be immune. If I hit a wall in a car I'd probably die too.)

How did the CIA or BUSH control the lads from leeds who blew up the trains in London? Subliminal messages in the curry pasties or maybe hidden messages in the bulletins on Look North?

People do nasty things and although its covenient for the Beeb/Militant/ClareShort/George Galloway to blame everything from the weather to Englands poor performance in the 2020 world cup on George Bush its often the fact that he's not to blame.

This is as important a piece of TV as Ghost Hunt and celebrity wrestling and for the pure entertainment should be quite fun but please dont try to sell this as important critical views of the unheard masses. It is biased fantasist fertiliser.

  • 253.
  • At 05:20 PM on 03 Oct 2007,
  • gregor aitken wrote:


you are wrong in so many ways.

Your post is a typical example of how to attack those who dare to suggest that the official truth is flawed.

you link 911 to bizarre theories making it ridiculous by association i guess.

You say that anyone against the official truth must be a leftie (personally i am a libertarian, which is kinda right as i remember)

If you want an honest opened and reasoned debate about the issues of that day, and more importantly the issues that truth movement have problems with then please i would be happy to meet you in person or have the debate on here.

i am guessing like all those who attck the truth movement it will be a one off post and then ignore all feedback.

Which is very similar to the bbc approach, so at least something you say has found a friend here

  • 254.
  • At 06:34 PM on 03 Oct 2007,
  • Stewart wrote:

The programme has a very poor quality of journalism and many factual and editorial mistakes have been made. Over such a huge issue why is such bad practice tolerated?

  • 255.
  • At 06:50 PM on 03 Oct 2007,
  • merle wrote:

Tut, tut, tut, Paddy Cronin @ #252:

Why are people "desperate to blame anyone but the men that actually committed the acts" you ask? I can only speak for myself here, but I most certainly do want to blame "the men that actually committed the acts" and no-one else. I wonder why you assume otherwise. To this end, I keep an open mind as I painstakingly research all verifiable facts as they emerge out of academia and scientific institutes.

"Why can people not accept the premise that the US was attacked by a well organised small group of misguided idiots?" you ask.
Paddy, I do accept this very premise. Why do you assume I do not.

I couldn't make head or tail of the rest of your missive - "Monacans", "bedside tables", "curry pasties", etcetera. It seemed to be a long-winded example of what you might term "fantasist fertiliser".

  • 256.
  • At 11:47 PM on 03 Oct 2007,
  • Ynda wrote:

Hi Paddy, #252, I think we agree that 2 planes hit the WTC towers but sorry otherwise I have to disagree with you. I have a great, responsible job. Not marginalized. Not left wing. Don't believe in Bigfoot or Nessie. I follow the facts, the science and generally NOT the first thing that a politician says. If you don't ask questions or in 9/11's case, if CAN'T ask questions (and get decent answers) then we lose our free society. We lose democracy! The changes in the US since 9/11 have horrifying prospects. It is so reminiscent of the early period of Nazi Germany, it is terrifying. What makes you so certain about Your impression of truth about 9/11? Because George tells you so? Because of the overwhelming scientific evidence? The open debates on such matters? How about the clear identification of the hijackers? And of course the court trials? Well, no. Because there isn't any of that. There has been only the 9/11 Commission: late starting, flawed and under funded. This raises more questions than it actually answers. Don't trust me on this: do the research.

For example, try watching "9/11 Press for the Truth" which is supported by the Jersey Girls: relatives of the victims of 9/11. The video paints a black & white picture that the Bush Administration knew 9/11 was going to happen and let it happen. Even without going further: that is worth an impeachment. Unfortunately, the audit trail does go further and without a doubt Bush & co were involved in the cover-up of CIA inter-relationships with Al Queda. Definitely worth another impeachment.

Approx 3000 people killed on 9/11: the biggest event in US history since Pearl Harbour. Directly related to 2 wars: about 1m Iraqis killed one way or another; complete revision of the US constitution; billions of dollars robbed or lost at WTC. Trillions of dollars spent on war. Perhaps another war coming along too! And we can't even agree on basic facts of the day...

And you think this isn't worth airtime?!

  • 257.
  • At 03:32 AM on 04 Oct 2007,
  • mallee wrote:

Paddy, (252) Dam I just spent half an hour commenting on you contribution and lost the lot. I am not going to spend much more time on your opinion, except to say, thanks for it. I feel so much better now that you have convinced me that 9/11 was not a mass treasonous murder by persons, other that those officially blamed, for the purpose of warmongering and conquest in the Middle East. Your a gem and should be employed by the BBC or even better, by Faux News.
Dam again, I was looking forward to the War Crimes Tribunal hearings into the actions of the Coalition of the Willing and I am only going to get more shock awe and war, when we do Iran, as later reported by General Wesley Clark, as being forecast in September 2001.

  • 258.
  • At 02:23 PM on 04 Oct 2007,
  • Dave Robertson wrote:

I watched the 2nd plane crash live on TV - because being it was a large city and CNN and a host of networks are there - The idea that cameras were waiting to go is just silly..

The idea that the American government could pull off such a sophisticated attack and then cover it up - well come on - look at the complete shambles in Iraq. And these days - with all that reality TV - all it would take is one person to spill the beans - and they would for an enormous sum of money. If you want to start a war with Iraq - then you simply accuse them of having WMD - send a few hapless inspectors in to get kicked out and then its quite easy. Knocking down big buildings with planes ? Too much like hard work. The bottom line is that an insular America was brutally attacked and many innocents were killed perpetrated by extremists hell-bent on returning to a medieval world. This is a clash of civilisations.

  • 259.
  • At 04:31 PM on 04 Oct 2007,
  • merle wrote:

I do have to wonder why my fairly innocuous comment on Paddy Cronin's piece (posted yesterday)did not make it through the gates? I do wonder how many comments get moderated out of sight here. And for what specific reasons?

  • 260.
  • At 07:51 PM on 04 Oct 2007,
  • Jamie wrote:

Paddy Cronin (252) nobody that I've read yet has disputed your only fact (that two planes hit the Towers). The rest of your little rant was spent on your own opinionated views against people who have only asked reasonable questions.
For your information, I'm a house owning professional with a University education (Business Management not Beadmaking)& I would rather listen to rational people who question what they are fed by Government than those who just throw insults at others to try to make their point.You seem very worked up about this, are you perhaps marginalised?

  • 261.
  • At 06:55 PM on 06 Oct 2007,
  • Gareth Williams wrote:

I have one question about 9/11, and I predict that the complete answer (if ever provided) would unravel a mammoth ball of wool. The question is this: where did the FBI retrieve the necessary DNA samples to match with that found at the Pentagon and Shanksville which allegedly identified the hijackers?

Simple enough. If they retrieved it 'innocently' through various channels associated with counter-terrorism, then the chief investigative unit of the US was criminally negligent in allowing the development of the plot, as they were in 1993. If they retrieved it through other channels, then where, how etc.? It is acknowledged that some of the alleged hijackers, trained at CIA-Front airbases and schools, and some had even attended US military colleges whilst they were wanted by various countries for terrorism charges and militant activities in Chechnya.

Research it.

  • 262.
  • At 09:56 PM on 09 Oct 2007,
  • Ynda wrote:

Hi Dave Robertson, #256, a great number for a computer guy! ;-) I used to used a project management methodology formerly called PRINCE 2. (Sorry geeky joke).

Now you say that because the US cannot run Iraq then they could not have organised a 9/11 inside job? Now surely using your PRINCE project management training you should know that you can easily plan a project where the objective is clear and you only have a (relatively) few number of variables to consider. You perform viewpoint analysis and consider the risks; you have mitigation and fall-back plans; and you ensure your key people are in place. Press the Go button and stand back...

The planning for 9/11 obviously took some time. The planning for the Iraq invasion took time too and the war was completed quickly and successfully. The only problem was the securing the peace... er... not planned, conflicting objectives, unforeseen risks, too many variables to consider, resources not in the right place, cultural issues etc. Chalk and cheese. Just because the peace is a mess doesn't mean they couldn't plan a war...

  • 263.
  • At 11:22 AM on 10 Oct 2007,
  • Cam wrote:

Well Paddy, I wonder why people are so skeptical? It would seem that that there were multiple warnings from local and international intelligence agencies saying that bin Laden was going to attack the US. FBI agent Harry Samit warned his superiors not once or twice but 70 times that potential hijacker Moussaoui was taking flight training with the possible intention of using them as weapons.
"Samit testified under oath that "criminal negligence, obstruction and careerism" by superiors at FBI Headquarters in Washington, DC thwarted an opportunity to prevent the September 11th attacks." (from wikipedia)
There was also the August 'bin Laden Determined to Strike in US' document as well as various other warnings that should have rung bells. Rice said that no-one had ever envisaged that planes could be used as weapons which turned out to be a total fabrication..
According to media reports, Mohammed Atta was drinking heavily in the weeks before the attacks and some media even reported that he was gambling and visiting strip bars, all of which is forbidden under Islamic law. Also the 9/11 Commission states "that two
other hijacker were “unconcerned with religion
and, contrary to Islamic law, known to drink
Does this sound plausible that so-called devout Muslims would disgrace their religion like that, shortly before meeting their maker? I'm sure Allah would not have been very amused. No virgins for you..
Then we have NORAD who could not intercept a single plane even in P-56 prohibited airspace (ie Pentagon) whilst the US was clearly under attack, yet managed to intercept 67 planes in the 12 months prior. Also Cheney should have had the Pentagon evacuated when he realised that flight 77 was 50 miles away. He did not. What a disgrace. Pity the auditors investigating the Pentagon's $2.3 trillion in unaccounted transactions as announced by Rumsfeld on Sept 10 2001 died at the Pentagon.
To top it off, bin Laden was interviewed by a mainstream reporter (CNN from memory)in June 2001 who went on to tell the world that UBL was going to attack the US and Israel. So let me get this straight, a mainstream reporter interviews bin Laden, yet the biggest intelligence agencies in the world who were looking for him at the time (and apparently still are) could not find him? Yeah right! Sound like you need to do a little research before you accuse people of being on the loony left. The above is just a sprinkling of some of the anomalies regarding 9/11. Ever heard of PNAC?

  • 264.
  • At 12:04 AM on 04 Nov 2007,
  • pat wrote:

I am interested as to why the BBC failed to mention the fact they had reported the collapse of the WTC 7 building 20 minutes before it had actualy happened.

  • 265.
  • At 11:12 AM on 08 Nov 2007,
  • Ynda wrote:

I am interested in whether the BBC will follow up the news story on 11/9/2007 about a supposed paper that demonstartes the WTC towers could fall "mathematically" without the need for additional explosives. The paper has not been published or peered reviewed in the journal claimed by the BBC. Indeed other websites claim it was a complete sham! How does the BBC respond when it not only publishes something inaccurate but complete DISINFORMATION?

  • 266.
  • At 04:24 AM on 29 Nov 2007,
  • Steve R wrote:

Are we no longer permitted to question our own governments, when they are the single most important source of information with regards to an event that served to further their long-term and historical ambitions? Why do they withhold the most basic, potentially conclusive evidence from us all? Why do they refuse to let themselves be investigated, claiming in part this would undermine our security, but also regarding our requests as easily ignored, what happened to accountability? Do we really think people in such powerful positions have improved since all those people from living memory and still around, too numerous to mention who have used and abused their own people to further personal ambitions Have the human race evolved so much in the last 100 years - the evidence, judging by the nonsense we are normally fed by the vast majority of the media is that they have not (Paris Hilton is headline news for most American News Channels). It is important to make the point here that the majority of the popular media is controlled, in the main by a few people, who are not interested in your welfare. I will be amazed if someone can honestly deny this fact. One reason I believe the BBC has, on the whole, always been one of the few organisations to maintain it's integrity. We deserve the truth, it is not enough to tell us that they can't tell us, and it would be unsafe for them to tell us why they can't tell us??? Try to imagine what motivates powerful people - it is not your well being, it is their own. Now try to imagine what motivates good people - Are the people that have led us into this 'war' - a suitably emotive term coined by The United States Government - good people? What are they motivated by, what are their business interests (some very enlightening, undisputed facts are available) - What might they be capable of?

  • 267.
  • At 07:03 AM on 08 Feb 2008,
  • Terry wrote:

The lack of talk, discussion, questioning in the US media is what has me thinking there is far more to 911 than the Bush administration wants the world to know. The last time 911 was openly talked about, without fear of being being called crazy, was on 911. It is taboo to even question the "official story" yet it begs to be questioned.

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.