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

Conspiracy on conspiracy

Mike Rudin Mike Rudin | 12:54 UK time, Thursday, 22 February 2007

I suppose it had to happen. First we’re accused of being spies. Then we’re told we’re getting our orders from others.

But then came an even more outlandish conspiracy theory suggesting there were two versions of the 9/11 programme which was broadcast last Sunday. Conspiracy piles on conspiracy.

Ian Crane, Chairman of the 9/11 Truth Campaign for the UK and Ireland, claimed last Friday that a source had told him that we were in a “in a quandary over which version of 9/11: The Conspiracy Files will be put out to air”.

He alleged: ”One version is a well-balanced piece of investigative journalism, whereas the alternative version is a hit-piece, intent on portraying 9/11 Truth Campaigners as nothing more than a lunatic fringe group.”

And the story was picked up on the Alex Jones’ website Prison Planet with the headline “BBC Pressured to Air 9/11 Hit Piece?

Only trouble is there weren’t two versions, no-one bothered to check with us and, what's more, we worked very hard to make sure the programme was fair and balanced.

Behind it all there seems to be a concern that we wouldn’t run a story supporting a conspiracy theory if we found convincing evidence. That couldn’t be further from the truth.

First, there was no editorial interference in the programme whatsoever. Second, if we had found convincing evidence of a conspiracy before 9/11 no one could have held us back from broadcasting such an important story.

We didn’t find anything conclusive proving the conspiracy theories. Instead we found a lot of evidence which supported the official version and contradicted the various conspiracy theories.

Where there was some evidence of a conspiracy after the event to cover-up intelligence failures, we included that in the programme, together with an interview with Senator Bob Graham, who co-chaired a Congressional Inquiry into 9/11.

I know the 9/11 Truth Campaign in the UK and Prison Planet in the USA, among others, are encouraging their supporters to write in. And it’s great to see so many comments on the blog. They make fascinating reading and contain a lot of interesting information.

However, our opinion poll carried out by GfK NOP did not find much support for the underlying conspiracy theory. In a telephone poll of a 1000 adults we asked:

“Attacks were made on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon on September 11th 2001, commonly known as 9/11. It is generally accepted that these attacks were carried out by ’Al Qaeda’, however some people have suggested there was a wider conspiracy that included the American Government. Do you, yourself, believe that there was a wider conspiracy, or not?”

16% people believed the American Government was involved in a wider conspiracy as against 64% of those questioned who did not believe that. The rest said they did not know.

In fact our opinion poll found much more widespread doubts of the official accounts of the deaths of Princess Diana and the British Government scientist Dr David Kelly. Almost one in three (31%) people questioned believed the car crash that killed Princess Diana was not an accident, 43% agreed it was an accident, and the rest did not know. Almost one in four (23%) people questioned believed the government scientist Dr Kelly did not commit suicide as against 39% who believed he did commit suicide, with the rest unsure.

And this Sunday, The Conspiracy Files series will examine the many questions that surround the death of Dr David Kelly and reveals new material that challenges the official account of his death.


  • 1.
  • At 03:46 PM on 22 Feb 2007,
  • James wrote:

Is the 9/11 conspiracy files episode going to appear to watch online like the Diana episode, since I missed it but still which to watch it.

  • 2.
  • At 03:49 PM on 22 Feb 2007,
  • Mark wrote:

If there is one conspiracy theory I'd buy, it's that the people who are now running BBC have conspired to destroy whatever credibility it has with anyone capable of thinking for themselves. The evidence for it is overwhelming. Will it ever go back to just reporting the news?

  • 3.
  • At 04:01 PM on 22 Feb 2007,
  • Steve B wrote:

All those repeating the rumour that you had two versions of last Sunday's show are well and truly shooting themselves in the foot.

That kind of kneejerk paranoia and lack of insight often does more to damage the truth movement than any actual censorship. It's a classic case of the Fox Mulder "I want to believe" mindset.

I just hope people remember that not all doubters of the official version of events are equally as paranoid or lacking in critical thought. The so-called truth movement is actually comprised of individuals far more varied in their ideas and approach than is often portrayed.

I suppose the damage is done now though, and look forward to a further raft of "conspiracy loon" namecalling.

  • 4.
  • At 04:05 PM on 22 Feb 2007,
  • seaneeboy wrote:


You *WOULD* say that!


  • 5.
  • At 08:47 PM on 22 Feb 2007,
  • Ted wrote:

How about instead of addressing "Conspiracy Theories", you address FACTS such as the *Official Report* saying fire only had a very low probability of collapsing Building

  • 6.
  • At 08:48 PM on 22 Feb 2007,
  • david wrote:

james, you can watch last sunday's conspiracy files onlime at google video

  • 7.
  • At 08:52 PM on 22 Feb 2007,
  • r. ahsher wrote:

The BBC, by overlooking simple questions like the Bush brother in charge of WTC security just prior to the collapse, must be in denial or selling-out. Either way, it's not worth the credibility loss. Or is it?

  • 8.
  • At 08:53 PM on 22 Feb 2007,
  • Mojo Hendrix wrote:

The truth is at the centre and the layers of lies that are hiding it are beeing slowly peeled away.

  • 9.
  • At 08:59 PM on 22 Feb 2007,
  • Andy wrote:

So, after reading the interesting information so usefully provided on the blog, do you still draw the conclusion that the official account of the events of 9/11 satisfactorily answers all the questions? Referencing your opinion polls so extensively suggests, yet again, that the BBC will continue to obfuscate the issues and avoid real debate over the mounting facts. Anyone who's investigated this for themselves has to ask themselves why the mainstream media fudges over or ignores the glaring anomalies in the official story.

  • 10.
  • At 09:06 PM on 22 Feb 2007,
  • John Q. wrote:

Two versions of the documentary or not doesn't change how slanderous and bias the show was.

"We didn’t find anything conclusive proving the conspiracy theories"

Wow. Well, you obviously need to do a bit more research. Like maybe 10 minutes worth. Guy Smith was incapable of factually defending his show. Judge for yourself :

What about setting a historical context by mentioning innumerable proven precedents such as Operation Northwoods or Gulf of Tonkin?

Oh and please, stop reverting to the worn "cover-up/incompetence" argument. Even if this was true, why has no one been charged with criminal negligence? Instead all key players have been promoted.

Interesting poll you conducted. However, you attempt again to skirt the issue at hand: An open discussion of the evidence and basic facts of the event.

Your poll should have asked first if they had ever heard of building 7 ? Other national polls show awareness at just around 50%... Hmm, I wonder how many "Al Qaeda did it" types know about Building 7 ?

Also, by basing the poll on alternative yet undefined "conspiracy theories", you prevent the responder to comment on their awareness about:
-molten metal under all three buildings
-molten metal pouring from south tower
-the composition of the towers and disappearance of the core columns
-EMTs, Firefighters, Employees, Eyewitnesses, and Media all reporting: bombs, explosions, secondary devices.
-you also fail to note that official theories have not been proven in any form: non-existant report on building 7, refusal to show data and evidence for NIST's collapse model of twin towers, refusal to release video and photos.

One side represents a conspiracy of silence and distraction over NON ISSUES. The other side simply asks questions and wonders why we don't get straight answers?

Hey all you out there!

-STEVEN JONES, read his paper
-911 MYSTERIES, watch the movie!

Stick with ground zero and building 7, the smoking gun they want you to forget about....

Remember, hit pieces like the BBC are more revealing for what they "don't show" rather than what they do.

They want you looking in a certain direction, or following a specific piece (Loose Change)..don't fall for it!

There are MILLIONS of us...we just need to stick together, and stick to the facts about those buildings and their demise....

The Mainstream Media is bought and paid for. We can give the producers of the show a pass--remember, they DON"T making programming decisions---They can only show what they are allowed to show.

Anybody who wants to figure out 9/11 needs to interview STEVEN JONES now!

48hrs? 60minutes? BBC? I didn't think so... soft spoken, scientific, straight forward, logical, and unrelenting truth about those buildings coming down!

  • 12.
  • At 09:13 PM on 22 Feb 2007,
  • Keith Farrell wrote:

you didnt find any evidence because you didnt look. Alex Jones had Guy on his show and picked him apart. There are glarring scientific facts supporting the demolition of WTC 1,2 and especially 7. You didnt examine these fairly nor did you talk to any important witnesses such as William Rodriguez, who heard a major explosion in the buildings basement before the plane hit. These are only some of the huge points you failed to address.
Seven high jackers still alive?
Molten steel found at ground zero weeks after 9/11?
insider trading? CIA/Bin Laden connections?
some of these things have been addressed by your network in other pieces such as "The Power of Nightmares" and you had Mr Rodriguez on "Look North"
How can your network analyse the relationship between the CIA and Al Qaeda in one program, and then not mention it when talking about possible government involvment in 9/11?
This piece was as fair and balanced as something Id expect to see on FOX news. It was a hit piece and an example of nothing more than propaganda

  • 13.
  • At 09:26 PM on 22 Feb 2007,
  • Ben S wrote:

Nice of you to comment on the obvious biase and innacuracies throughout the piece... I'm sorry, but your assurance that you went into it with an open mind and that if you had found evidence of a conspiracy you would have reported it is not accurate. This is an obvious fallacy as the bias and emotional blackmail throughout clearly shows what direction you were coming from. You believe you have an open mind, but unfortunately you still ultimately think our governments are good and want to benefit the masses when this is clearly untrue (iraq etc.). I strongly recommend you read the numerous debunkers of your piece to see that you were wrong. Though I am sure you have good intentions, your mindset is not open enough to even attempt a balanced piece.

  • 14.
  • At 09:34 PM on 22 Feb 2007,
  • Ivan wrote:

I don't even know why I am bothering, you didn't even put up my last comment.

I have no interest in whether you had 2 versions of the show or not. All I care about is the missed oportunity that was your 911 programme.

Instead of investigative journalism you concentrated on attacking the admittedly ropey aspects of various claims in 'Loose Change'.

Do your own research, find your own sources. Why make a third hand presentation?, and why not question some official 'facts'.

Really Pathetic, lacking work. I bet your research time was not even equal to Production and post production time. This lacks responsibility and maturity. I am strongly resisting the urge to compare this to 'lesser' news networks as others have done.

Finally, judging by the majority of comments you also failed miserably to satisfy your main audience. Your employers should find this inexcusable.

Nice plug at the end of your post, I will probably watch with low expectations.

  • 15.
  • At 09:34 PM on 22 Feb 2007,
  • carcinogen wrote:

Instead of poking holes in so-called "conspiracy theories," try poking holes in the official story. A small afterward that "looks into" the validity of "conspiratorial claims" is, in my opinion, appears to have been thrown in to stave off the claims that you're choosing sides.

BBC seems to have chosen a side.

Report the news. Let people come to their own conclusions on what is "convincing evidence" instead of deciding what is "convincing" for them.

  • 16.
  • At 09:42 PM on 22 Feb 2007,
  • Tim wrote:

Oh so there was no editorial influence? That just means you botched it on your own. Guy Smith's interview with Alex Jones speaks for itself, your research was horrible, and your bias is crystal clear.

  • 17.
  • At 09:44 PM on 22 Feb 2007,
  • dequincey wrote:

Why write a long letter in response to a little bit of silliness? Why spend several weeks and several thousand pounds on a program(me) to argue against a wacky group of enthusiasts? Your concern is disproportionate to your professed dismissal of your subject. What are your motives? They are obscure. Do you want to be obscure about that? If not, then be explicit. What moves you to argue against these wacky enthusiasts? Dishonesty has a smell, even before scrutiny is applied to it.

  • 18.
  • At 09:57 PM on 22 Feb 2007,
  • william s seaberry wrote:


13 debunkers to 3 911 truthers. Is that balanced

Alex Jones offered a huge archive of materials and they were denied.

When played audio tapes of people, firefighters, police near building 7 you still denied it was brought down in a controlled demolition.

The American press is now a wing of the US propaganda machine looks like you have joined on.

how about pre warnings? how about insider trading? How about drills being run? How about Pakastani ISI? How about FEMA in NY on 9/10? How about Molten Meltal? How about Freefall speed? Pulverization? How about witnesses who heard bombs? Firefighter tapes?

you've investigated nothing, you're job was to discredit the 911 truth movement and all you have succeeded in doing is discrediting yourselves.

How about a debate 3 hours, Alex Jones Dylan Avery against your top 2 "ivestigators"? with a moderator and then audience questions and answers unscreened?

  • 19.
  • At 09:59 PM on 22 Feb 2007,
  • malick diallo wrote:

I think that the BBC like CNN, are controlled by money, and the people making the money are at the highest levels of the elite it is expected from bbc to lie, that is what major news corporation have been doing since day one, its not information but miss-information, thank god for prison planet...

  • 20.
  • At 10:04 PM on 22 Feb 2007,
  • Wez the Aussie wrote:

I'm not sure about the 2 editions of the programme. What I am sure about, is that your show was biased, contained lies, was totally unbalanced and damaged your reputation. To say that you didn't find any evidence of a conspiracy, prior to the events of September 11, 2001, PROVES, that you didn't bother to look.

  • 21.
  • At 10:06 PM on 22 Feb 2007,
  • Andrew Joiner wrote:

A truely fair piece from the BBC would have COVERED the vital 9/11 evidence, even if they portrayed it as wrong. Instead, the BBC documentary was a total whitewash...

--> Molten metal at the WTC indicating thermite incendary devices
--> Building 7 and its demolition
--> Silverstein slipping up at admiting its destruction (wtc-7)
--> FEMA agents arrived in NYC september 10th, 2001 (a monday), in prepairation for the event!
+ 100 more smoking guns!

9/11 was carried out by the new world order, and not the jihadists!

  • 22.
  • At 10:09 PM on 22 Feb 2007,
  • Henrik wrote:

"It is generally accepted that these attacks were carried out by ’Al Qaeda’"
- not very scientific and you say that you are not biased.

Bill would be ashamed of the BBC.

  • 24.
  • At 10:16 PM on 22 Feb 2007,
  • nehad ismail, camberley, england wrote:

Conspiracy theories have been around since time began. Recent history is rich with examples from the death Of Marilyn Monroe, the assasination of John F. Kennedy, the accidental death of Princess Di, the 11/9 terrorist attacks in New York and now the BBC coverage.
The most ridiculous recent example is the accustion that Al-Jazeera Arabic Service is an agent and/or spy for Bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, the insurgents,the death squads, the CIA, the Mossad, the Muslim Brotherhood, The Taliban, Hezbollah, Damascus and Iran, all together and at the same time.
A task that James Bond, Rambo and the KGB and MI5 collectively cannot perform successfully.

Conspiracy theories will remain with us, they are part and parcel of the human existence.

  • 25.
  • At 10:18 PM on 22 Feb 2007,
  • kevin wrote:

Anyway, WTC building 7 anybody? I love how the BBC contradicts the rules of physics.

  • 26.
  • At 10:22 PM on 22 Feb 2007,
  • C English wrote:

The BBC was exposing the fraud of 9/11 , "Alqueda doesn't Exist" and and
interviews of some of the so called
dead 9/11 hijackers - But now it
apears that they HAVE BEEN "BOUGHT" and are part of the GOVERNMENT PROPAGANDA Machine-
We should never again trust the BBC.
They have lost all credibility.
They ignored all 9/11 evidence in
this hitpiece, whitewash .

  • 27.
  • At 10:23 PM on 22 Feb 2007,
  • Ben wrote:

What a disgusting copout to claim that you just 'followed the evidence'. Basically this show was as just as much a whitewash as the 9/11 commission: both decided which witnesses/testimony to actually include in the official version, even though there was testimony that either clearly contradicted other testimony or presented new evidence not previously made public. Paul Watson does a great job addressing many of the other shortcomings of this tripe . Instead of hiding behind blanket statements like 'that's just conspiracy talk', either present some real facts to refute Watson's points or just shut up and go back to being a mouthpiece for the government.

  • 28.
  • At 10:25 PM on 22 Feb 2007,
  • Marcus Borg wrote:

911 was an inside job

google prisonplanet och wtc7 and find out more, even better to watch loose change, 911 mysteries or terrorstorm om video google

  • 29.
  • At 10:25 PM on 22 Feb 2007,
  • Tin Raven wrote:

So when is the apology coming out?

  • 30.
  • At 10:25 PM on 22 Feb 2007,
  • James Roc wrote:

Dear Mike,

I doubt your a stupid man. I doubt that your intelligence would allow you to ignore the OVERWHELMING evidence that supports the widely held view of government complicity in the events of 9/11. Your documentary was a hit piece based on emotional manipulation, lies and omissions, and YOU know it!

This documentary heralds the further erosion of neutrality and impartiality within the British Broadcasting Commission

James Roc

  • 31.
  • At 10:28 PM on 22 Feb 2007,
  • Nicholas Zart wrote:

At least the BBC can't be accused of being objective.
At least the BBC can't be accused of being objective.
At least the BBC can't be accused of being objective.

Sorry, I just couldn't see the evidence to support a balanced presentation here. Rest assured that if I had seen it, I would have stopped laughing long enough to type something slightly less insulting.

  • 32.
  • At 10:29 PM on 22 Feb 2007,
  • matt wrote:

Everyone knows it was an inside job! How did building 7 fall? Just stick to that 1point alone. That consp. file show was made by a clone, you know like the ones in star wars. Many a true word written in a film!

Again...I find it interesting that people that live in the middle of nowhere had more information than your program did.

1) You missed the 47 steel columns that wear no where to be found after the explosion

2) Building 7 imploded on itself at free fall speeds

3) Check out the documentary on the WTC. ..many have stated it was designed to withstand multiple jet liner hits. "it would be like a pencils hitting a bugs net"

There are so many points that you could have done fair/assessment but you did not.

Yes even the 911 commission could not touch the WTC7 it was a clear demolition.

*** Why not question Silverstein on his comment of "there was so much loss that day we just decided the best thing to do it pull we pulled it"

Look if one piece doesn't fit it all doesn't make senses.

  • 34.
  • At 10:36 PM on 22 Feb 2007,
  • Tin Raven wrote:

Conspiracy on a conspiracy, I thought you guys reported on the news not made it.

Your program depressed me. You'll know this this because although i have written to you about 7 times you haven't bothered to post or answer, lets hope the official complaint line does eh?
Sorry to be so sarcarstic, , its in my nature.

What made you make the film you did? i'm interested, because presumably you had researchers on the subject, obviously you didn't do it yourself.

Did they watch, Pandora's Black Box Chapter 2, it's on You Tube/Google it's by the and they got sent(via the freedom of information act) a copy of the info from the recovered black bos from flight 77. You knew that didn't you. well they studied it, care to have a look at it? no? sure? too busy? well try your hardest cause i'm going to do your work for you.

  • 35.
  • At 10:37 PM on 22 Feb 2007,
  • Iggi wrote:

Whoever believes that the number 1 government spokespiece (the BBC) would ever portray unbiased information to the public has to be living in a dream world. Whatever the evidence there has been about anomalies in the events on the WTC towers, pentagon etc. the BBC programme just tried to answer in the same way the 9/11 commission did - withought proper investigation, which an organisation of it's size should have done.

  • 36.
  • At 10:39 PM on 22 Feb 2007,
  • Tin Raven wrote:

So will we get a disclaimer, or are you guys going to stand by the propaganda?

  • 37.
  • At 10:43 PM on 22 Feb 2007,
  • Annette wrote:

It seems you are using the "two versions of your piece" as some kind of justification for the biased documentary. It really doesn't say much for you that there was no second piece, more fairly balanced. It merely shows you had no intention of producing a fair and balanced piece to begin with.

There are plenty of people out there with REAL and PROVEN testimony. Too bad you had to "skip over" them in your "search for the truth". Try William Rogriguez for one. At least BBC's Look North had the guts to give him a short interview.

Polls like this have absolutely zero to do with the truth. The truth is the truth whether one person believes it or whether a million do. Numbers do not change the truth, nor the evidence, regardless of who is doing them or why.

Your "selective" search for the "truth" of 9-11, your hatchet-job, is clearly evident. No amount of "damage control" articles you put out is going to change that. They only serve to further show you as the yellow journalists you are.

  • 38.
  • At 10:43 PM on 22 Feb 2007,
  • Tin Raven wrote:

Stop treating your public as fools.

You are in a priviledged position, don't abuse it.

  • 39.
  • At 10:46 PM on 22 Feb 2007,
  • JBarnes wrote:

I agree that many of the conspiracies are outlandish, but that should not, and does not, shift focus away from what was a shoddy and deceptive investigation. From my understanding of the Truth Movement, all they have ever asked for is the release of all sealed documents, and for a truly independent investigation with all testimony given under oath. I don't believe that is asking too much for their tax dollars.

Mr. Rudin, if Guy Smith truly wanted a piece that at least had the appearance of being "fair and balanced" then why would he have 13 "debunkers" to only 4 "conspiracists". He didn't even interview any of the first responders, the victims' families supporting 9/11 truth, or any of the FBI agents who quit after their investigations were stopped by their superiors (Robert Wright)?

I don't believe you were told by anyone to produce a "hit piece", so I'm left to believe that it was a very poor attempt at investigative journalism. I am not a regular watcher of BBC programming, however, your viewers should keep this mind as you attempt to uncover more "conspiracies".

  • 40.
  • At 10:47 PM on 22 Feb 2007,
  • Aaron Jacobs wrote:

It wasn't really fair and balanced, to be honest. Far more time was given to the official account of happened than the people saying something else happened. Furthermore, it used to back the official information that has been discredited and is even not being used by those who back the official story anymore.

Anyway, I implore you watch this video:

That video was by people who followed the official story until they investigated it for themselves.

  • 41.
  • At 10:49 PM on 22 Feb 2007,
  • thomas jefferson wrote:

saying your piece was balanced is ridiculous. anyone with any sense knows this is a hit piece in line with that piece of crap popular mechanics put out. you are not helping the truth come to light on any level, in fact youre hurting the official story and turning more and more people on to what you call a conspiracy theroy. you should explain building 7 fell at near free fall speed straight down into its own footprint after not being hit by a plane, and we all know the 'scooped out' explination isn't going to hold up under any kind of scrutiny. how did this building defy the laws of gravity? of physics? how can your documentary mean anything if you do not address this issue? why do you bother? you are seriously jepordizing the future of main stream media with this one. think about the implications of your actions and save your soul.

  • 42.
  • At 10:53 PM on 22 Feb 2007,
  • Jason wrote:

A fair and balance piece? The last time I saw something that "Fair and Balanced" was the last time I watched Fox!

11 debunkers vs. 3 truthers....balanced?

Trying to portray Dillon Avery as a dropout (he is not) and Alex Jones as an evangelical leader....fair?

Not showing interviews with a firefighter who said he saw and heard bombs off while he was running away from B7...showing and interview with a firefighter that agrees with the official record....balanced?

Wow, I am no journalist but you sure have a lot to learn about fair and balanced news.

  • 43.
  • At 01:26 PM on 24 Feb 2007,
  • John Franklin wrote:

If as you say, 'we worked very hard to make sure the programme was fair and balanced', you either have a definition problem or you don't know what hard work is.

It relied on discredited evidence, didn't show well supported evidence to support the 'truth' cause and had a complete imbalance of interviewees.

The evidence that the producer didn't believe was left out without giving the viewer the opportunity to weigh it.

A real shoddy piece of work, unworthy of the BBC.

  • 44.
  • At 05:44 PM on 24 Feb 2007,
  • Robert L wrote:

Since you deliberately showed the "collapsed truss" theory for an explination of the WTC collapse, a theory that has been proven to be fantasy at best, please tell me how you presented an accurate account of what happend at the World Trade Centers? Also please explain how you "forgot" to include the Larry Silverstien quote ordering WTC 7 to be "pulled" (demolished), or the missing BILLONS in gold that was stored under the WTC'S but only approximately 200 million was recovered? Most importantly, what about the sworn testimony of Mr. Rodriquez who testified that he not only heard explosions in the basement PRIOR to the planes impact, but also saw a man severly injured from said explosions, PRIOR to the planes impact?

This is only an extrodinarily small example of evidence you choose to ignore to better support your case.
Try some actual fact finding next time.

  • 45.
  • At 10:52 AM on 26 Feb 2007,
  • Critical Thinker wrote:

Having watched the programme on the tragic circumstances of Dr. Kelly's death I am minded to agree with Mark's comments on the lack of credibility in this report.

The fact that everyone who has actually seen the evidence declined to comment on your show should really have been telling - instead you allow airtime to anyone with a theory (however lacking in credibility or evidence!)

When did critical thinking leave the BBC?

  • 46.
  • At 02:10 PM on 26 Feb 2007,
  • Des Currie wrote:

If some 60 billion dollars of gold went missing from the WTC after the attack it would have taken 500 10ton trucks to move it. Anyone see a line of 500 trucks sneaking along the New York backstreets after the blasts?
Quite hard to miss, I would imagine.
Des Currie

  • 47.
  • At 07:39 PM on 27 Feb 2007,
  • In the Now wrote:

This was a dreadfully biased hit piece, the producers chose to make a very one-sided piece, to ignore important information and witnesses, and to let their personal feelings and opinions influence the programme to a massive degree. This is along with belittling anyone that does not fit the standard mould.

  • 48.
  • At 02:29 AM on 28 Feb 2007,
  • christoq wrote:

Not hard to imagine if they used an underground transportation system, which they did...and one of the trucks, full of gold, was found there.

  • 49.
  • At 07:01 AM on 28 Feb 2007,
  • Jeff Pagenton wrote:

I have a question: who cares why 9/11 came about? So it proves that the US government is corrupt. Like we didn't know that already.

You can prove that simply by looking at the West's near-tyrannical involvement in the Middle East, which is the subject we should far more be concerning ourselves with anyway.

Here's a conspiracy theory for you; who's to say that the US government hasn't leaked out all this 'evidence' for conspiracy theories to you themselves, to keep you distracted whilst they continue with their reall agenda? They're corrupt, not stupid.

  • 50.
  • At 12:35 PM on 28 Feb 2007,
  • shaun wrote:

If their hasnt been a conspiracy, how comes BBC world reported the collapse of WTC 7 20 minutes before it actually collapsed?

Jane standley is there, reporting live that WTC 7(also known as the Salomon tower) has collapsed. If you look carefully, the Tower is behind her. Remember that this is a live report. This video speaks for its self.

You people need to open your eyes, look objectively at the bigger picture, and Let the evidence speak for its self.

  • 51.
  • At 01:36 PM on 28 Feb 2007,
  • Michael wrote:

You want convincing evidence of a conspiracy? Look no further than the office down the hall, my friend!

The Head of News for BBC World, one Mr. Richard Porter, claims in his Editor's Blog that "We no longer have the original tapes of our 9/11 coverage" when pressured to respond to allegations that BBC World had foreknowledge of the collapse of WTC7.

You might want to consider updating your recent documentary on '9/11 Conspiracy Theories'...

Here's his full blog:

  • 52.
  • At 02:35 PM on 28 Feb 2007,
  • Steve Young wrote:

I have been directed to this blog site by
by Paul Wheeler of the
BBC Information & Complaints department
in an email response to my recent written complaint.

I simply intend to try,
yet again, to leave my thoughts in terms of 3 relevant links.

Anyone interested in looking into 911 Truth and what serious,
knowledgable people are saying about it should and would
view the following:-

"911 And American Empire - Intellectuals Speak Out"
Berkeley, California 26th September 2006

The BIG Issue goes Intello.
These are NOT fringe radicals or conspiracy junkies speaking.



I would expect that having gone round the complaints loop,
and having been officially pointed here, that this time my
feedback will get promptly posted.

  • 53.
  • At 11:59 AM on 03 Mar 2007,
  • Dr Alok Bhattacharyya wrote:

Dear Mr Rudin,

It's very easy to justify your position via quoting staistics from telephone interviews.

You said that lots of other conspiracy websites such as Prisonplanet are asking people to complain to BBC about your show.

Have you ever thought why do people go to sites as Prisonplanet? I think because people are seriously concerned about your objectivity.

I sent you two emails askins you the same seroius scientifically verifiable questions. You neglected to post any of them. Do you want me to send those questions again?

Hiding behind statistics is very easy? But then apply statistics in every case.

No steel framed concrete building has every been destroyed by fire, before and after 9/11? What was the statistical chance of that happening to three buildings that day? Please get a statistician do calculate the odds and please publish that too.

Best regards,

Dr Alok K Bhattacharyya

  • 54.
  • At 08:16 PM on 03 Mar 2007,
  • steve shallcross wrote:

I don't believe that the bbc are part of a conspiracy or a cover up .
But the bbc should take pride in giving balanced views which by large they do but the conspiracy files failed miserably to give a balanced account and not even try to answer any of the questions being raised by the 9/11 truth movement .

ps how did bbc world report or PREDICT lol that WTC7 had fallen down 23 Min's before it fell ?
AMAZING bit of journalism you really do get all the news first !!!!
Have you employed mystic meg as a new journalist lol

the people at the bbc should hang there heads in shame and take a good hard look at themselves shame on you !

further ps has that same journalist that predicted WTC7 got this weeks lottery numbers :-))

  • 55.
  • At 09:10 PM on 05 Mar 2007,
  • James Patrick wrote:

We don't accuse the BBC of being part of the conspiracy.

We are just asking the BBC for an answer about announcing the collapse of Building 7 before it actually collapsed.

And Richard Porter saying that you lost 3 tapes because of cock-up is not an answer.

Those tapes are kept in 3 different places according to the BBC's archive code.

As a British citizen, I want to know where my money goes, that's it.

  • 56.
  • At 06:50 PM on 06 Mar 2007,
  • Jeff Nutbeem wrote:

If you want to see what a set-up this programme was, consider the difference in production values in the first and second halves. The first, where there was clearly little faith in their own argument, the producers used a cornucopia of weird camera angles, endless shots of the planes, hand held shots, filters, sound effects - it had both the substance and style of a third rate pop video. Cut to the second half when they interviewed all their "experts", including (roll about laughing) the X Files guy - cameras steady as a rock, no movement, everything calm and quiet and easily understood, as a BBC documentary should be. Objective? It is all about the BBC being able to say on behalf of others - "we did investigate it for you". Don't make me laugh.

  • 57.
  • At 08:18 PM on 16 Mar 2007,
  • Bla wrote:

I see through your lies to your motives. This mock-umentary stinks.

  • 58.
  • At 01:20 PM on 18 Mar 2007,
  • Ben DeVere wrote:


I would deeply appreciate a reply to this, Mike.

You write above:

"We didn’t find anything conclusive proving the conspiracy theories. Instead we found a lot of evidence which supported the official version and contradicted the various conspiracy theories."

I cannot begin to understand how this is possible if you investigated the truth movement as thoroughly as you make out. I can only assume that you went into the project with your mind made up already.

I came upon the movement as a sceptic myself. Was insulted by it in fact.

However, I found little to no evidence supporting the official line, only omissions and evasions. A striking example being the 911 comission's failure to even mention building 7's collapse. Or their claim that the 47 steel columns inside World Trade 1 and 2 didn't exist!

I am fascinated to know what all this evidence proving the official story you mention is and where you found it.

How can you have listened to the rational, meticulous independent expert and academic studies from so many who provide some truly conclusive evidence, and maintain your views so steadfastly.

There is a wealth of ludicrous theories, yes, but take a quick look at a publication like David Ray Griffin and Peter Dale Scott's “9/11 and American Empire: Intellectuals Speak Out” by Olive Branch Press, or a film like 'Press for Truth', and you'll quickly see that the 'conspiracy nuts' don't constitute the real movement at all.

I've never posted a comment before. And hold no hope anyone will read it. Least of all you. But I'm really quite ashamed and had to say something.

You've done a lot of damage here, and obviously didn't give nearly enough time to investigating the right people. The producer of The X-Files!?! Please...

You say no one could have held you back from broadcasting such an important story. You've held yourself back, and I implpore you to take a second look. Please.

Tainan, Taiwan, ROC.

  • 59.
  • At 12:07 AM on 21 Mar 2007,
  • The Lone Gunman wrote:

"It was a plane crash, but yet it was a homicide because terrorists had hijacked the plane and killed the passengers."

"He says it is technically correct that there were no complete bodies at the crash site, but the recovery operation found many body parts and DNA to identify all the passengers and crew on board."

If this were true, the names of the hijackers would also appear on the coroner's manifest.

It's very difficult to take a name off FAA casualty lists and to escape coroner scrutiny. The FBI director Mueller even admits that there is no way to prove that that the alledged hijackers were on any of those planes.

Furthermore, whether they were bad guys or good guys, bodies do get identified as proof that there was a perpetrator. Even Oswald and Hitler had autopsies done on them as required for evidence

Where are the hijackers names? Why are they omitted from the FAA lists?

Did United 93 crash?

Photographs taken at the crash site near Shanksville show a small crater and fragments of clearly identifiable aircraft wreckage along with personal possessions from some of those on board.

  • 60.
  • At 06:25 PM on 21 Mar 2007,
  • JTF wrote:

What ever happened to the "strictly impartial and objective" BBC? I cannot comment on your "conspiracies of 911" programme as I did not see it but why hide the evidence of the BBC World news coverage of the WTC 7 collapse?
My faith in the BBC has been seriously rocked!

  • 61.
  • At 03:55 PM on 16 Apr 2007,
  • Stewart wrote:

"We have a problem here. We have a hijacked aircraft headed towards New York and we need you guys to scramble some F-16's or something up there."
"Is this real world or exercise?"
"No this is not an exercise.This is not a test."
This conversation, according the documentary occured at 8:37 am. This unequivocal statement was 'proof' of confusion.
Clear bias.
This is an example of coming to a conclusion that the evidence they present clearly points to the opposite.

  • 62.
  • At 12:06 PM on 20 Apr 2007,
  • Stewart wrote:

The most obvious form of bias is requiring that those who doubt the official version must provide concrete absolute proof while not pressing the same standards of the official account. All this piece did was attack any form of doubt about the official version as the product of a sick mind, much like this blog intro.

How did the BBC know that Building 7 was going to be pulled 20 minutes prior to it being pulled?

  • 64.
  • At 01:43 AM on 24 Apr 2007,
  • MA wrote:

Mr. Rudin,
Now you can up date your obfiscating documentary by going to 911 blogger, prison planet and many other sites and see the answer given by John Kerry concerning the demolition of building No 7. Surprise! He thought it was demolished because it was in danger of damaging something. So when did they plant the explosives? Seems Silverstein was correct; they "pulled it". Seems Jane Standley had the right oil,: building No 7 (the Salomon building) did collapse but then again she knew that before it happened. That also fits with an announcement that it was going to come down. That fits with the firefighter's reports that they were warned that; it was going to some down and fancy, the time was counted down. Even NIST has not dared claim that it just collapsed. I wonder why not? Could it be that NIST know exactly why it came down and that is why they have delayed their report. Sought of makes their report on the towers a bit sus.
Now all that is cleared up. If the building was rewired earlier, where are the invoices for the work, who did it, where are records of their payments etc? Seems Mr. Ikud, that you have a long way to go before you can claim on behalf of the BBC that it is an organisation that can be trusted.
Feeling nervous?,

  • 65.
  • At 07:52 PM on 24 Apr 2007,
  • Michael wrote:

The idea of "Conspiracy Theories" has taken an interesting twist with the BBC caught squarely in the middle on 9/11:

And here's the BBC's "Official" response including a huge number of reader comments:

  • 66.
  • At 09:08 AM on 25 Apr 2007,
  • merle wrote:

Dear BBC journalists
Please tune in to Bill Moyers' upcoming programme 'Buying The War' (to be screened shortly in the US). It will explore how Western media let the public down through its uncritical stenography and lies of ommission. Our children will study the BBC's dereliction of journalistic duty between 9/11/2001 and 2007 during future university media courses. The journalists who acted as mouthpieces and stenographers for the South African government during the apartheid era were forever marked and tainted. Keep your eye on the bigger picture, BBC journalists. Are you members of the Fourth Estate or not?

  • 67.
  • At 08:40 AM on 26 Apr 2007,
  • merle wrote:

US Air Force Colonel and ex-Pentagon official Karen Kwiatkowski: "I have been told by reporters that they will not report their own insights or contrary evaluations of the official 9/11 story, because to question the government story about 9/11 is to question the very foundations of our entire modern belief system regarding our government, our country, and our way of life. To be charged with questioning these foundations is far more serious than being labeled a disgruntled conspiracy nut or anti-government traitor, or even being sidelined or marginalized within an academic, government service, or literary career. To question the official 9/11 story is simply and fundamentally revolutionary. In this way, of course, questioning the official story is also simply and fundamentally American."

  • 68.
  • At 11:25 AM on 26 Apr 2007,
  • merle wrote:

Mr Rudin, you say you found ' a lot of evidence that supported the official 911 theory.' As a BBC journalist I believe you should list this evidence for the record so that readers/viewers can engage with you around the facts. At the moment, there is nothing but a long silence from you, a vacuum, a lacuna. It is quite extraodrinary that your bosses at the BBC condone your smearing of all who question 'official theories' as 'conspiracists'. Dr Daniel Goleman in his book Vital Lies, Simple Truths (Bloomsbury) says it best: 'Questions that can't - or won't - be asked are a sure sign of a lacuna. The creation of blind spots is a key tool of repressive regimes, allowing them to obliterate information that threatens their official line.'

  • 69.
  • At 01:36 AM on 19 Jun 2007,
  • MA wrote:

Dear Mr. Rudin, NFP
I take it that in your continuing research into 9/11 as a 'conscienous' BBC hack that you are now reading Griffin's book; "Debunking 9/11 Debunkers". If you are not, you should, as you are shown to be a class idiot and/or misinformationalist. In other words, you are a supporting warmongering, because, but for the lie of 9/11 over 600,000 humans in the Middle East would not have been similarly murdered.
I trust you will be satisfied when Iran is attacked as planned with the other 6 counries "in 5 years" as stated by General Wesley Clark (Ret)[from September 2001].
Basically, warmongers of whatever cause are equally evil. Liars and hypocrites merely support such people.
In due course you will be treated as such.

  • 70.
  • At 04:01 PM on 19 Jun 2007,
  • Mark wrote:

Is it true the makers of this "documentary" asked the US authorities, in order to once and for all lay the CT's to rest, to release to them the serial numbers of F77 B757 components salvaged from the Pentagon after the "9/11 crash" (all aircraft components, I'm informed, are marked with serial numbers and logged)only to be curtly told 'NO YOU CANNOT!' Did the conspiracy filers ask for all the confiscated CCTV footage of what hit the Pentagon 9/11?

  • 71.
  • At 07:52 AM on 19 Jul 2007,
  • Mark Gobell wrote:

Perhaps the BBC could organise a phone in competition on the subject of 9/11.

There could be a series of premium rate options that the clueless public could vote for so that the BBC could be seen to be doing the right thing.

How did WTC7 collapse ?

a) Erm it just did

b) It didn't collapse it was built badly

c) Dunno. Now where's my holiday.

d) None of the above, an associate producer has already won the prize and the lines are closed

e) Can I have my licence fee back now please.

  • 72.
  • At 02:05 PM on 21 Jul 2007,
  • Ethel Blunt wrote:

Dear Msrs Thomas & Rudin,

Thanks for your email response to my formal complaint detailing the many criticisms of your 9/11 Conspiracy programme.

I found it most disheartening that you should 'play the emotion card' whilst carefully avoiding any mention of the many discrepancies between the Official Conspiracy, that you promoted to the hilt, and the huge body of documented conflicting fact on the ground.

It seems my view of the BBC is the correct one in that you are no longer dealing with fact and would rather play politics.

A sad end to a once highly respected source of unbiased and largely accurate news.

Finally, in 'playing the emotion card' you are being very dishonest to the wishes of a _majority_ of the bereaved - those who are still outraged that their questions are being completely glossed over by the entirety of western mainstream media.

You have lost all credibility since the repudiation of your programme has now been released all over the Internet.

  • 73.
  • At 11:42 AM on 23 Jul 2007,
  • Alan Bebbington wrote:

Anyone with a brain cell or two and who has looked at the evidence presented by the likes of Professor Stephen Jones, Greg Palast, Webster Tarpley and hundreds of other formidable researchers, journalists, scientists and intellectuals now know that 911 was a flase flag event and is consistent with everything else that has been attributed to the secret society network over the last few hundred years. So please stop wasting your time and energy with the controlled and programmed BBC staff and focus on talking to friends, family and work colleagues and try and convince them that there is another, more truthful reality in which they can believe.

  • 74.
  • At 02:00 PM on 31 Jul 2007,
  • Mark O Reilly wrote:

i must say i was very dissapointed in your documentary 'the conspiracy files'.
like many people i have alot of questions regarding the events of september 11th, and like alot of people i'm fustrated by the radical advocates of conspiracy contorting facts to their own needs.

an unbiased properly funded and powerfully backed report was just what i needed and looked forward to.

unfortunatly none of my questions were answered, nor were they even asked.
instead it picked out the most flawed and unproven theories and de-bunked them harshly, as they should be,
but while ignoring glaring other facts.

nothing was said about the actual questions of 9-11, and i was very upset that it didn't even deal with the question that the bbc broadcast news of tower 7's collapse before it happened. surely for the bbc itself this would be the easiest to contradict.
...i'm left feeling maybe an amount more suspicious of this whole thing, when before i was only vaguly unsatisfied by the official story.

your shameful refusal to investigate actual questions beyond 'was it a jewish conspiracy?' annoys me no end.

also the fact that 46% of people are unsure wether or not their government killed 3,000 of its own citizens i don't consider positive.
i guess its all in the spin you put on it.

  • 75.
  • At 09:45 AM on 20 Aug 2007,
  • Pablo wrote:

Mike Rudin and BBC... you have been punked! Shame on you!

  • 76.
  • At 11:30 AM on 21 Aug 2007,
  • merle wrote:

Posts 71 - 75?

  • 77.
  • At 10:34 AM on 22 Aug 2007,
  • mellie wrote:

"we found lots of evidence which supported the official story', states Mike Rudin. Surely this 'evidence' you uncovered constitutes an excellent story in itself? Why is it not in the public domain? Would you please list some of this evidence so that we can look at it too. If it's rational and provable perhaps many of the cynical comments here will wither away in the face of incontrovertable data. If you haven't yet read DR Griffin's 'Debunking 911 Debunking', I urge you to do so because it talks directly to your colleague Guy Smith. This book details how Zelikow's 911 Commission AMMENDED certain elements of its findings and how Popular Mechanics (PM) (and BBC's Guy Smith who predicated his doccie on the PM piece)addressed the original findings and FAILED to update according to these amendments. Very basic - and somewhat embarrassing - slip-ups, which amount to both PM and Guy Smith being in erratum.

  • 78.
  • At 11:46 PM on 22 Aug 2007,
  • Ynda wrote:

Your GfK NOP poll was very interesting but ignores the generally poor level of detailed information being circulated about 9/11. If the poll was cross referenced with a second question, namely, "Question 2. Do you know that a third building, a 48 story skyscraper, WTC7, also came down on 9/11?"

I find that most people do not know about WTC7. If they do know about WTC7 and have read more widely about the weaknesses in the official story, I am sure there would be a much higher degree of skepticism of the official story - at least within the group that said "yes" to question 2.

I remember watching the first BBC documentary of the twin tower collapse which was, in hindsight, very misleading: Not a mention about WTC7; not to mention other discrepancies in the official story: the central core of the WTC building, the fact that an open fire cannot melt (or even weaken steel), countless reports of explosions (some even before the planes hit!) and the unexplained pools of molten steel under WTC1, 2 and 7 for months after the event. Only controlled demolition accounts for all of the aspects of these 3 buildings destruction. The Who and the How questions that follow that realisation require investigating: will the BBC do it?

Every time the BBC says "The 9/11 Attack" it is supporting the flawed official stance. If the BBC wished for impartiality it should say just "9/11" or "the 9/11 event"...

  • 79.
  • At 10:01 AM on 24 Aug 2007,
  • mellie wrote:

Dear Alan Bebbington (#73) I find your contribution to this thread dubious for two reasons:
(1) You say that scientists and intellectuals know that 911 was a flase flag event, and then you add that this 'is consistent with everything else that has been attributed to the secret society network over the last few hundred years'. This is fuzzy-wuzzy 'conspiracy' thinking that veers from the topic and the facts. A new and truly independent investigation into 911 is needed because of its status as the linchpin of the mendacious Iraq war. As such, no one is calling for an investigation into ancient 'secret society' networks. I've got enough of an investigation working out which of my two sons uncovered my stash of early Christmas shopping without launching an investigation into the ancient "Santa and The Elves' secret society. Let's not get distracted.
(2) Then you go on, Alan, with 'So please stop wasting your time and energy with the 'controlled and programmed BBC staff' (wow!) and focus on talking to friends, family and work colleagues and try and convince them that there is another, more truthful reality in which they can believe.' No, I won't do what you suggest. The majority of my friends, family and work colleagues are on the same page already, being a reality-based lot. The people I am angry with, and will continue engaging with, are the mainstream media journalists, who have failed to pursue the facts and act as watchdogs for democracy.

  • 80.
  • At 09:52 AM on 30 Oct 2007,
  • Alan Bebbington wrote:

Dear Mellie,

Don't let the facts ever get in the way of your understanding of world events and how your perception of reality is formed. And don't pay any attention to those people who have made it their lifes work researching and intellectually engaging the relevant issues with an open mind. All of us, and we are many, have been subjected to the controlled mainstream media etc all our lives. But what we have done, and what you have not, is considered other possibilities. To do this you either have to research the issues yourself or examine the work of the many eminent free thinking journalists and acedemics who have. I gave you a list of some names previously. Here are those names again and a few more: Professor Stephen Jones, Greg Palast, Webster Tarpley, Dr Stanley Monteith, Jordan Maxwell, Michael Tsarion, Filmmaker Aaron Russo, David Ray Griffin etc etc. It's up to you, you either consider anyone who challenges the status quo and official version of events a 'conspiracy nut' (the knee jerk reaction for someone not prepared to intellectually engage with the issues)or you awaken from your state of mind which is a result of a lifetime of manipulation, mind control and mind programming techniques that have resulted in the way you think and feel(check out the work of Stuart Swerdlowe). But you won't, will you? What are you afraid of? If you can accept that you have been programmed to think and feel in a certain way, you can then start to deprogramme yourself. And what a fantastic world it is - out of the box.

  • 81.
  • At 03:45 PM on 03 Nov 2007,
  • Toby wrote:

Now I've not watched the BBC programme, and I've tried to stay out of this dispute because I'm invarialby swayed by the arguments of the "conspiracy theorists" in this case, and I don't want to go around publicly defending "crazies".

However, when it comes to telephone polls, I react strongy when the BBC presents the question: “Attacks were made on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon on September 11th 2001, commonly known as 9/11. It is generally accepted that these attacks were carried out by ’Al Qaeda’, however some people have suggested there was a wider conspiracy that included the American Government. Do you, yourself, believe that there was a wider conspiracy, or not?” as a balanced phone poll question.

It is a question where the answer is supplied (it is generally accepted that ...) and any other reply is associated with "crackpots" (do you belive that there was a conspiracy).

The only people who would answer yes to this question are people who would be willing to identify themselves with conspiracy theorists, an astounding 16%!

  • 82.
  • At 11:49 AM on 05 Nov 2007,
  • merle wrote:

"We were lied to," says Robert Redford, talking about American foreign policy on BBC2 this November 2007. "The facts were in front of their (media's) nose, but they rolled over."

  • 83.
  • At 10:24 PM on 05 Nov 2007,
  • Ynda wrote:

From top of page

"Instead we found a lot of evidence which supported the official version and contradicted the various conspiracy theories."

How about just agreeing on the evidence rather than just a politician's story...

Where is this evidence that supported the official story?

a) How where the hijackers identified? How do we actually know their motivation?
b) Where are the serially numbered component parts from the crashed planes?
c) where are the aircraft black boxes: data and voice?
d) where are the FAA voice record tapes?
e) Where is the radar track evidence?
f) Why didn't the US military follow procedures?
g) How did the twin towers actually collapse?
h) How did WTC7 collapse?
i) How do you collect DNA evidence from the pentagon and from flight 93 crashes, but no aircraft components? How was this evidence collected?
j) Who died and where? (There's still confusion over this!)
k) What was the time line of events and why has it changed so much?
l) what was the cause of all the explosions in WTC 1 and 2?
m) How did untrained pilots navigate to the targets?
n) why the delay to 911 commission report?
o) Fake AQ videos? Who made them?
p) Where is the CCTV tapes confiscated by the FBI around the pentagon?
q) No accomplices? Why no prosecutions or any criminal proceedings?
r) Where is the air traffic investigations?

  • 84.
  • At 04:59 PM on 13 Nov 2007,
  • klem wrote:

How did WTC7 collapse symmetrically ?
As a structural engineer I find this question interesting and so do all my colleagues. Can anybody explain this ?

  • 85.
  • At 07:54 PM on 13 Nov 2007,
  • Boris wrote:

Oh no who woke this one up?

In reply to a few points

Aircraft parts from all 4 crashes were picked up, just bother doing some basic research into some of the many media stories covering the events of that day

The 'explosions' in wtc 1 and 2 as they came down can be traced to the way the building came down and to the design of the buildings them selves.
When each floor pancaked down onto the floor below the air that was between the floors needed to go somewhere, either down the central core of the building or out the windows, breaking the windows on the way.
The air is full of concrete dust/debris, hence clouds of dust popping out of the buildings exactly like it was explosions going off.

Untrained pilots? so what were they doing at pilot training schools in the US prior to 9-11?
Navigating to New York? on a day when theres 20-25 mile visibilty and you are heading for the 2 tallest buildings in the city? hmm hard one that.

I would carry on in the same vein about WTC7 having a large hole in it and having a big fire too and one end of the building started to move/collapse 30 secs before the rest of the building, but I need to get my tinfoil hat back on.


  • 86.
  • At 08:28 PM on 13 Nov 2007,
  • Ynda wrote:

Hi Kelm,

The only known mechanism (man-made or natural) to collapse three skyscrapers symmetrically on the same day is Controlled Demolition.

The official story is "fire" which has never collapsed a building symmetrically and never in the timescale witnessed on 9/11: less than an hour for the South Tower.

There have been many other skyscraper fires such as the Madrid skyscraper which survived savage fires for 12 hours. (Just google Madrid Skyscraper Fire).

Prof Steven Jones has published a paper that explains all the effects noticed on the 3 skyscraper collapses. The official story does not address all the evidence... In fact, it is just that: a story.

How about an investigation?

  • 87.
  • At 01:42 PM on 14 Nov 2007,
  • Cam wrote:

Well Boris. I would appreciate if you would explain to everyone just how WTC7, a 174m, 47 story steel framed structure managed to fall symmetrically through the path of most resistance into its own footprint (where molten metal was observed) in approximately 6.5 (or should that be 30?) seconds,(free fall in a vacuum is approx 6 seconds) - since nobody else including NIST can explain why. You also might like to explain how other buildings that were closer and much more severely damaged than WTC7 did not totally collapse nor did they have hotspots as observed by NASA thermal imaging taken on the 16th September, 2001.
While you are there, you may want to address the 10 second collapse of WTC2 as stated in Ch 9 of the 9/11 Commission Report or NIST's 'essential' free fall time of 9 seconds (free fall in a vacuum is 9.2 seconds) bearing in mind that steel was ejected hundreds of feet, concrete was pulverized and molten metal was observed (even after dousing the scene with thousands of litres of water) and that the laws of physics cannot be violated. There were also multiple explosions reported before (and during) the collapse and in fact the FBI were investigating the possibility that explosives were planted in the building.
You may want to further your research into the design of the twin towers too, considering they consisted of 47 steel core columns, and were the tallest buildings on Earth at the time, designed to take the impact of a fully laden, four engined Boeing 707. You may want to rethink most of your other 'research' as well.

  • 88.
  • At 10:15 PM on 15 Nov 2007,
  • Ynda wrote:

Hi Boris,

You may need your tin hat! :-) Sorry but there are some basic stuff that we may disagree with. 4 aircraft crashed: there has been no air crash investigation. Only one flight data recovered (flight 77) (flight data disagrees with other parts of official story) and one voice recovered (flight 93): information only released as transcript except to relatives. Official time for Flight 93 crash is 10.03. Other observers and seismic information says 10.06. Pattern of debris inconsistent with plane crashing into the ground. Flight 77: where's the Boeing? Should be easily proved (but hasn't been) - not even the BBC has been allowed accessed to see components recovered.

What you describe as how the towers falling is not in the 911 Commission Report. Where do you get your info from? Not even the official story claims the pancake story any more (lots of disinformation here). Building do not explode when there is a fire. Explain the dust and molten steel by pancaking? (Does not compute - hey just ask for the mathematical models...).

Are you a pilot? Ask pilots what they think of the 911 flight paths? Especially the journey to the Pentagon.

Don't you think anything worth investigating there? The relatives of the victims are unhappy with the official story (See 9/11 Press for Truth movie) - do you claim you know more than them? No criminal investigation, no FAA investigation, no science, no answers to pass down to history except what the politicians said on the day? (And probably knew in advance?) Thousands of people killed, trillions of dollars wasted,lost (or stolen), changes to civil liberties (worldwide), a million dead in Iraq... all because of 9/11?

It is Not being debated, questions Not being answered, Nobody brought to justice, Basic facts Disputed, Disinformation everywhere,

And you somehow think that it is not "right" to ask a few questions? I think You need to wake up. And ask questions!

  • 89.
  • At 11:58 AM on 17 Nov 2007,
  • Dave Robertson wrote:

Hi Ynda - 88# - I am a pilot and I learned to fly at an American aviation school October 2001. I had a few discussions with civil and military pilots about what happened – it was after all only 2 months later – and there was no suggestion that these terrorists could not have flown those planes as they did given the tuition they had. I feel I could have done that – flying is not as difficult as you might think. PC based flight simulators are really quite accurate and in fact the only hard part of flying is the landing - everything else can be learned with simulation. As we know landing wasn’t really an issue. Why don’t you go and learn to fly rather than read endless unsubstantiated piffle on the internet. Those planes were flown by terrorist – there is no evidence to suggest otherwise – case closed.

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.