Will this Sunday's BBC documentary whitewash 9/11?

[gareth]

According to the bbc website it now says the 9/11 one is on Sunday 18 February 9pm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/c ... 160775.stm


oklahoma... Sunday 25 February 9pm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/c ... 213816.stm


and dr kelly... Sunday 4 March 9pm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/c ... 213898.stm

[PaulStott]

Willl be interesting to see if their Oklahoma one as is good as the Discovery Channel one (quite impressive at suggesting a Muslim/Phillipines connection).

[Mark Gobell]

I thought the Discovery Channel produced an excellent, if rather provocative documentary on 9/11 too.

Although the programme was very conspiratorial, it suggested that four commercial jetliners were hijacked shortly after take-off, by members of the al-Qaeda network, and flown towards targets in New York and Washington.

Proof, if indeed anyone needs further proof, that the Discovery Channel remains a clear leader in the vanguard of cutting edge televisual journalism.

Mind blowing stuff !

[kbo234]

Let us try and predict what this programme will be like.

There will be superficial 'even-handedness' by allowing both sides of the argument to say their piece. However, the skepics (us) will be theorists (not the live whistleblowers) while the government supporters will be contain more 'eye-witnesses' of the actual events.

The no-planers will be spotlighted and I'll bet Alex Jones will be caught at his loud-mouth best....all wild allegations with none of the supporting evidence shown or even referred to at all.

[Skeptic]

Expect to see a recount of all the info from the 911myths website.

[Mark Gobell]

The US Government was caught "off guard" and had no idea that terrorists would target buildings with aircraft, even though the President was briefed about it.

Prior warnings were overlooked because the FBI & CIA etc were not joined up.

Bin Laden declared Jihad and called for Americans to be killed, ergo he did it. Bin Laden & Co were responsible for the US Embassies in Africa, USS Cole, etc, so he must have done 9/11.

Bin Laden had tried it before in 1993 and that had nothing to do with the FBI. Honest.

TV pundits worked out it was Bin Laden within 1 hour, all on their own.

Princess Bliar has seen "incontrovertible proof" that Al Q did it, but he can't show us the proof because, erm, well, he just can't and it would be a "ludicrous diversion" from bombing the middle east.

The US administration really really wanted to investigate the USS Cole but thought that John O'Neill would upset Yemeni sensibilities.

Erm. Atta et al were all Al Qaeda, devout fanatical Muslim extremists, who, with the understandable pressure that international terrorism brings, relaxed with alcohol, cocaine and lap dancers.

Able Danger didn't exist because they just put a yellow sticker over it.

NORAD were, erm, ready but the FAA let them down.

Jet Fuel burned hot enough for 56 minutes to compromise a 500,000 ton sky scraper sufficiently for it to virtually disappear in a few seconds.

The theory must be correct because the USA has not suffered further domestic terrorist events.

Anyone who questions the official story has emotional issues from their childhood and need to invent complicated stories to explain the horror away.

Conspiracy theorists believe that the Queen is a lizard.

Planes do vapourise on impact and can leave human DNA at the same time.

The heart of the USA Defence Complex at the Pentagon is in fact, erm, defenceless against inbound airborne attack.

Aircraft can disappear completely into the ground in a high speed crash. Forever.

USA aviation radar only points outwards to detect Russian bombers.

Hijack distress signals were not sent by any of the 4 aircraft that day because the pilots all suffered simultaneous thumb failure.

Hijackers DNA was kept on file, just in case, even though they didn't know anything about the hijackers.

Bin Laden claimed no responsibility for the attacks and then changed his mind.

People in Khandahar discard used videos all the time.

Saddam loved Al Q, he really he did, and really really did have WMD.

The US Government really really did want to investigate 9/11 properly, they were just waiting for the right push at the right moment.

The 9/11 Commission Report is a full and fair, thorough account of what happened on that day.

NIST, FEMA and Popular Mechanics have proved over and over again that the conspiracy theorists are deluded.

WTC7 fell to the ground in 7 seconds because of fire. The official report is taking a bit longer than expected, but, will prove this once and for all. 5 years is not really that long in building collapse terms, after all, it's only about 9 months for each collapse second.

Steel framed sky scrapers are prone to spontaneous collapse, especially when targetted by religious fanatics.

[QuitTheirClogs]

Do the general public know anything about WTC 7 ?

e.g. do they even know that there was a third building ?

[Mark Gobell]

In my experience I have found very few folk who know about WTC7.

[QuitTheirClogs]

So isn't this going to come as a bit of shock to people that after five years they're going to be told - oh, we forgot to mention this one ?

[Mark Gobell]

Well, I was getting a bit optimistic in my rant there I guess.

I doubt whether they will mention WTC7 at all.

[SHERITON HOTEL]

...and what about this latest WTC7 'pre-collapse countdown' claim doing the rounds? and Judicial watch's FOI action against the US government forcing them to release Pentagon CCTV security footage of a Boeing 757 DEFINITELY NOT hitting that obscure side of the facility 9/11? failure to do so would surely contravene their inform, educate BEEB charter.

[QuitTheirClogs]

I posted the following on another site regarding the George Monbiot Guardian rant. So we know it's been mentioned in the Guardian.

===

There's a few valid criticisms of Loose Change, but the vast bulk of the article is utter garbage. This is what it says about the collapse of Building 7:

He [Counterpunch's expert] also demonstrates how Building 7 collapsed. Burning debris falling from the twin towers ruptured the oil pipes feeding its emergency generators. The reduction in pressure triggered the automatic pumping system, which poured thousands of gallons of diesel on to the fire. The support trusses weakened and buckled, and the building imploded.

Shame George Monbiot didn't check his facts with NIST (just a mouse-click away), because NIST still only have a "current working hypothesis" which they may, or may not, dump as the case may be. And its June 2004 report (Appendix L) makes only one mention of diesel:

From 11:30 a.m. to 2:30 p.m.: No diesel smells reported from the exterior, stairwells, or lobby areas

http://wtc.nist.gov/progress_report_jun ... june04.htm

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

[Mark Gobell]

There's another thread here suggesting that we prepare to raise, co-ordinated complaints with OFCOM should the BBC contravene it's charter.

I for one will be recording the programme.

[Mark Gobell]

He [Counterpunch's expert] also demonstrates how Building 7 collapsed. Burning debris falling from the twin towers ruptured the oil pipes feeding its emergency generators. The reduction in pressure triggered the automatic pumping system, which poured thousands of gallons of diesel on to the fire. The support trusses weakened and buckled, and the building imploded.

Do we know what the source is of this claim by Counterpunch ?

[QuitTheirClogs]

It’s from the George Monbiot article in the Guardian – 6 Feb 2006.

But I haven’t checked Counterpunch.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... 31,00.html

[SHERITON HOTEL]

Sorry if this is a daft question but what is the burning point of diesel? I always thought its combustion point was much higher than kerosene, diesel engines operating on a completely different principal(sp?) to petrol engines.

I would have thought George Monbiot, an environmental science university professor, would know this.

[Mark Gobell]

Ordinarily, diesel fuel has a flashpoint that is around 125 F to 150 F. This means that there is little chance of accidentally igniting diesel fuel and it is sometimes called an “intrinsically safe” fuel.

"Normal" fires involving wood and plastics burn at several hundred degrees F, so a sure source of ignition if indeed the diesel pipes were ruptured.

I'd still like to know how Monbidiot or anyone else knows this to be a fact though.

[Snowygrouch]

It will in all probability be utter S***E.
I was contacted by someone in the BBC who had been told I had some interesting research on 9.11 (the F77 black box research).
I sent him an email back with some basic details asking if they wanted the full story.

I never heard a thing..................

[humanoid]

seem to me the 911 conspiracy is getting out of hand,i wonder if the bbc have been called in to DEBUNK the truth as rubbish, like thet usually do,we shall see!


http://www.bbc.co.uk/cgi-perl/whatson/p ... 4_27894_60

[ian neal]

Sorry if this is a daft question but what is the burning point of diesel?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flash_point
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diesel_engine

Normal diesel fuel is more difficult to ignite than gasoline because of its higher flash point, but once burning, a diesel fire can be fierce.

True.

But fierce enough to cause the collapse of WTC7?

I haven't read this source, but someone might like to check them out

Monbiot references Manuel Garcia's report on WTC7

http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2007/02 ... #more-1041

http://www.counterpunch.org/darkfire11282006.html

Jim Hoffman's response

http://911review.com/reviews/counterpun ... 82006.html

Plus Kevin Ryan's response

http://911review.com/articles/ryan/index.html
http://911review.com/articles/ryan/counterpunch.html
http://911review.com/articles/ryan/garcia.html

http://www.911truth.org/article.php?sto ... 2200529471

[SHERITON HOTEL]

Didn't Alex Jones comment on his shoddy treatment by the BBC in the making of this programme to James Whale on talksport last September? I thought there was a transcript of the programme kicking around at the time.

Thank you to Ian Neal for those 'diesel' links btw .

[DDD911]

I have to admit I do cringe at times about Alex Jones, don’t get me wrong he’s been worryingly spot-on with a few things and I tip my hat to the guy, but he can come across very loud and obnoxious and this doesn’t wash well with some Brits, if the BBC record him spouting some of the more advanced theory’s he has as well it might just act as the negative view they could be hoping for (I hope I’m wrong)

I’m not sure if it’s a good thing or bad but the BBC News 24 channel has been plugging this documentary quite a bit.

Either way this BBC “Event” should be viewed as an opportunity to use, I will personally be online after the viewing to post comments on ANY website that starts a thread; it would only take a small percentage of BBC viewers to make a huge change, not just to this forum but maybe the whole truth movement!

[StopThe9/11CoverUp]

Im pretty sure that along with other conspiracy programs aired on bbc, like the diana death program, there will be a phone in for an hour after the program ends.

Plus if its done the same as with diana, bbc radio 2 will be talking about it and taking calls from people throughout the day.

My mobile is fully charged and my landline is polished and ready!!

Also regarding WTC7, the movie World Trade Centre actually shows to TV's with the footage and commentary of WTC7's collapse, this i'm sure will be the first time the public will have heard of it.

WTC7 is the killer point and actually shows there has been a cover up of sorts regarding what happened that day.

Whenever I'm telling someone about the 9/11 cover up, i wait until the start disagreeing with me and saying im off my head so I say the following:

"okay then, if you dont think there was a cover up, tell me how many buildings collapsed on 9/11".

99% of people I have asked this have said 2. one person said 4 or 5 because of damage which did happen a while after the event.

As soon as they hear that 3 collapsed they immediately change there attitude, not believing it there and then, but confusion sets in, because as far as they are aware there were only 2 buildings collapse on 9/11.

The collapse of WTC7 is pivotal to the movement.

If the BBC fail to show the collapse of WTC7, or show the collapse but "explain" why it collapsed when NO scientific reason has come about to explain it then they are failing in their duty to the public.

Either of the above would be disgraceful to say the least! you could expect it from sky news fox news etc but we actually pay the BBC an awful lot of money for a service provided by a company that is meant to be a NON PROFIT organisation.

Ade.

[QuitTheirClogs]

Mike Rudin – Conspiracy Files – Editors Blog (15 Dec 2006):

A number of you looked forward to the other programmes in the series, which continues in the New Year, especially the programme about 9/11.

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

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/mike_rudin/

So they will be discussing Building 7.

Does anyone know why Steven Jones declined to be interviewed? I imagine he’d been feeling a lot of stress and that the scholars split wouldn’t have helped.

[scubadiver]

Keeping an eye on the comments:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2 ... tions.html

[fixuplooksharp]

I have just seen the trailer for the documentary. One thing i am worried about is that it includes Fetzer. If you havent seen it, go!

BBC also wrote a new article a coupleof hours ago,

http://sanityforsale.wordpress.com/2007 ... cumentary/

[marky 54]

while ever NPT/beams is being promoted without adequet evidence it will always be used in things like this. the bbc not doubt want to come across as unbiased to make it clear they have tried to show the case for 9/11 conspiracy but the are obviously going to focus on the things people will find harder to believe in order to turn people away from 9/11 truth rather than wake them up.

and thats presumming it hasnt got ridiculing init from start to finish.

i did warn this would happen and its where my concern stems from and why i suspect NPT especially being created for such a purpose. so that when they do have to listen they can keep on spouting but you believe NPT and the public then do not take the issues seriously, because they have had it burnt into their minds that there were planes on 9/11 and is often the first image in your head when someone says 9/11.

[rodin]

I have just seen the trailer for the documentary. One thing i am worried about is that it includes Fetzer. If you havent seen it, go!

BBC also wrote a new article a coupleof hours ago,

http://sanityforsale.wordpress.com/2007 ... cumentary/

Let us never tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories concerning the attacks of Sept 11th

Let us never tolerate limits on freedom of speech.

Limits on freedom of speech = no freedom of speech

[Bongo]

Marky,

while ever NPT/beams is being promoted without adequet evidence it will always be used in things like this. the bbc not doubt want to come across as unbiased to make it clear they have tried to show the case for 9/11 conspiracy but the are obviously going to focus on the things people will find harder to believe in order to turn people away from 9/11 truth rather than wake them up.

... I fully share your concerns, in the short term it may make a few people 'switch to standby mode', but I think enough trinkets of facts will sift through in order to sub conciously make people question. and that, me-lad, is where the benefit will come from.
No publicity is bad publicity!

[TonyGosling]

The Proof Of The Pudding.....

see also this related topic
http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=5774

Here's a quick and easy way to score on the 'Hutton Scale' of whitewashes 10 being a total fix-up, 1 being a full and open investigation.

How many of the following 'eight killer questions' of Webster Tarpley will be seriously addressed by the BBC?

Please vote afterwards in the poll...

Anyway here are the eight points taken from Webster Tarpley's new book '9/11 Synthetic Terror - made in USA' - pp. 309-310

1. The government's assertion that the so-called hijackers operated without being detected by official surveillance is UNTENABLE, and evidence is strong that the alleged hijackers acted in coordination with a faction within the government itself. The hijackers were therefore in all probability expendable double-agents or, more bluntly, patsies.

2. The government's assertion that the four supposedly hijacked airliners were taken over and piloted by the four accused hijackers identified by the FBI, IS AT OR BEYOND THE LIMITS OF PHYSICAL AND TECHNICAL REALITY. The planes were in all probability guided to their targets by some form of remote access or remote control.

3. The government's assertion that the failures of air defense were caused by the fog of war is LAME AND ABSURD. Air defense was in all probability sabotaged by moles operating inside the governmet.

4. The government's assertion that a Boeing 757-200 hit the Pentagon is PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE. Some other type of flying object, possibly a cruise missile, must therefore be considered.

5. The government's assertion that the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center collapsed as a result of the impact of aircraft and the subsequent fire is PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE. The fall of the towers cannot be explained without the hypothesis of controlled demolition of some form, possibly including unconventional methods employing new physical principles.

6. The government's assertion that World Trade Center 7 collapsed at 5:20pm EDT on September 11 purely as a result of fire is PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE. The collapse of WTC 7 is coherent with controlled demolition of the conventional type.

7. The government's assertion that United Flight 93 crashed because of actions by the hijackers or because of a struggle in the cockpit is PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE, given the pattern in which the wreckage was distributed. All evidence points towards the hypothesis that United 93 was shot own by US military aircraft.

8. The government's refusal to investigate insider trading in American Airlines and United Airlines put options, the wholesale seizure and destruction of evidence, the systematic intimidation of witnesses by the FBI, and a series of other incidents point unmistakably to an attempted COVER UP on the part of the entire US government and establishment.

Webster Tarpley
9/11 Synthetic Terror - made in USA - pp. 309-310
Progressive Press - 2005
ISBN 0-930852-31-1

Publishers page
http://www.waronfreedom.org/index.html#synth