BBC Thrashes the 9/11 Truth Movement; Make a complaint

Let's not let them do this and just walk away.


And send them this for reference material, since they seem to have impaired sources;

740 links by story title

Made the following complaint.

"The BBC2 documentary about the 9/11 truth movement was very disapointing.
Aren't the BBC supposed to be objective and go by the facts?
Instead we saw a common hit piece filled with emotional arguments. Constantly using the term conspiracy in a derogatory way.
So what about the official story about the 19 Muslim hijackers?
Is that not a conspiracy theory? Of course it is.
Coming from a regime shrouded in secrecy and with a proven record of lying.

I did not expect the BBC to lend it self to such garbage."

PS: The one to Mike Rudin bounced.


Pagan come on did you actually expect them to be different then fox abc nbc cbs not . if they did expose the crime you now how much money would be lost . this whole damn war depends on the fact that these so called muslims attacked, so dont be foolish enough to think the BBC is going to help us in the least bit .They are against us there is to much money to be made on the war on terror home and over seas

its all about the money nothing else

Try to imagine who 'they' is

Hey 'get it right': do remember that we are writing to organizations, staffed by ordinary people. Who reads the letter? First off, some underling has that job. If it is good letter, that person will pass it around the office. It might bring about interesting effects, if it sparks curiosity. Who knows what might happen.

Sure, the higher ups who finally read it, if they ever do, might be a lost cause. That doesn't always matter. Sometimes it doesn't matter at all.

Anyway, we have no choice but to take the subterranean route. Right? We have so little access to power and mass communication. But the top part rests on the bottom part, so in a way we are far more powerful, ultimately.

My letter

The last e-mail address came back to me

I sent in this:

I watched your programme on 9-11 last night. While it gave the appearance of a balanced view, it was very shallow in it's investigation and very biased towards the government official story, which of course itself a conspiracy story.

I am very very disappointed! Surely you could have looked at the incredible amount of information that is accumulating in the media and on the internet which indicated HUGE gaping holes in the official story.

It's also dissappointing you used only three spokespersons for the 9-11 truth movement. What about Dr Steven Jones and Prof David Griffin? Why did you leave them out?

I copy some of the recent press coverage, much of which was considerably more objective than your programme which looked like a whitewash to dismiss the real need for investigating this monstrous crime.

A recent article by Jay Esbe begins with I think the very telling point that is so often overlooked in the rush to discuss the events of Sept 11th. That is that the Bush Administration blocked the creation of the 9-11 Commission, then after a lengthy battle caved in only on the condition the commission be hand picked and the evidence controlled by a White House insider, and most glaringly of the Commission be specifically forbidden from assigning "responsiblity for the attacks". In other words it must from the very outset as a condition of its terms of reference accept the Government version of events.

Why couldn't you have pointed out this most blatant example of Government obstruction in the investigation?

February 9, 2007 at 07:05:29
9/11: If I knew nothing else about it, I'd know this.

by Jay Esbe

Theories abound. And really, why shouldn't they. What else could possibly be expected when this government, this President, blocked the creation of the commission to investigate the biggest mass murder in American history. And what else could possibly be expected when this President then hand-picked the commission members after losing his battle for "silence"? And then there was the "mission statement" of the commission itself, or rather, the NON-mission statement: "Our purpose is not to assign RESPONSIBILITY for the attacks". This, by the DIRECTIVE of the President AS A CONDITION FOR THE CREATION OF THE COMMISSION.

List of 2006 Press articles on 9-11, compiled at:

Good letter

Friend, this letter of yours provides a model of tact combined with blunt truth-telling. Very good, I'd say.

I do wish there were some forum for puclic comment since we do need to re-inform the public who watched this.

You mean like teh internet?

You mean like teh internet?

Good point, Bldg 7

Even posting here has its effects. I have seen it happen.

Some FBI staffer no doubt has the job of reading all that we post here. Don't you suppose? To him or her I now say:

Hi staffer! Are you learning more about what really happened on 9-11? If you look you will definitely see.

Bush linked to Op Northwoods

I sent this:

Operation Northwoods was discarded by Kennedy. The author, General Lemnitzer was sent to Europe and then retired. During the Ford Administration, when Cheney was Chief of Staff and Rumsfeld was Defense Sec, Lemnitzer was called back to the White House as a special adviser to the President. That puts Rumsfeld, Cheney, and the author of Operation Northwoods in the same room.

During that time, Bush Sr. wa appointed head of the CIA.

Guy Smith should be informed.

Justice deferred is justice denied-MLK



Ask them to broadcast 9/11 Press For Truth. This film has the most chance of actually getting on the air.

John Doraemi publishes Crimes of the State Blog

All information is vetted for accuracy. If you have a factual challenge to any of the information, email: johndoraemi --at--