Producer Struggles to Defend Flaws & Bias of BBC Hit Piece

Guy Smith says 'we can debate these issues all day' without being able to debate any of them

The producer of the BBC Conspiracy Files documentary, a poorly researched and bias hit piece against the 9/11 truth movement, appeared on the Alex Jones Show yesterday and struggled to defend charges that the program was laden with glaring flaws and crass emotional manipulation throughout.

Judge for yourself by listening to the MP3 audio.

Smith began by claiming that he conducted the investigation in an "objective and balanced way" and yet there were as many as thirteen individuals representing the official story or a whitewash version of it versus just three individuals representing 9/11 skepticism. How can a more than four to one ratio be judged as balanced? In addition, the debunkers were allowed to talk at length while the skeptics were tightly edited and had extremely little on screen time.

Smith is completely dishonest in claiming the evidence alone led the nature of the documentary because the way in which it is filmed and edited clearly betrays an overwhelming bias and a zeal to discredit the skeptics by means of editorial deceit and cinematic manipulation of the audience.

Smith was forced to state "no I'm not denying that" when he was questioned on the imbalance of having four times the amount of debunkers compared to skeptics.

Dylan Avery's first question for Guy Smith was to ask, "How can I drop out of something I never attended." In the hit piece, the narrator calls Avery a "self-confessed dropout," a clear smear attempt to undermine his trustworthiness, when in reality Avery never even attended college.

Smith bizarrely tried to wriggle out of this basic factual error by claiming that in England the term "dropout" doesn't mean to drop out of college or University, but merely to go a different route. Being British, I immediately confirmed that dropout, in the overwhelming majority of its usage and certainly in this context, means to have attended University or school and dropped out. It means the same thing in England that it does in America and a simple search of the BBC News website shows that the term 'dropout' is almost always used in this context. In claiming otherwise, Smith is dishonestly trying to hide from the fact that the term was deliberately used to undermine and smear Avery in the documentary.

Trying to change the meaning of words in the context they are used is a crass attempt to deflect accusations of bias and Smith needs to take a long and serious look at himself in the mirror.

When asked about the deliberate implosion of the twin towers, Smith responded, "We looked into that and we came to the conclusion that the evidence just doesn't support the conspiracy theory."

Unfortunately for Mr. Smith, the evidence the BBC was using to illustrate its ridiculous "pancake theory" collapse scenario, which was so implausible that even official NIST investigators had to back away from it, was a graphic animation that shows just ten floors collapsing every six seconds, meaning the BBC is telling us that the twin towers took around 66 seconds to collapse when in reality they fell in just fourteen.

Above is an excellent debunking of this animation and below you can see how the BBC used it to support their flawed case.

When challenged on this flaw, all Mr. Smith could say was "it's not misleading," despite the fact that anyone with two brain cells to rub together can look at it and see that it is. Guy Smith will probably recoil in embarrassment at the You Tube explanation above when he realizes he has used a completely flawed animation as the central supporting evidence for his advocacy of the official conspiracy theory that two modern 110 story steel buildings were demolished into small pieces and dust in under sixteen seconds without the use of incendiary devices.

When challenged why Smith failed to include the words of just one of the dozens and dozens of first responders, police and firefighters who heard and saw explosions, and namely Craig Bartmer, the former NYPD official who heard bombs tear down Building 7 as he ran away from it, Smith at first claimed ignorance to who Bartmer was, even though he had met and interviewed him at Dylan Avery's home.

Smith says that he tried to "go back to primary sources, to eyewitnesses" when in reality the show gave 10 minutes to a Hollywood sci-fi producer of a show that went off the air five years ago, and there was no coverage whatsoever of the primary eyewitnesses who reported bombs and explosions, just one selective clip of a fireman talking about damage to Building 7's sprinkler system.

When challenged with why he didn't even mention firefighters who reported bombs, never mind use any of the literally dozens of video clips and audio segments from the official NYFD tapes, Smith had no answer and began talking about people who had complained that he gave too much air time to "conspiracy theorists," implying that a ratio of four to one in favor of the debunkers was not enough.

Smith began to sound like a broken record at this point, repeating the line 'we could debate this all day' and variations of it without ever actually being able to debate or defend the numerous flaws and bias throughout his hit piece.

The producer had the gall to claim he had looked at the evidence in an "objective and dispassionate" way when the documentary was laden from beginning to middle to end with emotional manipulation about how asking questions about 9/11 was insulting and hurtful to the victims, a ludicrous and cynical attempt to discredit the 9/11 truth movement. In reality, Bill Doyle, who lost his son in the attack, and represents the largest group of 9/11 victim's family members, says that over half of his members are asking the same questions, not to mention the Jersey Girls and numerous polls of New Yorkers that consistently show the majority believe there is a government cover-up surrounding 9/11.

When challenged on the notion that Smith had already come to a conclusion before filming for the show had even finished and therefore betraying an implicit bias, in addition to Alex Jones' claim that Smith laughed off 9/11 "conspiracy theories" in a restaurant meeting months before the show was aired, Smith stuttered before claiming he went into the project with an "open mind."

I would suggest Mr. Smith’s blatant and offensive bias in producing this sham documentary comes as a result of his zeal to maintain his perch in the media establishment peanut gallery and on the BBC gravy train. Maybe it’s Mr. Smith’s fear that because of journalistic cowardice in tackling the weapons of mass destruction farce, he realizes his role in the media is under threat – because people don’t trust the mainstream any more and are increasingly turning to the alternative press in search of truth.

The Conspiracy Files charade will ultimately only fan the flames of 9/11 truth even more, being that its flawed evidence, inherent bias and manipulative smear tactics will be obvious to those who still maintain the ability to think for themselves.


I am checkmate0 on digg


I saw this earlier, could it

I saw this earlier, could it have been Photoshoped?


seems like a weird thing to waste time on, if so

The Eleventh Day of Every Month



Headquarters is located in the BVSCH Building
Ignorance is NOT Bliss



Just another day at your local dis-info exchange...

Really, this is just an exageration of what the MSM does constantly with news that is unfriendly to the Powers-that-Be--reframe, distort, marginalize.

That said, it IS extreme and glaringly clumsy. But it might make sense if the Beeb"s target audiance are Brits and other nationals who are starting to have questions but aren"t informed enough about events on the other side of the pond to know shite when they hear it.

Or is this all be a distraction, say from questioning 7-7?

Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.

Collapse Rate

14 seconds is incorrect.
WTC 2 - 10 secs
WTC 1 - 8 secs
WTC 7 - 6 secs
If I remember correctly.
“it is possible to fool all the people all the time—when government and press cooperate.” George Seldes - "legendary investigative reporter"

14 seconds is correct

Although the 9/11 Commission says the South Tower collapsed in 10 seconds, this is considered inaccurate by skeptics and OCTs alike. Video evidence suggests the collapse of each tower took about 12-15 seconds. Claiming 10 seconds is not only inaccurate, it also leads to debunkers saying skeptics are being dishonest. 15 seconds doesn't change our case for CD.

i beg to differ...

I kind of disagree with what you are saying.

NIST has stated that the collapse times were 9 and 11 seconds, and they have re-affirmed that statement in their subsequent FAQ (see my other comment on this thread).

We don't need to counter that claim!

I have to admit I am not a fan of Jim Hoffman - he has posted a number of statements on his website which seem to be unhelpful or divisve - esp. his position on the Pentagon absence of commercial jetliner evidecne.

He also stated somewhere that the seismic spike which was recorded as the WTC collapsed coincided with the impact of falling debris hitting the ground, which is wrong.

I have done my own research and confirmed that the peak of the seismic spike occurs well before any debris hits the ground.

I'm happy to share this with anyone if you're interested - it is quite interesting.

Editor -

Go OZ , thanks for info.............

Good to see you blogging, regards John.

PS. see you at the sceening on the 10th of March.

Regards John - Sydney Australia


NIST says that

"the first exterior panels to strike the ground after the collapse initiated in each of the towers to be approximately 11 seconds for WTC 1 and approximately 9 seconds for WTC 2".

The first exterior panels to strike the ground came probably/ obviously from around the floors where the collapse initiated (~the floors that the planes struck). However, there were many floors above them in both towers. Their debris must have struck the ground later. So, the entire collapse of the buildings took longer than 9 and 11 seconds.

Of course, 9 seconds would be actually a bit shorter than freefall from the top of the towers.

Let's Steer Away From ALL Speculation

I have watched the BBC documentary and listened to the subsequent interview. I noticed that there was no explanation provided for how a bulding can collapse at freefall without an additional energy source.

This issue should always be the focus of any discussion about the collapse of WTC1 WTC2 and WTC7.

NIST has acknowledged that the buildings collapsed essentially in free fall:

NIST estimated the elapsed times for the first exterior panels to strike the ground after the collapse initiated in each of the towers to be approximately 11 seconds for WTC 1 and approximately 9 seconds for WTC 2. (NIST FAQ)

In the full report we read the following disclaimer in a footnote:

The focus of the Investigation was on the sequence of events from the instant of aircraft impact to the initiation of collapse for each tower. For brevity in this report, this sequence is referred to as the 'probable collapse sequence'. although it does not actually include the structural behavior of the tower after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached and collapse became inevitable. (p 85, footnote) .

And we read the following explanation for the freefall nature of the collapse:

... the structure below the level of collapse initiation offered minimal resistance to the falling building mass at and above the impact zone. The potential energy released by the downward movement of the large building mass far exceeded the capacity of the intact structure below to absorb that energy through energy of deformation. (Section 6.14.4)

I would like to see 9/11 researchers quoting these statements more often. They provide the most effective arguments because they use NIST's own words and illustrate a deliberately vague and evasive response to the central unexplained mystery of 9/11.

After all, it was the collapse (rather than the plane impacts) which caused the deaths of most people. Therefore the collapse itself is the single most crucial event to be investigated.

But they didn't investigate it, instead, they focussed on "the sequence of events from the instant of aircraft impact to the initiation of collapse".

I think its vastly easier to demonstrate the NIST failed to properly investigate the collapse than to argue for positive evidence of the use of explosives. When the debate is framed as a claim that explosives were used, the burden of proof is on the shoulders of the 9/11 Truthers but when it is framed around demonstrating the failures of NIST the burden is shifted back to them to disprove that.

As Dr. William Pepper pointed out in the excellent interview posted on this site - it is essential to build one's case painstakingly on solid and provable arguments and to steer away from speculation.

The biggest problem with Loose Change in its present version is that it is bursting with speculation - this makes the film excellent fodder for debunkers. Avery and his team should by now have realised that this is not a good thing and they should be removing all speculation from the Final Cut.

This is just my opinion but I think it is pretty sound.

Editor -

Spotnitz is apparently not too bright

On the "documentary", the writer/producer of "The X-Files and "The Lone Gunmen" , Frank Spotnitz, made some stupid comments about how so-called "conspiracy theories" are easier to accept and make people feel better about 9/11 than the official government conspiracy theory story. What a putz. And an Idiot.

How could someone like that come up with any decent ideas for those shows? Unless he was merely one of the higher-level people who took the credit when others were doing the work. And/or he is typically clueless. What a crock of B.S. his comments are, considering how difficult it is for most "normal people" to finally embrace the 9/11 Truth concepts and realize the the official story is a lie, and that most people still believe what he believes, because IT is the "easier to believe story".

It's also interesting that they bring into the story THE show that created and defined what we know and deal with today as the negative disinformation and propaganda definition and concept of "conspiracy theory". NOTHING came close to doing that more so than "The X-Files". (and that may have been partly what it was for) And it is known (admitted fact from long ago by people in those shows) that government, FBI, CIA, and other people were feeding them story ideas, which they claim was benign help by fans within those agencies.

And then, at the end of the doc, they say, "Tune in next week where we'll do another hit piece on the assassination of British scientist and weapons inspector Dr. David Kelly."

"It doesn't get any better than this."

Ad hominem per factum, beyotch!
You are undeservedly egotistical.... often laughably so.
Pseudo-intellectuality does not behoove you.

Yes, he is not too bright

Yes, he is not too bright ... have to agree.

Neither is Guy Smith. But these guys are so incredibly cocky they don't need to be bright.

They schmooze their way through life and don't apparently give a damn about the truth. No basic humanity in these people.

They seem like psychopaths.

Editor -

the BBc employees believe

the BBc employees believe themselves to be aristocracy.They are nothing but a government propaganda tool.A thoroughly disgusting organization.Guy Smith would only come clean with a knife at his throat.It is no use being rational with these fu*ckers they have an agenda.They know 911 was. and is a hoax ie inside job.The fact they know shows the worthless of their existence.

A note about Mr. Smith's statement about news sources

I've heard Alex Jones' interview with Mr. Smith probably three times since yesterday and I have been studying everything that Mr. Smith said very closely.

Have you considered the implications of his statement regarding the inaccuracy of most 9/11 reports as reminiscent of Chinese whispers?

If one were to put forth the idea that most, if not all, of the 9/11 news reports are inaccurate and apply that, through extrapolation, as a sample of news reports in general, then is it not fair to say that Mr. Smith must view news reports, on the whole, as being inaccurate?

Show "Alex Jones Lies" by JamesB