"9/11: The Conspiracy Files: The BBC Joins The Ranks of the Untrustworthy US Media

GlobalResearch.ca has published a review of the BBC documentary, 9/11: The Conspiracy Files:

"9/11: The Conspiracy Files: The BBC Joins The Ranks of the Untrustworthy United States Media
by Debbie Lewis

Global Research, February 24, 2007

More than five years after the disaster of September 11, 2001, England’s BBC stepped into the ring of media outlets airing programs about the tragedy that is now referred to as “9/11” on February 18, 2007. The program, entitled “9/11: The Conspiracy Files,” took the time to interview some well-known Americans on both sides of the 9/11 argument. The hour-long program looked as if it might reveal something worthwhile, for about nine minutes. Guests like the outspoken Alex Jones, 911 Scholars for Truth Co-Founder Dr. Jim Fetzer, and Loose Change producer Dylan Avery actually got to make several excellent points before the real conspiracy was revealed.

At about eight minutes into the program, the narrator began to talk about the happenings of that catastrophic day. She told of that day’s United States Air Defense Command exercise and the mishaps that caused between Civil Air Traffic Control and the military getting the interceptors scrambled. The narrator went on to tell of the confusion of the interceptor pilots, not knowing in what direction they were to fly, and some flying the wrong direction. Further into the program she said “They found plenty of evidence of confusion and chaos, but no deliberate attempt to mislead the public…” You would think if the military was conducting an “exercise” and were costing the taxpayers money by using real planes, they would KNOW where their planes were, they would have alerted Civil Air Traffic Control, and there would be no confusion.

As if the BBC knew they were rubbing salt in the wounds of those seeking only the truth, they also interspersed comments by Davin Coburn, Researcher for Popular Mechanics Magazine. Coburn and Popular Mechanics, if you recall Charles Goyette’s August 23, 2006 show, claim World Trade Center Building 7, which was not hit by a plane that day and yet still “collapsed,” was “scooped out” by the falling debris of the Twin Towers. Scooped out? They made this claim, yet provided no proof. Goyette even went so far as to say that the owner of those photos let a magazine publisher view them but would not allow others searching for truth to view them, stating in his frustration, “I didn’t know they had different classes of citizens!”

The program narrator talked about the collapse of Building 7 and how “…with so much else going on that day, the event was barely reported…” Could this be the reason, nearly five years later, 43% of those polled by Zogby in May 2006 were unaware that Building 7 had collapsed? In the same pole, 48% of those polled said they did not think the government or the 9/11 Commission were “covering up” anything. Taking these two bits of information into account, would it be safe to speculate that if the 43% of people unaware of the Building 7 collapse WERE aware, would that alter the percentage of people who thought the government and 9/11 Commission were ”covering” something up?

It was clear that the tone of “9/11: The Conspiracy Files” was going against exposure of the truth when they began talking about the collapse of Building 7. Before Coburn was brought back on camera to explain the collapse, the program showed a couple of shots of other buildings being “demolished.” The program narrator commented that the collapse looks very similar to the “demolitions” they aired. Coburn also showed a video of the Building 7 collapse. The cameraman shooting Coburn’s interview made the comment that “it does look exactly like a controlled demolition” yet Coburn went on to say that he could see why people felt that way, but if they knew how the building was constructed and supported itself, along with the damage it sustained from the collapse of the towers, “the idea that it was a demolition holds no water.” Why did Building 7 “collapse” but not the buildings closer to the towers? Why was Building 7 a “raging inferno” but not the buildings closer to the towers? There were diesel storage tanks in Building 7, but a plane didn’t hit it. There was no jet fuel to ignite a fire there. How did Building 7 get “scooped out” but not the buildings closer to the towers?

The program went on to discuss the crash at the Pentagon. While the program admits the hole left by the Boeing 757 that slammed into the Pentagon was a mere 18 to 20 feet across, they claim that the building collapsed only “minutes later.” In actuality, it took nearly thirty minutes later to collapse. Photographic evidence of this is very clear from the documentary “911 In Plane Site.” What can also be clearly seen in this documentary, the first of it’s kind providing video images and asking brutally revealing questions about all the plane crashes that day, is that there is no debris consistent with the crash of a plane of that size and weight, fully fueled, on the lawn of the Pentagon. No fuselage, no wing parts, no engines, no tail section, no luggage, no passengers; nothing of the sort. Allyn Kilsheimer, one of those who came to help that day, claims he saw “a tire and a wheel and a fuselage section...pieces of…molten metal, that came from something as it hit the building.” It is very clear, from the video evidence shown in “In Plane Site” that there is NO fuselage section. View the preview for the documentary “911 In Plane Site” at www.911inplanesite.com, and you will further understand the outrageous claim that a Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon.

Lt. Col Steve O’Brien, a C-130 Pilot, was in the air that day over Washington D.C. He saw a “distinctive silver” plane roll into about “30 to 40 degrees of bank, which is considerable for a commercial airliner.” Dr. Fetzer states -“…the story is inconsistent with the evidence we had. It’s not even physically possible, given the laws of aerodynamics, that a Boeing 757 could have taken the trajectory attributed to it, which I assume he confirmed, which was this plane barely skimmed the ground en route to it’s target. That’s not even physically possible.”

Near the end of the program, Senator Bob Graham is interviewed. He had quite a lot to say in just a few sentences. "I can just state that within 9/11 there are too many secrets, that is information that has not been made available to the public for which there are specific, tangible, credible answers and that withholding of those secrets has eroded public confidence in their government as it relates to their own security…embarrassment, apology, regret, those are not characteristics associated with the current White House…if, by conspiracy, you mean more than one person involved, yes, there was more than one person, and there was some collaboration of efforts among agencies and the administration to keep information out of the public’s hands.” The narrator of the program ended with “The other 9/11 Conspiracy theories are just that, theories. The evidence doesn’t support them.”

Civil Justice Foundation award winner and Transportation Safety Consultant Paul Sheridan has been an example to many Americans. Sheridan has written many people in search of answers, including then Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, and former New York Attorney General, now Governor Eliot Spitzer. He wants, on behalf of all United States citizens, answers to some very simple questions. From Rumsfeld, as a witness at the Pentagon that day to confirm there is “no doubt in your mind that American Airlines Flight 77… Boeing 757 passenger aircraft” hit the Pentagon on 9/11. From Spitzer, Sheridan wants to know why Governor Spitzer will not allow the “common people…such access” to the photographs seen by Popular Mechanics. Sheridan goes on to ask how, in the light of the existence of such photograph’s that could “prove” what happened on 9/11, “The People’s Lawyer” can “allow such an outrage to go unresolved; legally, morally and in the context of compassion and respect for the 9/11 victims and their families?”

As the narrator points out in the program, “…many simply don’t accept the official conclusion, however distressing that may be for the relatives of those who died.” The relatives of those who died in the 9/11 tragedy have a right to know what really happened, as do the relatives of the service men and women being sent to Iraq to be slaughtered, daily, for this unfounded “War on Terrorism,” as do the United States Citizens, who are being asked to give up many of our freedoms, in light of these “terrorist attacks.” Dr. Fetzer proudly states that like all American Military officers, he took his oath to “protect, preserve and defend the Constitution of the United States from all enemies foreign and domestic.” President George W. Bush, as every President before him, took the same oath before stepping into office. Fetzer just didn’t think defending the Constitution “would lead in this direction.”

Early in the program, Dr. Fetzer reveals the true conspiracy, “The very idea that 19 Islamic fundamentalists…hijacked these four commercial airliners, outfoxed the most sophisticated air defense system in the world, perpetrated these atrocities, unscathed, under control of a man in a cave in Afghanistan is only the most outrageous of the conspiracy...” In the documentary “One Nation Under Siege,” Journalist and author Jim Marrs agrees with Dr. Fetzer. “Nineteen Muslim fanatics…bypassed our forty billion dollar defense system…hi-jacked four planes…were totally lost from FAA Radar… satellite radar and NORAD Radar, made their way to New York and crashed into two prominent landmarks… the World Trade Center…another one crashed into the Pentagon…another one crashed in Pennsylvania, and all of this under the direction of a Muslim Cleric hiding in a cave in Afghanistan with a computer. Now, if that isn’t about the craziest conspiracy theory I ever heard…” “911 In Plane Site” and “One Nation Under Siege” producer William Lewis says in light of this world wide war on terrorism, effecting people worldwide, “someone really needs to ask the question ‘Why haven’t we been given all the facts?’”

Link to the BBC Program: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8331629640228117189&q=BBC+%22Conspiracy+Files%22&hl=en

Link to letters written to Rumsfeld and Spitzer by Paul Sheridan:


Global Research Articles by Debbie Lewis
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Centre for Research on Globalization.

they are part of the int'l MIC

what'd you expect?...duh.



Try complicit.

I'm of the opinion that the heads of major media organizations should be regarded as public enemy no. 1. When the dam breaks, these creeps need to be lined up and held to account.

The Nazi propagandists a la Goebbels have nothing on these scum bags. Anything short of life in prison would be a spit in the face to the hundreds of thousands (approaching millions) who have been slaughtered as a result of their lies.

Make no mistake: these media whores are complicit 100%, and they SHALL be brought to justice.

"They who have put out the people's eyes, reproach them of their blindness." John Milton

The Eleventh Day of Every Month

Canada's CBC still has the

Canada's CBC still has the best mainstream media coverage of 9/11 "conspiracy theories" for a western nation

Edited Clip:

Full Episode

as well as coverage of the toxic dust

· CBC's 911: Toxic Legacy

· Video: Excerpt & interview clips

· AUDIO: 9/11: Toxic Legacy - Aprox 40 min

and this one pretty much tells the official story of the lead up to 9/11, but was far less bias than the american version, Path to 9/11. The second half is definately worth watching.

· Secret History of 9/11 (01:30:15)


David Icke

One of my truther friends just sent me this news letter from Icke. Weather you are an Icke fan or not, I suggest you read it.




Hello all ...

There has been much teeth-gnashing across the Internet this week over the BBC Conspiracy Files 'documentary' which attempted to discredit those challenging the official story of 9/11. It has rightly been called 'biased' and a 'hit piece', but more than anything it was pathetic and classic BBC.

I worked at the BBC for 12 years, mainly through the entire 1980s, in current affairs, news and sport and this 'documentary' was bound to emerge from a Corporation that is dominated by what I call the Robot Radical 'left'. This has two distinct 'wings', the 'intellectuals' with their posh voices (public school/elite university) and those 'from the street' (state school/normally non-elite university or none at all). Both groups sit in the strings section of the orchestra conducted by the system.

It is the 'intellectual' wing that invariably ends up in the positions of power because they have been to the 'good' schools and colleges within the indoctrination machine. This is the major source of BBC news and current affairs producers, reporters and presenters who often come from private schools and universities like Oxford and Cambridge - the 'Oxbridge Set' - with Oxford the dominant partner. These are the two oldest universities in the English-speaking world and they have been turning out system servers and leaders for centuries. Oxford is said to go back to at least the 12th century and Cambridge to the 13th. These are the prime Illuminati centres of learning and indoctrination on the planet, especially Oxford.

The current BBC Director General Mark Thompson went to the elite Jesuit college called Stonyhurst in Lancashire and then on to Oxford University. Another recent 'DG', as they call them, was John, now 'Baron', Burt who was educated at the private Roman Catholic St Mary's College in Liverpool and Oxford University. Squeezed between them was Greg Dyke who did not go to private school and attended the University of York and he was sacked when Tony Blair's rigged 'Hutton Inquiry' condemned the BBC for revealing the truth about Blair 'sexing up' claims about the threat from Iraq.

Dyke was not a typical BBC man, but even he came from the perspective of the cosy left-of-centre and made donations to Blair's Labour Party before realising that he was funding a monster. That's the dominating force in the BBC - the 'intellectual' wing of the Robot Radicals - who mostly speak in the same slightly posh 'Oxbridge accent' (like Oxford graduate and actor Hugh Grant) and see the world through the same myopia. I am not criticising the accent, by the way, just the prevalence of it within the BBC which betrays the common background.

By the time they arrive at the BBC they are already programmed by the system to see the system the way that suits the system. The private school-Oxbridge indoctrination machine turns out its mind-fodder with their 'left wing' and 'right wing' views and some go into politics in the 'left-wing' (I love it) Labour Party while others join the 'right wing' Conservative Party.

Labour Party leader Tony Blair went to the private Fettes College in Edinburgh and Oxford University. The leader of the Conservative Party, David Cameron, went to the elite private school at Eton (which has produced 19 British prime ministers) before moving on to Oxford University. Oxford has produced 25 British Prime Ministers, 28 foreign presidents and prime ministers, 86 archbishops, 18 cardinals and even a pope. Seven of the last eleven British Prime Ministers have been Oxford graduates.

Blair and Cameron: two of a kind with a 'good' education

The United States has its own version with the private school-Ivy League university network that produces most of the major political figures like boy and father Bush and the Clintons who were all 'educated' at Yale. Bill Clinton even went to Oxford University through an Illuminati 'Rhodes Scholarship' and why not when Oxford offers the best indoctrination in the world? Oxford and Cambridge provided the blueprint for the Ivy League.

The media is dominated in the same way by the private school/Oxbridge cabal. The global media mogul Rupert Murdoch went to Oxford University and Britain's most famous current affairs presenter, the BBC's Jeremy Paxman, went to the private and exclusive Malvern College and Cambridge University. Michael Grade, the head of the ITV network in the UK, attended the elite Stowe School, which also produced Richard Branson, and the London private school, St Dunstan's College. The state school system is there to indoctrinate the masses and the private school system is there to indoctrinate those who will be the 'leaders' and 'guiders' of the masses. The private schools program the offspring of 'good families' to be the leaders while the state schools program the rest to follow them.

It is the left wing of the Oxbridge Set that largely ends up in significant positions at the BBC. Robin Aitken, who spent 25 years as a BBC journalist, has written a book called Taking Sides: Bias at the BBC in which he says there is a centre-left consensus at the BBC that undermines its impartiality. Elsewhere, as with Rupert Murdoch's appalling Fox News in the United States, there is a right wing consensus and the crucial point is not bias towards left or right, but bias towards the system supported by both left and right.

The private school-Oxbridge machine implants a view of life and the system - of 'how things are' - that programs the perception of virtually all its victims. There are exceptions, but comparatively few in my experience and if you come through this mind-machine with your unique perspective still intact you must have a serious indoctrination filter. It doesn't matter if they take on views of the 'left' or 'right' they are still serving the same master. They may want to tinker with the system here and there to suit their only slightly different perspectives, but they never talk of dismantling the system and transforming the mentality that holds it together. The state schools do the same with their designer-programming aimed at the 'lower classes'. They, too, turn out 'left' and 'right' believers who have worship of the system in common.

They are like Catholics and Protestants who simply worship the same deity, the same 'God', in a slightly different way using slightly different rituals. Just as Catholics and Protestants argue over how to worship the same God, so the 'left and 'right' argue over how to worship the same system. And here's the key: both jump on anyone who genuinely challenges the system itself like those exposing the truth about 9/11.

A Catholic and Protestant may be having an argument over Christianity, but as soon as a Jew or Muslim starts challenging Christianity itself the Catholic and Protestant will immediately forget their disagreements and join forces to defend it. That is precisely what happens with 'left' and 'right' when an outsider seeks to expose the system on which they both rely for their sense of who they are.

For instance, a 'left winger' will call for the rich to be taxed even more while a 'right winger' will say they should be taxed less. But what they are both agreed upon is the income taxation of the people when if the system was operated efficiently and fairly there would be no need for a tax on income - at least most of which goes straight to the banks anyway. But taxation is a foundation of the system, so it is never questioned. 'Left' and 'right' may argue over whether interest rates should go up or down, but both agree that interest should be charged on fresh air, figures-on-a-screen 'money'. Interest on money is a foundation of the system, so it is never questioned. The list of examples goes on and on. They disagree about the detail of how the system works, but not the system itself.

'Left' and 'right' may argue over the rights and wrongs of Bush, but neither will contemplate that 9/11 could have been orchestrated through an administration that lied about weapons of mass destruction and has caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi and Afghani civilians. Why? Because to accept that 9/11 was an inside job engineered to justify the Orwellian state is to accept that the indoctrinated view of the world that was daily implanted in their private schools and universities - and by their parents - is fundamentally flawed.

George Monbiot ... likes a good 'fight'

A wonderful, simply perfect, example of what I am talking about is a guy called George Monbiot, a raving Robot Radical 'journalist' and 'activist' on the Robot Radical bible of the 'intellectual left', the London Guardian, This is the paper that threatens to make navel contemplating an Olympic sport. The Guardian editor is Alan Rusbridger who was indoctrinated at the private Cranleigh School and Cambridge University. His 'star' columnist George Monbiot was indoctrinated at the private Stowe School (see Michael Grade and Richard Branson) and Oxford University before, oh so appropriately, joining the BBC.

Monbiot has become a sort of British version of the American, Noam Chomsky, the demi-god of the 'intellectual' left and a product of the Ivy League universities of Pennsylvania and Harvard. Chomsky and Monbiot have many things in common, including a dismissal of any idea that the official story of September 11th isn't true. This was one of Monbiot's considered and thoughtful responses to the 9/11 truth movement:

'Why do I bother with these morons? Because they are destroying the movements some of us have spent a long time trying to build. Those of us who believe that the crucial global issues ... are insufficiently debated in parliament or congress, that corporate power stands too heavily on democracy, that war criminals, cheats and liars are not being held to account, have invested our efforts in movements outside the mainstream political process. These, we are now discovering, are peculiarly susceptible to this epidemic of gibberish'.

How ironic that on his own website he uses this quote:'Tell people something they know already and they will thank you for it. Tell them something new and they will hate you for it'. What has rattled his cage is that people are starting to listen to the 9/11 truth movement and less to his concrete-minded view of the world delivered courtesy of Stowe School and Oxford University. What most scrambles the perceptions of such people is that they are taught to see everything in terms of 'sides', 'us and them', 'left and right'. This is also true of most people who go through the state school system, but the private-school-Oxbridge-Ivy League 'alumni' are the ones who occupy the positions of most power and influence. People like Monbiot are so caught up in the 'us and them' mentality that they could never even contemplate the idea that different 'sides' could be controlled by the same force. He complains about the power of the corporations over 'democracy',! but his programming prevents him seeing that these corporations are being coordinated in their actions to a common goal. There have to be political 'sides' for the Monbiot mentality or it loses its sense of identity. Thus, he says that to believe 9/11 was an inside job you must believe that 'Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and their pals are all-knowing, all-seeing and all-powerful...' Such nonsense is confirmation that, like his fellow system-believers, he can't see the forest for the twigs. Those who understand how the game is played do not say that Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld engineered 9/11 - Bush for one is an idiot. They were merely the public face through which it was orchestrated, They were pawns, and in Cheney's case a knight, who were moved around the board by the Hidden Hand. Monbiot says of those who challenge 9/11:

'The obvious corollorary to the belief that the Bush administration is all-powerful is that the rest of us are completely powerless. In fact it seems to me that the purpose of the "9/11 truth movement" is to be powerless. The omnipotence of the Bush regime is the coward's fantasy, an excuse for inaction used by those who don't have the stomach to engage in real political fights.'

Oh yes, we must have 'real political fights' so the Hidden Hand can impose its Orwellian state through both 'left' and 'right' while the advocates of both tear into each other. Grow up, George, or your intellectual blindness will be a life sentence - and not only for you.

Noam Chomsky rightly said (and Monbiot should take note): 'The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum'. That is how the system works and never more obviously than at places like Oxford, Cambridge and the Ivy League Universities. Chomsky also said that if we don't believe in freedom for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all. Quite right again. But when it comes to 9/11, Noam will not roam. Chomsky says about government involvement in the September 11th attacks: 'That's an internet theory and it's hopelessly implausible. Hopelessly implausible. So hopelessly implausible I don't see any point in talking about it'.

The idea that a hidden force could be manipulating world events through different 'sides' to the same end, or that governments could attack their own people, is just too much for their minds to handle, so attached are they to their world view programming. Instead, they go into denial and, in Monbiot's case, viciously attack those who are trying to expose the truth about 9/11 that will bring down the whole 'us and them' belief system that he had been indoctrinated to pedal. But attack the messenger if you don't like the message.

Given that the BBC is awash with advocates of the 'intellectual' left, how could there be any other outcome to a BBC 'documentary' about 9/11 other than having the system's view presented with most prominence and credibility? The programme betrayed the sloppiest of unresearched, superficial 'journalism' that misrepresented so much of what those who challenge the official story are saying. In the final minutes, having dismissed government involvement, it suggested that any conspiracy was really in the way that government 'mistakes' were covered up by the Bush administration.

I had to smile. This is what the intellectual 'left' has been saying in the form of the Democrats (the 'left' to British Robot Radicals, bless 'em). So the circle could be squared while the belief system of the 'intellectual' left survived. It was the work of a bunch of Arab pilots who couldn't fly, but there was a cover up of mistakes by those terrible people in the 'right-wing' Bush administration. Drinks all round.

But it was never going to be any other way. To have presented a true investigation into the official story and found it to be a Big Lie would have been to change an entire world view of 'left' and 'right and political 'sides'. It would also have revealed an agenda to manipulate into place a global fascist fiefdom and all belief systems would have to concede their power to a blank sheet of paper as people took a whole new look at the world they thought they lived in.

The BBC is going to do that? Not a chance.

I listened to a radio interview after the programme with its producer Guy Smith on the Alex Jones Show in the United States. As soon as Smith began to speak I started to chuckle. He was like a tape recording of so, so many BBC producers I have met and worked with over the years in news and current affairs on programmes like the BBC's Newsnight, now presented by Jeremy Paxman. Smith was uninformed, unresearched and spoke with the omnipotent 'Hugh Grant' voice of someone with the 'proper education'. The man will surely go far.

But it doesn't matter in the bigger scheme of life. The world is waking up to the truth about 9/11 despite the mainstream media and the current spate of attacks, 'hit pieces' and condemnation of 9/11 investigators prove that point. The familiar sequence is unfolding once again: (1) Ignore them and they will go away; (2) If they don't go away and people start to listen attack them in every way possible; (3) If that doesn't work ... shit!

Stage three is within our sights.

Icke is a loon

but this statement is worth blogging. You should blog it. Thanks.

Jim Fetzer says it is "impossible" for a 757 to hit the Pentagon

“…the story is inconsistent with the evidence we had. It’s not even physically possible, given the laws of aerodynamics, that a Boeing 757 could have taken the trajectory attributed to it, which I assume he confirmed, which was this plane barely skimmed the ground en route to it’s target. That’s not even physically possible.” Jim Fetzer

Remember this comment when they finally release the videos showing a 757 hitting the Pentagon.

This coming from the guy who says that space beams were used to destroy the WTC towers... and he's talking about what's possible and impossible at the Pentagon?

I am very afraid this will be used against the truth movement… especially the no-plane at the Pentagon theories, because I’ve seen the evidence… It is provable that a 757 did hit the Pentagon.

When Fetzer says something is impossible, that should really force a re-examination of the issues…

The Pentagon No-757-Crash Theory:
Booby Trap for 9/11 Skeptics
by Jim Hoffman

The Pentagon Attack:
What the Physical Evidence Shows
Jim Hoffman
Version 0.9, March 28, 2006

"Proponents of the no-Boeing theory have made the following claims about the approach of the attack aircraft:

1. The spiral dive maneuver could not have been made by a jetliner.
2. The final approach was impossible due to ground effect.

Claim 1 is contradicted by the demonstrated performance capabilities of a Boeing 757, and Claim 2 fails to acknowledge that the increased lift due to ground effect can be negated by lowering the angle of attack. "

“We're an empire now, and when we act we create our own reality."