STJ911 Scientist to Sue BBC for Public Deception

Direct link to RINF article. -r.

A British scientist and member of Scholars for 9/11 Truth & Justice , John A. Blacker MSc IMI (Physical Systems), is planning to sue the BBC for mass public deception via their “9/11: The Conspiracy Files” programme, RINF Alternative News can reveal.

The programme which aired on 18 February, 2007, promised to offer a thorough examination of the events of 9/11 and answer many of the questions posed by the 9/11 Truth Movement.

However, the hour long programme failed to investigate the tough questions and ignored hard evidence that points towards a deeper conspiracy, while presenting an unfair and unbalanced view of 9/11 research.

Scientist and member of Scholars for 9/11 Truth & Justice, John A. Blacker, is taking action against this portrayal on the grounds of ‘Total Public Deception’.

In ongoing correspondence with the BBC, Mr. Blacker is requesting an official apology and a second programme to be produced in order to ‘set the record straight’.

Mr Blacker is preparing to take legal action against the BBC and is currently gathering evidence.

Earlier this month, ex MI5 whistleblower, David Shayler, along with Adrian Connock, producer of Mind the Gap which exposed the false flag terrorism in London on 7/7/05, released an extensive video rebuttal destroying the BBC’s attempt to discredit scientific evidence and eyewitness reports.


Not to make a big deal about this, but just to clarify.

The Rinf article at first erroneously attributed Mr. Blacker as a member of Scholars for 9/11 Truth, and Prisonplanet picked up that version.

Someone apparently straightened it out, and now the Rinf article correctly says Mr. Blacker is a member of Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice.

I didn't have anything to do with this, and wasn't even copied on any email,s just happened to notice the progression.

Public Deception

The reach of this "monolithic, ruthless" inhumanity appears to be total, almost? I recently came across this correction of the Pres. of Iran's misquote "Israel must be wiped from the face of this Earth (roughly)"
wherein 'twas purportedly translated by Iranian media? articl:
I think I found this because brother-in-law retorted "They said they would wipe us off the face of the Earth..." ohLordtheignorance is the potential death of us all let's Go! Go! Go! Move it troops! Bombard the most popular video sights with anti-propaganda Ya! Ya! Ya!

Strong evidence only, please

The intention is appreciated - nice to see! - although we hope John can perhaps use some of the most strong evidence and points the community has general agreement on.

John has got a couple of errors and weak evidence in his questions, and unfortunately implies an inclusion of the plane swapping hoax with FL 93. Everyone makes mistakes, that's how we learn.

>>A 757 simply cannot fly at ground level due to what is known as “Ground Effect”.

This effect is not agreed upon in the community of researchers, so likely is not a good point for a courtroom.

9-11 Research discusses 'ground effect' here -
The influence of ground effect may have required the plane to adjust its attitude in order to maintain a course toward the Pentagon's first floor. Since lift is proportional to angle of attack up to the critical angle of attack (at which the wing stalls), compensating for the increased lift due to ground effect is simply a matter of adjusting the pitch downward to cancel out the increased lift. Although the adjustments required to maintain the shallow angle of descent may have challenged a human pilot, they would seem an easy task for a 757's autopilot, with its ability to read instruments and adjust control surfaces accordingly with great speed and accuracy.

>>You show a so called independent computer animator who suggests that jet fuel caused most of the damage at the Pentagon, yet failed to mention his animation omitted the two 9 ft, 6 tonne engines from the animation and also the clear fact his animation totally contradicts photographs of the Pentagon prior to collapse. Hello! What sort of BBC Deceit is that?

No one should be using animations of the Pentagon situation, but the fact is, the Pentagon evidence is the weakest of the evidence we have. Trying to use Pentagon no plane or no Boeing claims in a lawsuit won't get far at all when our own community of 9/11 researchers themselves cannot agree - a court would only rip it to shreds. It makes no sense to try to bring debated points into a courtroom. The courtroom is for strong points, not weak ones. Ask William Pepper, who sucessfully brought the MLK assassination through a courtroom -

>>Also, his animation failed to account for the fact 6 reinforced concrete walls were penetrated à they omitted the 6 reinforced walls completely. Indeed, the official image of the hole in the inner wall of the C block shows this animation to be total and utter fiction, yet the BBC gave it raving credibility.

ERROR: 'The C-Ring Punch-Out Hole Was Made by a Warhead'
"This argument is based on a misunderstanding of the Pentagon's design. In fact, the light wells between the C- and D-ring and D- and E-ring are only three stories deep. The first and second stories span the distance between the Pentagon's facade and the punctured C-ring wall, which faces a ground-level courtyard. There are no masonry walls in this space, only load-bearing columns. Thus it would be possible for an aircraft part that breached the facade to travel through this area on the ground floor, miss the columns, and puncture the C-ring wall withough having encountering anything more than unsubstantial gypsum walls and furniture in-between."

>>No mention that two planes were reported by two independent sources as landing at Cleveland Hopkins Airport due to two separate bomb threats, not just one, and that flight 93 was one of those reported to have landed by locals.

Don't fall for the plane swapping hoax, please! Again, extremely weak and debatable evidence. Flight 93 was merely shot down. Unfortunately the plane swap idea (originally from Nico Haupt and Woody Box) is the outcome of the poor research of Loose Change and that meme spreading. Here's a good summary of FL 93 evidence from a handout created when the film was released -

It's far better to ask questions about our strongest evidence -

Building 7
Norman Mineta
Molten Metal
The effective 'Stand Down'
War Games

See some of the best evidence here -

Good luck John! Use the best and strongest evidence . . .

Time of destruction

Another thing: the freefall time 9.22 seconds is measured for the *entire height* of the towers. He compares this time with the time it took the lower part of the towers to be demolished.

It took longer than 10 seconds for the towers to be completely destroyed. Only a few seconds, but still. 15 seconds is still too fast for any gravitational collapse, assuming a gravitational collapse could somehow have resulted in a total collapse throughout the height, width and breadth of the towers.

Thanks V

I noticed most of those errors and one other one... he mentions DEW weapons as a possibility in his letter, which I believe has been conclusively debunked in the journal of 9/11 studies--that is, the falsifiable aspects of the hypothesis. There are also some minor spelling errors.

I agree that we should stick to the best evidence, unless we want to be debated on the easily contestable points, or even the points that have no merit at all. This is one of the worst ones floating around "his animation failed to account for the fact 6 reinforced concrete walls were penetrated." There are NOT 6 reinforced concrete walls on the ground floor of the Pentagon where it was struck. It matters if it ts true...

see here for details:

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

This doesn't seem like a

This doesn't seem like a very well thought out action. He's even referring to Judy Wood's paper:

"Closer inspection of original video evidence shows heavy steel core columns turning to dust within seconds – question: - was a novel “StarWars type” energy directed beam weapon used in conjunction with explosives to undermine the integrity of the twin tower complex? (Refer to work by Dr Judy Wood and Professor Jim Fetzer)"

I wonder if Mr Blacker discussed this with other stj911 people like Steven Jones, Kevin Ryan etc, before hand - because that article/letter as written has more potential to discredit and bring derision to the movement than anything else. Seems like a bit of a loose cannon IMO.

GOOD SPOT lozenge...

Thanks, I missed that section, which has been totally DEBUNKED by decent quality video...

Hard to read underlined, bold blue text on a yellow highlighted background.

Full text of that section (in a readable format) :

Key characteristics of 911 building demolition events: Straight Down Motion - Sudden Structural Failure - Buildings Collapsing At Free-Fall Speed - Total Collapse Of The Entire Load Bearing Cores - Many Examples of Cleanly Sliced Heavy Girder Steel Core Supports - Dust Clouds Containing Heavy Girders In Highly Energetic Horizontal Motion - Horizontal Ejections Of Heavy Girders And Pulverised Concrete Onto The Tops And Embedded Into Surrounding Buildings - Rescuers Reported And Seismic And Other Detectors Recorded Energy Dissipation Produced By Many Explosions (Recorded in real time by several different independent sources) In addition: Pools of molten Steel recorded over 1 week after collapse in the sub-basements (Refer to paper written by Physics Professor Steven Jones) Closer inspection of original video evidence shows heavy steel core columns turning to dust within seconds – question: - was a novel “StarWars type” energy directed beam weapon used in conjunction with explosives to undermine the integrity of the twin tower complex? (Refer to work by Dr Judy Wood and Professor Jim Fetzer) To date the steel dust creating mechanism has not been formally identified & understood – however - Muslim Terrorists do not posses such advanced metal to dust creating technology – only the US military.

Article Link :


Worth noting and remembering... I hope he's not another "Star Wars Trooper"

Many thanks and best wishes