BBC: The evolution of a conspiracy theory

I haven't had a chance to study this in detail yet, I thought i would get it posted ASAP.



The evolution of a conspiracy theory

Twin Towers
A large number of Americans question what happened that day
It wasn't only the Twin Towers that collapsed on September 11. A third World Trade Center tower that wasn't hit by the planes also fell. As a report into Tower 7 prepares to publish its findings, Mike Rudin considers how this conspiracy theory got to be so big.

9/11 is the conspiracy theory of the internet age.

Put "9/11 conspiracy" into Google and you get 7.9 million hits. Put in "9/11 truth" and you get more than 22 million.

Opinion polls in the US have picked up widespread doubts among the American people.

A New York Times/CBS News poll in 2006 found that 53% of those questioned thought the Bush administration was hiding something. Another US poll found a third of those questioned thought government officials either assisted in the 9/11 attacks or allowed them to happen.

In the UK a survey by the BBC's The Conspiracy Files, carried out by GfkNOP in 2006, found that 16% of those questioned thought there was a "wider conspiracy that included the American government".

For very good reason a lot of people are very suspicious about what went down that day
Dylan Avery
Director of Loose Change

The BBC and the 'missing' tape

This summer will be a key moment for those who question the official explanation of what happened on 9/11, the self-styled "9/11 truth movement".

Nearly seven years after the terrible events of that September day, the US authorities are due to publish the final report on a third tower that also collapsed on 9/11. Unlike the Twin Towers, this 47-storey, 610-foot skyscraper was not hit by a plane.

And Tower 7 has become a key issue for "truthers" like Dylan Avery, the director of the internet film about 9/11 called Loose Change.

"The truth movement is heavily centred on Building 7 and for very good reason a lot of people are very suspicious about what went down that day," he says.

See World Trade Center 7's location

Avery points out that Tower 7 housed some unusual tenants: the CIA, the Secret Service, the Pentagon and the very agency meant to deal with disasters or terrorist attacks in New York - the Office of Emergency Management. And some people think Tower 7 was the place where a 9/11 conspiracy was hatched.

The Conspiracy Files: 9/11 - The Third Tower is on BBC Two on Sunday 6 July at 2100 BST
Visit The Conspiracy Files website or catch up using the iPlayer

The official explanation is that ordinary fires were the main reason for the collapse of Tower 7. That makes this the first and only tall skyscraper in the world to have collapsed because of fire. Yet despite that all the thousands of tonnes of steel from the building were carted away and melted down.

The way official bodies have investigated Tower 7 at the World Trade Center has made some people think they're hiding something. Its destruction was never mentioned in the 9/11 Commission Report.

An inquiry by the Federal Emergency Management Agency said the building collapsed because intense fires had burned for hours, fed by thousands of gallons of diesel stored in the building for emergency generators. But its report said this had "only a low probability of occurrence" and more work was needed. That was in May 2002.

Conspiracy Files: Collapse of WTC 7

The task has now fallen to the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) based at a sprawling campus near Washington DC. For more than two-and-a-half years, scientists there have been studying Tower 7.

Inevitably the officials have been criticised for being slow and even of being frightened to publish.

But the lead investigator at NIST, who heads up their World Trade Center inquiry, Dr Shyam Sunder, says that two-and-a-half years is typically how long an aeroplane crash investigation takes. He added that only in the last few years did they begin to hear criticism from the "truth" movement.

"It's only at the very end in 2005 that this group became more vocal and we found them coming to some of our meetings. But for a long time they were not even present. It wasn't the delay that really caused them, they just woke up one morning and decided to take this on as an issue."

Soul searching

In April 2005, the first thousand DVDs of Dylan Avery's Loose Change movie were pressed. It cost just $2,000 to make. It was a critical moment for the development of the movement. The makers of Loose Change claim it has now been viewed by more than a hundred million people.

Steven Jones, a former physics professor at Brigham Young University, who has become the leading academic voice in the movement, first watched a video of the collapse of Tower 7 in the spring of 2005. But when he did, he said he was taken aback as a physicist.
Rubble of the World Trade Center
Will the theories ever be laid to rest?

The American architect Richard Gage's conversion came in 2006 when driving along he heard an independent radio station interviewing the theologian David Ray Griffin.

"I had to do some real soul searching and some research. And the more I discovered the more disturbed I became and realized I was looking for... the architects and the engineers."

Finding that they hadn't really entered the fray by then, Gage decided he had to act.

"It just came to me, I had to start an organization Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth."

The fifth anniversary of 9/11 was a huge moment for "truthers". Under the media spotlight protests intensified, websites were spawned and internet films proliferated.

With the publicity also came the "debunkers", challenging the "truthers" at every stage.

After Loose Change came a website called Screw Loose Change. And internet film 9/11 Mysteries was followed by Screw 9/11 Mysteries.

Conspiracy splits

And the "truthers" have fought back. When the US technology magazine Popular Mechanics launched a book called Debunking 9/11 Myths, it was countered with a book by David Ray Griffin called Debunking 9/11 Debunking.

Over time the scale of the alleged conspiracy has grown and grown, encompassing not just sections of the Bush administration, intelligence, but also the fire service, the police, first responders, official investigators, experts, the building's owner, and the media, and, oh yes, even the BBC.
George Bush learns of the attack
George Bush is hiding something, says the 9/11 truth movement

And over time schisms have opened up in the 9/11 "truth" movement.

So-called "no-planers" believe that commercial aeroplanes did not actually crash into the Twin Towers, the Pentagon or a field in Pennsylvania. Some have suggested lasers from outer space were used.

"Planers" believe aeroplanes were used but argue that only controlled demolitions can explain the collapses of the World Trade Center towers.

Then there are the LIHOPs and MIHOPs. Most "truthers" are MIHOPs - they think the government Made It Happen On Purpose, planning and orchestrating the 9/11 attacks.

But LIHOPs believe the government just Let It Happen On Purpose, to allow them to justify wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and a clampdown on civil liberties.

Into this febrile atmosphere comes the final official report on 9/11.

This summer we will find out whether NIST's report has answered the many questions that have been raised, or whether it will suffer the same fate as the Warren Commission on the assassination of President John F Kennedy and merely add fuel to the conspiracy theories.

Interview with Mike Rudin about Conspiracy Files WTC 7 episode

You can watch a 5 minute interview with Mike Rudin, discussing the upcoming "The Conspiracy Files: 9/11 - The Third Tower," here:

There's another new report about the BBC's premature reporting of the WTC 7 collapse here:


new report about the BBC's premature report

Reuters . . they are a news service . . . who were their sources?

losing the tapes = dog ate my homework

Jane Standley looks horrified . . .she obviously was just reading the script.

Relatively balanced?

It doesnt seem to be the hit piece we have become accustomed to from the BBC.
Of course it mentions 'No Planers' and 'Laser Beams' at the end but on the whole
i thought it was relatively balanced. It even (surprisingly) featured a clip of 7 going down.

It remains to be seen whether they are putting this out before the main hit piece comes on Sunday to give the
impression of impartiality.

The Conspiracy Files: 9/11 - The Third Tower is on BBC Two (UK) on Sunday 6 July at 2100 BST

"The truth is incontrovertible, malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it,
but in the end; there it is." Winston Churchill

I think you're close to the truth.....

...with your latter statement, jwtruther

"It remains to be seen whether they are putting this out before the main hit piece comes on Sunday to give the impression of impartiality. "

It's more likely the BBC is setting it up, as if it's going to be something more? It's worth watching the interview referenced by Joe, above. I find it interesting that the producer of Conspiracy Files, below, is repeatedly stuttering and stammering his way through his delivery?

Mike Rudin, producer of Conspiracy Files

My take would be that the oligarchs need to redouble their efforts since 9/11 Truth has not gone away but rather gained in momentum. The announcement of WTC 7's collapse prior to the event is right up there in the way of damning evidence. It appears the approach will be a ah shucks one. There are really simpler and more reasonable explanations for 9/11 and WTC 7 than conspiracy according to the BBC! Jane Standley contends she was thrown a question and took it as a statement? It'll be interesting. I sense a loss of confidence!

Didn't Jane Standley say, "...the level of persecution and virulence I was spoken about...for what is really a small and honest mistake?" Isn't she implying how unkouth the reaction of conspiracy theorists?

It will more than likely be a hit piece!

BBC and Jane Standley...
...don't believe them!

Muddy the waters

This amounts to a hit piece because it trots out the usual distractions and distortions, like the claim that there is some kind of division in the 9/11 Truth movement over the "no planes" controversy. No, there is no "no planes" controversy. No reasonable person who is not an agent of disinformation believes the "no plane" theory, but the media keep writing about it anyway.

Lasers from outer space? Please.

LIHOP, MIHOP, whateverHOP. More obfuscation.

The BBC is simply setting up the inevitable conclusion that WTC7 imploded from some burning office furniture.

"truth" outnumbers "conspiracy" by nearly 4 to 1

"Put "9/11 conspiracy" into Google and you get 7.9 million hits. Put in "9/11 truth" and you get more than 22 million."

Everyone, keep up the good work.

not exactly a "hit" piece- makes a distinction between "no planers" and "normal people", oops, i mean "planers", and then also mentions LIHOP and MIHOP. No new info presented, except to those for whom it's news that there's a 9/11 Truth Movement- it gives an overview of some of the developments and evolution in the public's thinking since 9/11.

Undoubtedly this will make some new people google WTC 7, and it's pretty much all over after that

9/11 Family Steering Committee Review of the 9/11 Commission Report:

Complete 9/11 Timeline

The relevance of disinformation

Do a search of "nist" and "9/11" -- what comes up just below the NIST report?

Reynods, Wood and Fetzer's press release from 2007.

Cartoon planes, directed energy weapons from space.

The contact is Andrew Johnson, linked to Morgan Reynolds' site.

This is why patriotsquestion911 should take them off the website. The whole purpose of everything they do is to discredit us to the public. Now they rank above all of our other work. All of it.

Don't you ever wondered why Fetzer

was on Fox News over and over and Steven Jones was only one time at Tucker Carlson before he was cut off and never get aired on Fox?

good news, their budget for google hits must be getting depleted

or more real people are looking for real answers, they're slipping in the rankings:

i did a few different combinations of NIST and 9/11; George Washington's the top hit on all searches (after NIST), and,, (not org), and STJ911 are all near the top

that said, anyone know anything about Mark Gaffney? He's written a number of what appear (to me) to be good pieces (Dead on Arrival about the NIST report is also near the top), but then, among other good reviews on Amazon, he slips in this review, bottom of page 2:

The Mini-Nuke Conspiracy: How Mandela Inherited a Nuclear Nightmare; SE
by Peter Hounam (bottom of page 2)
Scary and prophetic, November 14, 2006
"Here it is 2006 and Peter Hounam's book will not go away. It's just as
scary today as when written -- perhaps more so in light of breaking news
about 911.
We knew about the seismic spike associated with the WTC collapse on
September 11, 2001. Well, as it happens there is also evidence of an EMP,
and elevated tritium. The University of California found elevated tritium
at ground zero 2 days after the event. And more recently we've learned
about a sharp spike in cancers among 911 responders -- the sort of cancers
caused by ionizing radiation.
Last year a Finnish military expert put it all together and argued that
mini nukes were planted in the basement of the WTC. The question is now
being asked - and it makes Hounam's 1995 book about red mercury, miniature
nukes, the end of apartheid and pure fusion more timely than ever.
It's time to go back and have a fresh look at Hounam's research. Did the
South Africans achieve a breakthrough in the nuclear field? I predict a
revival of interest. Thanks to Hounam's dogged work the story hasn't been
TOTALLY swept under the rug. This book is highly disturbing and suggests
we are not out of the nuclear woods -- not by a long shot.
Hounam's book deserved to be a best seller -- and in a wiser world it
surely would have."

9/11 Family Steering Committee Review of the 9/11 Commission Report:

Complete 9/11 Timeline

i know i'm an idiot-

- that's why i can't understand why this post would get voted down.

I checked the google searches again, my statement about listings and rankings appears accurate

Was it my asking for feedback on Mark Gaffney, who appears to have written good articles, but also seems to believe the nukes at the WTC theories- did i miss the evidence that there were nukes at the WTC?

Please post links, instead of voting down a fool's questions

9/11 Family Steering Committee Review of the 9/11 Commission Report:

Complete 9/11 Timeline

"anyone know anything about Mark Gaffney?"

"anyone know anything about Mark Gaffney?"

Like everyone, no one is infallible when it comes to 9/11 research. The reality is that anyone can fall for misinformation and mix in misleading information with true information. I didn't know that he believes in the mini-nukes theory, but his piece on the E-4b in the Journal of 9/11 Studies is very important and he has done some good research. The reality is that every claim has to be put to the test by going to the original sources. No single researcher can be "trusted" simply because they have credibility. In other words, the 9/11 truth movement has to be critical about its facts, and not take things for granted.
Arabesque: 911 Truth

thanks for the reply Arabesque, i'm seeking to understand

*** edit for clarification*** People have a right to anonymity; my comment about "nothing to hide" was referring to hidden motives/agendas; like those that quickly got exposed thanx to the critical thinking and quick action shown by most truthers after the Kinderbunk Warning- notably Cosmos, Michael Wolsey, Arabesque and Col. Jenny Sparks, who were honored with immortalization in the Berlet Brigade cartoon for their great work.

where this is all heading- in my email to you by no means did i mean to imply your research is shoddy or that you're cointelpro; i'm inclined to believe your intentions are good, but as i said- i don't know, and i don't trust anyone or anything online (or people that show up in my life since i became a truth activist). There is no need for "trust" when everything's in the open, people doing honest business have nothing to hide.

Any truths and facts reported by Gaffney are truths and facts, and if he is a kook (or spook), that don't change the facts; however, there is the "discrediting by association" factor, which has serious journalists and otherwise patriotic members of congress double triple checking facts and sources before they stick their neck out on controversial stuff and get tarbabied.

Gaffney seems very intelligent; i'm extreeeeeeemly skeptical he really believes the mini-nukes theories- but what do i know? That said, why would someone capable of researching and writing so well have reviews on Amazon endorsing nutty theories?

I'm less concerned about the obvious kookorspooks like Wood, Reynolds and Gin Fizzle who seed their BS with poison pills, than i am about those who might turn out to be like the witness in the Claw Shaw trial who Garrison was convinced was credible, but on cross-exam he claimed he fingerprinted his daughter before she went to college so he'd know if she'd been replaced when she came home on break.

And then there's the Operation Gladio "stay behind" people who were dormant and invisible until needed.

9/11 Family Steering Committee Review of the 9/11 Commission Report:

Complete 9/11 Timeline

The difference between

The difference between Gaffney and Reynolds, Wood Fetzer is that Gaffney is not proactively asserting his stuff and disrupting intentionally, and is not hugely popular, trying to scam people, etc. He isn't going around on lecture tours, has never been on FOX News, is not reposted around like crazy, etc.

He seems just honestly taken in by the nuke stuff because that's what his interest is elsewhere.

I think it's good to bring it up when we find these things, though. I noticed his essay was in the top 5 of my NIST search, which was disconcerting. But the good news is that it's a reasonable essay, never mentions nukes, and doesn't lead people to anything about nukes. If you look at Reynolds' first essay where he mentions no planes, it's very clever because he tries to bury that in the middle of the paper, surrounding it with very reasonable sounding stuff that people got excited about.

But who promoted him, perhaps the heaviest? Les Jamieson. Even knowing he was advocating no planes at the WTC, he was a speaker at the Chicago conference. Who organized that? The same people who run and sell buttons and stickers at all the events.

thanks, i'd noticed that-

and evidence and arguments stand and fall on their own merit, as they should; but they don't, as people are fallible and facts get spun.

I'm wondering if there's some deeper plot afoot, once the obvious shills like Fetzer, Wood and Reynolds are dismissed.

What would happen, if we get a new Congressional inquiry, or a Truth and Reconciliation Commission and DRG is called as a witness and he goes into detail about the "no 757 at the Pentagon" evidence? Or if Gaffney's called to testify about the E4B or the NIST report, and he launches into a monologue about mini-nukes?

Given that these things are already known about them, it may not be a risk; i'm actually more concerned about people who have been consistently appearing credible and won't say or publish anything that would make them appear less-than-reasonable; until such time as they may be called to testify in public. I hope the "conspiracy" is not that well organized, but $2.3 trillion buys a lot.

Has anyone questioned Gaffney about his mini-nukes beliefs? I'd like to know; feel free to forward my email to him.

If you're a DRG fan and not a shill, please reply; don't vote my comment down- I honestly think these are reasonable questions, and it's good to prepare for contingencies

9/11 Family Steering Committee Review of the 9/11 Commission Report:

Complete 9/11 Timeline

UK users can comment on the article

For those able and interested, the UK version of this article allows for comments on the site, for anyone accessing from within Britain.


Such clear bias and bs:

Video: Third tower mystery 'solved'