British TV attempts to summarize case for 9/11 truth
David Edwards and Stephen C. Webster
Published: Monday November 10, 2008

The UK's Independent Television News dedicated a short segment of a Monday broadcast to briefly explaining several core tent poles of the 9/11 truth movement.

"With new figures showing almost 150 million Web pages devoted to 9/11 conspiracies, here are the big three so-called plot holes in the official version," announced a narrator.

"One theory is that the collapse of both the twin towers was caused not by the impact of the planes and subsequent fires, but by controlled demolitions. Theorists point to the uniform crumbling of individual floors in each tower."

The narrator also mentioned a more obscure 9/11 theory: that the planes which hit the WTC towers had 'shaped charge warheads' in their nosecones.

Perhaps the most widely discussed theory, that there was no plane crash at the Pentagon, is also mentioned, with evidence cited as the lack of debris and the small impact hole. The program also mentions that the FBI has refused to release video footage of the object impacting the Pentagon, but failed to disclose how many cameras captured it.

Specifically, the FBI confiscated 85 video tapes which may contain footage of the attack.

The program also outlines questions about the alleged crash in Shanksville, PA., citing eyewitness reports of debris raining down across a wide area, as if the aircraft had been shot down by a missile.

Strangely absent was any attempt to summarize questions surrounding the collapse of World Trade Center 7: a highly significant event to 9/11 truth activists, still rife with questions even after the recent National Institute of Standards and Technology report.

This video is from ITN, broadcast November 10, 2008.

Download video via

The Coverup Continues.

I made my comment directly at

Many other 911 Truth supporters did the same.

The Truth is well represented in the rawstory readership.

I also wrote ITN expressing my feelings about what a weak piece they presented.

The Truth Will Be Known.

my comment on rawstory

911 was an inside job. watchv=LD...chv=LD06SAf0p9A

Watch the above video of the controlled demolition of the Soloman Brothers building(WTC 7). This happened on the same day, 9/11/01. It is a 47 story skyscraper which came down symmetrically into its own basement in a classic controlled demolition in less than 7 seconds. It was not hit by any plane. It only had a few fires on a few floors.

Ask yourself why this wasn't even shown in the video linked by rawstory. It is one of the major smoking guns of the 911 false flag inside job.

Leaving WTC 7 out of a story about 911 is bias by omission. The cover up continues.

Believe your own eyes. 911 was an inside job. It enabled the Patriot Act and two illegal wars for control of middle eastern oil and gas as well as the heroin crops of Afghanistan. It benefitted the transnational oil companies, Israel, and the military industrial complex.

Do your own research.

Most rawstory readers probably know all this. I am speaking to those who may be new to
ROBinDALLAS | Homepage | 11.10.08 - 8:15 pm
Direct link to this comment

(I noticed a couple of needed refinements which I changed here.)

Another farce

No mention of WTC 7, the mother of all smoking guns.

I hope y'all gave them an earful.

Could you post the responses please?

It's a start

I've copied below the accopanying article to this report from the ITN website. This report may have been flawed, but I'd at least say that it is a start, and does help make the 9/11 controversy an acceptable topic for mainstream discussion. Hopefully better reporting is to come.

9/11 conspiracy theories exposed

The World Trade Center attacks changed the world but some say the truth about 9/11 has never come out.

Rival conspiracy theories have become an internet phenomenon, with new figures showing that 150 million web pages are devoted to them.

Leading theories include the claim that New York's twin towers were not caused not by the impact of the passenger planes but by controlled demolition, an idea inspired by footage of the apparently uniform crumbling of individual floors in each tower.

More recently, it's been suggested the nosecones of the two 757 jets may have acted as shaped charge warheads.

Another theory suggests that another plane did not in fact crash into the Pentagon on September 11, 2001, as reported.

Questions also continue to be asked about the fate of the plane which crashed in a field in Pennsylvania, apparently as the result of heroic passengers taking on hijackers.

© Independent Television News Limited 2008. All rights reserved.



Never accept their terminology,

never accept that they label 9/11-truth «conspiracies» (meaning speculative theory, mere fantasy), and that they mix in some bizarre, alien claims (that the planes which hit the WTC towers had 'shaped charge warheads' in their nosecones) to justify their use of that label.
We'll never read about their own islamophobic «conspiracies», however. They will never see that the offficial conspiracy theory is a spiritual relative to the «classical» conspiracy theories, of subversive forces undermining our society (Templars, Rosecrucians, Jesuits, Illuminati, Jews, Muslims).
We are guided by evidence whereas they are guided by precepts and theory, predetermined conclusions.
By the way:
1) Why did the members of the so-called «Trotskyite-Zinovievite Terrorist Centre», Grigory Zinoviev and Lev Kamenev, «confess»? Because of torture, just like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.
2) Why did they confess in the terminology of Stalin? Because they still were communists, just like al-Qaeda always has been and still is CIA. (Grigory Zinoviev and Lev Kamenev used to be friends of Stalin, then they were made «traitors» and terrorists. Osama bin Laden used to be a friend of the CIA, then he was made a «traitor» and a terroist.)
The CIA/Pentagon has learned wery much about propaganda from their old enemy, Stalin.

The official story is a conspiracy theory itself.

This is actually a pretty decent interview:

But at 13:52 the host is asking what may very well be the dumbest question ever been asked:

"Is this just a conspiracy, or is there some truth behind what Mr Gage is saying?"

He probably means "conspiracy theory," but it's very telling anyway. We have been indoctrinated to think, "there are no conspiracies at all." There can only be "some truth" behind what you're saying if it doesn't imply, God forbid, a conspiracy.

What does «conspiracy» mean?

The problem is the terminology, the use of the word «conspiracy». It is a rather ambiguous term, to say the least. What does it mean? How comes that «conspiracy theory» means «irrational theory»?
There ARE some irrational conspiracy theories: Templars, Rocecrucians, Jesuits, Illuminati, Jews, Communists, traitors, behind any evil. Common determinator: dark forces, enemies of the state...
On the other hand: Is any business lunch a «conspiracy»? Or is it conspiracy only when something criminal is decided? Is that so unlikely that assuming it is irrational?
Is endemic corruption «conspiracy»?
Is Sibel Edmonds The Highjacking of a Nation a conspiracy theory?
Part 1:
Part 2:
Is network building (unlikely) conspiracy? Do we have to deny the existance of networks like the Italian Propaganda Due?
How comes that the author of Whiteout, Alexander Cockburn, speaks against «conspiracy theories»? Isn't his book Whiteout (about the CIA-complicity in the drug trade) a conspiracy theory?
How can we accept the term «conspiracy theory»?
What is the realm of unlikely conspiracies?
Or is it the bad intent that constitutes the (unlikely) conspiracy? When the Bush government lied about weapons of mass destruction to attack Iraq, is it a (unlikely) conspiracy theory to assume that it did so in order to grab the oil and an accepted theory to assume that it lied in order to introduce democracy and freedom in Iraq? Is it irrational to assume bad intent and rational to assume good intent? Is it the criminal aspect of an elite which considers politics as 'business by other means' and war as 'politics by other means' that must be denied by the term «conspiracy theory»?
When somebody uses the term «conspiracy theory», ask them to please give a definition. Which degree of denial is behind this usage?

Mike Ruppert said:

"I am not a conspiracy theorist. I deal in conspiracy fact."

Connotation vs. denotation

The denotation of "conspiracy theory" is benign, as I pointed out in my essay "Are conspiracy theorists out of their gourds?" at

However the shadow government's propaganda arm, aka the mainstream media, have successfully demonized conspiracy theories and conspiracy theorists in a deliberate campaign to discourage investigation into the conspiracy that they themselves are perpetrating on the world. After all, if you are engaged in some kind of crime, wouldn't you do all you could to avoid having people discover your crime?

I go into this in "Confessions of a Conspiray Theorist" at:

I believe we need to take the bull by the horns and reclaim the denotative meaning of this phrase. There has been much discussion on the Wikipedia page about whether "conspiracy theorist" is a slur. Although the denotation is not, the connotation certainly is.

We cannot make the term go away or prevent people from hurling it at us like a slur. However we can reply with something like: "There is a conspiracy and my theories about it are based on rock solid fact."

Denotatively, it is correct to say we have theories, and no, theory does not mean fantasy or fairy tale. To try to deny we have theories only paints us into a corner and affirms that there is something wrong with having theories!

Suppose your husband starts staying late at the office night after night. You see a lot of charges for restaurants and flowers on his credit card bill-- and you never received the flowers or went to those restaurants. You find lipstick on his shirt -- not your shade. Sometimes the phone rings, and when you answer, the caller hangs up.

You would certainly develop a theory about what is happening, based on these facts. That you don't know exactly what is going on doesn't mean you are paranoid or hallucinating or deficient in any way. In fact you are smart to pick up on the clues.

But the American people are such a bunch of mindless sheep that they believe anything their TV tells them, and they have been programmed to believe that those of us who question the received wisdom from the MSM are wacko nutjob moonbat crackpots.

Remember when cigarette smoking made you cool? What exactly is cool about inhaling toxic and addictive smoke? Nothing -- except our TVs told us so.

A great song about the lies of the mainstream media, from the Aussie band "The Waifs," is here:

We are getting closer to the great day when the world will wake


bonjour ,

thanks very much for this entry. I have made my own copy. WTC7 obviously missing but will help the truth movement as many people can now signale to ITN the weak part or their reportages.

We are getting closer to the great day when the world will wake up.



The great day when the world will wake up.

and discover not only that 9/11 was an inside job but that 9/11 was just the tip of the ice burg. The 9/11 rabbit hole runs very deep.

I suspect this is another case of

I suspect this is another case of 'having to cover 9/11 Truth'...

1) I noticed when they said, "uniformed crumbling of individual floors", they never actually showed the collapses in the video, only before and after the collapses.

2) When they mentioned "The hole [in the Pentagon] was much smaller than [that] of a 757" they showed images of the Pentagon after the roof line had collapsed.

3) For Shanksville, they only showed one tight view of the smoldering 'crater' while saying, "crashed in a field [after a] cockpit invasion".

Nothing in their video, coupled with their (well timed and well worded) narrative, will intrigue anyone enough to investigate for themselves. So unfortunately it's mission accomplished them there, then!

The Association ReOpen911 France is a voluntary citizen initiative, independent from all political, philosophical and religious movements.