BBC Hit Piece a Tissue of Lies, Bias and Emotional Manipulation

BBC Hit Piece a Tissue of Lies, Bias and Emotional Manipulation -

Outraged truth community demands answers from Guy Smith, immediate retractions and apologies urged, savage agenda driven yellow journalism an insult to the truth

The BBC's Conspiracy Files documentary about 9/11 was a tissue of lies, bias and emotional manipulation from beginning to end. Producer Guy Smith should be ashamed of himself for inflicting this travesty of yellow journalism upon the 9/11 truth movement and he is assured to encounter a vociferous and outraged response in its aftermath.

Separated into two categories below are a number of questions intended to highlight Guy Smith's production for what it was - a deliberate hit piece on the 9/11 truth movement structured around fallacy, lying by omission and overwhelming bias. We invite Mr. Smith to respond to these questions and the hundreds of others that are already being asked by furious and informed community of people who were made sick to their stomachs by Smith's yellow journalism hatchet job.


1) Why did the BBC use a thoroughly debunked graphic animation from PBS' Nova show to illustrate the collapse of the twin towers? This graphic portrays the tower collapsing at a rate of ten floors every six seconds. For this to be accurate, the tower's 110 floors would have taken 66 seconds to completely collapse. In reality, the towers collapsed in just 14-16 seconds at the extreme end of the estimation. The graphic also erroneously depicts the floors collapsing without resistance, which could not have happened if the building's collapse came as a result of fire damage alone. Furthermore, the thoroughly debunked "pancake theory" holds that the core column remained upright and static as the animation shows when in reality the entirety of the towers, including the concrete support structures, were pulverized into small pieces and dust. A video explanation of the erroneous Nova animation is included below. Does producer Guy Smith consider using an animation that portrays a tower collapsing in 66 seconds an accurate reflection of how the twin towers collapsed? Will producer Guy Smith retract this error before his show is aired again? Will the BBC announce a retraction of this error as is common practice for proven factual inaccuracies carried in BBC programming?

Read the Rest of the story Here at


Please not only digg that story Above, But..Please Also





BBC Thrashes 9/11 Truth; Make a complaint

Let's not let them do this and just walk away.


And send them this for reference material, since they seem to have impaired sources;

740 links by story title
9/11=PNAC PLot

Tnx for the links.

I mailed this little complaint to Helen, Guy and Mike.

"The BBC2 documentary about the 9/11 truth movement was very disapointing.
Aren't the BBC supposed to be objective and go by the facts?
Instead we saw a common hit piece filled with emotional arguments. Constantly using the term conspiracy in a derogatory way.
So what about the official story about the 19 Muslim hijackers?
Is that not a conspiracy theory? Of course it is.
Coming from a regime shrouded in secrecy and with a proven record of lying.

I did not expect the BBC to lend it self to such garbage."

Complaint filed

Mr Smith
Your “investigation” into the events of 911 and associated “conspiracies” was a sham, a disgrace and an embarrassment to the BBC. Its biased, emotive and shocking lack of balance is just what one expects from so-called “independent” mainstream media, whose repetition of Government propaganda is seemingly acceptable as “investigative journalism”.
Your subsequent claims to have followed the “evidence” are laughable. Here is just a small sample of the “evidence” you omitted to consider or discuss:-
Prior Events and Government
• Northwoods document – prior planning of “terrorist events against US people”
• PNAC call for a “New Pearl Harbor” prior to 911 to justify “war on terror”
• 911 military exercises. Who could and did organise those? Why were aircraft removed specifically from around the DC and NY areas.
• NORAD lack of response. Faultless scrambles occurred 67 times in the previous 12 months, but failed all 4 times on 911.
• Until June 2001, everything worked fine, then Rumsfeld changed the pre-existing successful rules which controlled the use of fighters against hijacked jets. Why change what wasn’t broken? Why insist that HE personally be required to approve any attacks.
• Why were fighters scrambled from Langley, Virginia, 100 miles away to “protect” the pentagon, rather than from Andrews, 11 miles away? Why from Otis, Massachusetts, so far away from NY when there were others just down the road?
• Why were the “hijackers” not listed on passenger manifests?
• Why were NONE of the video cameras in the departure airports working?
• FAA / NORAD tapes of air traffic control were (illegally) systematically destroyed afterwards, including taped depositions made by controllers within hours of the “attacks”. Why and by whom? At whose orders?
WTC 1 & 2
• Why were basement explosion fires and explosions not reported or investigated?
• The seismic record shows multiple explosions and 10-second collapse,
• Bush is on tape admitting watching the first “attack”, which was not live on public TV.
• Bush did not react either to the news of the first “attack” or the second. This has never been addressed by either the White House or the media.
• Explosions were reported before, during and after the collapses below and above ground level. These were not investigated or reported.
• Firemen reported that the fires were almost out before the collapses happened, not raging infernos that would melt steel.
• Steel cannot be melted by burning aviation fuel. Molten steel was seen pouring from the building and in the basement months later. This was not addressed or investigated.
• The controlled demolitions of WTC 1 & 2
o Explosions at both ground level and below the collapse line
o Both towers fell at freefall speed. That makes the “pancake theory” impossible.
o Both towers fell straight down and did not topple over as they would have done in a “collapse”
o Steel girders were ejected at high speed from both towers during collapse. This is impossible if this was a “collapse”
o Molten steel in the basements and falling from the buildings. Thermite-like clouds of white smoke were seen rising from the bottom of the buildings before and during collapse. This was not even mentioned.
o Photo and video of steel girders, cut at 45 degree angles (indicating thermite demolition) are available. These were not mentioned.
• NO steel-framed building has even collapsed from fire, despite much more intense, hot and long-lasting fires than either tower 1, 2 or 7. 3 fell, in what appeared to be controlled demolitions on the same day on 9/11, yet no comparisons were attempted.
• The “Dancing Israelis” were not mentioned and have never been dealt with by the mainstream media, even though some have since been revealed as Mossad agents!
• No steel and titamium engine parts, heavy landing gear parts or fire-hardened CVRs or FDRs have been recovered (officially), but paper passports survived, conveniently identifying “hijackers”. This is not credible.
• Rescue and clean-up workers reported recovering several of the FDRs and CVRs, but this is still denied by the FBI.
• Up to 10 of the hijackers, including 3 from “flight 11” have been identified as still being alive. They are still listed on the official list of “hijackers” that appeared within hours of the “attacks”. This shows the official story is patently false.
• Much of the steel etc from the site was illegally destroyed and shipped overseas without any forensic investigation. This one fact proved a high-level conspiracy of monstrous proportions. Other evidence was destroyed, covered up and denied, all illegally by official sources and continues to be so denied, despite proof to the contrary.
• The issue of share profiteering has never been addressed by the media and was ignored.
• Billions of dollars worth of Gold held in and below both towers was missing. Gold does not burn, evaporate or compress. Where did it go. A few hundred millions worth was recovered for show.
• Both buildings were leased and double-insured weeks before the event, although they were half-empty and haemorrhaging money. This is incredibly suspicious. The lessee in on tape admitting the demolition of building 7.
• It would have been illegal to demolish the buildings in the manner they came down, due to the content of asbestos and other toxins. Coneviently, the massive cost this would have entailed was avoided.
• The trajectory of the “plane” that hit the pentagon was outside the flight envelope of a B757.
• It was also outside the abilities of the “terrible pilot” who was claimed to have flown the “plane”.
• No significant aircraft pieces were visible immediately after the incident.
• There were no marks on the ground immediately afterwards, where we are told the 757 bounced.
• The hole in the building is not consistent with a 757 hitting the building (as reported).
• The explanation of the fuel doing the damage does not add up. If the wings didn’t penetrate (see the photos immediately afterwards), how would this fuel get into the building?
• Cheney is reported to have been warned several times about the incoming aircraft and to have prevented its interception. Why and why has it not been investigated?
• Numerous people reported seeing a small jet / missile and not a 757. This was not addressed.
• The engine parts found and displayed were not consistent with a 757.
• The FBI confiscated video tapes from surrounding buildings immediately afterwards. Why was this? Why have they (in the majority) never been released? Why only one time-laps series of (doctored) images from one pentagon camera?
• Why were frames missing from the images?
• The “plane” conveniently hit the side of the building that had been recently fortified, on the opposite side of the building from Rumsfelds office.
• Are we expected to believe there is no missile defence system on the Pentagon?
• Immediately after the event, wooden desks and paper files can be seen undamaged at the edges of the affected area. This is not consistent with a major fuel explosion which you describe.
• CVR/FDR tapes have never been released (although you showed an image of one!). It is claimed they were, at least partially, destroyed. This is virtually unheard of. (especially from 4 aircraft)
• A further “hijacker” from flight 77 has been found alive and well!
• In the days before the “attacks” the pentagon was found to have “lost” trillions of dollars it could not account for. This was conveniently forgotten after the “attacks”
• We are expected to believe that the whole “plane” evaporated, yet the FBI claims to have identified almost all the passengers and others. This is not credible.
• No significant aircraft wreckage was detectable immediately after the event or thereafter. This is unprecedented (except from the pentagon!).
• No bodies were found. Or luggage. Or seats. Or landing gear. Or engines. Or FDRs/CVRs etc.
• The cellphone calls reported to have been made were impossible – it cannot be done.
• The calls were also improbable and reek of being faked. No-one uses their full name when calling their mother!
• Many eye-witnesses reported seeing a military aircraft in the vicinity immediately before the “crash”, identified by many as an A-10 attack aircraft.
• The extent of burning around the site is inconsistent with the reported fire. (Until the next day, when it miraculously increased).
• Yet another hijacker on this “flight” has since been found alive and well. He is still listed as an official “hijacker”.
• As reported, no aircraft hit WTC7.
• The fires in the building were not significant and scattered.
• ATF agents had reportedly been told not to come to work. They didn’t!
• FDNY are on video telling people to get back before the building is demolished.
• BBC reported the building collapse 20 minutes before it did!
• Silverstein is on tape reporting that they decided to “pull it”, slang for controlled demolition.
• The building did not collapse, it fell neatly into its own footprint, a controlled demolition.
• Again, there are many signs of thermite usage.
• Again, the evidence was illegally destroyed before any forensic examination could take place.
• The building was quickly rebuilt in a few months the following year. Did the plans just happen to exist beforehand or are US architects really that good?
• The 911 commission has been exposed in many arenas as a fraud, cover up and has been proven to contain lies and inconsistencies.
• When no-one else could fly (and only just after commercial flights could do so) numerous Saudis left on a chartered flight. This shows corruption and complicity at the highest levels.
• All news organisations immediately reported the same theories instantly. No-one departed from the scripts prepared and supplied to them.
• Within hours, if not minutes, Bin-Laden and the CIA-front “Al-Quaida” were being blamed. This is simply not believable. (especially when the family were later allowed to leave before anyone else and without any investigation)
• The plan to invade Iraq was already approved and awaiting its “catalyst”.

(incidentally, the Mike Rudin mail link is dead)

BBC Complaints - More Info

If you prefer the old fashioned method (at least they cannot press delete).

Write to :

BBC Complaints
PO Box 1922
G2 3WT

More ways to complain :

Best wishes and good luck

I second a heavy weight loaded

letter campain. Would be great.

The postman and the post office at the BBC should at least know what's all about. Maybe all of us can write such a letter and maybe even on the outside the reason for the complain, to make it more "visible"

Complain about BBC2 "documentary" The Conspiracy Files / Guy Smith

in big letters?


The comments on the story you asked to bury.

It amazes me the amount of people who keep regurgitating half truths.... and have really no concept of anything material. They try to explain Building 7... It really is sad.

I have often wondered why our stories do not get the recognition needed on Digg.... because they are going up against a 70% group of ignorance. They are burying our stories while we let their side soar with no resistance.

They absolutely will not listen to reason.... hell they are still speaking about pancaking floors.
Ignorance is NOT Bliss

Guy Smith gave another

Guy Smith gave another reaction in the programme "Newswatch" well I guess we are still cooks...

Do not try to bury anything!!!!

Let the lies stand next to the truth and the truth will out. Freedom of speech and all that stuff. Two wrongs don't make a right.

I'm Back!

Well hello...

I used to be the id "theonlineballot" but I made a new email for my commitment to becoming an activist today, instead of just a lurker, and like a dummy I made a new ID, only to realize I could have just changed the email in the old one! Oh well, so I have proved myself as dense. :)

For those that remember, I was the advertiser here that "came out of the closet" and admitted I was a "Bush Sheep" that bleated whenever "W" told me to, and I did keep my promise, and advertised again to help the cause here.

But what I didn't do was take action, so today I am finally taking action. Not only am I going to comment on on the blogs I "lurked" at, but I am actually going to blog about 9/11 on my weblog.

I must admit I am scared of what my "peers" might think. It was safe admitting I was wrong here, but to do it on my own weblog was something new.

I don't want to be called a "lunatic", like I called all of the 911 folks. (But maybe I have it coming for my persecution of them for so long) I just want to get the real answers instead of Karl Rove's "Pre-Prepared " list of blowoff quips for the public digestion. No matter what the answers might be, I want them, whether they hurt or not.

As to the BBC... Why are they even involved in promoting the same B.S. that has been spat out allready, and debunked? I thought they were our "Mother Country" and supposed to be invested in what is for the best of their former colony?

Again, I guess what I was told to believe is again wrong. And sadly enough, I am rather saddened that the BBC would even desert us by just staying on the side of an administration here in the USA that has turned its back on the voters that put them in office.

My next question is: "How can I get involved?"

I don't want to resort to "Partisan name calling" because that was the exact reason I finally left the GOP bandwagon!

And as just a newbie, I don't want to get in over my head, when I don't have the expertise to go head to head with my former "Soldiers Of God".

Is there anything simple I can start with? I read the links given to me the first time I commented, so what now?

Sorry to post this sorta "off-topic" comment here, but it seemed like the only place that I might get a few suggestions. :)

-={Guy R. Vestal, NYC Expatriate]=-

Welcome to reality my friend.

Ain't it a bitch? LOL

My advice. Researching government counter intelligence (COINTELPRO) techniques, 'disinfo', is high priority. Perfect example of this among us is Jim Fetzer & the "Space Beams", & Rick Siegel & the 'Hologram' crew. There are more cunning agents than these, trust me.

Other than that, do your homework, & try to bring this info to as many others as you can. There are many great sites linked here (on the left side of the page). Here are some links to excellent videos to get you started.

The Power Of Nightmares - (When BBC was still relevant)

The Money Masters

America Freedom to Fascism

9/11 The Myth and the Reality

9/11 Mysteries

9/11 Press For Truth

(Not responsible for any disenchantment or rage you WILL feel after waking from the fog.)

RE: Welcome to reality my friend.

Thank You Very Much...

I will get on those videos right now.

-={Guy R. Vestal, NYC Expatriate]=-

Good list...

...but, you have to add "Terrorstorm" or Tarpley's "Synthetic Terror" book to expose the concept and documented history of state-sponsored terror to justify national military aggression.....

And, of course, to "break that tactic in front of their faces..."


Another Great Watch by Author of The Power Of Nightmares

Got a heads-up by Robert Rice (thanks) on a four part series, that details how media and "public relations" have got us into this mess in the first place.

A must see series...

Link :     The Century Of The Self by Adam Curtis - Parts 1 to 4 on Google Video

When you get a chance, check it out, video quality is ok'ish, sound quality is very good.

Best wishes and good luck

Show "the 'Hologram' crew" by Killtown

There will be no links

because he is making it up.

Guy Smith on Alex Jones

Guy Smith on Alex Jones right now with Avery.

Jones is Tearing This Lymie Up.

This smug propagandist is flailing.

Guy Smith's pathetic.

So is his argument, he's done zero research, or he's playing real dumb.

This Shill isn't fooling me one bit. His 'documentary' was a joke & he can't defend it. I laughed out loud at them selling limited hangout in the end of his propaganda piece.

No mention of bombs/explosions

Paul Joseph Watson brought up this really good, obvious, point about the documentary: there was absolutely no mention of any firefighters or anyone else talking about explosions or bombs in any of the buildings. None.

It's such a glaring omission that there is absolutely no way that the documentary was objective. That's on top of the more subtle biases shown in other ways.

EDIT: I just found this article by Andrew Lowe Watson detailing some of the omissions mentioned on the AJS:

passenger mannifest

From Debunking the BBC's 9-11 Conspiracy Files:
"It is interesting to note which points are missing from the BBC's analysis of the alternative 9-11 investigations.

Some of these include the passenger lists which do not include the 19 Arabs named as responsible"

I keep hearing this over and over again but I know I saw the photocopied passenger lists presented in the Zacharias Musawi trial. These lists contained all of the hijackers as far as I know. I can't find copies anymore; does anyone have a link to these lists or remember seeing them?


Oh, hey!

Thanks, Eye. See? These lists do have the names.
Great find.

Thank you!

Thank you EyeOnThe911Ball, those trial exhibits were exactly what i was looking for =)

Manifest Hijacker Omission a completely misguided point. It's all based on a list posted on the internet soon after Time Zero, and invoked by DRG repeatedly. It was designated as a list of "victims," so it was perfectly natural to omit the alleged hijackers. If you counted the names on the victims lists, the names numbered five fewer (four fewer for 93) than the total passenger loads released by the airlines.
The official manifests have never been released by the Federal Bureau of Intimidation, just as nothing else has.

It remains in doubt

how did they knew immediately who the hijackers were?

Arab names? Maybe the ones long known as intelligence operatives from Saudi Arabia?

I mean come on, there were other "outlandish" sounding passenger names as well.

Alex is eviscerating this

Alex is eviscerating this weasel Smith. He also implied that he will be putting together a debunking video of the BBC doc.

The Eleventh Day of Every Month

He couldn't answer anything

It was just incredible how he couldn't answer any concrete question. He didn't even try to refute any of the evidence Alex, Dylan and Paul brought up. It was just his standard answer every time "yeah, that's right, but if you look at the broad picture I just don't see any evidence of an inside job."

I really like the idea of making a video to debunk the BBC's debunking. If it was done right it could be a very powerful tool against these debunking techniques that just keep repeating again and again.

He couldn't refute anything

It literally made my stomach turn to listen to Guy Smith. He sounds like a scripted robot repeating his sycophant punch-line: "I couldn't see any evidence of a inside job" to each bit of evidence proving the contrary. I mean how can these people call themselves journalists!?

And his feigned, yet loaded comments like "It's great that we are discussing these ‘conspiracy theories’ " and "watch my doc and make up your own mind". Ok so why include the completely ridiculous theories like the forewarning of 4000 jews, the C-130 story or the family guilt material. Make up your own mind??! More like "Watch my disinformation propaganda piece and let me mould your mind"...

It's just sick. But really, what else could we expect. I mean would the BBC really put out a balanced 9/11 doc. If it did, it would signal the end of the US administration, and eventually the UK government itself. At least now with have clear confirmation of the BBC’s journalistic value.

No, change won't come from the top, it will come from the bottom, as it always has.

A debunking video of this show will be candy to the eyes though. Such a blatant Orwellian piece will go down in history. Guy Smith, you can be proud of yourself. Your position in the annals of the Ministry of Truth is truly assured.

Audio of Guy Smith interview on Alex Jones Show

Vital Points that Need to be Made

Alex Jones had Guy Smith, the BBC producer of the Conspiracy Files documentary on the 9/11 attack, on his radio show today, along with Dylan Avery and one of the Watson brothers.

I was disappointed in the performance of Jones, Avery and Watson on that show, even though they did call call Guy Smith out on a number of good points which he had no reasonable answers for.

To begin with, there is an absolutely critical piece of evidence that they failed to mention when Guy Smith was asking for definitive proof that the World Trade Center towers were brought down by controlled demolition, and that's the video of yellow to white-hot molten metal seen cascading off the South Tower.

Folks, that piece of evidence isn't merely a smoking gun: it's a smoking nuclear cannon. That video, alone and by itself, is irrefragable *proof* that the South Tower (at the very least) had thermite-like ("like" in the sense of producing comparable temperatures) incendiary demolition charges with the ability to easily slice through structural steel going off within it. There is no innocent explanation for what that video records.

One could ignore all the other massive amounts of hardcore evidence that the U.S. government staged the 9/11 attacks from beginning to end (i.e., the veritible bottomless sea of smoking guns that we're drowning in), and this video *by itself* would be far more than enough to incontrovertibly *prove* that the South Tower had incendiary demolition charges set within it that were going off.

Below are videos which contain some of this footage:

Second--and this is a problem many people here have, including the people who post the main articles to this blog--is that they let Guy Smith get away with the "conspiracy theory [or theorist]" ad hominem attack without adequately rebutting him.

Alex Jones tried to rebutt Guy Smith on this point by saying that the U.S. government's offical story (which, by the way, has changed quite a number of times) regarding the 9/11 attack is a conspiracy theory due to its numerous absurdities. While although said offical story truly is absurd and totally disprovable, that's not how to properly answer this point.

A conspiracy is simply when two or more people take part in a plan which involves doing something unrightful or untoward to another person or other people (of which plan may or may not be kept secret, i.e., secrecy is not a necessary component for actions to be a conspiracy).

Since obviously more than one person was involved in planning the 9/11 attacks, then *by definition* it is a conspiracy, even if one completely accepts the U.S. government's lying, self-serving, anti-historical, anti-factual, and provably false official fairy tale conspiracy theory concerning the 9/11 attacks. Hence, *by definition* the U.S. government's offical fairy tale is a conspiracy theory, as the U.S. government is putting forth a theory concerning the 9/11 attacks which involves a conspiracy.

That is the way to properly anwser the "conspiracy theorist" charge, as it's being used as a hypocritical ad hominem attack, since that charge *by definition* applies just as much to the U.S. government's disingenuous offical theory, as it is a theory involving conspiracy.

Never let the hypocritical "conspiracy theory" or "conspiracy theorist" charge pass over without pointing out that the person making the charge is by definition also a conspiracy theorist. Too often I see people here just let that charge pass by without answering it; or sometimes people here in the 9/11 Truth movement will actually apply that term to our position (I suppose from hearing it repeated by the mainstream major media so often). But this charge is being made as an ad hominem attack--a hypocritical and self-contradicting ad hominem attack, at that.

Third, Guy Smith asked why haven't people come forward admitting to taking part in staging the 9/11 attacks on behalf of the U.S. government. To begin with, anyone who would admit to such a thing would be admitting to committing mass-murder, and would thereby qualify for the death penalty. They would also be made to look like kooks by the U.S. government and would likely be brought up on trumped-up charges possibly unrelated to the 9/11 attack in order further damage their credibility. While in jail they could quite possibly look forward to getting raped and having the daylights tortured out of them, and then dying from a "suicide" or chemically-induced "heart attack."

As well, the U.S. government would have chosen people for such a task who are either thoroughly sociopathic or so indoctrinated with fallacious religious conditioning that they would either take pleasure in the acts or think that they are involved in a wonderful, Godly thing. Concerning the latter, I can well believe that the dancing Israelis could have quite possibly been the ones the U.S. government had planting the themite-like indeniaries in the towers, since they obviously knew the attacks were coming (going by their own words on that matter, as well as their actions) and were not at all surprised and indeed were overjoyed when the attacks did take place. Many in Israel have been so conditioned with an "us against the rest of the world" thought-process that they are totally convinced that pretty much the entire gentile world is out to completely exterminate all the Jews. Further, many of these very types have been conditioned into a Messianic End-Times position that views Israel is the center of the world, along with the absolute necessity to promote Israel's interests at all costs in order to fulfill Old Testament End-Times prophecy. So such thoroughly-conditioned Israelis would quite literally believe that they were on a mission from God.

Nor am I implying via the above that the Israeli government was the main culprit in staging the attacks, as Israel can't make the FAA and NORAD stand down, neither can Israel plant thermate-like incendiaries in the towers without the U.S. government's help and consent. The U.S. government was the party utlimately responsible for intentionally staging the attacks, with Israeli agents possibly being used by the U.S. government in order to put some distance between itself ("plausible deniability" they call it). At the very least, we do know for an absolute fact that Israeli agents were being used to track the Arab U.S. government military agents (as there is tons of proof demonstrating that these Arabs were trained on U.S. military bases in the U.S.) who are popularly termed the "9/11 hijackers."

Additionally, governments throughout history are often known to eliminate their agents once they have performed their task. People die and go missing all the time without it becoming a major news item. So it could be that a number of the people who actually planted the thermite-like incendiaries in the towers (or who were involved in other tasks in knowingly staging the 9/11 attacks) are already dead.

Regarding the yellow to white-hot molten metal seen cascading off the South Tower, from its color it had to be at least over 1000 °C, yet jet fuel burns in open air at 260-315 °C; nor do any office, building, or plane materials burn anywhere near that hot (indeed, it would present quite a hazard if such articles were constructed with such powerful incendiaries, and so designers of such objects go out of their way to make sure that they are not). Thus, if it wasn't molten iron from thermite that we are seeing come off the South Tower, then by necessity a reaction source with a heat intensity very much like thermite had to be present. Yet there is nothing in the U.S. government's account that can explain such a heat source; indeed, there's nothing innocent that could explain it, since it requires some sort of extremely powerful incendiary.

Moreover, even the official FEMA scientists Jonathan Barnett, Ronald R. Biederman, and R. D. Sisson, Jr. bolster the evidence that thermate (i.e., thermite with sulfur added) was used to bring down the WTC towers (see "C Limited Metallurgical Examination," FEMA 403--World Trade Center Building Performance Study ):

Evidence of a severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel, including oxidation and sulfidation with subsequent inter granular melting, was readily visible in the near-surface microstructure. ... No clear explanation for the source of the sulfur has been identified. The rate of corrosion is also unknown.

Below is Dr. Jones's relevant paper:

"Why Indeed did the WTC Buildings Collapse?," Steven E. Jones, Ph.D., Journal of 911 Studies, Vol. 3 (September 2006):

"Experiments with Molten Aluminum," Steven E. Jones with Wesley Lifferth, Jared Dodson, Jacob Stevenson and Shannon Walch, circa June 2006:

"Terrorism is the health of the State."--James Redford, author of "Jesus Is an Anarchist," June 1, 2006

I second your comment

We should never accept the term 'conspiracy theorist' UNLESS the other side is being tagged with it also.

The "but nobody came forward" argument is old. It assumes that there cannot be a conspiracy because nobody came forward. Following that reasoning, a successful conspiracy becomes an impossibility because somebody always eventually comes forward.

I love it when Guy Smith, when confronted with the molten steel, retorts with "we can debate about these issues endlessly but I saw no evidence of an inside job". HAHAHA!! Give me a break. What is there to debate? MOLTEN STEEL! That's it. Mega Super Dooper Smoking Gun!

Alex did well to cites Operation Northwoords, Mossadeq, Gulf of Tonkin, Tuskigee, Manhattan project, Vietnam 5K pre-war deaths etc... but they fall on Guy's deaf ears. Guys: "These are interesting points, but they are not related". He even admits governments carry out false flag ops but sees no reason to question 9/11, even with the mountain of evidence presented.

Finally, the BBC seems to have spent some serious money to create this doc and Guy Smith spend some serious time researching 9/11. During the interview, it seems that Guy Smith is completely unaware (at least pretends to be) of most of the well-known smoking guns presented to him by Alex/Dylan/Watson.

Oh and the old "we didn't have time to cover all issues" argument makes me puke. They had enough time for the emotional anti-9//1Truth spin didn't they? Or the XFiles director's mindless diatribe didn't they? But no time for molten-steel??! Or WTC7 evacuations and pull-it?

Kudos to Watson who came across very convincingly as well as composed.

Show "Where's your "popular" support kooks." by StopLyingKooks

Cue the teeny tiny violins.

And then what will you be obsessive-compulsive about?

RE: Where's your "popular" support kooks.

Let me get this straight.... Your "Proof" that these people here are "kooks" is because of a "Digg" count?

Is this how low the administration and those that follow blindly have sunk to? Since facts and evidence are not enough, the last resort of the defeated is to namecall, and use easily manipulated internet user statistics? (Heaven forbid someone should delete cookies, or open multiple accounts to sway a statistic?

Thank God I left when I did! I would have hated to have turned into this guy...

-={Guy R. Vestal, NYC Expatriate]=-

about you?

I find it sad that in your 'about me' section, your sole description is about discrediting 'tin foil hat' wearers....that is a tragic admission and I feel certain you would find more satisfaction in some other hobby/pursuit/ambition.purpose.

People with questions (though not all identifiable by the wearing of a shiny hat) will always exist where answers are either not forthcoming or clearly wrong. Maybe you could consider dealing with this reality rather than conspiring to debunk and retaliate against people with legitimate questions that they are entitled to ask,.

Tina Louise

“The world is a dangerous place. Not because of the people who are evil; but because of the people who don't do anything about it.”
Albert Einstein


someone is working really hard to have stories from 911blogger buried on, both BBC posts have been buried, one with over 175 diggs.













this last weekend was a

this last weekend was a multi media info attack against 911truth------

part of it ---was the planted idea that "digg:" was a good thing

they let a couple of stories be at the front a couple days ago

and then sunday they do the bbc bullcrap0-----and then they nail all the cyber activists at digg

planned bullshit
all the ufo conspiracy shows on the history channel these last few days----were metaphors about it being "good for the govt to keep secrets" etc...

and they didnt re run the alex jones /guy smith interview tonite on infowars

stupid ass revolution bullshit

while i have no doubt some

while i have no doubt some make it a point to search and digg down 9-11 stories, I can't say I blame them when people post comments in every story that hits the front page saying 9-11 was an inside job. all that does it turn people off and as a result, they refuse to take the time to look into the issues.














Operation Mockingbird

Alive and well. A truly pertinent fact of life, the media is the CIA.

Lead up to Iran

Lets see...

- claim Iran has been supplying weapons
- claim Iran's military exercises menacing neighbors

Enter Hit Piece against 9/11 truth via BBC,

Then today Tony Blair announces troop withdrawals from Iraq.

This is one big media illusion. Look over there... not at what I'm doing.

I'm with other folks... beware a new false-flag event… One which eclipses 9/11, either in casualties and by use of WMD. The question is WHO will the FF attack be perpetrated against? Who's aid will we rush to this time?

Shots in the dark:
Saudi Arabia
Germany or

I don't see this happening in the US. It will either be a NATO ally, thus forcing all other NATO ally's into the fray, or it will be against Bush’s oil buddies in S.A. or an attack on Isreal, enough to justify numerous "justifiable" retaliatory strikes.

Anyone else feel the setup?

Here's my letter to the BBC

Dear Ms. Boaden:

I've been reading about the BBC's recent program about 9/11, and I was sorry to hear that it fell to the level of a "hit piece." It sounds as if you picked the weakest straws in the "inside job" argument and ignored the so numerous reasons why the "official version" could not possibly be true. Why didn't you have Drs. Griffin or Jones on the program? I happen to think that Dylan Avery and Alex Jones are credible and honest, while certainly the same cannot be said about Bush, Cheney, or Blair, but I have to admit their enthusiasm and unpolished manners might not make the best impression on an unfamiliar audience. It sounds as if you used that unpolished quality to prejudice viewers against the facts. Apparently, you also used the weakest rather than the strongest arguments in many cases, used anecdotal hearsay when you could have concentrated on agreed upon facts, and so forth.

Bush said: "Let us never tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories" about 9/11. As Griffin points out, when one looks at the evidence dispassionately, the "outrageous" conspiracy theory, the one that goes against physics and probability, is the one that says that poorly trained Arab pilots hijacked four planes, flew them through highly guarded airspace, crashed into buildings, one of them the most highly guarded in the world, even after having had plenty of time to prepare for its arrival, caused three buildings to collapse because of fire, an unprecedented occurrence, and into their footprints in a manner seen only in circumstances of controlled demolition.

The only reasons for believing the "official" conspiracy theory would seem to be an incorrect use of Occam's Razor, that the "official" version is somehow "simpler" or more "straightforward" ("the planes hit the buildings, then we watched them fall down"), and that the American government would never commit such a callous crime, despite so many examples in recent and past history that governments, especially American governments, have difficulty resisting committing atrocities, given the chance.

I'm not so much trying to convince you that my way of looking at the events of 9/11 is correct, as to tell you that I am disappointed that the BBC, for which I have always had a certain respect, would use the power of its prestige to provide an unbalanced view of such an important issue. I think a correct understanding of 9/11 is crucial for having a proper perspective of so much that has happened in the last five years. If the "war on terrorism" is largely a phony war, as I believe, then the whole aggressive foreign policy of the US and Great Britain, not only the invasion of Iraq, is going in the wrong direction. I believe you committed a great disservice.


Fred W

My Complaint...

I too was so disappointed with the biased and foolish BBC coverage that seemed to have one goal - make those with questions and doubts, look like fools. the following is my complaint:
I watched with interest and hope that soon faded...I doubt the official tale of 9/11 and I doubt it for a variety of reasons based on a huge amount of reading and observation of a broad spectrum of reports.

Yet, your programme highlighted reasons for doubt that I had never heard of and either didn't mention reasons I do have or skirted past them very rapidly. Building 7 deserved much more attention than the use of phones on flight 93 etc. The appearance of controlled demolition and the freefall collapse of the towers deserved more time and attention that the look on the president's face or his time keeping and the lack of burned wreckage at the Pentagon deserved more attention than the 'what happened to all the passengers?' theory.

Your programme made those who doubt - look like ignorant fools. Some of us though have read the physics of the situation, followed the coincidences of stock movement and done more research than you appear to have.

9/11 seems to split us all....but it is not merely black and white, believe Osama did it or believe George did it - inbetween is the grey stuff that matters, the questions not the theories, the doubts, not the illusions and you in no way dealt with this important area of the whole issue.

Some (most?) of the doubters and questioners do not propose theories, we just want answers and cannot understand that if there is nothing to hide - why so much is hidden.

I am deeply disappointed in the BBC for this programme and many others where I feel you are no longer truly representing the people - but more the official line on matters like Iraq, 9/11 etc.


Tina Louise