Friday, July 18, 2008

Story Line 1

Reviewing the BBC’s 911 story
line and the analysis presented:

[Home] [Storyline [Index] [Links & thanks].

Monitoring Authority browses the web to investigate the truth about the BBC Spinning Conspiracy Theories & Censoring Dissent.

[Watch the 60 minute documentary]

An honest and professional investigation? A pitch for audience ratings? Or compliance with a foreign powers perception management programme?

Caroline Catz introduces the BBC investigation into the most important event this century. The introduction covers controversial issues and raises expectations that serious analysis would be offered.

Caroline Catz, an actress know for authority roles as a police woman and headmistress, delivers the BBC script in a commanding performance.

[numbers] show time from beginning of documentary
Names abbreviated thus: Caroline Catz = (CC)

[00:00] (CC) “The Day the World Changed Forever.”

[00:30] (CC) “Look closely through the smoke and horrors say conspiracy theorists, not everything is as it first appears.”

We get a blast of Alex Jones considered by many questioners acquainted with his hyperbolic “in your face” Texas aggression, with caution; then
George Bush, in Nov. declaring no toleration for “outrageous conspiracy theories” at the UN.

No one had suggested anything against the administration. However, specific people were talking, before the dust had settled, that al Qaeda was responsible and the towers collapsed due to fires after the impacts. The official conspiracy theory had already surfaced.

Jerome Hauer, Kroll Associates and NIH, interviewed by Dan Rather on CBS on the morning of September 11th, leaked the entire official conspiracy theory before it became public knowledge. [More] The BBC, interestingly, were also remarkably rapid (two years early) getting the mind bending official tale broadcast and posted on their web site within 48 hours. [More]

Catz instructs us that “many say" and “the questions keep coming” but the BBC in the 60 minute documentary, does not inform viewers of the wide range of sceptics or of the credibility and high respectability of questioners. Catz poses a widely held doubt about the Pentagon facade; how did a Boeing 757 disappear into a hole “apparently so small?" Later the BBC reverses “common knowledge” to state “18ft at its narrowest”.

[01:20] (CC) “Wreckage from Flight 93 was strewn miles from the crash site proving it was shot down.” They show Alex Jones stating that the FBI are on record recording recovery of Flight 93 wreckage 7 miles from the crash site. [More]

Alex Jones, in this case, cannot be faulted. The information is in the public domain. The BBC ignores the evidence and concentrates on diversionary spin.

[1:33] (CC) “Could a controlled demolition have caused this building to collapse?” WTC Building 7 is “investigated” in the "File" but only for three minutes by an employee of a corporate team allied to the administration:

Davin Coburn, previously a local news hack for a regional newspaper with no stated qualifications, but privy to “confidential” information held by “intelligence services”. This fact is not revealed, nor does the BBC inform viewers of Coburn's close association with US state intelligence services: [More]

We are introduced to Cheryl Shames pouring her heart out for a lost brother and condemning doubters as uncaring of relatives emotions. This “message” echoed through the 60 minutes. [More]

“Why do so many doubt?” asks Catz. But in the "File" the BBC only shows us three from a global community of millions. [More]

The hanger of secrets: storing iron and steel wreckage from the WTC.

[2:40] (CC) “This is all that remains of America’s biggest crime scene”. The BBC does not explain a glaring anomaly. “Do the secrets of 911 lie here?” Catz asks but that's the last we hear of this puzzle of why the Bush administration stymied every attempt to set up normal investigations - accident and crime scene hearings, standard evidence gathering and analysis or criminal investigations into the terrorist attacks.

“Do the secrets of 911 lie here?” They may well. Is the metal stored in that vast hanger available for independent study? Did the BBC commission accredited analysts to examine the steel?

We are not informed by the BBC of the unprecedented behaviour of the Bush administration in sanitizing the crime scenes, destroying evidence in the face of multiple complains from official bodies normally responsible for investigation of civil and military disasters? [More]

Modern scientific analysis of the wreckage would test the issues raised by [Dr Stephen Jones]

He states that constituents of thermate were found on metal parts salvaged from scrap yards as well as firm evidence of fusion of steel indicating extremely high temperatures.

The BBC tests nothing. [More]

[2:58] (CC) “The official account of what happened on that day is unequivocal. Osama Bin laden’s 19 young martyrs, armed with knives and box cutters, casually walked through airport security and hijacked four planes.”

Catz emphasises the word “UNEQUIVOCAL” as if to say it forcefully enhances the meaning.

The BBC "File" does later reveal the “double speak” of Rumsfeld and Bush on WMD etc. but could equally have reported on the law suit against the Environmental Protection Agency.

The government reserves the right to lie outright to its citizens, even where death and injury will occur. “Greater good” is the foremost consideration; in this case Wall Street and the corporate world. [More]

The intro ends with a live broadcast from the morning of the 11th, “the second tower has exploded from 20 floors below (the top) in a gargantuan explosion”.

The BBC takes you to the edge of the key issue - the collapse of the towers - explosions, the physics of free fall collapses.

Despite a mass of challenging empirical evidence [More] the BBC will veer off and align itself uncritically with the official conspiracy theory giving just two minutes to the central focus that has attracted so much dissident inquiry. [Laws of Physics]

[4:15 (CC) “The official inquiry admitted that America was caught off guard and the response was chaotic but found no conspiracy involving the government in Washington.”

It is instructive to look at the members of the 911 Commission and how it is considered by observers: [More]

[4:27] (CC) "But many do not accept the official conclusion, however distressing that maybe for the relatives of those that died."

The BBC completely censors all grieving but dissenting survivors, 1st responders and relatives and spins a refrain that this event is uniquely sacrosanct and above reasonable suspicion. Many relatives, 1st responders and survivors have accepted financial compensation which bars them from questioning events or of speaking out. Many have not and continue to seek answers to deeply troubling questions.

Robert McIlvaine who's 26 year old son died in at the World Trade Centre is one:

"I'm not a conspiracy theorist, I'm a parent, I have an obligation to find out who murdered my son"

"These people lied"

"The 911 Commission gave me nothing"

But the BBC tells us the official account is unequivocal and if the BBC has no profound criticism of the administration then neither should we.

So from the very beginning the BBC states its position, which is far from impartial, on one of the most controversial issues of our age.

After setting the scene for 5.5 minutes Caroline Catz, "the voice of the BBC", leads into the investigation based on interviews with 14 Americans supporting the Bush administration's story and 3 unrepresentative voices from the disparate rainbow of sceptics. [More]

[5:30] Caroline Catz (CC) introduces Dylan Avery, Producer of Loose Change, “an internet film viewed millions of times” that graphically illustrates key unanswered questions about 911.

[6:50] (CC) “To reach a global audience like this in the past you’d have needed the backing of a Hollywood studio.”
To discover what the BBC did not tell you about famously wealthy supporters of Dylan Avery and to judge whether character assassination and irrelevant padding were substituted for serious investigation read [Simon Connection]

[8:05 (CC) “So what did happen on that day? There happened to be a routine defence training exercise taking place on that day.” North American Aerospace Defence Command NORAD is mentioned. (CC) continues, “When the first reports came through from civilian air traffic control 57 minutes later, some of the military thought the report was part of the exercise."

There were 5 or more “exercises” and “military manoeuvres” underway. It was not routine or singular. The statements of NORAD and FAA are still contradictory as are comments by senior military officials. The official record has been revised and is one of the central issues being challenged [More]

In March 2005 Popular Mechanics' “Debunking 911 Lies” article appeared. The BBC chose to base much of its programme on this magazine’s research. They introduce Davin Coburn in his impressive glass and stainless steel office.

What the BBC fails to tell us about Coburn and Popular Mechanics is much more relevant than their confident and reassuring introduction:

e.g. links to the Republican Party, CIA & Home land Security i.e. the Bush administration

[9:45] (CC) “Popular Mechanics is a no nonsense nuts and bolts magazine writing about technology since days of Henry Ford .... Davin Coburn suggests US defences were 'simply unprepared' .... a passenger airline had not been hijacked in the US since 1979 and now there were 4 at once” - a deceitful red herring.

On average, 100 times a year, the USAF scrambles fighters to investigate planes that are off course and/or suspected of unusual behaviour by air traffic control (ATC). Up to Sept. 11th there had been 67 interceptions in 2001. Most often there is an interception within 10 minutes.

[10:30] Davin Coburn (DC) “hijackers don’t attempt to disappear .. they turned off the transponders .. when they went to primary radar, when ATC (Air traffic control) tried to find them there were like 4500 blips that looked identical across the United States and these hijackers were turning planes ... off course.”

This story is challenged by ex air force pilots, air traffic controllers and official government documents. The BBC information on radar and US defence capabilities is seriously inaccurate. [More]

[12:20] (CC) "Sceptics claim the WTC towers could not have collapsed due to fire." The BBC, with the voice of Caroline Catz aided by Davin Coburn, cover this core issue for just two minutes using a discredited NOVA animation. [More]

The BBC does not address the all important issue of physics [More] nor the recorded facts, photographic/video evidence nor witness accounts. [More]

How can three steel framed buildings collapse into their own foot print at free fall speed?
with the
simultaneous disintegration of every steel column/girder/ joint, every concrete slab, in a fraction of a second, floor by floor, all the way down to sub-basement level to leave heaps of fragmented rubble, dust and 25ft lengths of steel.

The official explanation suspends several laws of physics causing scientists and engineers, world-wide, to seek the needed clarification, which has not been forthcoming.

[13:55] The BBC shows us (CC) "three floors of the World Trade Centre compressed into a slab three foot thick" in a fraction of a second.

Where did that massive amount of energy come from? to compress the slab while turning the rest of the towers into pyroclastic clouds normally only witnessed at volcanic eruptions - this "compressing weight", so clearly visible in all the pictures, was suspended in enormous clouds of debris floating over Manhattan.

Where did the energy come from to create pools of molten iron? that were still being uncovered in the clear up weeks after the collapse?

Why were there micron size dust particles? that can only be created by volcanic or explosive reaction. [More]

See [Links] to photos, videos and massive amounts of information from scientists, engineers, architects, demolition experts challenging the official tale.

And then there is the audio/photographic evidence of people in both towers close to the impact/failure point just moments prior to collapse.

A woman is photographed trapped at the point of impact! North Tower, just before it collapsed. [More]

Two firemen braved their way to the 78th floor of the South Tower! They report that the fires were minor. Listen to Battalion Chief Orio J. Palmer, who was organising the evacuation of injured people with Fire Marshal Ronald P. Bucca. [More]

How could these firefighters and a woman be at the centre of fires, allegedly so intense, that they fatally damaged structural steel over entire floors of the towers?

Why did the BBC miss this telling evidence?


[14:34] (CC) “later that afternoon another building at the WTC site collapsed, this time without a plane ever hitting it - this is building 7 in the shadow of the twin towers. The building had been evacuated and there were no casualties. With so much else going on that day the event was barely reported.”

The 47 story Building 7 raises a thick wad of questions that are now labelled “conspiracy theories”. But “barely reported” - it was no mere theory which revealed that the BBC broadcast the “news” of the collapse of Building 7 over twenty minutes before it fell: it actually happened.

WTC 7 fell at free fall speed into its own footprint leaving just a small pile of rubble

23 minutes after the BBC first reported its collapse.

Building 7 offers a cameo of the various intrigues that have aroused doubts, questions and dissent about the whole official story of the attack on America.

Building 7 was the first steel framed building ever to collapse allegedly due to fire. There is a very long list of witnesses reporting explosions throughout the day. Molten steel was reported in the rubble. Its collapse at free fall speed, as with the Twin Towers, continually attracts more professional/academics to the cause of questioning the official account. The official story conflicts with the LAWS OF PHYSICS. [Laws of Physics]

It housed not only the Emergency Control Centre, offices of the CIA, FBI, Inland Revenue Services, but also an investigations division of the Securities and Exchange Commission.

They were investigating Wall Street corporations, Enron and World Com along with other undisclosed cases of high level corruption. All the records were lost. Some seriously rich and powerful people would have heaved a big sigh of relief to see Building 7 fall.

The collapse of Building 7 attracted more attention after the BBC prematurely announced its collapse. In July 2008 they screened a Conspiracy File programme solely on Building 7 [The Third Tower] including the premature broadcast by Jane Stanley reporting its destruction.

Despite the substantial conflicts of interest of Popular Mechanics, the BBC interviewed Coburn, ex local newspaper journalist with no reported scientific qualifications, to back the official debunking of those that question.

Why choose an ex sports and tit bits writer from a Pennsylvania local newspaper to address this controversial issue?

His experience of fires was limited to covering such events as a blaze at "Arby’s steak and chip house" in July 2003 ...., “firemen raced to Arby’s to thwart a fire that flame broiled a three foot open space between the buildings roof and the restaurants decorative wood ceiling”. Davin Coburn staff writer.

“Flame broiled”, creative writing maybe but from the BBC Charter we expect authoritative analysis not sound bites from a reporter of high school basketball matches and chip fat fires.

[15:18] (CC) "the motive , it’s argued, is there was a secret command bunker in Building 7 from where the attacks were co-ordinated; it had to be demolished to hide the evidence. The Secret Service, the Pentagon and CIA had offices there."

The BBC misleads because the majority that question the collapse of Building 7 do just that - question. These include survivors, firemen, engineers etc.

[15:47] (CC) "these are other buildings that were brought down by demo charges ... the collapse of Building 7 does look similar."

The BBC addresses the issue of controlled demolition, but superficially. It is instructive to see pictures and film of similar buildings on fire. These fires burnt fiercely, on a wider scale, sometimes for a day or more. No steel-framed building has collapsed from fire before. [More]

Coburn is interviewed at the site of the WTC. With laptop to hand we are shown the collapse.

16:25 Davin Coburn (DC) “when you learn the facts about the way the building was built and the way it supported itself and the damage that was done by the collapsing towers that preceded it the idea that it was a demolition just holds no water.”

Coburn let slip, in a later radio interview, that he had been shown "secret" photos of damage to Building 7 by US "intelligence services". The BBC fails to inform viewers of his connections or whether the BBC had been privy to similar "intelligence briefings".

16: 42 (CC) "As the twin towers collapsed the debris smashed into WTC 7. The building became a raging inferno partly fuelled by large diesel storage tanks for emergency generators."

Barry Jennings, a NY City employee linked to the Emergency Management Office on the 23rd floor of Building 7, was a key eye witness. Jennings was called to attend the EMO after the first plane struck the N Tower. When he got to the EMO on the 23rd floor, accompanied by a Mr Hess, they found the office abandoned as Giuliani had been warned the Twin Towers would collapse.

They descended by a stairway but at the 6th floor there was an explosion and a landing they were on collapsed. The power was cut and the stairwell was in darkness.

Jennings and Hess retraced their steps to the 8th floor where Jennings communicated with firemen on the ground below. He states:-

"I was trapped there when both buildings came down"

This is significant because the official "Perception Management Campaign" in which the BBC is playing such an important part, spins the tale that the falling towers caused the terminal damage to WTC 7. Jennings is on record in an interview with Dylan Avery saying explosions and major damage had been inflicted on WTC 7, PRIOR to the collapse of the Twin Towers.

Jennings also said he was told the explosions were the fuel oil tanks but stated that the explosions were not just from "one side of the building".

Regrettably Jennings has died in circumstances at present shrouded in secrecy, circa summer 2008, just after his revealing interview was posted on the web. He had sought to suppress the release after he was quoted as saying he had been threatened with the loss of his job and his pension if he continued to speak out.

Many professionals are questioning the official explanation e.g. two professors of structural engineering at Switzerland's most prestigious university and Heikki Kurttila, accident analyst at the Finnish National Safety Technology Authority, demolition experts etc.

License fee payers may question why the BBC did not interview these more qualified or relevant witnesses.

16:56 (CC) "mains water supply to the building was knocked out when the twin towers came down."

16:58 Fireman to camera “all kinds of water problems, the two trade buildings took out the mains, there was no way to put the fire out.”

This raises questions how deeply buried mains could be crushed and the presence of two fire boats on the nearby river fully ready for service just after the attacks. They were not called upon.

[17:19] (CC) "official report on B7 ... intense fires that fatally weakened the building's steel frame .. more research needed"

In its latest 911 Conspiracy File the BBC tells us [NIST] have concluded they were correct all along and fire brought the 47 story building down. For a more objective analysis on Building 7. [More]


The review continues click:
[Story Line 2]