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]

Story Line 2

The facade is soft limestone covering reinforced columns
Photo: At 911 Research by Will Morris [More]

The Pentagon is a secondary issue. The key issue being the suspension of the laws of physics at the WTC. But there are unreconcilable contradictions in the official Pentagon account which the BBC parroted for eight minutes.

The BBC did not investigate the inconsistency of a hole rather small for a Boeing 757, nor question how
the soft fuselage penetrated the facade so "heavily reinforced against air attack" that it vaporised the airliner, engines & all. The BBC ignores the small round exit hole in the third ring in from the Pentagon facade. See below.

[18:50] (CC) "According to the official account .... five hijackers arrived at Washington’s Dulles Airport and checked in for F77 bound for California. Not long into the flight the hijackers overpowered the crew and turned the plane back towards the capital."
[19:11] (CC) "Minutes later a huge explosion rocked the Pentagon killing all 64 people on the aircraft along with 125 military and civilians on the ground."

It was almost an hour later, not minutes, that the Pentagon was attacked. During this time for inexplicable reasons Flight 77 was "lost" from ATC and military radar. NORAD had not been informed initially and it is unclear who "identified" Flight 77 as approaching Washington and when.

Also "lost from the radar" was the evidence for the investigation into the missing $2.3 trillion that Rumsfeld announced the previous day. The attack targeted, by good fortune for the fraudsters, the offices of the accountants following the audit trail. [More]

No wreckage at the Pentagon has been linked to Flight 77 by the identification numbers that every aircraft component must have stamped upon it. This is unprecedented as are many Sept. 11th issues .
[19:13] The BBC shows a still of the external wall with markers to indicate the hole at its "narrowest" but the hole is conveniently covered in smoke.Photo's below from similar angle but not shown by the BBC. Note yellow fire truck.
The BBC confuses rather than clarifies the empirical evidence: WHY?

Here is a enlargement of the photo taken from a similar location.

The hole can be seen and appears quite small at its "widest"

F77 took off at 8:20. There are conflicting reports on F77 after contact was lost around 9am. It is still not clear who was tracking F77 on radar as military and FAA statements do not concur. A plane was tracked heading for Washington which Transport Secretary Mineta reported to the 911 Commission. How and when it was identified as F77 is not disclosed. [More]
How the airliner penetrated the missile defence system protecting the Pentagon has not been explained. [02.04.2012 Current information is that officially the Pentagon did not have any missile defence system nor was it in  a restricted air space zone. That conflicts with witness statements and needs to be further investigated]

[19:38] The BBC shows a clip from the internet film Loose Change giving the size of Boeing 757 with its director, Dylan Avery, describing the wing-span and engines etc. "Are we supposed to believe it disappeared into this hole without leaving any wreckage on the outside."

[20:24] (CC) "The first photographs taken just minutes after the crash show a hole 18 to 20 feet across at its narrowest point."
Narrowest? The BBC has reversed the widely held view that the hole in the Pentagon wall appears in all photos to be just 20ft across at its “widest“, by substituting the word “narrowest“ for “widest“.
[20:29] (CC) "Minutes later the facade of the building collapsed." It was nearly 45 minutes before the facade collapsed.
[20:40] (CC) "The military says there had been limited damage to the exterior wall because it had been heavily reinforced against air attack and the plane's fuselage was 12ft wide." Where was the wreckage many ask.

How did the engines of titanium and stainless steel weighing almost 5 tons apiece, disappear?

Why did these virtually indestructible battering rams not dent the facade when the BBC tells us the 12ft wide
soft aluminium fuselage did penetrate it, only to be cut-up by the internal pillars?

"There's no evidence of a plane having crashed anywhere near the Pentagon" James McIntrye CNN reporter & eye witness. [More]

We are not told what left a clean 15 foot round hole in the third concentric ring of the Pentagon. What did that? The Pentagon "Building Performance Report" assessing damage says "There was a hole in the east wall of Ring C ...... approximately 310 ft from where the fuselage of the aircraft entered ..... the building." No further information is given.

The BBC does not address these issues which are so widely discussed internationally.

These are considered relevant questions by among others: Robert Fisk, Independent newspaper; Fidel Castro; Former Italian president Francesco Cossiga; Japanese Senator, Fujita Yukihisa; film & pop stars: Charlie Sheen; Juliette Binoche; David Lynch; Eminem; Matthew Bellamy; Richie Havens; authors: Erica Jong; Gore Vidal; Naomi Wolf; Ralph Nader; Daniel Ellsberg PhD; then: General Leonid Ivashov – Former Chief of Staff of the Russian military; Gen. President Mubarak of Egypt, President Hugo Chavez of Venezuela; Mahathir bin Mohamed, 22 years Prime Minster of Malaysia; Dr Andreas von Buelow, lawyer and former German government defence minister; Dario Fo, Nobel literature laureate and many more.

Any viewer fresh to the issue could not gauge the dissent as the BBC avoids an objective overview. Instead they turn to the highly compromised [Kilsheimer]
[20:59] The BBC interviews Allyn Kilsheimer “what I usually say is bullshit, but what I’ll say is it’s - it’s just flawed people that have to have something to dream about to make a name for themselves, it’s just absolutely not true".

Make a name for themselves? Charlie Sheen, Juliette Binoche, Fidel Castro etc. see above.
[21:12] (CC) casts Allyn Kilsheimer as a rescuer. "He and others that came to the rescue that day found plenty of evidence of an aircraft. Identifiable parts of the fuselage, engines paint work with distinctive American Airline livery". Not true. [More]

[21:30] Kilsheimer: “I saw a tyre, a wheel a fuselage section, I saw pieces of metal, molten metal that came off from something as it hit the building. I saw marks on the building and on the ground where wings would have been - there were things that to me made sense they were from an aeroplane."

Allyn Kilsheimer has made a good living out of his close association with the Pentagon and Dept of Defense over the years. It would "make sense" to claim to have seen bits of an aeroplane. This man is so closely "connected" that the Pentagon Comptroller (Dom Zakheim) didn’t bother with contracts when millions of dollars were at stake. Kilsheimer is "on the firm" thus influenced by an immense conflict of interest. [More]

There has been no air crash investigation. Absolutely nothing has been released to link any parts allegedly cleared up at the Pentagon to F77. No information has been released connecting any wreckage to the Boeing 757 although virtually every aeroplane part has an identification code stamped on to it by law. [More]

This is a crime scene in US criminal law and an accident site in terms of aviation and civil disaster legal code. Nothing should have been touched.
Yet we see military and civilians clearing up even while the smoke poured from the wrecked building. This is absolutely forbidden and very senior authority must have ordered and co-ordinated this immediate clean up after the explosion.

Defence Secretary Rumsfeld
seen here as a "rescuer" at the Pentagon.

Air defence coordinators were desperately seeking Rumsfeld to sanction interception action. The Secretary of defence was
"missing" till 10:30 am.

The BBC makes no mention of these fundamental "irregularities" but shows us:-

A large container, under a blue tarp, being carried away by men in shirts and ties, breaking every crime scene law on the statute book. Donald Rumsfeld, bizarrely, was among the "tidiers".

Crime Scene

US law states

Nothing should be touched

[21:46] (CC) "The FBI has been forced to release some footage of the attack. It comes from two time lapsed security cameras."

This CCTV has been dragged out of them under the Freedom of Information Act.

They refuse to confirm whether they hold further video evidence. Lack of transparency has only fuelled speculation. Secrecy breeds conspiracies."

The BBC omits to inform the viewer that the Pentagon is one of the most strongly defended and monitored buildings in the world. [02.04.2012 Current information is that officially the Pentagon did not have any missile defence system nor was it in  a restricted air space zone. That conflicts with witness statements and needs to be further investigated]

P56 Air Defence:
50 - 17 - 3 miles Identification Zones

"It's an aviation no-mans-land. Nobody goes there - nobody"

Says Robin Hordon ATC Boston. "Except military planes with IFF "Identify Friend or Foe" transponders."
The Pentagon is bristling with cameras. FBI agents confiscated the video tapes from several hotels and petrol station CCTV systems immediately after the attack. The BBC did not inquire what the Pentagon may wish to hide?
The authoritative voice of Caroline Catz tells of "wringing the video tape out of the FBI", then leaves open the possibility of more footage. Catz suggests secrecy rather than the mass of contradictions and inconsistencies is the cause of question and dissent - labelled by the BBC, Bush etc. as "conspiracy theories".

No mention is made of the analysis by professional pilots, air traffic controllers and military officers, who succeeded in obtaining the flight data recording of F77 by legal means. The data from the black box does not match the official explanation. [More]

[22:40] (CC) “In the absence of conclusive pictures of the attack ..”

The BBC, noting the lack of physical or empirical evidence, introduces the viewer to a computer simulations professor deeply enmeshed with the US military and intelligence services.


[22:45] (CC)
"Independent analysts have stepped in. At Purdue University they have built a computer model to see if damage inside the Pentagon could prove what happened. First they modeled the building and its interior supporting columns. Then a Boeing 757, its wings, fuel tanks and fuselage ..."
This is not true ....

Purdue computing community is a major beneficiary of military funding.

Christopher Hoffmann
is the Director of the Rosen Centre for Advanced Computing, Director of the Purdue University Dept. of Computer Science and co-director of the Computer Research Institute. These are all inter-linked and funded by the Department of Defense, The National Science Foundation (itself created to further military defence) and the Department of Homeland Security. [More]

Hoffmann has 1 minute 45 seconds spinning a theory that the damage at the Pentagon was caused by aviation fuel hitting the building as the plane was "cut-up" by the interior columns. This "analysis" seems off the scale of Red Herring trickery. [More]
Could this cameo have been consciously designed as a Red Herring? Its content appears to be an incongruous, inconsequential diversion, as well as self-contradictory. It presents colourful images of a computer animation founded on a "basic hypothesis", only "informally confirmed". It would seem more a comic book fairy tale than real world military defence endeavour, until you look at the players and their backers:

The Pentagon is neither the key issue nor as clear cut and definitive as the WTC attack. Puzzling yes, but in this instance giving rise to diversionary and confused commentary from the BBC.
[22:53] (CC) “Their research was not funded by the government. It was an independent academic project.”
This is not true ....

The Hoffman project was government funded through the National Science Foundation. [NSF]

September 11 Pentagon Attack Simulations

Using LS-Dyna
Phase I, Completed September 11, 2002
Mete A. Sozen, Sami A. Kilic and Christoph M. Hoffmann

The NSF has defence as a major responsibility. [More]
These "simulations" are proudly claimed by Purdue & Indiana Universities as a successful example of their Tera Grid which provide supercomputer linking technologies. These technologies made the Hoffmann "simulation" possible, they are primarily funded by the National Science Foundation and the Office of Naval Research. In addition, the Department of Defence and Homeland Security are directly involved in the computing community at Purdue and Indiana Universities. [More]

This is the exact reverse of an independent academic community.

How could the BBC get it so wrong?


Caroline Catz introduces another government witness to support the official theory.
[25:26] (CC) “Lt Col O’Brien was on a routine flight but as he flew over Central Washington Air Traffic Control reported an unidentified jet fast approaching on his left hand side.”

Reports quoting O’Brien in newspapers and TV are contradictory and the BBC does not examine or bring to the viewers attention noteworthy issues concerning his flight.

O’Brien took off some minutes after 9:25 when an order was issued to all military and private planes, to make immediate landings at nearest airfields. Why was O’Brien one of the few exceptions?

The first man in history to see a full size airliner disappear into thin air after hitting the Pentagon, Lt Col O’Brien failed to comply with the grounding order. Rather than return to Andrews a short distance away, O’Brien flew west, Over western Pennsylvania, he (O’Brien) “looked down at a blackened, smouldering field”.

This was Flight 93. O’Brien is unique in witnessing the only two passenger jets in aviation history to crash without leaving behind any significant aircraft wreckage.

[26:24] (CC) "O'Brien found himself the centre of a conspiracy theory."

It was and is questions not theories, but the BBC avoids the questions by focusing on the personal emotions of Lt Col O'Brien.

[26:30] Lt Col Steve O'Brien "When you become part of these conspiracies it's a lot more personal and concerning to me that I would have the ability to do or want to do something like this. It's a little bit disconcerting but it gives you an insight into how wrong these conspiracy theories can be - yet they continue on and take on a life of their own."
Yet again the "File" that was presented as "separating fact from fiction" spins the viewer's mind away from the main issue on to personal emotions. The cliche "conspiracy theory" is repeatedly spun to imply "flawed people" disrespectfully inquiring of incredible events.

The fact that the questions keep coming is spun as incestuous "community gossip" rather than the developing scientific and profession case challenging the official explanation. Why does the BBC thread this false trail through its documentary rather than seriously addressing the unanswered questions?
[26:55] Dr Fetzer is shown rebuffing O'Brien's claims in an agitated manner. There is a marked difference between the way the supporters of the government theory are dealt with on the one hand and the way the three sceptics, who want an independent inquiry, are dealt with on the other. It is easy to use a clip of an agitated moment to discredit one sceptic while avoiding such moments in testimony from government supporters.

Dr Jim Fetzer "How do you know a single word of what he (O'Brien) said is true? His story is inconsistent with the evidence we have." The BBC allows some of the telling unanswered questions to be aired but makes no effort to double check or to investigate the issues "to separate fact from fiction".

Alex Jones, Dylan Avery and Jim Fetzer have all described how the BBC spent days with each of them. Each has complained that the BBC had made its mind up about the "investigation" before even hearing the evidence. The three were filmed stating their case but calm measured comments ended on the cutting-room floor and the BBC chose to use the more exasperated clips. Was this the plan?

In the 1984 Miners Strike the BBC cut the film to show unprovoked attack on the police when the reverse was the truth. See

[27:30] (CC) "Dallas Texas, where President Kennedy was assassinated in 1963. In town tonight is a man who spreads his message with all the zeal of an evangelist. Alex Jones Texan talk show host."

[28:30] (CC) "His message, that the terrorists of the new world order are local boys, the clique of oil rich cronies around President Bush who are using the threat of terrorism as an excuse for global imperialism."

[29:12] (CC) "Alex Jones believes that 911 was part of an elaborate plot by President Bush to provoke war in Afghanistan and Iraq. The end goal being to secure long term oil supplies from Central Asia and the Middle East."

[29:23] Alex Jones "People ask, 'why would the government do this'? let's be clear, a small criminal group who has the power within the government to orchestrate something like this would do it to mobilise the American people as an engine of global domination and power."

(AJ) "They do this so they can be dictators, they do this so they can
set up systems of control, they do this so they can funnel the economy through their war coffers and fund all their friends and family, we're talking of trillions of dollars here."

[30:00] Bush is shown landing in a fighter plane on an aircraft carrier for the "Mission Accomplished" speech cum photo opportunity.

This crafted piece, expressing youthfulness and vigour, with Bush in his flying suit pointedly holding his flying helmet under his arm, splits a three and half minute run (HALF the total time) allocated to the three critics talking about key issues omitted by official "investigations": Fetzer on the physics of the Pentagon attack and Alex Jones and Dylan Avery on false flag operations.

[30:00] (CC) "The theory that President Bush would not blanch about killing thousands of Americans in collateral damage to launch this war of global domination is entirely plausible to the conspiracy theorists."
[Northwood/Gladio/Strategy of Tension]

[30:09] Dylan Avery: "We've invaded two sovereign nations; we're probably about to invade a third. Look at all the laws they have passed; look at all the things they have done. They are spying on their own citizens. They can torture innocent civilians and call them enemy combatants. You really have to ask yourself would we be where we are right now without 911"?

Of relevance are the opinions of world leaders and senior politicians such as

Mahathir bin Mohamad, MD – 22 years Prime Minister of Malaysia - doubts that the collapse of the World Trade Center in New York was actually caused by terrorists crashing planes into the towers. “I can believe that they (the United States) would kill 3,000 of their own to have an excuse to kill 650,000 Iraqis. These are the kind of people we are dealing with."
Andreas von Buelow, PhD – Ex Secretary of Defence of West Germany, Horst Ehmke, PhD – Ex Minister of Justice (West Germany); Eckart Werthebach, JDEx President, Bundesamt für Verfassungsschutz, Germany’s domestic intelligence service 1991 - 1995; Francesco Cossiga, - President of Italy (1985 - 1992); President Chavez of Venezuela, Giulietto Chiesa – Member of European Parliament, 2004 - present (Italy) [More]
The BBC omits any mention of these significant statesmen and follows the three truth campaigners with another major "red herring".

[30:30] (CC) "For the 911 truth movement the fate of the 4th plane is clear evidence of a government cover up".


The review continues, click:

[Story Line 3]


Thursday, July 17, 2008

Story Line 3

[30:35] (CC) "It is claimed it was secretly shot down by the US Air Force. Reports of debris being found miles away from the crash site here it proves, it is argued, the Boeing started to disintegrate in mid air after being hit by a missile."

The fact is the USAF or the National Guard or the Naval fighter squadrons that were available, should have shot Flight 93 down. That is their job. To protect the Homeland.

That four hijacked airliners flew around for almost 2 hours without hindrance from the most sophisticated air defence system on this planet is unbelievable. It is the "unbelievable" that makes honest souls question.

The main issues of concern are:

1) US intelligence services collusion with the alleged terrorists.
2) The inconceivable failure of the US air defence system.
3) The fact that the laws of physics are incompatible with the official theory.
4) The failure of all the official "investigations" to address these key issues.

Issues that the BBC also
avoids assiduously.

Instead the coverage of flight 93 diverts attention from these key concerns. It introduces red herrings and weaves a confusing web of contradictions and false trails.

Alex Jones is allowed to state the empirical evidence relating to the alleged end of Flight 93:

[31:00] Alex Jones "When planes crash into the ground they never leave more than a mile long debris field and you see the luggage and the engines ... the FEDs are on record reporting there was an 8 plus mile debris field with F93."

Check the evidence, detailed deconstruction of the two minute dis-information clip presented by the BBC compared to public source records. [More]

The BBC does not check any evidence of the debris field. They instead show Wally Miller the coroner who is on record as saying:-

[34:53] Dylan Avery Quoting Miller,

"I stopped being coroner after 20 minutes because there were no bodies there"

[35:00] Miller: "I said I stopped being a coroner after 20 minutes because it was perfectly clear what the cause and manner of death was going to be. It was a plane crash but yet it was a homicide because the terrorists hijacked the plane and killed the people so the terrorists committed suicide."

That's not how a coroner investigates any case of violent death.

[35:18] Miller: "It was a mis-quote. The point I was trying to make was after that it more or less became a large funeral service."

[35:44] Avery quoting Miller, "It seemed as if the plane had let its passengers off beforehand".

[35:50] Guy Smith (BBC producer) "It was a simile - it looked as if that had happened" quoting Miller again "it looked as if someone had taken a scrap truck, dug a ditch and dumped trash in it". (GS) "But he didn't mean that literally. He was saying that as a simile."

[36:13] Miller "There's a fringe of people out there that want to try to make something out of it that isn't."

The BBC substituting amateur psychology for serious investigative journalism - yet again.

[36:44] (CC) "Personal items recovered: hijackers passport and a bandanna which may have been worn by one of the hijackers."

In the words of Dylan Avery


"may have been worn by hijacker" advises the BBC

This was the second miraculous passport to be recovered and how can the line "bandanna which may have been worn by one of the hijackers" have anything to do with a serious and impartial inquiry?

Can the BBC seriously claim to be separating “fact from fiction" when it relies on such fatuous evidence as a bandanna (which could have been anyone’s assuming it survived the fire ball) - evidence which would not be admissible in court?

A passport (which miraculously survived, but could have been planted) hardly makes the evidence stronger. Is the population of the Western World really prepared to accept this as proof that the US government’s theory is correct?

Is this really proof that the US government’s explanation is correct?

The BBC spun this diversionary yarn about F93 for over SEVEN minutes whereas it covered the key issue of the collapse of the Twin Towers for only TWO minutes.

[36:52] (CC) "But in the face of this some still question the official account. They believe that Flight 93 landed somewhere else entirely and the passengers were abducted."


[37:34] Dylan Avery "At 11:43 on September 11th WCPO, a local radio station, reported that two (suspect) planes had landed at Cleveland Hopkins Airport ... United Airlines identified one of the planes as Flight 93."

Dylan Avery is used
to introduce the obscure debate about evidence on the public record that two planes suspected of being hijacked landed at Cleveland Airport.

Rather than investigate the evidence the BBC spins a three minute red herring proving that Delta 89 landed at Cleveland when nobody is doubting the fact. Delta 89 landing at Cleveland is half of the evidence that investigators present to indicate that two suspect planes were involved. One, Delta 89, landed at 10:10 with passengers released at 12:30 whereas the second plane Flight 93 or Flight X, landed at 10:45 with passengers released at 11:15.

[37:47] (CC) "It's true that a passenger jet was diverted to Cleveland."

Like so many things, the BBC omits mention of the second plane - why?

"Omission is the greatest form of lie"
George Orwell

Passenger's stories, eye witness accounts and broadcast and printed media showed that F89 with 69 passengers and 9 crew was to taken a location close to the FAA HQ. (IX Centre) on the south side of the airport. Flight 93 or Flight X, with 200 passengers, was taken to the NASA building at the west end of the airport.

The events at Cleveland Airport are important but peripheral to the main story of the attack on America yet the BBC chooses to invest THREE minutes "proving" the unquestioned fact that Delta 89 landed at Cleveland.

They used this cameo to repeat the refrain of stories that "echo around chat rooms and web sites" getting "distorted". The BBC builds on the theme running through the programme that those that question government statements are "flawed people" with motives
ulterior to that of discovering the truth. [More]

Whatever the truth about Cleveland, the issue for citizens world-wide, is the need for a non-manipulative, impartial and accurate media.


The review continues, click:
[Story Line 4]


Wednesday, July 16, 2008

Story Line 4

[44:06] Caroline Catz introduces viewers to Frank Spotnitz "who makes a living telling stories". This is the world of Hollywood the BBC tells us.

One has to wonder how much of the BBC investigation was scripted by Spotnitz

There are 5 Spotnitz clips interspersed with the final story-tellers of Bush's "official conspiracy theory". They are all highly compromised by conflict of interest i.e. if they don't tow the line they risk losing their job, career, pension and [More]

And the official explanation is but a conspiracy theory. No court has tried Bin Laden, no criminal or accident investigations have been made. Bin Laden only got on the Interpol “Most Wanted” list because Col Gadafy registered him in relation to crimes the French Gov had said were committed by Bin laden on Libyan soil. The FBI don’t list Bin Laden as wanted for 9/11 because they report “there is no evidence connecting him to Sept 11th”.

[49:47] (CC) "January 2000, two terrorists arrive in California from the Far East. Nawaf al Hazmi and Khalid al Mihdhar were known to be active members of an al Qaeda cell but it did not raise suspicions when two smartly dressed young men presented their passports at immigration."

The US had introduced an "easy visa" programme in Saudi Arabia in the 90's. It offered a uniquely simple open door policy for US visa application in Jeddah despite complaints and warnings from officials. In 2000 it was extended as "Visa Express" whereby travel agents in Jeddah could issue US visas despite applicants' failing to comply with US Immigration Service regulations. [More]

By connecting the dots left by media reports, it is clear that there is much more to
al Hazmi and al Mihdhar than has been officially acknowledged. Their case threaten the intelligence services at official inquiries and could have seriously pressurized the Bush Administration if the media had started asking real questions.

Why did the BBC merely cite their case as a mishap rather than reveal the damaging evidence, in the public domain, that beggars belief in a SNAFU (situation normal all fu*ked up) excuse?

[50:00] (CC) "Their names had not been added to the watch list of terrorist suspects so
al Hazmi and al Mihdhar were allowed on their way unchallenged."

[50:24] (CC) "They soon moved into a San Diego suburb (Claremont) and lived openly under their real names. At the same time a CIA cable confirmed that one of them was in the country but did not pass the information on to the FBI. So at the time the local FBI did not know they were here".

This is challenged by Newsweek reports.

The last ten minutes of the BBC investigation focuses on strongly presenting the SNAFU excuse and in chastising dissidents. They interview four men involved in the "intelligence failures" and the official investigation into what went wrong. All four are highly compromised by their dependence on the administration's benevolence. They are not impartial.

[50:55] Caroline Catz introduces Bill Gore, chief of the local
FBI office responsible for the failure to apprehend the two accused.

[51:23] (CC) "Later they moved onto the door step of the Feds. They rented rooms from an FBI informant. But he suspected nothing"
- Caroline Catz tells us unquestioningly.

Would he admit the fact that he did "suspect something"?

The BBC fails to inform the viewer that Abdussattar Shaikh, the FBI informer, was a prominent member of the local Islamic community whose home has been a gathering spot for Middle Eastern men for two decades.

Shaikh was a “tested” undercover “asset” working with the local FBI, i.e. Bill Gore. Newsweek reported that the connection between these two and the informant “stunned some top counter-terrorism officials".

Associated Press and local newspapers report many neighbours recalling hijackers Hani Hanjour and Mohamed Atta visiting the live-in guests of the FBI "asset" Shaikh.

The FBI refused to allow the 9/11 Congressional inquiry to interview either Shaikh or his FBI contact. They said he would have nothing interesting to say. The
New York Times of 10/5/02. reported that the Justice Department was also "fighting" the FBI to speak with him.

[51:42] Bill Gore "With hindsight and looking at the pieces of intelligence that were out there, had the US government put all these things together I think we could have identified some of these potential hijackers before Sept. 11th. It's very frustrating, it's very frustrating to me personally, it's very frustrating to everyone who worked on it so hard in the FBI here in San Diego."

The BBC finds the space in their hour programme to broadcast the "frustration" of Bill Gore and his colleagues, who failed in their responsibilities. The BBC uses Gore to repeat the refrain that government is to blame but gives no time to mention the frustration of honest FBI agents who, despite serious threat of career destruction, fought against senior FBI management blocks on their investigations into the 19 alleged hijackers and the ring around them.

[52:13] Bill Gore "Was there something that could have saved 3000 lives" ?

Considering the events of September 11th have lead to war in Afghanistan and Iraq with untold deaths,
mainly civilians, of whom women and children feature prominently, is it surprising that more and more people, of all classes and professional backgrounds, are also asking this question?

A number of FBI agents were and still are talking out - whistle-blowing. They have all paid a heavy price for their dedication. The BBC did not mention one of them.

Former FBI Special Agent and Minneapolis Division Counsel Coleen Rowley, 24 years service, was one of Time Magazine's three 2002 Persons of the Year. The BBC did not mention her courageous, against the odds, commitment to truth and to her professional responsibilities. Rowley wrote a 13 page letter to FBI Director Robert Mueller detailing obstruction of terrorism investigations in June 02. [More]

FBI Agent Coleen Rowley

Revealed FBI HQ efforts to "throw up roadblocks and undermine" FBI field investigations of Al Qaeda operatives in the four weeks prior to 9/11.

The 9/11 Commission never interviewed her.

"Jokes were actually made (in the FBI office) that the key FBI HQ personnel had to be spies or moles, who were actually working for Osama Bin Laden, to have so undercut Minneapolis' effort."
Coleen Rowley

Why does the BBC not investigate? Why does the BBC seek to label those that question, "flawed people" and present the viewer with the excuses of those at the nub of the intelligence scandal?

[52:30] (CC) "By the spring of 2001 the system was blinking red according to FBI chiefs ... but there was nothing specific to go on."

Sibel D Edmonds, former FBI Language Translation Specialist, for counter-terrorism and counter- intelligence operations, witness before the 9/11 Commission. Edmonds, along with other whistle-blowers, say this is an "outrageous lie".

"They will do everything to cover this up"

"My translations of the 9/11 intercepts included detailed and date-specific information"

Edmonds was fired after reporting her concerns to FBI officials

[Letter to Kean pdf] to 9/11 Commission: "I find your report seriously flawed in its failure to address serious intelligence issues that I am aware of, which have been confirmed, and which as a witness to the commission, I made you aware of. Thus, I must assume that other serious issues that I am not aware of were in the same manner omitted from your report. These omissions cast doubt on the validity of your report and therefore on its conclusions and recommendations." Edmonds, Aug 2004

[52:39] Dale Watson. FBI Head of Counter Terrorism: "I knew there was another attack planning ... and the obvious question behind that is why didn’t you do something about it. We had no specific information it was just this gut feeling ... they’re planning something. We would see the planning then the communications would drop off. You'd know this was not a good time."

Very specific information was available. Watson is contradicted by a number of FBI whistle-blowers who cite Dale Watson's unit, as blocking specific investigations into terrorist activity.

Robert G. Wright, FBI
International Terrorism Unit, a 17-year FBI veteran. Wright was the only FBI agent to seize terrorist funds (over $1.4 million) from U.S. - based Middle Eastern terrorists using federal civil forfeiture statutes, prior to 9/11. Despite his record his investigations were stymied by senior officers. [More]

Robert G. Wright, FBI

"whopper of a tale to tell"

Agent Wright was never called as a witness by the 9/11 Commission

Special Agent Wright
filed a lawsuit against the FBI in May 2002 for suppression of his legal rights to present evidence and that FBI management "intentionally and repeatedly thwarted and obstructed" his attempts to expand the investigation and arrest other terrorists and seize their assets.

The largest obstacles to agent Wright's criminal investigation (into terrorism) were the management of the Chicago field office and the FBI HQ Counter- terrorism Division in Washington, D.C. That's Dale Watson's Division.

In a memorandum written 91 days before the Sept. 11th attacks, Wright warned that Americans would die as a result of the bureau's failure to adequately pursue investigations of terrorists living in the country.

[53:03] (CC) "At last 17 days before 911 the penny dropped. The CIA finally alerted the FBI. Had the two terrorists in San Diego been arrested there was a chance the whole plot could have been prised open. But they had long moved on and disappeared."

Al Hazmi and al Midhar, the San Diego suspects, were know as active al Qaeda members connected to a number of terrorist attacks including the USS Cole.
[link needed here]

“A multitude of press accounts from the New York Times, Los Angles Times, Newsweek and perhaps two dozen major new organisations have documented not only that the CIA, the FBI and NSA had been watching these two since 1999, but also these agencies at times acted in ways to conceal or protect the pair's movements from law enforcement agents who had shown interest in them. The press accounts have been corroborated in large measure by congressional testimony”.
Redacted clips: Michael Rupert “Crossing the Rubicon” p229 & Complete 911 Timeline

For a detailed deconstruction of press reports about these two key figures see Paul Thompson [Timeline]

[53:27] (CC) "It wasn’t a lack of intelligence it was failure to act on that intelligence. That's the view of Mike Scheuer."

This is one of the few statements made by the BBC, through the authoritative voice of Caroline Catz, that does meet with information on the public record. But the information points to much more than a cover up of blunders, which is the White House fall-back defence.

In spite of an extensive record of contined surveillance, even after one of the two, (al Hazmi and al Mihdhar) was placed on the FBI Watch List and the CIA Priority Alert labelled "urgent", they travelled openly and unmolested until the day of the attacks, making no attempt to conceal their identity.

It appears that the urgent warning of FBI & CIA head quarters in August 2001 were relayed neither to the field offices nor to local police agencies. Both men had California drivers licences, car registrations, Social Security numbers plus credit cards all in their own names and were listed in the phone directories. One even booked his 9/11 ticket on American Airlines using his credit card.

"A rookie police officer could have found them before breakfast".
Redacted clips, Michael Ruppert (ex police officer) from "Crossing the Rubicon".

The BBC interviewee, Mike Scheuer, is the author of “Through Our Enemies Eyes” which spelled out completely spurious connections between Saddam Hussein and bin Laden. This “intelligence” was acted on and used along with other erroneous manufactured “intelligence” to justify invading Iraq. The 2nd edition of his book reversed this position in a 180 degree U Turn. [More]

The BBC could have peered into their archives and watched their own production of Adam Curtis’s documentary “Power of Nightmares” revealing the efforts of western and Israeli intelligence services to create, stimulate, support and supply Islamic “extremists” - often just petty criminals - resulting in Orwellian “International Terrorism”.

Then there is Nafeez Ahmed’s book “War on Truth” meticulously referenced to public record accounts of these links or Michael C Ruppert’s detailed analysis of CIA complicity with Islamic Jihadists for over 25 years.

There is also “Forbidden Truth” in which Brisard & Dasquie set out the public record account of US diplomatic and CIA manipulations with the both Taliban and Shi’ia Jihadist groups in their efforts to secure an oil pipe line across Afghanistan.

The American government funded the Taliban government till 2000.
Nafeez Ahmed

There is indeed a wealth of publicly available information to show that the CIA works covertly and overtly to further their masters' policy objectives. They are a covert, pro-active, protagonist organisation operating outside of the law.

Unsubstantiated assertion? Books by ex CIA agents and esteemed international writers, with detailed references to official public record accounts, outline crimes against International law. Be it Chile, Iran, Kosovo, arms or drugs , the CIA - or more often a cover "firm" with operatives working "off the books" - play out in real life what should solely be Hollwood.

The reader will have to ask themselves how is it possible that the BBC, a public service body charged with providing an “accurate and impartial” representation of know facts about controversial issues, could have uncritically interviewed a CIA employee (
Scheuer) at the nub of the scandal, and allowed him to air his partisan views without reference to the public record.

The public record show that the CIA has been and almost certainly still is, deeply enmeshed in al Qaeda and militant Islamic networks.

But of course Scheuer is blaming the FBI for not acting on intelligence.

[53:33] Mike Scheuer, CIA Chief of Osama bin Laden Unit 1996 - 99: “Certainly the idea they couldn't be found within the United States is true but only because the FBI is such an incompetent organisation ... you can’t have an intelligence failure when you have info and you refuse to act on it ... if there was a conspiracy it was a conspiracy to avoid taking a risk ... not to make sure America got attacked.”

Couldn't be found" ? But suspects had been found in the US. That is what Coleen Rowley, Robert Wright and his partner John Vincent, Kenneth Williams and other FBI agents, army intelligence [Able danger] are trying to tell the world. These honest Americans have been gagged, demoted, sacked, threatened with civil and criminal law suits by FBI - CIA - Justice Department officials.

The BBC does not mention the bitter wrangles still underway to suppress the truth nor mention even one of the dissident voices.

[54:00] (CC) "When they most needed strong leadership and decisive action American people were failed by the government and its agencies."

The record shows strong leadership at every turn,
blocking honest agents doing their jobs in the field. It was senior management taking decisive action with extraordinary measures to cripple local investigations specifically of the 19 hijackers and the groups supporting them.

[54:11] Dale Watson: “There was no conspiracy between the CIA not telling the FBI something or the FBI. Now in large organisations you do have a breakdown in communications at the lower end. There were never any top down orders from the FBI CIA anyone who believes that is - they’re wrong."

*Yes this is what Watson says to camera, muddled as it is. The public record is clear: top down orders silenced many determined field officers.

Phoenix FBI agent Ken Williams

Top down orders not to investigate terrorist suspects

[More] <<<<<<<<>>>>>>>> [Phoenix Memo]
On July 10, 2001, Phoenix FBI agent Ken Williams sends a memorandum to FBI headquarters urging a nationwide check on Middle Eastern students at flight schools. The request was denied, reportedly for lack of resources.

An internet search and phone survey would have yielded fast results for a few days' wages.

Ken Williams had been following radical Muslim militants training at Arizona flight schools since the mid nineties. Hani Hanjour, alleged to be the Flight 77 pilot, received his flight training there. An associate of one suspect was Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman, imprisoned for the 1993 World Trade Centre bombing.

Al Hazim and al Midhar, the two seasoned al Qaeda activists from Bill Gore’s San Diego patch, visited the group being monitored by agent Ken Williams.

Ken Williams' memo specifically mentions Osama bin Laden and warned that terrorists would possibly hijack aircraft. Zakaria Soubra with known connections to Chechen rebels, was also being tracked by the Phoenix office. The Chechen rebels were
trained in camps funded and operated by the CIA.

It was top down orders that blocked Williams' investigations and the top down orders of FBI Director Robert Mueller that classified his Phoenix Memo and refused to show it to members of the Senate panel investigating 911.

The argument that there was an incapacitating tension between the FBI and the CIA is balanced by understanding the set procedures for disseminating information. Of course these rules can be ignored and that would be treason. Those responsible should be found and punished not promoted. Redacted clips from "Crossing the Rubicon" & [The Complete 911 Timeline]

2001 RAND Corporation Study on Preparation of the US Army for Homeland Security noted:

“Efforts to prevent or disrupt terrorist action frequently are successful and these activities have reduced the number of terrorist incidents”

and then:

“In actual operations and special events, agencies generally co-ordinated their activities .... agencies generally followed the draft inter-agency International Guidelines. DoD, the FBI, and the CIA performed their respective roles in military planning, law enforcement and intelligence gathering .... FBI data on terrorism in the US suggests a reasonably high degree of success in terrorism prevention ....”.

Except, it would appear, on specific groups relating to the alleged 19 hijackers.

[54:34] (CC) "In Washington, after the attacks, a congressional enquiry tried to find out what had gone wrong at the FBI and the CIA. It uncovered not only were there intelligence mistakes before 911 but also afterwards the government had been less than open in admitting to those failures."

[54:50] Bob Graham, Co chair Congressional Inquiry into 911: “There are too many secrets, that is information that has not been made available to the public for which there are specific tangible credible answers and that withholding of those secrets has eroded public confidence in their government as it relates to their own security."

[55:19] (CC) "Sen Graham found that the cover up led to the heart of the administration."

[55:26] Graham: “I called the White House and talked with Miss Rice .. we had been told we were going to get co-operation in this enquiry? ... she said she would look into it and nothing happened."

[55: 40] Guy Smith: "Was there any sense of embarrassment, apology" ?

[55:45] Graham: "Embarrassment, apology, regret - those are not characteristics associated with the current White House.”

[55: 48] Guy Smith: "So it was a conspiracy to cover up the fact that blunders had been made in the lead up to 911."

[56:00] Graham: "If by conspiracy you mean more than one person involved, yes there was more than one person and there was some collaboration of effort among agencies and the administration to keep information out of the publics hands."

[56:22] (CC) "The evidence points to a conspiracy after 911 not before. The other conspiracy theories are just that - theories. The evidence does not support them. Case closed."

[56:40] Alex Jones: "I'm never going to stop fighting and all the hit pieces all the propoganda .... the truth is coming out, there are going to be more whistle-blowers exposing the 911 fraud."

[57:00] Frank Spotnitz: “I think when you debunk conspiracy theories it’s ultimately disappointing because you are taking peoples security blankets away from them and you’re not giving them anything in it’s place. You are telling them, look I have to live with this handful of lunatics [who] killed all those people,
that’s just such a painful horrible reality I don’t find the truth comforting."

The "security blanket" that Spotnitz talks of would more realistically describe the manner in which the species "homo sapiens" deals with knowledge of an over-arching and threatening power over us.

We lie to ourselves, we put issues we are not confident about in dark recesses of our minds and create "narratives" that assuage our fears. We allow authority to fill our minds with simple specious reassurances like giving up some liberty for greater security.

There is no security what-so-ever when you open your mind to the realisation that mountains of public domain documents, recording congressional inquiries, statements from politicians and administrators, academics plus the physical evidence, contradict the official account. Contradict the official account
from beginning to end.

Modern homo sapiens in Europe and N America live amidst copious consumption. Many are on a stressful tread mill to keep up. Many are deeply enmeshed in the ad man's world of envy and the individual "self". They can't face up to what is really in front of them. As Mark Twain said "how can they see if their imagination is out of focus".

Is the BBC, with all its worldly authority,
being used to fog the imagination of millions of viewers? In Spotnitz's words the BBC is the "security blanket" offering ressurances that leaders like Cheney, Bush, Blair etc. although let down by inefficient staff, are safe and honest hands steering our world forward to a better future for our children.

The alternative is that we, in Spotnitz's words "have to live with the knowledge that a handful of lunatics [our rulers] killed all those people .. that’s just such a painful horrible reality .. I don’t find the truth comforting".

Hope is the big driver for our genes - in the modern world do we turn away from the obvious threat to our security by allowing our minds to seek the easiest diversion?

Modern evolutionary brain scientists suggest we should be more accurately classified as homo fallax (deceptive man) because by suppressing and distorting questions about the "wider world" - war, 911, governments lying to us - we "protect our sensibilities and preserve our self esteem". Aldous Huxley
[57:23] Spotnitz: "And so I think people will watch your programme hear the answers and their rational brains will realise, you’re probably telling the truth but their emotional beings will be disappointed and left wanting something more."

If you have studied this review and followed the links you will have found that the BBC did not even address most of the crucial questions let alone answer any. A discerning viewer will certainly be left "wanting something more". Why is the BBC summing up an "investigation" of the most important event this century with the potted psychology of a science fiction writer?

Spotnitz wrote for the X Files TV drama series for 8 years. He was not credited as a psychologist or sociologist or any other profession that might bring relevant knowledge to the issue of the attack on America: criminologists, physicists etc.

[57:41] (CC) "The 911 Conspiracy File is certain to remain open for a very long time to come however distressing and painful that will be for the families of those that died that day."