BREAKING: Discover How A Slacker Makes $100,000 A Year!

WEBMASTERS! Get Your Website To The Top Of Google

FBI documents contradict 9/11 Commission report

Friday, February 29th, 2008

Larisa Alexandrovna

Who is Bayoumi?

Much has been reported about Omar al-Bayoumi and his alleged relationship with the government of Saudi Arabia. In his recent book, The Commission: The Uncensored History of the 9/11 Investigation, New York Times reporter Phillip Shenon discusses at length the questions surrounding Bayoumi and his ties to the Saudi government.

“Bayoumi seemed clearly to be working for some part of the Saudi government,” Shenon wrote on page 52. “He entered the United States as a business student and had lived San Diego since 1996. He was on the payroll of an aviation contractor to the Saudi government, paid about $2,800 a month, but apparently did no work for the company.”

In fact, Bayoumi was an employee of the Saudi defense contractor Dallah Avco. According to a 2002 Newsweek article about Bayoumi, Dallah Avco is “an aviation-services company with extensive contracts with the Saudi Ministry of Defense and Aviation, headed by Prince Sultan, the father of the Saudi ambassador to the United States, Prince Bandar.”

Newsweek points to another connection between Bayoumi and Bandar: “About two months after al-Bayoumi began aiding Alhazmi and Almihdhar, NEWSWEEK has learned, al-Bayoumi’s wife began receiving regular stipends, often monthly and usually around $2,000, totaling tens of thousands of dollars. The money came in the form of cashier’s checks, purchased from Washington’s Riggs Bank by Princess Haifa bint Faisal, the daughter of the late King Faisal and wife of Prince Bandar, the Saudi envoy who is a prominent Washington figure and personal friend of the Bush family. The checks were sent to a woman named Majeda Ibrahin Dweikat, who in turn signed over many of them to al-Bayoumi’s wife (and her friend), Manal Ahmed Bagader. The Feds want to know: Was this well-meaning charity gone awry? Or some elaborate money-laundering scheme? A scam? Or just a coincidence?”

According to then-Sen. Bob Graham (D-FL), who served as a co-chair of the 9/11 Congressional inquiry that preceded the 9/11 Commission, during the period of Alhazmi and Almihdhar’s arrival in the US, Bayoumi had an “unusually large number of telephone calls with Saudi government officials in both Los Angeles and Washington.” (Graham and Nussbaum, 2004, pp. 168-169)

Bayoumi moved to London in 2001 and lived there until his arrest immediately after the Sept. 11 attacks. Following his release, Bayoumi returned to Saudi Arabia, where he was interviewed in October 2003 by the Executive Director of the 9/11 Commission, Philip Zelikow, and Senior Counsel Dieter Snell.

Snell did not respond to requests for comment; Zeilkow could not be reached.

According to Shenon, several staff members working under Snell, “felt strongly that they had demonstrated a close Saudi government connection,” based on “explosive material” on al-Bayoumi and Fahad al-Thumairy, a “shadowy Saudi diplomat in Los Angeles.”

Shenon recounts how Snell, in preparing his team’s account of the plot, purged almost all of the most serious allegations against the Saudi government and moved the “explosive” supporting evidence to the small print of the report’s footnotes. (The Commission, pp. 398-399)

Two commission investigators who were working on documenting the 9/11 plot, Michael Jacobsen and Raj De, argued that it was “crazy” to insist on 100 percent proof when it came to al-Qaeda or the Saudi regime. In the end, however, and with a publishing deadline looming, Snell’s caution and Zelikow’s direction buried apparently promising leads.

In similar fashion, 28 pages of the Joint Inquiry Report produced by Congress — an entire chapter outlining evidence of Saudi and other state sponsorship — were redacted.

Baer has additional questions.

“Considering that the main body of evidence came from tortured confessions, it’s still not entirely clear to me what happened on 9/11,” Baer said. “Among other questions [I have]: Why did [Prince] Bandar’s wife sent money to Bayoumi? What are Bayoumi’s links to the Sultan? How were the 15 Saudis [among the 19 hijackers] selected to carry out the attack? Who fed the credit card used by Abu Zubayda? What happened to Abu Zubayda’s telephone bills? Who was he calling in the U.S? None of these questions are unreasonable nor would answering them violate intelligence sources and methods.”

In a recent review of Shenon’s book, former Democratic senator and 9/11 Commission member Bob Kerrey called on Congress to investigate alleged Saudi ties.

“Congress should demand direct access to those who organized the attacks; our indirect interviews were at best inadequate,” Kerrey wrote. “And Congress should pursue [the] question of whether the Saudi government aided the conspiracy.”

Kerrey declined to comment for this article. Other Commission members did not respond to requests for comment.

Have Your Say: FBI documents contradict 9/11 Commission report
Please read our posting guidelines before posting.
Alternatively you can discuss this report in our forum .

BBC 9/11 Conspiracy Files Appeal Hearing Results

Wednesday, February 27th, 2008

No surprise that the complaint was not upheld, The finding is a joke as you would imagine. For example, the BBC’s idea of ‘investigation’ regarding Mayor Willie Brown not flying on 911 is to phone his office and ask if the reports of a tip off were true!

The entire results below:

FINDING BY THE EDITORIAL STANDARDS COMMITTEE

9/11: The Conspiracy Files, BBC Two, 18 February 2007

Summary of finding

The Committee, in its consideration, noted that four complainants had complained

about this programme. Three complaints appeals are addressed in this finding.

The Committee noted all of the concerns raised by the appellants and from their

complaints grouped the issues raised under five broad headings:

- Did the programme consider the most significant 9/11 conspiracy theories?

- Did the programme ensure appropriate representation from both sides of

the argument?

- Was there appropriate representation from both sides of the argument?

- Were the arguments articulated clearly?

- Was it appropriate to include Frank Spotnitz to talk about conspiracy theories?

- Did the programme present the 9/11 theorists in a negative way?

The appeals were considered against the editorial guidelines concerning accuracy and impartiality.

The Committee concluded:

- Did the programme ensure appropriate representation from both sides of the argument?

· it was not a requirement for all theories to be considered in the programme;

· the programme’s purpose was not to solve what had happened on 11

September 2001or to deliver an in depth analysis of each theory or

verdict on the veracity of each theory;

· the choice of theories reflected the mainstream of theories which the

majority of the audience would have had some awareness of and, as

such, was editorially justified; and

· it was not a requirement for the programme to consider the “history

of deceit” to satisfy the guideline to “weigh all relevant facts”

- Was there appropriate representation from both sides of the argument?

· the programme had satisfied the requirement of being duly impartial

by providing sufficient information on each theory mentioned to

enable the viewer to have had enough understanding of the different

arguments to have formed an opinion as to the accuracy of the

various statements made;

· it was not required to represent every argument or every facet of

every argument to achieve due impartiality;

· the programme had provided appropriate and relevant

representatives from both sides of the argument to articulate the

various views;

· the programme team had ensured that the contributors speaking for

the ‘truth movement’ had the appropriate credentials to provide an

authoritative view of the various arguments; and

· the description of Dylan Avery as “23 year old self-confessed drop

out” was used fairly as that was a description he used to describe

himself;

- Were the arguments articulated clearly?

· that in the presentation of the various theories, including the graphic

representations, the production team had accurately put forward the

broad details of each of the theories in way that did not mislead the

audience;

· the facts, as much as they could be established, had been thoroughly

checked;

- Was it appropriate to include Frank Spotnitz to talk about conspiracy

theories?

· there was a good editorial reason for a programme looking at the

phenomenon of conspiracy theories to talk to someone who was

publicly known and associated with conspiracy theories;

· looking at the programme as a whole the views of Mr Spotnitz were

balanced as there was sufficient concerns raised by those in the truth

movement to offset those of Mr Spotnitz;

- Did the programme present the 9/11 theorists in a negative way?

· there was no evidence to suggest that the programme had presented

the theorists in a negative way either in the way the individual

contributors were referred to or presented.

The complaints were not upheld.

9/11: The Conspiracy Files, BBC Two, 18 February 2007

Finding in full

1. The item

(taken from the press release)

The Conspiracy Files was a series of four programmes exploring the conspiracy

theories that have entered the mainstream surrounding some of the biggest Western

news stories of recent years. 9/11: The Conspiracy Files investigated the growing

number of conspiracy theories surrounding the events of 11 September 2001. The

programme travelled across the United States, speaking to eyewitnesses and

attempting to separate fact from fiction.

2. The complaint

Three complainants made a similar complaint concerning 9/11: The Conspiracy Files,

details of which are below (section 2.1). The individual complainants also made

complaints in addition to these which are captured in section 2.2.

2.1 The complainants made the following points to the BBC:

The 9/11 truth movement

· The programme showed a clear and deliberate negative bias against those who

describe themselves as the 9/11 truth movement.

· There was a deliberate intent to misrepresent the discoveries of the 9/11 truth

movement. These show beyond doubt that the official US government version of

events of that day was fraudulent. The producers of the programme had no

intention of supporting a version of events of that day which conflicted with the

official US report.

· There were 13 debunkers interviewed and only 3 9/11 truthers.

· There were many negative inferences about the truth movement such as “there

are more than fifty conspiracy theories about 9/11.”

The collapse of the twin towers

· The explanation in the programme of the collapse of the twin towers (thepancake theory) put forward by Davin Coburn of Popular Mechanics has been

proven by scientists in the truth movement to be unscientific and in violation of

the laws of physics. If the towers had collapsed in pancake form, large floor

areas would have remained intact with pieces of concrete of varying sizes. There

was no mention in the programme that all three buildings fell at freefall velocity

and that no steel framed building had ever collapsed due to fires prior to or since

9/11.

· If the towers had collapsed in pancake form then by the programme’s own

graphic demonstration they would have taken more than 50 seconds to fall.

· In addition the temperature of the burning jet fuel was nowhere near the

temperature needed to melt the central support columns of the twin towers.

· The graphic illustrating the collapse of the WTC was misleading

The Pentagon attack

· The programme’s computer animation of a Boeing 757 entering the Pentagon is

too simplistic to be accepted. A 757 cannot fly at ground level. It would also have

been physically impossible for any large aircraft to have hit the Pentagon without

leaving devastation in its wake. Instead there was a neat, near-perfect hole and

no traces of the large fuselage, the wings, engines or seats, luggage and passenger

remains. The programme did not explain these issues.

· The interview with Col. Steve O’Brien, pilot of the military plane flying over

Washington cannot be relied on. The programme did not mention or question

him about the Pentagon’s missile defences which failed to be deployed that day.

Flight 93

· The programme did not explain the lack of debris at the crash site of Flight 93.

The evidence of eye-witnesses lacked credibility. If the Boeing 757 had crashed at

that location there would have been substantial debris.

· The evidence of the coroner Wally Miller was unreliable because he changed his

original story.

· The programme claimed that debris was not found 8 miles away when local

officials and the FBI clearly stated that it was.

Programme interviews

· Many key interviews were not included in the programme. Professor David RayGriffin (author of The New Pearl Harbor) is widely respected by 9/11 truth

researchers as a leading analyst of the events of that day. Neither he nor

Professor Steven Jones was included in the programme.

· Other interviews were not included. There are senior military and intelligence

personnel, government officials, survivors and families of the victims who dispute

the official version of events. Witnesses who heard bombs exploding within the

buildings before and after they were hit by the aircraft weren’t mentioned.

· The use of X-Files writer Frank Spotnitz to debunk the 9/11 conspiracy claims

was an attempt to discredit the truth movement in the eyes of the audience.

· Many pieces of information were left out of the documentary. Several high

ranking people were warned not to go to work or to fly that day but this was

never mentioned.

2.2 Individual complaints from the three complainants:

· The programme used ‘classic tools of dark images’ to suggest certain individuals

were dubious or sinister.

· The sequences introducing Dylan Avery and Professor Jim Fetzer were

unnecessary and used up valuable footage time. They were shot without

additional lighting to create a negative impression. The close-up technique used

to film Professor Fetzer was disrespectful.

· The Loose Change director Dylan Avery was described as a self-confessed ‘dropout’

even though he never attended college.

· The claim that the CIA and the FBI did not have forewarning of the events is not

true. The secret services of many governments had warned the US

administration of possible attacks.

· No mention was made in the programme of the US government’s history of

deceit or operation Northwoods.

· The BBC is on record through a live interview with a BBC correspondent in

New York as having had prior warning of the collapse of Building 7. This is

further evidence that the building did not collapse as a result of structural failure.

· When Building 7 fell to the ground the programme stated there were no

casualties. However a secret service agent Craig Miller died as a result of that

collapse.

· Why wasn’t the footage of World Trade Centre owner Larry Silverstein shown

admitting that the authorities decided to ‘pull’ Building 7?

· No mention was made that two aircraft landed at Cleveland Hopkins Airport

due to two separate bomb threats, and that Flight 93 was one of those reported

to have landed by locals.

· The use of the claim that 4000 Jews stayed away from work on 9/11 suggests

that those undertaking independent investigations of 9/11 are somehow anti-

Semitic.

· The programme attempted to influence viewers by ending with the phrase: “The

evidence points to a conspiracy after 9/11, not before. The other 9/11 conspiracy

theories are just that, theories. The evidence doesn’t support them. Case closed.”

· No alternative theories as to the collapse of the twin towers to the official

accounts were given, save for the view of Dylan Avery

· The programme omitted to include and investigate an “FBI report” on wreckage

found 8 miles away in New Baltimore

· The programme omitted to include interviews with police officers on duty at the

world trade centre, eye witness accounts, a conspiracy theory concerning the

Mayor of San Francisco and any interview with the head of the largest 9/11

victims group for the film.

· There was an imbalance in the interviews as there were less people for the 9/11

movement than “debunkers”.

3. Response from the BBC

3.1 Response from BBC Information

The complainants were directed to two blogs written by Mike Rudin,

series producer The Conspiracy Files and Richard Porter, Head of News,

BBC World. The following points were also made:

There was no editorial interference in the programme. 9/11: The Conspiracy Files was

determined to examine the many conspiracy theories in detail and subject them to

forensic examination.

The programme chose three prominent and influential people to make the case that

the official account of 9/11 is wrong and to propose an alternative. The programmemakers

did ask Professor Steven Jones for an interview but he declined.

The programme found much evidence which supported the official version of events

and which contradicted the various conspiracy theories.

Where there was some evidence of a conspiracy after the event to cover up

intelligence failures, this was included in the programme.

The programme was 59 minutes long and therefore could not deal with every issue

and every possible argument. The programme-makers chose the strongest and most

widely reported arguments for inclusion. They also spoke to and considered many

witnesses and experts but in the end made an editorial judgement as to who to

include in the programme.

Frank Spotnitz was included to help viewers understand why so many people believe

in conspiracy theories generally.

3.2 Response from the ECU

The 9/11 truth movement

The programme was in production for nine months and the producers carried out

extensive research in that time. The final programme contained a number of

interviews with leading members of the 9/11 truth movement and gave them the

opportunity to explain their theories of what happened on the day.

The programme also included interviews with people challenging these theories to

provide the necessary balance on such a controversial subject.

The programme-makers made a conscious decision to concentrate on the opinions

of three people who are well regarded in the truth movement and spend time

establishing why their views were worthy of consideration. This was considered

preferable to covering a greater variety of views in a more cursory manner.

It is true that more people were interviewed to support the official explanation of

events – but this in itself did not lead to an imbalance. Throughout the programme a

great deal of time was spent explaining the theories of the three men, often using

material which they had provided. Their contribution amounted to more than eight

minutes of the programme. This compares to just over ten minutes devoted to

those putting opposing views.

“In many cases where there was an exchange of views, the programme-makers gave

the last word to the 9/11 theorists. 9/11: The Conspiracy Files offered a balanced

analysis of the main theories and I do not believe there is evidence of bias against the

9/11 truth movement.”

The programme’s comment that there are “more than fifty different conspiracy theoriesabout 911/” is a simple statement of fact providing useful context for the viewer

rather than a negative inference about the truth movement.

The collapse of the twin towers

There are a number of explanations as to why the twin towers collapsed and some

of these were examined by the programme. Dylan Avery put forward his theory that

the buildings were brought down by a series of controlled explosions. This was

balanced by the official Federal Emergency Management Association (FEMA) report

that said that a combination of the impact of the planes and the ensuing fires

weakened the load-bearing beams. The programme-makers had to decide which

aspects of the collapse to investigate in the time available, and so included the two

most widely discussed explanations.

Davin Coburn has carried out his own research into the collapse and his explanation

is shared by many, including FEMA. The purpose of the graphic used to illustrate the

official explanation was to show a complicated process in a way that is simple to

understand. The programme-makers say that their intention in using the graphic was

to clarify one theory rather than to prove its validity.

The graphic was run in slow motion and was not designed to show the actual speed

at which the collapse occurred. If the graphic had been shown in ‘real time’ it would

have been too quick to understand. Therefore this was not misleading or inaccurate.

It is true to say that no other steel framed buildings have collapsed due to fire but it

is equally true that no other buildings have been hit at speed by a large passenger jet

laden with fuel. It is hard to see how an analysis of other skyscraper fires would

have proved what caused the twin towers to collapse.

The Pentagon attack

Professor Hoffman’s computer animation was shown to help illustrate his

explanation for why the hole in the Pentagon wall was so small. The programme did

not endorse this view and made it clear it had been challenged by many experts.

Professor Jim Fetzer and Dylan Avery spoke at length to cast doubt on the official

version. The programme examined the evidence on both sides but did not draw any

conclusions.

The interview with Col. Steve O’Brien who explained that he saw an unidentified jet

turn and crash into the Pentagon was balanced with an interview with Professor Jim

Fetzer who highlighted a number of inconsistencies. The programme therefore

offered both sides of the argument and left the viewer to draw his own conclusion.

Flight 93

9/11: The Conspiracy Files included a number of possible explanations for the fate of

Flight 93. It accurately reflected the concerns of many people that the lack of any

substantial aircraft wreckage casts doubt on the official explanation. The coverage

included both sides of the argument.

They spoke to people directly involved in the investigation to check known facts.

The programme-makers spoke directly to the FBI in Pennsylvania to check what

claims had been made by the Bureau. The FBI confirmed that the only debris from

the plane found within an eight mile radius was light material such as paper and foam.

The programme gave the last word on this issue to Professor Jim Fetzer and Dylan

Avery, so the viewer was given plenty of opportunity to consider the sceptical view.

The coroner Wally Miller has gone on record to say that he was misquoted when it

was reported that he said he “stopped being coroner after about 20 minutes becausethere were no bodies there.” He explained this in the programme. However the

programme also included an interview with Dylan Avery in which he questioned Mr

Miller’s reliability.

Programme Interviews

The programme-makers read Professor Griffin’s book The New Pearl Harbor andtook his views into account when making 9/11: The Conspiracy Files but decided to

concentrate on three other prominent members of the 9/11 truth movement.

Professor Stephen Jones was approached to take part in the programme but was

unavailable.

The programme-makers interviewed many witnesses and experts and sought out

viewpoints on the most widely-held theories. They then made an editorial judgment

to include what they believed were the strongest and most relevant views.

Eyewitness accounts provide interesting background information but cannot be

regarded as providing conclusive evidence. The programme did however address

the issue of secondary explosions and gave Dylan Avery an opportunity to explain

his theory.

The interview with Frank Spotnitz was included to help the viewer understand why

so many people believe in conspiracy theories. In the same section of the

programme Alex Jones explained why many people are increasingly willing to

challenge the official version of events.

The programme-makers say that they could find no convincing evidence that some

senior people had been warned not to go to work at the World Trade Centre that

day. They also spoke directly to the office of Mayor Willie Brown of San Francisco

who told the programme that he made no changes to his itinerary on the morning of

9/11.

3.3 ECU response to individual complaints from the three

complainants

There is no evidence to suggest that film-making techniques were used with an

‘oppressive sinister intent.’ The mood was sombre but consistent throughout the

programme.

A variety of lighting techniques and framing were used throughout the programme

and many of the interviewees who oppose the views of the truth movement were

also filmed in similar ways.

The programme sought to establish the background of the three members of the

truth movement. Far from being a ploy to waste time, this was a way to reinforce

their credibility.

The word drop-out is also defined as ‘a person who rejects conventional society.’ I

think it reasonable to suggest that Dylan Avery has rejected conventional society.

He walked away from a secure job and moved to Washington DC to pursue his

ambition to make films. There are also a number of positive descriptions to establish

Mr Avery’s credibility and explain to viewers why his views are worthy of inclusion.

He was described as “the most prominent voice in the self-styled 9/11 truth movement”

and later “the wunderkind” behind the Loose Change film.

The programme did not claim that the CIA and the FBI did not have forewarning of

the attacks. The script states:

“The FBI and CIA insist they had no specific warnings of the hijackings on 9/11. But it now

seems they were less than full and frank about how much information they did have before

Al Qaeda attacked.”

The programme went on to examine the failure of the intelligence services.

All three of the main interviewees made a number of claims in the programme

accusing the US government of being involved in the events of 9/11. The

programme-makers were entirely justified in letting the leading voices of the truth

movement put forward their case without referring to previous unrelated events.

BBC World’s Head of News, Richard Porter, has explained at length the sequence of

events which led to the BBC report about the collapse of Building 7. His blog had

already been sent to the complainants.

On the issue of casualties in Building 7, the programme-makers were quoting from

the official FEMA report into WTC 7. This was an independent investigation and noone

seems to have yet provided proof that on this particular point it is wrong.

9/11: The Conspiracy Files decided not to include Larry Silverstein’s comments(“We’ve had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it”) because he

has since issued a statement saying that what he was referring to was the need to

pull the fire-fighting contingent out of the building, not pull the building down itself.

The theory that Flight 93 and another aircraft were diverted to Ohio because of

bomb threats was well documented in the programme.

The claim that thousands of Jewish people stayed at home that day was examined in

the programme, but the script treated the allegations in the same dispassionate way

as other claims. The origin of this particular story was explained in the programme.

There was no suggestion that any of the conspiracy theorists in the programme

supported this claim. I do not believe that any average member of the audience

would conclude that the programme implied that anyone questioning the official

version of events on 9/11 was anti-Semitic.

It is clear that the sentence “Case closed?” is delivered as a question. The last

comment from the narrator goes even further to make it clear that the final

conclusion of the programme is that the truth of what happened on 9/11 will remain

a subject of great controversy:

“The 9/11 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 who died that day.”

4. Further points made to the ESC

· Dylan Avery is not an engineering expert neither are Alex Jones nor Jim Fetzer.

Yet you give time for, and go into graphic and scientific detail of, the official

account of the twin towers collapse.

· For the truth movement, Flight 93 is the least clear evidence of a government

cover-up.

· Regardless of how it got there, it is officially acknowledged that debris from

Flight 93 was found 8 miles away – in New Baltimore, not Indian Lake. The

documentary misleads the viewer and misrepresents the 9/11 truth movement

by stating that “it’s claimed Indian Lake is nearly 7 miles from the crash site” then

stating it’s only 1 mile away as the crow flies. The truth movement though isn’t

referring to Indian lake but to New Baltimore.

5. Applicable Programme Standards

Section 1 - BBC Editorial Values

Truth and Accuracy

We strive to be accurate and establish the truth of what has happened. Accuracy is

more important than speed and it is often more than a question of getting the facts

right. We will weigh all relevant facts and information to get at the truth. Our output

will be well sourced, based on sound evidence, thoroughly tested and presented in

clear, precise language. We will be honest and open about what we don’t know and

avoid unfounded speculation.

Impartiality and Diversity of Opinion

We strive to be fair and open minded and reflect all significant strands of opinion by

exploring the range and conflict of views. We will be objective and even handed in

our approach to a subject. We will provide professional judgments where

appropriate, but we will never promote a particular view on controversial matters of

public policy or political or industrial controversy.

Section 3 - Accuracy

Introduction

The BBC’s commitment to accuracy is a core editorial value and fundamental to our

reputation. Our output must be well sourced, based on sound evidence, thoroughly

tested and presented in clear, precise language. We should be honest and open

about what we don’t know and avoid unfounded speculation.

For the BBC accuracy is more important than speed and it is often more than a

question of getting the facts right. All the relevant facts and information should be

weighed to get at the truth. If an issue is controversial, relevant opinions as well as

facts may need to be considered.

We aim to achieve accuracy by:

· the accurate gathering of material using first hand sources wherever possible.

· checking and cross checking the facts.

· validating the authenticity of documentary evidence and digital material.

· corroborating claims and allegations made by contributors wherever possible.

Fact checking

We must check and verify information, facts and documents, particularly those

researched on the internet. This may include confirming with an individual or

organisation that they posted material and that it is accurate. Even the most

convincing material on the web may not be what it seems.

Misleading audiences

We should not distort known facts, present invented material as fact, or knowingly

do anything to mislead our audiences. We may need to label material to avoid doing

so.

Section 4 - Impartiality and Diversity of Opinion

Introduction

Impartiality lies at the heart of the BBC’s commitment to its audiences. It applies

across all of our services and output, whatever the format, from radio news bulletins

via our web sites to our commercial magazines and includes a commitment to

reflecting a diversity of opinion.

The Agreement accompanying the BBC’s Charter1 …specifies that we should do all

we can to treat controversial subjects with due accuracy and impartiality in our news

services and other programmes dealing with matters of public policy or of political

or industrial controversy. It also states that the BBC is forbidden from expressing an

opinion on current affairs or matters of public policy other than broadcasting.

In practice, our commitment to impartiality means:…

· we exercise our editorial freedom to produce content about any subject, at

any point on the spectrum of debate as long as there are good editorial

reasons for doing so.

· we can explore or report on a specific aspect of an issue or provide an

opportunity for a single view to be expressed, but in doing so we do not

misrepresent opposing views. They may also require a right of reply…

· the approach to, and tone of, BBC stories must always reflect our editorial

values. Presenters, reporters and correspondents are the public face and

voice of the BBC, they can have a significant impact on the perceptions of our

impartiality…

Achieving impartiality

Impartiality must be adequate and appropriate to our output. Our approach to

achieving it will therefore vary according to the nature of the subject, the type of

output, the likely audience expectation and the extent to which the content and

approach is signposted to our audiences.

Impartiality is described in the Agreement as “due impartiality”. It requires us to be

fair and open minded when examining the evidence and weighing all the material

1 The words omitted here relate to the 1996 Agreement and Charter and are not relevant to the

2006 Agreement and Charter

facts, as well as being objective and even handed in our approach to a subject. It does

not require the representation of every argument or facet of every argument on

every occasion or an equal division of time for each view.

6. The Committee’s decision

The Committee considered the complaint against the relevant editorial standards,

including the BBC’s values and other standards set out in the Editorial Guidelines.

The Committee took into account all the material before it relating to the appeal;

this included submissions from all the relevant parties to the complaint who were

asked to comment on the material going before the Committee.

The Committee recognised the right to freedom of expression2 allowed

interviewees to express opinions, content producers to include information and

ideas in their output, and audiences to receive them as long as the law, regulation

and, in the BBC’s case, the BBC’s Editorial Guidelines were complied with.

The Committee at the outset noted that the programme had not been an

investigation which aimed to solve what had happened on 11 September 2001. It

recognised that it was one of a series of programmes looking at the phenomenon of

the conspiracy theory and in doing so had highlighted a number of specific events

where well publicised and popular theories had arisen to contradict the official

version of events.

The Committee also noted that it was not within its remit to come to a view as to

which, if any of the versions, may or may not have been correct. Its task was to

determine whether the programme had been in breach of the BBC’s Editorial

Guidelines on accuracy and impartiality.

In considering impartiality the Committee noted that the guidelines required that it

must be adequate and appropriate to the output. The Committee took into account

2 Freedom of Expression

1) Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include

freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas

without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This

Article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting,

television or cinema enterprises.

2) The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and

responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or

penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society,

in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for

the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals,

for the protection of the reputation or the rights of others, for preventing

the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the

authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

that in assessing whether the guidelines were complied with the Committee should

consider what impartiality was due to a programme about conspiracy theories taking

into account the audience expectation for such a programme and the extent to

which the content and approach was signposted to the audience.

The Committee set out five questions it would consider in its finding:

A) Were the most significant theories considered?

B) Was there appropriate representation from both sides of the argument?

C) Were the arguments articulated clearly?

D) Was it appropriate to include Frank Spotnitz to talk about conspiracy

theories?

E) Did the programme present the 9/11 theorists in a negative way?

A) Were the most significant theories considered?

The Committee was aware that there are a number of conspiracy theories

concerning the events leading up to/on the day of /on the days after 11 September

2001. The Committee noted the six theories the programme concentrated on:

i) The attack on the Twin Towers

- Did the planes bring down the Twin Towers or were

explosives used by government agencies?

ii) World Trade Centre Building 7

- Did WTC7 collapse as a result of the damage and collapse of

the Twin Towers or was it deliberately demolished by

government agencies?

iii) Attack on the Pentagon

- Did a commercial passenger plane crash into the Pentagon or not?

Was this incident a self-inflicted attack?

iv) Flight United 93

- Did Flight United 93 crash as stated officially or was it blown

up in mid-air?

v) The Jewish community in New York

- Did the Jewish community in New York go to work as planned or

had the Jewish community been “tipped-off” by Israeli intelligence

to stay away from work?

vi) FBI/CIA Conspiracy

- Did the agencies know of the attacks in advance and ignore

them?

- Was there subsequent cover up of failures by the agencies to

act on information prior to 9/11?

The Committee noted that impartiality:

“… does not require the representation of every argument or facet of every

argument on every occasion or an equal division of time for each view”.

The Committee was satisfied that whilst some viewers would not have agreed with

the choice of theories included in the programme, the ones that had been included

reflected mainstream theories that the majority of the audience would have some

awareness of. The Committee was satisfied that the programme had complied with

the guideline on impartiality that allowed the programme:

“[..] the editorial freedom to produce content about any subject, at any point

on the spectrum of debate, as long as there are good editorial reasons for

doing so.”

The Committee recognised that the inclusion of the theory regarding the absence of

members of the Jewish community from work on the day of 9/11 was not one that

was supported by the main body of conspiracy theorists. It had originated in the

Middle East and the programme accurately reflected this. However, the Committee

recognised that it was a widely known theory and was established as a theory to

those not in the main community of conspiracy theorists. The Committee was

therefore satisfied that there was a good editorial reason for considering this theory

alongside the other theories included within the programme and no anti-Semitism

was implied.

The Committee did not consider it necessary to explore the “history of deceit” of

the US government or Operation Northwood to satisfy the accuracy guideline to

“weigh all relevant facts…to get at the truth”. The Committee was satisfied that the

theories covered in the programme were sufficient to provide the audience with

enough relevant information for them to draw their own conclusions with regard to

the activities of the US government in the incidents relating to 9/11. The purpose of

the programme was to consider specific theories related to the incidents on 9/11

and not conspiracy theories relating to other events in US history.

The Committee was therefore satisfied that the programme had presented an

appropriate selection of conspiracy theories.

B) Was there appropriate representation from both sides of the argument?

The Committee considered how the programme had set about presenting the

different theories and rebuttals in looking at the various arguments and theories as

to how the event unfolded and who was to blame. In doing so the Committee

considered whether the guideline had been met that required the BBC:

“… to be fair and open minded when examining the evidence and weighing all

the material facts, as well as being objective and even handed in our approach

to a subject. It does not require the representation of every argument or

facet of every argument on every occasion or an equal division of time for

each view.

The Committee noted how the production team had set out its proposition for the

programme:

Voice over (V/O):

We all remember where we were on the day the world changed…

….but do we know what really happened?

Look closer through the smoke and horror, say conspiracy theories…..

…..and you’ll find that not everything was as it first appeared.

Alex Jones (AJ):

The bottom line 9/11 is an inside job. It’s a self inflicted wound, it’s a false

flag…terror operation

President Bush:

Let us never tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories concerning the attacks of Sept

11th

V/O:

Many say the official account doesn’t add up…..

Overlay:

Listen, sometimes truth is stranger than fiction.

V/O:

…And the questions keep coming

Jim Fetzer (JF):

As Sherlock Holmes was fond of observing, “When you have eliminated the

impossible whatever remains, however improbable must be the truth.”

V/O:

There are more than 50 different conspiracy theories about 9/11- it’s the first

global event in the age of the internet.

Dylan Avery (DA):

We’re just civilians man. We’re people who have questions.

V/O:

If a large passenger jet crashed into the Pentagon…why was the hole in the exterior

wall apparently so small?

Was wreckage found miles from the crash site of one of the hijacked planes which

proved that it was shot down?

DA:

Our government will willingly kill its own citizens for whatever gain it seems

necessary and then lie as much as they need to cover it up.

V/O:

Could a controlled demolition have caused this building to collapse at the World

Trade Centre?

AJ:

I don’t believe it was a controlled demolition, I know it was a controlled demolition.

Cheryl Shames (sister of Andrew Zucker) :

If these theories were true, then why did my brother go to work that day? Did he

want to die? No.

V/O:

So why do so many people doubt what the American government tells them about

9/11?

JF:

Well there’s the old saying, just because you’re paranoid, doesn’t mean they aren’t

out to get you.

The Committee also considered how the programme looked at the various theories

included within the programme. The Committee noted other sections of dialogue

within the programme. The first section looked at the collapse of the Twin Towers:

V/O:

In his film Dylan Avery suggests that the Twin Towers were brought down by

explosives…

Clip from Dylan Avery’s film (Loose Change):

Do you still think that jet fuel brought down the World Trade Centre?

Watch carefully: The tripod shakes 12 seconds before the North Tower begins

collapsing. In all the videos of the collapses, explosions can be seen bursting from

the building 20 to 30 stories below the demolition wave:

Here… here and here.

V/O:

The official explanation suggests that when each plane slammed into the tower it

damaged the core structure.

Then the ensuing fire weakened the building further.

Although steel needs 1,500 degrees Celsius to melt, at 650 degrees it loses half its

strength.

The load bearing beams buckled when they were unable to carry the weight

above…..

…..and the floors progressively caved in.

V/O:

This is three floors of the World Trade Centre - and everything in them –

compressed and fused together into a slab about three feet thick.

Davin Coburn (Popular Mechanics):

When those towers collapsed - remember those collapses began from the top, they

did not begin from the bottom. So when the floors began crashing down upon

themselves, the air just simply looked for the path of least resistance and generally

that went straight out the windows and a little bit of debris and smoke went with

them, and that sort of represents those puffs that some people think were some

sort of squibs, or other explosive charge.

DA:

Their authority is tractors, OK? They should stick to what they know. Popular

Mechanics is the last company that should be “investigating” 9-11.

The Committee also considered a later section of dialogue where American Airlines

flight AA77 crashed into the Pentagon. The programme stated:

V/O:

As flight AA77 descended in a wide turn over the capital and lined up with its

target, there was a military C130 plane -…..

….like this one - flying above Washington.

JF:

There’s a lot of suspicion here that that C130 may in fact have been controlling the

aircraft that hit the Pentagon.

Commentary Question

What you’re saying is that the pilot was the person who caused the crash at the

Pentagon?

JF:

I can’t say that for a certainty but there’s a lot of reason to suspect that this circling

C130 may have been the control vehicle for the plane that was approaching the

Pentagon.

V/O:

This is that aircraft.

Steve O’Brien (Lt Minnesota National Guard) (SB):

Well, here’s a chart of the Washington DC area.

V/O:

And this is the pilot.

SB:

….and here’s Andrew Air Force base right here

V/O:

Lieutenant Colonel 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.

NORAD ATC RECORDING:

- Latest report, aircraft five, six miles southeast of the White House.

- Six miles southeast of the White House?

SB:

It had that distinctive silver finish. in our minds it was definitely an American airlines

aircraft.

Then as he moved to our 11 o’clock position he started his turn. And by the time

he got to our 12 o’clock position, right out the front of our aircraft, he was rolled up

into about, I would estimate, 30 -40 degrees of bank, which is considerable for

commercial airliner.

And then all of a sudden we saw this big explosion.

And I keyed the mic again and said Washington, this is Gopher 0-6. That plane has

hit the west side of the Pentagon.

V/O:

Later, when Steve O’Brien was back home in Minnesota he found himself at the

centre of a conspiracy theory.

SB:

Not having been part of a major event like this before, you’re somewhat detached.

But when you’re actually a witness to it and actually became a part of these

conspiracies, it’s a lot more personal. And concerning to me that people would

think that I would have the ability to, or want to do something like this. So it’s a

little bit disconcerting, but at the same time it gives you another insight into how

wrong a lot of these conspiracies are, but yet they continue and take on a life of

their own so to speak.

JF:

How do you know a single word of what he said is true? His story is inconsistent

with the evidence we have. It’s not even physically possible given the laws of

aerodynamics that a Boeing 757 could have taken the trajectory attributed to it,

which I presume he confirmed which is that this plane barely skimmed the ground

en route to its target. That’s not even physically possible, which is a guarantee that

what he was saying was false.

The Committee was satisfied that in these example extracts and throughout the

programme views from both sides of the argument relating to each theory set out

above were put forward in a manner that ensured that the programme had achieved

due impartiality. The Committee recognised that for those who felt strongly on

either side of the argument the programme’s treatment of each theory may have

been less detailed than they would have liked, but it was not the purpose of this

programme to deliver an in depth analysis of each theory nor a verdict on the

veracity of each theory. It was the view of the Committee that the impartiality due

to this subject matter, which had been clearly signposted to the audience, was to

give sufficient information both in support of the various theories and in support of

the official view, to enable the viewer to have a reasonable understanding of the

various arguments. The Committee was satisfied that the programme had been “fair

and open minded when examining the evidence and weighing the material facts”. As

to whether equal time should have been given to both sides of the arguments, the

Committee noted that as long as the programme was objective and even handed it

was not required to “represent every argument” or provide “an equal division of

time for each view”. The Committee was satisfied that the programme had been

objective and even handed in its presentation of the various theories.

With regard to some of the complainants’ specific complaints the Committee was

satisfied that it was not necessary to include the detail relating to the debris of Flight

93 in New Baltimore to meet the guideline on accuracy or to explore this issue

further to satisfy impartiality. The Committee was satisfied that the programme had

provided sufficient information on the spread of debris of Flight 93 without it being

necessary to consider every facet of every theory about the debris to ensure

impartiality. The Committee considered the information presented by the

production team was sufficiently accurate to have provided viewers with enough

detail to understand the general view of the dispute about the area of the debris

field. The Committee did not consider it necessary to include additional theories on

the spread of debris in order to achieve impartiality. The guidelines state that it is

not a requirement for programmes to:

“[represent] every argument or every facet of every argument on every

occasion”

The Committee considered the same guideline applied to the complainants concerns

that Larry Silverstein and the emergency workers at the scene of the collapse of the

WTC7 building were not included or the testimony of the fire-fighters or the theory

relating to the Mayor of San Francisco or an interview with Bill Coyle of the coalition

of 9/11 families. The Committee was satisfied that the programme team was entitled

to:

“produce content about any subject at any point on the spectrum of debate,

as long as there are good editorial reasons for doing so”

The Committee was, therefore, satisfied that considering the difficulty and

complexity of the programme’s subject matter the programme had provided a fair

and open minded presentation of the various theories and that it had successfully

met the guidelines on due impartiality.

As to the choice of contributors, the Committee was satisfied that the programme

had provided appropriate and relevant representatives from both sides of the

argument to articulate the various views. The Committee recognised that with such

contentious views being presented not every viewer would be pleased with the

choice of contributors. Nevertheless, the Committee was satisfied having

considered the programme as a whole that the various arguments of the theories

highlighted had been sufficiently articulated to ensure that the lay viewer would have

been provided with enough information to have had a basic understanding of the

arguments for each of the theories presented.. The Committee considered Dylan

Avery, Professor Jim Fetzer and Talk-show host Alex Jones appropriate

representatives for the “truth movement”. They had achieved a level of recognition

and authority within the pro-theorist groups to be able to articulate the views of the

movement in relation to each of the presented theories (with the exception of the

theory relating to the Jewish community which was not a view promoted or

supported by the majority of those involved in the “truth movement”). The

Committee, whilst it accepted that the individual complainants did not necessarily

agree with the choice of representative for their views, was satisfied that the

production team had ensured that the contributors had appropriate credentials to

provide an authoritative view of the conspiracy theorists arguments.

The Committee noted how the programme had introduced Dylan Avery:

V/O:

Upstate New York – home to the most prominent voice in the self-styled

9/11 truth movement.

Clip from Loose Change Dylan Avery’s internet film:

9.38, Arlington Virginia… Hani Hanjour allegedly executes a 330 degree turn at

530 miles per hour, […] to crash American Airlines flight 77 into the ground floor

of the Pentagon…explosion

V/O:

Loose Change…….is the internet film, which, more than anything else, has

fanned the flames of 9/11 conspiracies.

Dylan Avery (DA):

Come on guys…

V/O:

And Dylan Avery is the wunderkind behind that film.

DA:

That’s Jonas:

Howdy!

Luke – foot soldier - one of the best people in New York for truth

Jay Mandrish - cook slash dishwasher… Just kidding man.

This is our office. No one’s in here yet.

That’s really about it in terms of this room. And that leads us to my room.

This is it…

Interviewer:

So this is where you work?

DA:

This is where the magic happens. Yes sir!

V/O:

Loose Change has become an internet phenomenon…. viewed tens of millions of

times. To reach a global audience this big in the past, you’d have needed the

backing of a Hollywood studio. Now all you need is a modicum of technical

knowledge and a bargain basement computer.

DA:

Well Guy, this is the laptop that started it all. In February 2003 after saving up for

two months or so I went to a Radio Shack and bought this and had it the next

morning and started editing what would become Loose Change, the documentary.

V/O:

Dylan Avery is riding the crest of a wave of interest in conspiracies.

…and is being feted by Hollywood. He now has a distribution deal and is recutting

his film for cinema release later this year.

Not bad for a 23 year old self-confessed drop out.

The many questions he raises about 9/11 have proliferated through the internet

and have been picked up by mainstream media around the world…

The Committee was satisfied that it was reasonable for the programme as part of

introducing one of the most famous conspiracy theorists to explain who he is and his

background. It is a recognised technique of introducing a significant contributor to a

programme and one which was used throughout the programme, one way or

another, when introducing the other main contributors to the programme.

The Committee was also satisfied that the description of Dylan Avery as a “23 year

old self-confessed drop out” was used accurately and fairly as that was a description

he used to describe himself. The Committee also considered the introduction

appropriate as it provided specific information as to the contributor’s background

and skills as a modern film maker using the internet as a resource for his research as

well as an outlet for his film.

A) Were the arguments articulated clearly?

The Committee was satisfied that in the presentation of the various theories

referred to above, including the graphic representations, the production team had

accurately put forward the broad details of each of the theories and, therefore, did

not mislead. The facts as much as they could be established had been thoroughly

checked. The inclusion or exclusion of facts and interviewees was for the BBC to

determine as long as the guidelines were complied with. The Committee was

satisfied that the programme’s choice of contributors, whilst not to the liking of all

the viewers, had ensured that the various theories and rebuttals had been clearly and

appropriately articulated to enable the audience to come to an appropriate

understanding of the various arguments.

The Committee was also satisfied that the programme in choosing the contributors

to articulate the various arguments, both for and against each theory, had carried

out appropriate checks on the contributors suitability and understanding of the

issues to ensure that each view was presented clearly and accurately.

The complaint was not upheld.

As to the individual theories presented by the programme:

(1) ATTACK ON TWIN TOWERS:

The Committee was satisfied that the programme had provided an accurate

description of the official explanation of how the Twin Towers collapsed. The

Committee was also satisfied that the accompanying graphic had clearly set out

the official version of the Twin Towers collapse. The Committee recognised that

the explanation (which included the graphic) had, by its nature, been relatively

simple, but this had been acceptable given the time that the programme could

devote to the theory. The Committee also noted that an alternative explanation

for the collapse had been put forward by the programme. As to whether equal

time should have been given to both of these views, the Committee did not

believe it was necessary to achieve impartiality. The relevant BBC guideline

makes clear in order to achieve due impartiality:

“It requires us (the BBC) to be fair and opened minded when examining the

evidence and weighing all the material facts, as well as being objective and

even handed in our approach to a subject. It does not require the

representation of every argument or facet of every argument on every

occasion or an equal division of time for each view”

The Committee also noted that it was not a requirement for the programme to

present every argument or every facet of an argument to achieve impartiality.

The programme had put forward an opposing argument regarding the collapse of

the Twin Towers and from that the audience would have had sufficient

information to have understood that there were alternative opinions to the

official version of the event.

(2) BUILDING 7

The Committee noted that the description of this theory was similar in form to

that of the collapse of the Twin Towers with first a conspiracy theory being put

forward and then the official explanation. The Committee was satisfied that the

narrative of the theory and the official version of events were even-handed. The

Committee noted that the alternative view which was given further context by

the suggestion that a number of Government agencies had offices in the WTC 7

and was demolished to hide evidence of a deliberate policy by the US

government to bring down the Towers and blame external forces, was raised

without rebuttal. The Committee was also satisfied given the context and time

in which to provide detail of both views that the arguments had been accurately

presented.

As to the issue of whether it had been accurate for the programme to state:

“The building had been evacuated and there were no casualties”

The Committee noted that the source for this statement had been the Federal

Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). As such, in the face of no other

evidence to disprove this report the Committee was satisfied that this statement

was accurate as far as was known, but it did accept that others took a different

view to the official statement.

Nevertheless the Committee was satisfied that the reporting of the lack of

injuries was not evidence of bias by the programme in favour of the authorities

or part of a cover-up.

(3) ATTACK ON THE PENTAGON

The Committee noted that in the programme one theory concerning the attack

on the Pentagon was presented. It noted how the two views were addressed

and was satisfied that the presentation of both arguments relating to this

particular theory was accurately and impartially portrayed. It also considered the

narrative for either view provided sufficient opportunity to ensure that the

viewer was not misled as to the explanation of the varying opinions.

The Committee noted that this was not the only theory relating to the Pentagon

attack but was one which many people viewing the programme would have been

aware of. The Committee also noted that the choice of which theory to be

considered within a programme was for the programme makers to decide, it was

not a requirement of the programme to consider all theories or issues related to

a particular event as stated in the BBC’s editorial guideline on achieving

impartiality

“[impartiality] does not require the representation of every argument or

facet of every argument on every occasion or an equal division of time for

each view”.

Therefore the Committee was satisfied that it was not necessary for the

programme to raise the question as to whether the Pentagon was protected

from attack with a missile defence or that a Boeing 757 could not physically fly at

ground level.

(4) PENTAGON PART 2

The Committee was also satisfied that the differing opinions of the official

version and “truth movement” were clearly and fairly presented in the

programme and that both views were provided with sufficient time to put their

case. The Committee considered the presentation of the theory was accurate

and impartial.

(5) FLIGHT UNITED 93

The Committee was also satisfied that the two theories presented about Flight

93, plus the official version of the events, were given sufficient time to enable the

viewer to understand each version and that the arguments had been presented

accurately and impartially.

The Committee did not agree that the programme, in looking at the incident of

Flight 93 was required to consider all theories and reports relating to the

wreckage of this plane to ensure accuracy and impartiality regarding this

particular incident. The Committee recognised that it was up to the programme

makers and BBC management to decide as to which theories it would consider

in order to provide a reasonable representation of the theories surrounding the

incidents related to 9/11 as stated in the BBC’s Editorial Guidelines:

“we exercise our editorial freedom to produce content about any subject, at

any point on the spectrum of debate as long as there are good editorial

reasons for doing so”

(6) FBI/CIA CONSPIRACY

The Committee noted how the programme considered the involvement of the

FBI/CIA with regard to the events of 9/11. It noted how the programme set out

its investigation:

Voice over:

“And there’s one story where the evidence does stack up against the Government.

The FBI and CIA insist they had no specific warnings of the hijackings on 9/11.

But it no seems they were less than full and frank about how much information

they did have before Al Qaeda attacked.”

The theory being investigated was one of governmental cover up following 9/11

into what the FBI/CIA had known of the hijackers in the period before 9/11.

The Committee then noted how the programme presented this argument with

the testimonies of officers from both agencies and with the comments of Bob

Graham the Co-Chair of the Congressional inquiry into 9/11.

The Committee recognised that in the presentation of this theory a conspiracy

theorist had not been included to offset the views expressed by the officers of

the two agencies. However, the Committee did not consider it was necessary

for a theorist to be included in this section of the programme to ensure balance.

The question was whether the agencies had known of the hijackers prior to 9/11

and if they had, was the US government honest in what it said about the extent

of its knowledge after the event?

The Committee noted some of contributions made to the programme:

Dale Watson (Head of Counter Terrorism 1999-2002 FBI):

“I knew another attack was coming. I knew another attack was coming. 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… it was just they’re planning

something. We would see the planning….the communications or whatever we

were monitoring would drop off and then you would know…this is not a good

time.”

Voice over:

“17 days before 9/11, the penny dropped.

Had the two terrorists in San Diego been arrested, there was a chance that the

whole plot could have been prised open…. but they had long moved on and

disappeared.

It wasn’t a lack of intelligence; it was a failure to act on that intelligence.”

Michael Scheuer (Chief of Osama Bin Laden Unit 1996-1999 CIA):

“Certainly the idea that they couldn’t be found in the US was true but only because

the FBI is such an incompetent organisation.

There’s no intelligence problem. You can’t have an intelligence failure when you

have information and you refuse to act on it. And that’s what Americans should

understand. If there was a conspiracy, it was a conspiracy to avoid taking a risk.

Not a conspiracy to make sure America got attacked.

The Committee also noted the following exchange:

Voice over:

“In Washington after the attacks, a Congressional inquiry tried to find out what had

gone wrong at the CIA and FBI.

It uncovered that not only were there intelligence mistakes before 9/11, but also

that afterwards the government had been less than open in admitting to those

failures.”

Bob Graham (Co-Chair of the Congressional Inquiry into 9/11):

“I can just state that within 9/11 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 that withholding of those secrets has eroded public

confidence in their government as it relates to their own security”

Voice over:

“[…] Senator Graham found that the cover-up led to the heart of the

administration.”

Bob Graham:

“I called the White House and talked with Miss Rice and said look we’d been told

that we’d get cooperation in this inquiry. And she said she’d look into it and nothing

happened.

- Was there any sense of embarrassment or apology or…?

No, embarrassment, apology, regret those are not characteristics associated with

the current White House.”

Interviewer:

“So it was a conspiracy to cover up the fact that blunders had been made in the

lead up to 9/11?”

Bob Graham:

“If by conspiracy you mean more than one person involved, yes, there was more

than one person and there was some collaboration of efforts among agencies and

the administration to keep information out of the public’s hands.”

The Committee was satisfied that the theory the programme it had set out to

consider i.e. US government cover up as to what the two agencies had known of

the hijackers prior to 9/11, had been handled appropriately. Opinions from

people working with the agencies at the time of 9/11 showed the varying views

on culpability of the two agencies as to how much information was known and

what could have been done to prevent the attacks from happening. In terms of

what happened after 9/11 Senator Graham was entitled to express his opinion as

chair of the congressional inquiry as to whether the administration had been ‘less

than open’. A conspiracy theorist’s view was not required here.

The Committee recognised that this was only one of a number of theories

surrounding the possible involvement of the FBI/CIA into the events of 9/11. But

noted that the choice of which theory to be considered within a programme was

for the programme makers to decide, it was not a requirement of the

programme to consider all theories or issues related to a particular event to

ensure impartiality.

As to whether the agencies had actually been involved in masterminding the

events of 9/11 the Committee noted that the “truth movement’s” perspective on

this issue had been raised in an earlier section of the programme which referred

to the alleged deliberate demolition of both the CIA’s and FBI’s offices in WTC7.

The Committee recognised that whilst this issue had not been expounded upon

beyond the reference in the earlier part of the programme, to not mention it

further was not a breach of guidelines as the programme was left to decide what

it could and could not cover in the time it had to put forward the range of

theories surrounding 9/11.

D) Was it appropriate to include Frank Spotnitz to talk about conspiracy theories?

The Committee noted the dialogue and the introductory contribution of Frank

Spotnitz:

V/O:

Among those who understand why conspiracy theories take root are people who

make a living…. out of telling stories.

Frank Spotnitz (FS):

I, not surprisingly, have thought a lot about conspiracy theories and why they’re

popular because it was so much of our bread and butter on the X Files, which I

wrote for, for eight years.

We’re all storytellers. Narratives about who we are, about who the people in our

lives are and about the world around us, we collect the information we have and we

construct these narratives and they help us make sense of that’s going on. And I

think we still live by these narratives and there’s, there’s religious myths we live by.

But now in the modern age, particularly popular are the secular myths, there are

these conspiracy theories. And assemble bits of information and tell ourselves

stories. And I think the world is so complicated that conspiracy theories are very

appealing, cause they take only a few bits of information and string them together

in a way that seem logical, and to certain people, with a certain political or

ideological bent, pleasing in fact because it, it vindicates, it justifies what you already

believe.

The Committee was satisfied that there was a good editorial reason for a

programme looking at the phenomenon of conspiracy theories to talk to someone

who was publicly known and associated with conspiracy theories. The Committee

considered Mr Spotnitz’s contribution was relevant to the subject matter being

discussed and that his credentials as a suitable contributor spoke for themselves.

The Committee also recognised that as Mr Spotnitz was himself associated to a

specific conspiracy theory concerning the incidents of 11 September 2001 it was

reasonable for the programme to include his views on the background to the

rationale of why conspiracy theories arise. As to whether his views were balanced

the Committee was satisfied that looking at the programme as a whole there was

sufficient concerns raised by those in the truth movement to offset those of Mr

Spotnitz. His contribution had not been a breach of guidelines.

The complaint was not upheld.

E) Did the programme present the 9/11 theorists in a negative way?

The Committee was satisfied that there was no evidence to suggest that the

programme had presented the theorists in a negative way either in the way the

individual contributors were referred to or in how they were presented i.e. filmed.

The Committee was satisfied that it was appropriate to refer to Dylan Avery as a

“self confessed drop-out” as that was a description he had given himself. As to the

suggestion that the programme had filmed the conspiracy theorists in a negative

manner, the Committee was satisfied, having viewed the programme, that that there

was no evidence to support that complaint.

The complaint was not upheld.

In conclusion, the Committee did not uphold any of the complaints raised against the

programme regarding issues of accuracy or impartiality. The Committee noted that

the programme had presented some of the most well known theories in a fair and

accurate manner, ensuring that the arguments had been articulated clearly. The

choice of contributors was credible and appropriate including that of Mr Spotnitz,

who provided a relevant contribution to the understanding of the nature and

phenomenon of the conspiracy theory - the purpose of the programme. The

Committee found that there was no evidence that the editorial independence of the

BBC had been compromised.

Finding: Not upheld

Have Your Say: BBC 9/11 Conspiracy Files Appeal Hearing Results
Please read our posting guidelines before posting.
Alternatively you can discuss this report in our forum .

The ‘uncensored’ history of the 9/11 Commission

Tuesday, February 12th, 2008

Raw Story

Jon Stewart hosted the New York Times’ Philip Shenon on Monday night to discuss his new book, The Commission: An Uncensored history of the 9/11 Commission. The author described White House obstructionism in the course of the officially-mandated Sept. 11 investigation.

“It is remarkable the efforts that the Bush White House went through to try to prevent the 9/11 Commission from getting the information it needed,” Shenon told Stewart. “The person who was most responsible for that tension was former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales who was then the White House Counsel.”

“Well he’s really matured since then, I don’t know if you’ve seen some of his work recently,” Stewart joked in response.

Stewart also asked Shenon about Commission executive director Philip Zelikow and his relationship with Karl Rove. According to the author, “alarms” went off for the staff when they heard about multiple phone calls Rove had made to Zelikow.

“Then Zelikow calls in his secretary and apparently tells her to stop keeping phone logs of his conversations with the White House,” Shenon explained.

“I’m sure it’s all innocent stuff,” Stewart quipped.

Reached by the Associated Press, Zelikow provided a 131-page statement with information he said was provided for the book. In it, Zelikow acknowledges talking to Rove and Rice during the course of the commission’s work despite a general pledge he made not to. But he said the conversations never dealt with politics.

A video clip from Monday night’s episode of Comedy Central’s The Daily Show with Jon Stewart is presented below:

(with wire reports)

Have Your Say: The ‘uncensored’ history of the 9/11 Commission
Please read our posting guidelines before posting.
Alternatively you can discuss this report in our forum .

More NWO Inside Trading Pre-9/11

Monday, February 11th, 2008

Jim Hogue | Baltimore Chronicle

Had an investigation been done into the crime of failing to file the “currency transaction reports” in August 2001, then we would know who made the cash withdrawals in $100 bills amounting to the $5 billion surge.

When reviewing the record of July and August of 2001, Bill Bergman noticed a $5 billion surge in the currency component of the M1 money supply—the third largest such increase since 1947. Bergman asked about this anomaly—and was removed from his investigative duties.

It’s been over six years since 9/11, but U.S. regulatory entities have been slow to follow through with reports about the complex financial transactions that occurred just prior to and following the attacks. Such research could shed light on such questions as who was behind them—and who benefited—and could help lay to rest the rumors that have been festering.

Warning bells about anomalies in the fiscal sector were sounded in the summer of 2001, but not heeded.

Among those who has since raised questions was Bill Bergman. As a financial market analyst for the Federal Reserve, he was assigned in 2003 to review the record of July and August of 2001. He noticed an unusual surge in the currency component of the M1 money supply (cash circulating outside of banks) during that period. The surge totaled over $5 billion above the norm for a two-month increase.

The increase in August alone was the third largest single monthly increase since 1947, even after a significantly above-average month in July.

Surges in the currency component of M1 are often the result of people withdrawing their cash to protect themselves lest some anticipated disaster (such as Y2K) befall the economy. In January of 1991 a surge was recorded (the then second-largest since ’47), which could be attributed to “war-time hoarding” before the Iraq I invasion, but could also be attributed to financial maneuverings and liquefying of assets relating to the BCCI enforcement proceedings.

Bergman points out that the August 2001 withdrawals may have been, to a large extent, caused by the Argentinian banking crisis that was occurring at the time. However, he raises the point that no explanation has yet fully answered the important question: Why was the cashing out of billions of dollars just before the 9/11 attacks never investigated?

It’s possible that the answer to this question is also the answer to the other follow-the-money questions surrounding 9/11; and despite an embarrassing heap of evidence, neither the press, nor Congress, nor any agency with investigative responsibility has done its job on our behalf. On the contrary, their inaction might reasonably be construed as a cover-up.

Bergman “followed the money,” including developing a framework for working with money-laundering data and “suspicious activity” reports for monitoring and investigating terrorism. The questions he asked about what happened during the summer of 2001 should have led to investigations, which should have resulted in the prosecution of those with foreknowledge of the attacks.

Those who follow the history of the 9/11 fact-finding movement know that there is a laundry-list of unanswered questions that are just as compelling as those put forth by Bergman.

And there is also a laundry-list of whistle-blowers who have been fired and subsequently ignored. So it is not at all surprising that Bergman was removed from his investigative duties, and that his concerns were not publicly addressed.

Bergman’s supervisor instructed him to follow up on an unanswered question he had raised pertaining to an August 2, 2001 letter from the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve to the 12 Reserve Banks. This letter urged scrutiny of suspicious activity reports. Bergman learned of the pervasiveness of the warnings of the 9/11 attacks, and wondered how thoroughly these warnings had permeated the financial system.

In this capacity as Federal Reserve investigative point-man, and with his money-laundering portfolio being guided by his supervisor’s directive, he asked the Board why they had issued their August 2, 2001 directive, and whether this related to any heightened intelligence of a terrorist threat. His position was then eliminated, and a crucial investigation was terminated before it could even begin.

Another 9/11 Commission Misrepresentation

Footnote 28 of the Staff Monograph on Terrorist Financing from the official 9/11 Commission Report states that the National Money-laundering Strategy Report for 2001 “didn’t mention terrorist financing in any of its 50 pages.”

True? No. The NMLS Report mentions it 17 times.

One gets the impression that the commission staff (under Philip Zelikow) was trying to paint the picture that there wasn’t a lot of co-operation between those involved in counterterrorism and the banking regulators in 2001.

Why do they paint this picture, inasmuch as the contrary is the case? In fact, anti-terrorism was an important element of the National Money Strategy, and it was included and emphasized in its Report annually. It may have been part of the reason why the August 2, 2001 letter urging scrutiny of suspicious activity reports was issued in the first place.

In turn, the billions in currency shipments of July and August 2001 are completely omitted in the 9/11 Commission Report.

I make bold to point out that the official story-line is that the attacks were accomplished by “the evil-doers” on a shoe-string budget with little money changing hands. Therefore, according to Zelikow et al., it is pointless to look at large flows of money in an investigation of the attacks. That makes perfect sense—unless you happen to have a brain.

To state the obvious, there are two reasons why Zelikow et al. made the false statement regarding there having been no references to terrorism in the National Money-laundering Strategy Report.

One reason could be to justify and encourage more scrutiny (legal or otherwise) of small transactions generally, e.g. via USAPA, and the other could be to establish (read: invent) a reason for missing the evidence pertaining to the attacks. (’Transactions too small. No one could find.’) And since the real money trail points to foreknowledge within the financial community at large, and, possibly, the Federal Reserve specifically, the “low-budget terrorism” story-line that the 9/11 Commission had established needed to be protected.

If such a lack of attentiveness to a financial transaction of $5 billion goes unnoticed in August 2001, then a reason had to be established for this lack of attention. And Bergman’s attentiveness to the Board of Governor’s August 2 letter was the fly in the ointment, as this letter proves that the Board was indeed attentive to suspicious transactions, even very, very large ones. Bergman’s question of “Why” is therefore key to yet another avenue of inquiry.

All the News that’s Permissible to Print

Note that a few dollars sent to an Islamic charity could warrant arrests, investigations, front-page stories, and, sometimes, torture and many years in jail. That’s Propaganda 101: ‘Large amounts of money do not fund major acts of terrorism. Small amounts do. Small amounts covered the 9/11 tab, therefore large amounts didn’t.’ The news coverage, creating high-profile prosecutions for relatively small transactions, reinforces this scenario.

With this in mind, we suggest that the reader follow the story of Mark Siljander (major coverage) on the one hand, and also follow the Times UK reports from Sibel Edmonds (verboten in the US mainstream press) on the other hand. Edmonds told me recently of the major foreign media outlets that had offered to report her story. Not one major outlet did so in the US.

R.T. Naylor suggests, in his wonderful book Satanic Purses, that any major terrorist event that involves a lot of money is ’state terrorism,’ and this is independently confirmed by Sibel Edmonds’ statements as to the enormous sums changing hands at the time of the 9/11 attacks. I suggest that her testimony to the Senate Intelligence Committee (Leahy and Grassley) gave the lie to the official financial myth of 9/11.

If Bergman had been allowed to continue his investigation, I suggest that he would have uncovered the same thing. Note that the drug money and other illicit transactions described by Edmonds occurred during the same time period, and the amounts in the billions are comparable.

The Law

To members of the constabulary: the operable statutes are

1) The 1970 Bank Secrecy Act that imposed new financial reporting requirements to facilitate the tracing of questionable transactions and

2) the 1986 Money Laundering Control Act that criminalized the act of money-laundering.

Also operable, and of particular relevance in a historical context, is the 1917 Trading With the Enemy Act that was relied upon in October of 1942 to seize the assets of “Hitler’s Bankers in America,” Union Banking, (involving bank vice president Prescott Bush under his father-in-law and bank president, George Walker).

The law is not always followed, and the required “currency transaction reports” are sometimes not filed. The 9/11 Commission Report and the National Money-laundering Strategy Report for 2001 did not identify those who are involved with large cash transactions. Had the paperwork been done in August of 2001, or an investigation done into the crime of failing to file the “currency transaction reports,” then we would know who made the cash withdrawals in $100 bills amounting to the $5 billion surge.

Information about what transpired took years to develop after the fact. For example, the Federal Reserve fined United Bank of Switzerland and Riggs Bank in 2004.

Mr. Bergman states that he doesn’t want to be a dog barking up the wrong tree, but the authorities, apparently under orders from our top officials, are preventing a standard investigation and the most obvious prosecutorial methodology from going forth.

Congress could step in; a prosecutor could step up. But don’t hold your breath.

Jim Hogue, a former teacher, is now an actor who tours his performance of Ethan Allen. He also operates a small farm in Calais, VT. His seminal articles about Sibel Edmonds and CIA Whistleblower “Miss Moneypenny” may be found in this newspaper’s archives. Bill Bergman currently works in Chicago as an equity analyst for a private sector firm. From 1998 to 2004 he was a senior financial market analyst for the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, where his areas of expertise included Insolvency Issues in Derivatives Markets, Money Laundering, and Ethics and Payment System Policy. He holds an M.B.A. in Finance and an M.A. in Public Policy from the University of Chicago.

Have Your Say: More NWO Inside Trading Pre-9/11
Please read our posting guidelines before posting.
Alternatively you can discuss this report in our forum .

Some Of The Outrageous Lies About 9/11

Saturday, February 9th, 2008

By Joseph A. Lopisi

It is hard to pick a place to start in terms of talking about the most outrageous lies that the Bush administration and the 9/11 Commission have presented to the people in this country as a reason to attack Afghanistan and Iraq and to launch a “fake war on terror”.

The reason I say this is that I have been reading articles and watching videos about the lies and deceptions surrounding 9/11 for the past three years. If anything, there are so many obvious unanswered questions about 9/11. However, not only has no one answered any of these questions but in fact no one in the mainstream media nor anyone in the United States Congress except for Representative Kucinich and Cynthia McKinney have even asked these questions.

Some of these questions are:

1. How is it that at the crash site of Flight 93, NBC and Fox News on September 11, 2001 reported on the scene with video coverage that there was no sign of a jetliner, engines, bodies or luggage? You can go to my website which is www.911insidejob.net and watch this video report which is on my home page. It has never been shown again on the mainstream media.

2. How is it that three steel framed buildings on September 11, 2001 fell in freefall time on their footprint? If you watch the two Towers collapse, it is obvious that they are being blown up. No steel framed building prior to this date or after this date has ever collapsed due to fire. Many steel framed buildings have experienced burning infernos for many hours and never collapsed. WTC 7, a 50 story steel framed building, had two small fires in it with no noticeable structural damage when it collapsed on his footprint in freefall time at about 5:40 p.m. on September 11. You can watch this building collapse on the homepage my website.

3. How is it that the most protected building in the world, the Pentagon, was hit by a commercial jetliner that was being tracked by Vice President Cheney in the basement of the White House for over one hour? Transportation Secretary Mineta testified under oath that he witnessed a member of the United States military ask Vice President Cheney several times whether the order still stood relative to not shooting down the oncoming plane. Vice President Cheney’s answer was that the order still stands. You can watch Secretary Mineta’s testimony on the home page of my website. The Pentagon is protected by a battery of antiaircraft guns that would automatically shoot down any plane that does not have a United States military transponder on it.

4. How is it that only five frames have been presented by this government to show supposedly what hit the Pentagon on that date. The Pentagon has surveillance cameras ringing the top exterior ring of the building. The FBI within 10 minutes of the attack were confiscating surveillance films from local businesses around the Pentagon. None of these confiscated surveillance films have been released. I would bet that a satellite sits above Washington, DC 24 hours every day and would have very good video images showing what hit the Pentagon.

5. How is it that a large commercial jetliner was able to crash into the first floor of the Pentagon and punch a round hole through three rings of the Pentagon which is constructed of steel reinforced concrete? The nose of a commercial jetliner is made of aluminum.

6. Why is it that Jamie McIntyre of CNN reported on the front lawn of the Pentagon on September 11 that from his vantage point it did not look like a commercial jetliner had crashed into the Pentagon? Why is it that this report has never been shown on mainstream media but can be seen on my website? Why is it that we have not heard another word from Jamie McIntyre or CNN regarding this report?

7. How was it that four commercial airliners were able to roam at will the northeastern sector of the United States without being intercepted? Of course, Flight 93 was intercepted and shot down by the US military. The northeastern sector of the United States is the most protected airspace in the world. There are several Air Force bases very close to Washington, DC and no jets from these Air Force bases came close to intercepting the plane that hit the Pentagon, despite the fact that Vice President Cheney knew the plane was heading towards Washington, DC for almost an hour.

I could go on and on but I will leave that to those who consider the truth about what happened on 9/11 to be important. You can go to my website or many other 9/11 websites and start reading about how outrageous the official 9/11 story is. You can go to www.youtube.com and watch five videos that I have produced under my call name which is “bushguiltyof911″.

Vice President Cheney met with the heads of the various oil companies right after Bush took office. When the public wanted to know who was there and what they were talking about, Vice President Cheney fought this request to the United States Supreme Court (the same court that elected George Bush in 2000) where he won. They were talking about attacking Iraq in order to gain control of their oil fields. They were talking about attacking Afghanistan to take over the construction of a gas pipeline through Afghanistan. The Taliban, prior to September 11, 2001, had already said no to the Bush administration’s request that an American company, Unical, construct the gas pipeline and in response President Bush said to the Taliban that the United States would attack them in October 2001. We did.

The Bush administration’s purpose in planning and orchestrating 9/11 was to create an atmosphere of fear in this country so that the military/industrial/oil/private central banking complex could start their fake war on terror which included attacking Afghanistan and Iraq and probably Iran in the near future. None of this would have been possible without the United States Congress and the corporately owned mainstream media being complicit in so far as not questioning the official 9/11 conspiracy theory but in fact labeling anyone who does question the official 9/11 conspiracy theory as a “conspiracy nut”.

Why is it that neither the United States Congress nor the mainstream media question the counting of our votes by electronic voting machines made by companies owned and controlled by neoconservative Republicans? It has been shown extensively and publicly that these electronic voting machines are completely hackable, even remotely, by a high school student. Nevertheless, these machines count approximately 80% of our votes. Why is it that the United States Congress does not require the manufacturers of these machines to make the internal software available for inspection by us before and after these machines count our votes.

Why is it that only Ron Paul speaks out about the scam of the Federal Reserve Bank? Go to my website where I have several streaming videos on my homepage that simply and clearly explain the scam that the Federal Reserve Bank perpetrates on all of us and has done so since its creation. What they call a “business cycle” is actually an intentional manipulation of the money supply for the sole benefit of the cartel of private banks that own the Federal Reserve Bank. The Federal Reserve Bank prints money and then lends it to this government at interest. Much of our income tax payments go to paying the interest on this loan of paper money that has no backing.

We must not vote for anyone who does not speak out about the lies and deceptions regarding 9/11, the removal of all electronic voting machines from the election process and the termination of the Federal Reserve Bank. Of course, there must be term limits and only public financing of national elections.

Joseph A. Lopisi is an attorney and the webmaster of www.911insidejob.net. He is the cofounder of the Massachusetts 9/11 Truth Group and is a member of the Coalition against Election Fraud. You can contact him through the e-mail function on his website.

Have Your Say: Some Of The Outrageous Lies About 9/11
Please read our posting guidelines before posting.
Alternatively you can discuss this report in our forum .

FOX-5 Foreknowledge of WTC-7 Collapse

Saturday, February 9th, 2008

Lee Rogers UPDATE2: Upon further review, it looks as if this was reported a few minutes after the actual collapse at 5:20 PM, so it might not have been a live shot. So it isn’t as damning as the BBC and CNN clips are, but it is still strong evidence indicating that someone was feeding the media with the structural damage story in advance. The fact that they were parroting the official story of the WTC-7 collapse minutes after the event is ridiculous even after they watched the building come down at free fall speed.

UPDATE: I might have rushed to get this out a bit too quickly last night without verifying the time stamp on the clip. I’ll review the archives again and double check to see if the timestamp matches up with the actual building collapse. The thumbnails indicate that this might have been reported a few minutes past 5:20 PM EST. If it doesn’t match up with the actual time of the event than they might have been looking at a taped version of the collapse. Either way, there is no disputing the BBC and CNN clips of foreknowledge and there is no doubt that Fox-5, the BBC and CNN were being fed the same information for the cover story of the collapse. Even if they are watching a taped version, it is ridiculous that they already had a prepared report that mirrors the official story of the collapse minutes right after the building fell.

It is a known fact that both CNN and the BBC reported on September 11th, 2001 that WTC-7 a 47-story building had collapsed despite the fact that the building was still standing in their own video footage. These video clips are proof that someone fed information to the media with a cover story for the WTC-7 building collapse knowing full well that the building was going to be brought down in advance. The only way that they could know that the building was coming down in advance, is if the building was to be intentionally brought down with explosives. How could anyone predict a building coming down that had very little fire damage unless they knew that a controlled demolition was set to take place? The official story of structural failure just doesn’t add up. Amazingly, it appears now that CNN and the BBC weren’t the only news agencies to have been fed and reported on this information prior to WTC-7’s actual collapse. Video footage straight from the September 11th, 2001 Internet archives shows the news anchors from Fox’s Washington DC affiliate Fox-5 reporting that a 47-story building had collapsed in downtown New York City and just moments later their own video footage shows the same building they said already collapsed, collapse at free fall speed. The video clip is surreal. Watch the approximately three-minute long segment below. The raw WMV file can be downloaded here, or view the full clip from the Internet Archive, here.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GwUJ9MhzgKI[/youtube]

The video footage speaks for itself. Fox-5 anchor Tracey Neale says that a 47-story building had collapsed in downtown Manhattan which is an obvious reference to WTC-7 because it too was a 47-story building in downtown Manhattan. Then just seconds after Neale reports on the building collapse, they witness WTC-7 collapse at free fall speed in their own video footage.

Following the collapse both news anchors state that the building must have come down due to structural failure which has of course been the official cover story for the WTC-7 collapse. Neale appears visibly flustered after she realizes that she reported on a building collapse in advance of the collapse actually happening. After the collapse, Neale’s co-anchor states the following which is incredibly surreal considering all the information that has now come out about the events of 9/11.

“We are seeing video today that only Hollywood could have produced at another time. We have seen the Twin Towers come apart right in front of our eyes. We have seen aircraft smashing in the side of them. Just now, we saw another building as a part of that complex go down. It is so unbelievable; it is so surreal, that it is very hard for most Americans, most anyone in the world to be able to grasp what is really taking place here. The folks running who are running things however do have a grasp of it.”

Below are the other known clips of media foreknowledge of the WTC-7 collapse from both CNN and the BBC.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7SwOT29gbc[/youtube]

BBC Reports WTC-7 Collapses Before Actual Event

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1LetB0z8_o[/youtube]

CNN Reports WTC-7 Had Collapsed Before Actual Event

Can there be any doubt at this point in time that WTC-7 was brought down in a controlled demolition? We now have three major news networks reporting that WTC-7 collapsed before the event took place indicating that people had foreknowledge of the building collapse. The building fell in 6.5 seconds at free fall speed despite the building only have minor fire damage. Demolition experts have also watched the collapse of WTC-7 and have concluded that it was a controlled demolition.

Being that WTC-7 is a clear cut case of a controlled demolition, there is no way that a 47-story building could be wired with explosives in 8-hours worth of time right after the planes hit the Twin Towers. WTC-7 must have been wired with explosives in advance, indicating that someone knew what was going to happen on 9/11, meaning that the events of 9/11 were an inside job. This is just one of many pieces of evidence that indicate the official story is a complete and total fraud. The 9/11 Commission was formed to white wash the official story with establishment cronies like Phillip Zelikow placed on it to ensure that the investigation didn’t get too close to the Bush administration. This video clip is more proof that high profile individuals like Willie Nelson and Charlie Sheen who have come out questioning the official story of 9/11 are the true patriots and people like Bill O’Reilly who refuse to investigate this information and name call those who do are the real pinheads.

Have Your Say: FOX-5 Foreknowledge of WTC-7 Collapse
Please read our posting guidelines before posting.
Alternatively you can discuss this report in our forum .

Willie Nelson: Twin Towers Were Imploded on 9/11

Wednesday, February 6th, 2008

Willie Nelson appeared Monday, February 4, 2008, on the nationally-syndicated Alex Jones Show in a ground breaking interview where the country music legend said the twin towers were imploded on 9/11. “I saw those towers fall and I’ve seen an implosion in Las Vegas - there’s too much similarities between the two, and I saw a building fall that didn’t get hit by nothing,” added Nelson, referring to WTC Building 7, which collapsed in the late afternoon of September 11.

Nelson said he was not surprised by the recent revelations concerning the impartiality of the 9/11 Commission - namely Phillip Zelikow, who has close ties to the Bush Administration.

“How naive are we - what do they think we’ll go for?” asked Nelson, pointing out that his doubts began on the very day of 9/11 during an appearance on the Alex Jones Show.

The audio and full story can be found at: prisonplanet.com/articles/february2008/020408_towers_imploded.htm

Willie joins the ranks of many celebrities who have spoken out to question the official 9/11 story on the Alex Jones Show, including such notables as: Charlie Sheen (see: prisonplanet.com/articles/march2006/200306charliesheen.htm), Ed Asner (see: prisonplanet.com/articles/march2006/310306asnershares.htm) and rapper Paris.

Other celebrities who have questioned 9/11 include Ed Asner, Rosie O’Donnell, Martin Sheen, James Brolin, David Lynch former Dallas Cowboys lineman Mark Stepnoski, actor Mark Ruffalo and many others.

Alex Jones is syndicated over the GCN Radio Network and airs on over 80 AM and FM stations across the country. Jones has been called the father of the 9/11 Truth Movement and has produced several films on September 11th and orchestrated terrorism, including, TerrorStorm and End Game. Both of these films reached the top 10 on Amazon.com’s best-selling list for documentary films.

No celebrity endorsement claimed or implied.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I1en0rUx_s0[/youtube]

Have Your Say: Willie Nelson: Twin Towers Were Imploded on 9/11
Please read our posting guidelines before posting.
Alternatively you can discuss this report in our forum .

Cambridge University Twin Towers Theory Debunked

Saturday, February 2nd, 2008

Dr Seffen Paper Proven Ludicrous

By Mick Meaney
RINF Alternative News

In late 2007 a British academic, Dr. Keith Seffen of the University of Cambridge, published a new mathematical analysis of the collapse of the World Trade Centre – however the paper contains several ridiculous claims. Now a formal request has been made by Mr J A Blacker MSc IMI, who recently debunked the paper, to Dr. Chris Burgoyne, the Head of the Department of Engineering at Cambridge University, highlighting these errors and appealing for the misleading paper to be corrected.

The request points out that Dr Seffen’s paper defies several key laws of physics, i.e. conservation of momentum and conservation of energy.

Mr Blacker’s request also states:

“All the floors offered the same flimsy resistance, when in fact each had different construction characteristics, is beyond any logic as the lower floor core columns were over double the thickness compared to the upper floors.”

Such glaring errors should be an embarrassment to one of the world’s oldest and most prestigious universities.

Dr Seffen’s paper essentially claims that a falling body can fall through the path of most resistance. Such a claim is ludicrous and defies all logic or honest scientific integrity.

Another inaccuracy in the paper is the fact it does not take into account the energy needed to convert the 300,000 tons of concrete and steel to dust.

“The Seffen analysis is based on the columns being a hollow box construction. What about cross bracing?” states Mr Blacker.

“The Seffen paper claims that burning jet fuel in air can weaken ALL the steel girders evenly (hence symmetrical collapse due to gravity of all columns perfectly), yet both ends of these outer and inner massive columns were outside the fire zone to differing degrees hence heat would have conducted up and down very efficiently at different rates, and many columns were not even subjected to any significant fire. Are we really expected to believe that fire can weaken steel evenly despite the core columns conducting heat efficiently at varying rates away from varied regions of temperature?”

Simply put, for the University of Cambridge to continue supporting this absurd theory is to present a fictional view of physics.

Download the request here in PDF format.

Have Your Say: Cambridge University Twin Towers Theory Debunked
Please read our posting guidelines before posting.
Alternatively you can discuss this report in our forum .

9/11 Truth - New Study Raises More Questions

Saturday, February 2nd, 2008

New study from Pilots for 9 11 Truth No Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon

A study of the black box data provided by the government to Pilots for 9/11 Truth has confirmed the previous findings of Scholars for 9/11 Truth that no Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon on 9/11. We have had four lines of proof that no Boeing 757 hit the building, said James Fetzer, founder of Scholars for 9/11 Truth. This new study by Pilots drives another nail into a coffin of lies told the American people by The 9/11 Commission:

The new society, an international organization of pilots and aviation professionals, petitioned the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) under the Freedom of Information Act and obtained its 2002 report on American Airlines Flight 77, a Boeing 757 that, according to the official account, hit the ground floor of the Pentagon after it skimmed over the lawn at 500 mph plus, taking out a series of lamp posts in the process. The pilots not only obtained the flight data but created a computer animation to demonstrate what it told them.

According to the report issued by Pilots for 9/11 Truth (http://pilotsfor911truth.org/), there are major differences between the official account and the flight data:

a. The NTSB Flight Path Animation approach path and altitude does not support official events.
b. All Altitude data shows the aircraft at least 300 feet too high to have struck the light poles.
c. The rate of descent data is in direct conflict with the aircraft being able to impact the light poles and be captured in the Dept of Defense 5 Frames video of an object traveling nearly parallel with the Pentagon lawn.
d. The record of data stops at least one second prior to official impact time.
e. If data trends are continued, the aircraft altitude would have been at least 100 feet too high to have hit the Pentagon.

As Robert Balsamo, co-founder of Pilots for 9/11 Truth, observes, The information in the NSTB documents does not support, and in some instances factually contradicts, the official government position that American Airlines Flight 77 struck the Pentagon on the morning of September 11, 2001. The study was signed by fifteen professional pilots with extensive military and commercial carrier experience. They have made their animation, Pandora’ss Box: Chapter 2, available to the public at http://video.google.com/videosearchq=Pandora’ss+Black+Box%3A+Chapter+2 .

According to James H. Fetzer, founder of Scholars for 9/11 Truth (http://911scholars.org), this result fits into the broader picture of what happened at the Pentagon that day. We have developed four lines of argument that prove–conclusively, in my judgment–that no Boeing 757 hit the building. The most important evidence to the contrary has been the numerous eyewitness reports of a large commercial carrier coming toward the building. If the NTSB data is correct, then the Pilot’ss study shows that a large aircraft headed toward the building but did not impact with it. It swerved off and flew above the Pentagon.

Fetzer, who retired last June after 35 years of teaching courses in logic, critical thinking, and scientific reasoning, expressed pleasure over the Pilot’ss results, which, he said, has neatly resolved the most pressing issue that remained about the Pentagon. He added, We have previously developed several lines of argument, each of which proves that no Boeing 757 hit the building, including these four:

(1) The hit point at the Pentagon was too small to accommodate a 100-ton airliner with a 125-foot wingspan and a tail that stands 44 feet above the ground; the kind and quantity of debris was wrong for a Boeing 757: there were no wings, no fuselage, no seats, no bodies, no luggage, no tail! Not even the engines were recovered, and they are practically indestructible.

(2) Of an estimate 84 videotapes of the crash, the three that have been released by the Pentagon do not show a Boeing 757 hitting the building, as even Bill O’sReilly admitted when one was shown on The Factor. At 155 feet, the plane was more than twice as long as the 77-foot Pentagon is high and should have been visible. There are indications of a much smaller plane, but not a Boeing 757.

(3) Indeed, the aerodynamics of flight would have made the official trajectory–flying more than 500 mph barely above ground level–physically impossible, because of the accumulation of a massive pocket of compressed gas (air) beneath the fuselage; and if it had come it at an angle instead, it would have created a massive crater; but there is no crater and the official trajectory is impossible.

(4) Flying low enough to impact with the ground floor would have meant that the enormous engines were plowing the ground and creating massive furrows; but there are no massive furrows. The smooth, unblemished surface of the Pentagon lawn thus stands as a smoking gun proving the official trajectory cannot be sustained.

Members of Scholars have contributed to a new book that analyses the government’ss official account, according to which 19 Islamic fundamentalists hijacked four commercial airliners, outfoxed the most sophisticated air-defense system in the world, and committed these atrocities under the control of a man in a cave in Afghanistan. Entitled, THE 9/11 CONSPIRACY (2007), it includes photographs of the hit point before and after the upper floors collapsed, the crucial frame from the released videos, and views of the clear, smooth, and unblemished lawn.

Don’st be taken in by photos showing damage to the second floor or those taken after the upper floors collapsed, which happened 20-30 minutes later, Fetzer said. In fact, debris begins to show up on the completely clean lawn in short order, which might have been dropped from a C-130 that was circling above the Pentagon or placed there by men in suits who were photographed carrying debris with them. The most striking is a piece from the fuselage of a commercial airliner, which is frequently adduced as evidence.

James Hanson, a newspaper reporter who earned his law degree from the University of Michigan College of Law, has traced that debris to an American Airlines 757 that crashed in a rain forest above Cali, Columbia in 1995. It was the kind of slow-speed crash that would have torn off paneling in this fashion, with no fires, leaving them largely intact. Fetzer has been so impressed with his research he has invited Hanson to submit his study to Scholars for consideration for publication on its web site, 911scholars.org.

The Pentagon has become a kind of litmus test for rationality in the study of 9/11, Fetzer said. Those who persist in maintaining that a Boeing 757 hit the building are either unfamiliar with the evidence or cognitively impaired. Unless, he added, they want to mislead the American people. The evidence is beyond clear and compelling. It places this issue ’sbeyond a reasonable doubt’s. No Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon.

Have Your Say: 9/11 Truth - New Study Raises More Questions
Please read our posting guidelines before posting.
Alternatively you can discuss this report in our forum .

Was 9/11 Truth Giuliani’s Demise?

Friday, February 1st, 2008

Was 9/11 Truth Giuliani’s Demise? You’ll be AMAZED What Corporate Media Hid from YOU!

by Bill Douglas  

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GxycV4fNPnQ[/youtube] 

Peggy Noonan, a Republican speechwriter (Reagan’s among others), was perplexed last night on the Daily Show with Jon Stewart as to “why Rudy fell.”  It was a mystery to her.  Probably because she gets all her information from FOX News and the other corporate media. 

Of course those who’s heads aren’t buried in the corporate idiot box, know that 9/11 truth was Rudy’s demise. 

First of all, how did Rudy, a Mayor even become a possible GOP nominee.  Corporate media and the Bush Administration began a myth about Rudy Giuliani beginning on 9/11/2001? 

Evidence suggests that a quid pro quo may have begun Rudy’s ascendance, whereby Rudy would help destroy the WTC steel BEFORE A FORENSIC 9/11 INVESTIGATION COULD OCCUR (by sending it to India and China to be melted down) . . . and in exchange the powers made him President. 

Of course that didn’t work out quite the way Rudy wanted.  Rudy even began using remains of WTC victims to fill pot holes because he was in such a rabid hurry to get rid of evidence.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GxycV4fNPnQ  

Over 6 months ago, when Rudy Giuliani was expected to be a shoe-in for the GOP nomination as Mr. 9/11, he was confronted on the campaign trail by a very courageous young woman, Sabrina Rivero, who’s father died in the 9/11 attacks, and by Luke Rudkowski, and Tom Foti of WeAreChange New York, a 9/11 truth organization.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uAGYB4LvfY0http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4n7uJnKGTGg 

This video made network news after being posted on YouTube and flying fiercely around the internet.  The original video on YouTube has been viewed over 61,000 times, however this video has been posted by others and linked through countless websites and articles.  Corporate media tried to laugh it off, but viewers who watched began to re-think Mr. 9/11 Giuliani. 

In this video, Giuliani was confronted because he’d told network news on 9/11 that he and his command team had been warned that World Trade Center 7, which mysteriously collapsed at 5:20 pm on 9/11/2001, was about to collapse “before” it actually did.  It was not hit by a plane and its damage from the collapse of WTC 1 and 2 was much less severe than other buildings in the World Trade Center complex, which did not collapse.  See video of WTC 7 as well as 1 and 2, at:

http://www.ae911truth.org/   

No one in the world knew that WTC 7 would collapse on 9/11, so Ms. Rivero wanted to know who told Giuliani that it was about to collapse.  She also wanted to know why Giuliani didn’t warn people like her father who were present in the WTC complex on 9/11, in order to save lives, rather than just evacuating the building and not warning others.   

Giuliani denied having told network news that he knew WTC 7 was going to collapse, and denied anyone told him it would on 9/11, even though it is public knowledge that the Command Center was evacuated by his command crew.  Not only did Giuliani know BEFORE it came down that it would come down but police and emergency workers were told by someone it would “blow up.”  See Giuliani’s admission he was told, at:  
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y4lWM0BECZ8 

WTC 7 fell in a classic controlled demolition fashion at near free fall speed of about 7 seconds for a 47 story building, tipping in in the center just like the Vegas hotels we’ve all seen blown on TV.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LD06SAf0p9A 

The BBC oddly enough also knew that WTC 7 was going to collapse, and in fact announced that it HAD ALREADY COLLAPSED 23 minutes BEFORE it actually did (see above video link).  When asked by 9/11 truth activists who told the BBC, they replied by mumbling something about “losing” the archive video of 9/11, and being unable to respond to the question.  This actually violates BBC law, which requires 3 archived videos of significant events, to be held in 3 separate locations. 

CHECK OUT THIS AMAZING VIDEO THAT PROVES THAT THE BBC WAS TOLD 23 MINUTES “BEFORE” WTC 7 WAS TO COLLAPSE, THAT IT ALREADY HAD.  The BBC still refuses to tell us who told them what no one else in the world knew.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IkFpmZxyWEI

Rudy’s troubles only began with WeAreChange New York confronting him.  His troubles continued with 9/11 truth activists around the country.   Rudy was confronted at Ground Zero by Sabrina Rivera (daughter of 9/11 victim) and 9/11 truth group WeAreChange at Ground Zero on 9/11/2007.  Media was gathered to document this confrontation and Giuliani’s desperate attempts to escape the 9/11 family member.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3OcRw0BZvPs 

In September of 2007, Tulsa Oklahoma’s 9/11 truth activists confront Rudy:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JFUn45l7vaA 

9/11 truth activists may have influenced the Fire Fighters Unions of New York City as well as Fire Fighter Union members across the nation.  Some fire fighters who were at ground zero knew first hand we’d all been lied to about 9/11, as they’d heard blasts and explosions, some before the planes struck, and in lower levels of the buildings before the collapse. I personally emailed information and fire fighter’s testimony as it came out to firefighters union members, officials, and offices not only throughout the United States but throughout the world. 

I knew it may have had some impact when I was holding a “What is Bush Hiding About 9/11?  Stop the 9/11 Cover Up!” sign, when a Kansas City hook and ladder truck drove by, and blasted its horn and all four firefighters gave me a thumbs up. 

Although other firefighters didn’t all come out and accuse Giuliani of being involved or at least a knowing accomplice in the demolition of WTC 7, but the fury firefighters showed for Rudy, indicate that they may have been saavy to it.  This may have added fuel to the fire of the spontaneous protests of “9/11 Mayor” Rudy that haunted him throughout the nation. 

Rosie O’Donnell and Joy Behar on ABC’s The View, also brought up the inconsistencies with corporate media’s coronation of Rudy as “Mr. 9/11” and his real record on 9/11/2001, which was not only sad but suspicious. 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oFEDtrEqBPI 

October, 2007, 9/11 truth activists WeAreChange Florida confronts Rudy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7GDz-MJfBM 

In November of 2007, 9/11 truth activists confront Rudy in Loveland Colorado:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dIy6MAdtOjA 

In November of 2007, 9/11 truth activists WeAreChange confront Rudy in Minnesota:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qCIq19-ryIA 

Nov. 2007, 9/11 activist calls in on C-SPAN to National Review writer regarding Rudy’s WTC 7 warning, and his false denial of it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UFSXR5-vyqQ 

These types of videos go on and on.  9/11 truth activists are having an impact in our nation, but those who don’t know about it will deny it . . . WHY?    Because corporate media denies it. For a fanciful few in America who ONLY get their media from corporate news . . . that is their reality, even though it is not reality. 

Reality is that 9/11 truth is growing and gaining strength.  So, why did the corporate media and the powers that be allow the fall of Rudy?  We know they can be kingmakers by selectively giving good or bad press.  We know they can manipulate voting machines, vote counting machines, and even paper votes. 

It well may be that they broke their deal with Rudy, even though he did his job and got rid of the WTC forensic evidence.  Because as 9/11 truth grew and spread throughout the world, and protests grew larger and more forceful . . . having a President Rudy would keep the demand for 9/11 truth at a fever pitch.  The powers that be may have simply dumped their errand boy, to save having to work harder to keep the cover up going. 

But 9/11 truth seekers will not give up, they will never give up, so long as the lie stands.   

NOW WE NEED TO BREAK THE MEDIA BLOCKADE, TO GET 9/11 TRUTH INTO THE MAINSTREAM DIALOGUE.  HOW? 

On January 22nd, 2008 an explosive new novel by NY Times best selling author, Steve Alten was released.  “The Shell Game” is a powerful truth telling edu-tainment novel that uses real quotes as chapter lead ins including quotes from 9/11 researchers David Ray Griffin and Mike Ruppert. Their books are linked to from the book’s website http://www.theshellgame.net/ and also video trailers that alert Americans they’ve been lied to about the wars and about 9/11. 

If you know the nation has been lied to about 9/11, and want millions more to join you in demanding a new 9/11 investigation . . . you have a tremendous opportunity to make that happen.  VIEW THE BELOW BOOK TRAILER, AND SHARE IT WIDELY:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OioYWUmRcuw[/youtube]

Do everything you can for the next 90 days to get as many people as possible to get “The Shell Game” available at all major book stores and sellers.  WHY? 

If we as a 9/11 truth movement can drive this to #1, we can break 9/11 truth into the mainstream. Now is the time to really dedicate yourself.  Use the links and video trailers at http://www.theshellgame.net/ to email, blog, post, and get out any way you can as wide, far and fast as you can. 

Urge all you send it to to do the same. We can make history.  This successful author has put his career on the line to write this explosive novel.  It has 90 days to soar or fall.  We can make it #1, and force corporate media to cover 9/11’s lies.

Have Your Say: Was 9/11 Truth Giuliani’s Demise?
Please read our posting guidelines before posting.
Alternatively you can discuss this report in our forum .

9/11 - Was the Bush administration complicit?

Thursday, January 31st, 2008

by Citizen Sage

The unanswered questions about 9-11 can no longer be ignored. A new, more comprehensive investigation by the US Congress is required, given all of the unusual circumstantial evidence on 9-11. Although it happened 6 years ago, the questions just won’t go away. Unless such an investigation is done, the conspiracy theories will only gain more traction with the American people and call into doubt what really happened forever more. Because of the importance of 9-11 in launching America on a War on Terror and wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the issues demand closer review, than what now appears to have been a whitewash by the first 9-11 Commission.

In Project for a New American Century, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and other prominent neo-cons called for a new “Pearl Harbor” in order to create a pretext for curtailing American civil liberties and embarking on pre-emptive wars against regimes they did not like. It is now known that Cheney, Rumsfeld and other neo-cons within the Bush Administration were planning a war on Iraq long before 9-11, just as they are now planning for pre-emptive strikes on Iran in defiance of the wishes of the majority of the American people.

On 9/11/2001, Dick Cheney was coordinating multiple war games intended to prepare for the type of terrorist strike that happened. Due to the war games, military personnel that would otherwise be available to respond to 9-11 were otherwise engaged. Cheney instructed NORAD defenses to stand down that day. He even instructed that flight 77 be allowed to proceed without being intercepted. Why would that be, if it was not a false flag event?

After the first plane flew into WTC, George W. Bush was strangely unperturbed and continued to read a book to elementary school children, despite it obviously being an disaster of international proportions. When he finished his visit to the school, he was unable to reach Dick Cheney for an additional period of about 20 minutes, vital time that could have been used to send rescue helicopters to WTC. Could it be that it was not a complete surprise?

George W. Bush claimed that there were no prior indications of a 9-11 event, however in August, he received an intelligence briefing report that specifically indicated that Osama Bin Ladin was thought to be planning a major terrorist event and that hijacking of planes was a possible scenario. A NORAD war game planning event before 9-11 made specific reference to Osama and hijacking. There were numerous warnings from foreign intelligence services indicating a heightened risk for terrorism. However, Bush was either ignoring these indicators and/or being dishonest about it.

Marvin Bush, George W. Bush’s brother, was directly responsible for the security of the World Trade Center buildings from the 1992 terrorist bombing attack until September 11, 2001. Ownership of the WTC buildings was changed and insurance for terrorist acts was increased dramatically only several weeks before 9-11.

Various survivor/witnesses of 9-11 reported hearing explosions just before and as the buildings collapsed. Authorities attempted to suppress these stories. Brigham Young Physics Professor J. Jones analyzed dust from the collapsed WTC buildings and found evidence of demolition explosives. When the buildings collapsed, they came down at free fall speed, despite having been built to withstand many times their weight and specifically, a plane wreck. Photos of the metal beams show visual evidence of liquidization of the metal, due to demolition chemicals. Videos of other high rises that were purposefully felled by demolition show similar free fall characteristics.

However, where demolition was not done, collapsed high rises do not fall so neatly and larger pieces remain standing. The heat required to melt the structural elements of the WTC buildings would not be created by aircraft fuel, similar to kerosene. Also, the amount of debris from the WTC buildings’ should have been much greater and there should have been many more larger pieces of debris if the building’s collapse did not involve additional accelerants.

Some analysts indicate that the preponderance of fine dust is indicative of possible use of small hydrogen bombs, of the type only available from Israel’s Dimona Nuclear Reactor. There were several suspicious Israelis who were detained after the 9-11 WTC terrorist explosions, apparently after being seen repeatedly giving each other “high five” celebratory congratulations. They were quitly released, without explanation. This sequence of events could be seen as eerily paralleling what happened in 1967 when Israel was accused by American survivors of deliberately attempting to sink the USS liberty and kill all aboard. Israel has a history of fabricating pretexts for pre-emptive strikes on Arab neighbors, including in 1956 and 1967 against Egypt. Israel has been a srong proponent first of the war on Iraq and now on Iran.

That the FBI confiscated and destroyed all photos of the plane that hit the Pentagon on 9-11 begs the question of why all the secrecy, if there was nothing to hide? Sure, there was damage done and people killed, but why no photos of the airplane as it came in or after it collided? Some conspiracy theorists believe it might have been a different plane or even a missile that hit the Pentagon. Some believe that one of the planes that hit the WTC was actually a Boeing fueling plane

Why WTC7 collapsed at 5:30 pm, many hours after the planes collided into the other two towers is very curious indeed. It also fell without any resistence from its structual beams. Physics cannot explain how that would hapopen unassisted. The only logical explanation is that it was helped along with demolition charges and indeed such evidence was found in the debris.

Despite assurances that a recurrence of 9-11 was impossible, five years later, a small plane again flew into a New York City highrise. This time it was an American baseball player who was the pilot and it was an apartment building that was hit. What if it had been al-Qaeda and the plane had been full of explosives? Just as with the WTC terrorist event, there was not a single government official who took responsibility for allowing this to happen! If Americans had to give uyp civil liberties, due tot he so-called “Patriot Act”, why shouldn’t someone in government be required to accept responsibility and resign? In other countries, that would happen.

Whether there was active participation by the Bush Administration or 9-11 was merely allowed to happen, whether or not there was involvement by Israelis or even whether or not it was perpetrated by al-Qaeda, we deserve a full and open investigation. There are enough loose ends that 9-11 conspiracy theorists will always be convinced that we were not given the whole story, unless a comprehensive investigation is made public. We deserve to know what really happened, regardless of where the chips fall. The implications are too profound to ignore and pretend that it has been put to rest. The evidence points towards a cover-up or worse. The issues are too serious to leave things as they are. America deserves answers, not obsfucation.

Have Your Say: 9/11 - Was the Bush administration complicit?
Please read our posting guidelines before posting.
Alternatively you can discuss this report in our forum .

9/11 Commission Secret White House Ties?

Thursday, January 31st, 2008

Book Charges Zelikow May Have Interfered With the 9/11 Commission’s Report

By JUSTIN ROOD

The former executive director of the 9/11 Commission denies explosive charges of undisclosed ties to the Bush White House or interference with the panel’s report.

The charges are said to be contained in New York Times reporter Philip Shenon’s unreleased book, “The Commission: The Uncensored History of the 9/11 Investigation,” according to Max Holland, an author and blogger, and generally confirmed by the book’s publisher. Although the book is not slated to hit stores until early next month, Holland says he bought a copy of the audio version at a bookstore. (Attempts to purchase the book, in any format, at the Barnes & Noble across the street from ABC News headquarters were unsuccessful.)

9/11 Commission co-chairs Tom Kean and Lee Hamilton hired former Condoleezza Rice aide Philip Zelikow to be executive director, Zelikow failed to tell them about his role helping Rice set up President George W. Bush’s National Security Council in early 2001 – and that he was “instrumental” in demoting Richard Clarke, the onetime White House counterterrorism czar who was fixated on the threat from Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda, according to Holland’s version of Shenon’s tome.

“[Zelikow] had laid the groundwork for much of what went wrong at the White House in the weeks and months before September 11. Would he want people to know that?” Shenon writes, according to Holland.

Zelikow denied that was the case. “It was very well-known I had served on this transition team and had declined to go into the administration. I worked there for a total of one month. I had interviewed Sandy Berger, Dick Clarke and most of the NSC staff.” He noted he recused himself from working on the section of the panel’s report addressing the NSC transition, and that other staffers had held conflicting positions in the Clinton administration.

In his book, Shenon also says that while working for the panel, Zelikow appears to have had private conversations with former White House political director Karl Rove, despite a ban on such communication, according to Holland. Shenon reports that Zelikow later ordered his assistant to stop keeping a log of his calls, although the commission’s general counsel overruled him, Holland wrote.

Zelikow told ABC News he was under no prohibition that barred his conversations with Rove, and did not recall asking his assistant to stop logging his calls, although he did speak to her about leaving phone messages in a publicly visible place. “Two other people took my calls as well, and neither have a recollection” of Zelikow asking for calls not to be logged, he said. Further, Zelikow said 9/11 Commission general counsel Daniel Marcus did not raise the matter with Zelikow at the time.

Reached by phone Wednesday afternoon, Marcus declined to confirm or deny the events.

Zelikow flatly denied discussing the commission’s work with Rove. “I never discussed the 9/11 Commission with him, not at all. Period.”

What’s more, the idea of Zelikow and Rove conspiring over the commission’s work was unrealistic, the ex-director indicated. “I was not a very popular person in the Bush White House when this was going on. There’s a lot of carryover of that to this day.”

Holland reports that Shenon discovered some panel staffers believed Zelikow stopped them from submitting a report depicting Rice’s performance as “amount[ing] to incompetence, or something not far from it.”

“I don’t think that staffers will bear that out,” Zelikow said. Out of 85 staffers, half a dozen were disgruntled, Zelikow told ABC News. “Under the circumstances, that was a pretty low fraction,” he said. “But they all talked to Shenon.”

Halfway into the panel’s operation, Zelikow told his bosses under oath of the once-hidden ties, Holland’s blog says Shenon’s book reports. Upon hearing the details, Shenon writes, Marcus concluded Zelikow “never should have been hired,” according to Holland.

“That’s not right,” Marcus said when told of the account. “That’s certainly not true.”

Shenon directed calls to his publisher, Twelve Books, a subsidiary of Hachette Book Group.

Cary Goldstein, a spokesman for Hachette, confirmed the blog’s characterization of the book’s contents, but said he could not confirm direct quotes.

“It’s not a surprise,” Goldstein said when asked his reaction to the leak of the book’s details before its Feb. 5 publication date. “I think people are really curious to see what the report had looked like if it hadn’t been neutered in [the panel's] effort to be unanimous.”

Have Your Say: 9/11 Commission Secret White House Ties?
Please read our posting guidelines before posting.
Alternatively you can discuss this report in our forum .

Insights of a Lawyer: Was 9/11 an Inside Job?

Sunday, January 27th, 2008

by Hal. C. Sisson, QC

In mid January 2008 united 9/11 Truth Movements across Canada, spearheaded by Victoria and Vancouver branches, sent a petition letter to the heads of all Canadian political parties and to every Member of Parliament. The letter requested two things:

a.    A call for a new investigation into the events of September 11, 2001 by an independent and impartial tribunal, plusb.    Open discussion in Parliament of, or a national referendum on, the proposed integration of Canada, the United States and Mexico into a North American Union, under the Security and Prosperity Partnership agreement, (originally signed in 2005 in Waco Texas by then Prime Minister Paul Martin); an Agreement that has never been discussed outside of a cabal of senior government officials and military and corporate leaders.

The first request (a) follows in the wake of questioning in the Japanese Parliament (Diet) by Yukihisa Fujita of the Japan Democratic Party, as to the conspiracy theory of 9/11 presented by the U.S. Bush Administration. He asked just how terrorists could possibly have attacked the Pentagon and the World Trade Center.

Six years ago the U.S. Administration and their intelligence agencies stated they would present convincing evidence that foreigners of a Muslim Arab persuasion were the perpetrators of the tragic crime of 9/11. This evidence has never yet been forthcoming. People ask why? Can’t the United States prove their allegations in court? And why does the FBI say they have no hard evidence of the involvement of Osama bin Laden?

On the other hand, millions of people around the world have amassed a great deal of solid evidence of incomplete investigation, missing evidence, unsubstantiated conclusions and outright lies as to the facts and the full story of 9/11. So much so that it is impossible not to conclude that at the very least the events were in some measure allowed to happen - the motive being the persuasion of the American public to condone the wars with Afghanistan and Iraq — and is Iran next?

The Japanese queries were presented at about the same time as former Italian President Francesco Cossiga told Italy’s oldest and most widely read newspaper, the Corriere della Sera, that the 9/11 attacks were an inside job and that all the intelligence services in America and Europe know it was an inside job of a false flag nature.

Who else is of the same opinion? Twenty-five former U.S. military officers have severely criticized the official account of 9/11 and called for a new investigation. They are among the rapidly growing number of military and intelligence service veterans, scientists, lawyers, university professors, engineers and architects challenging the Bush government’s story. Former German Secretary of Defence Andreas von Bulow said, “The official story is so inadequate and far-fetched that there must be another one.”

Every action the U.S. government or its intelligence services take, good, bad or indifferent, is now prefaced by the words “since 9/11 we have to do this, we have to do that, we have to do the other” — every atrocity anywhere in the middle east or in the world is immediately attributed to a vague group called al Qaeda and the concept of a perpetual but profitable to some ‘War on Terror’.

The Canadian Government can no longer deny that the official story told by the Bush Administration is complete nonsense. This discredited version of 9/11 events as promulgated by the Bush Administration is the justification for Canada’s bloody involvement. If Bush’s version of 9/11 is a lie, like his story on “weapons of mass destruction”, then Canada must ask why it should continue to sacrifice its sons and daughters and spend its resources in a distant country that never attacked or threatened Canada’s security.

Truthers think that the Canadian Parliament should seriously and openly discuss and investigate these matters before they continue their present course of action or run the risk of being drawn into wider conflicts in Iran and Pakistan That is why they are calling on the Canadian Government to launch its own independent investigation and Official Enquiry into 9/11

Addressing point (b) - the request that there be an open parliamentary discussion of the so-called Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) agreement (a grandiose extension of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)). The most recent meeting was August 20, 2007 when Stephen Harper, President George W. Bush and Mexican President Felipe Calderon went to Montebello, Quebec for a secret meeting of the SPP, more transparently described as the North American Union, part of the larger Globalization agenda called the New World Order. Many organizations including 9/11 Truth tried and are trying to inform Canadians what was and is being discussed in a veil of secrecy and a deafening wave of silence from the Canadian and American media. Big decisions at committee level are being made behind closed doors while publicly masking the true intention.

This writer proposes to use a cautionary tale to illustrate the approach that should be taken before entering any Agreement whose implementation involves the dismantling of Canadian sovereignty, and which seeks, in the words of MP Denise Savoie, ‘to merge our security policies and practices with those of the United States, leaving Canada with a government with less authority, less control over our natural resources and less autonomous and sustainable economic, social, cultural and environmental policies’.

Warning – the anecdote I am about to relate contains a scene involving sex and therefore may not be acceptable to the sensibilities of those who wish to remain unaware that such an activity may be rampant in our society. Reader discretion is therefor strongly advised:

“Fast Eddy wanted desperately to have sex with this really cute, really hot girl in his office… but she was dating someone else. One day Eddie was so frustrated that he went to her and said, “I’ll give you $100 if you let me have sex with you…“

The girl looked at him, and then said, “NO!”

Eddie said, “I’ll be real fast. I’ll throw the money on the floor, you bend down and I’ll finish by the time you’ve picked it up.”

She thought for a moment and said that she would consult with her boyfriend… so she called him and explained the situation. Her boyfriend says, “Ask him for $200, and pick it up the money real fast. He won’t even be able to get his pants down.”

She agreed and accepts Fast Eddy’s proposal. Over half an hour goes by and the boyfriend is still waiting for his girlfriend’s call. Finally, after 45 minutes the boyfriend calls and asks, “What happened…?”

Still breathing hard, she managed to reply, “The bastard had all quarters!” …

The lesson to be learned here is one of business management, and certainly is one that should be adopted by the Canadian Parliament in relation to the SPP — “Always consider a business proposition in its entirety before agreeing to it. Otherwise you are likely to get screwed!”

And if the Canadian public doesn’t want to be forever picking up Fast Eddy’s American quarters they had better figure out how to stop the SPP, now, before it is too late.

About the writer:

Hal Sisson, Q.C., R.C.A.F. armourer in World War II, is a reformed lawyer who practiced law in Peace River, Alberta for thirty-five years and has been resident in Victoria, B.C. since 1985. Author of ten published books including the best selling Coots, Codgers and Curmudgeons (with his partner Justice Dwayne Rowe); and his latest Modus Operandi 9/11 that exposes the White House lies about 9/11, the machinations of the New World Order and the “War on Terror”, and does so featuring salty humour in the form of a novel. International croquet and marble player and collector, his major hobby was stand-up comedy and writing and performing in Western Canada’s longest running (25 years) burlesque revue, Sorry ‘Bout That. LINK.

Have Your Say: Insights of a Lawyer: Was 9/11 an Inside Job?
Please read our posting guidelines before posting.
Alternatively you can discuss this report in our forum .

9/11 Truth: How I Came To Distrust the Official Version

Sunday, January 27th, 2008

By Stephen Demetriou 

 From 2001 through most of 2007, I didn’t think much about this subject. I had casually wondered if the fires could actually be responsible for bringing the towers down, thinking about the heat and thermodynamics necessary to weaken the steel columns. I have an undergraduate degree in chemistry, and find thermodynamics very interesting. The idea that fires fueled by office materials and jet fuel (enhanced kerosene) could weaken steel beams, resulting in total failure of the entire structure seemed vaguely unlikely. After all, there have been other large steel-structured office building fires that had not resulted in complete, catastrophic collapse, but I didn’t dwell on my vague doubts.

I have since learned there have been no complete, catastrophic collapses of steel-framed buildings due to fire recorded, ever, like these. There have been partial collapses, involving a few floors, and considerable damage due to fire, but no complete collapses ever of steel-framed buildings. On 9/11, we are given to believe there were three.

In September of last year I read an article on “conspiracy theories” about 9/11, and I learned of the website I wrote about this past October, www.patriotsquestion911.com. This site is nothing more than a compilation of names of people who have publicly questioned the official account, and their statements. It is not an organization, or membership association; the people on the list are not necessarily associated with one another in any way, except for having doubts about 9/11 and having made public statements to that effect. Names on the list include Louis Freeh, former FBI director, Wesley Clark, Ron Paul, Paul Craig Roberts, a former Assistant Sec. Of the Treasury, Curt Weldon, Mary Shiavo, former Inspector General US Dept of Transportation, Col. Robert Bowman, Dennis Kucinich, Morgan Reynolds, former Chief Economist in the Bush Labor Department, with about one thousand other people who have doubts about the official explanation of the 9/11 attacks. A quick look at this list will give you a sense of the caliber and qualifications of those who have spoken out in one way or another about these events.

            Two other names on this list are men I have read extensively in the past four months: Dr. David Ray Griffin, and Dr. Steven E. Jones. Dr. Griffin is a PhD professor emeritus of religion and philosophy at Claremont College in Calif. Dr. Steven Jones is a PhD physicist formerly with Brigham Young. Both have long established academic careers, have published numerous books or articles, and are respected intellectuals in their fields.

            Dr. Jones has well established academic and research credentials for his work with metal-catalyzed fusion. His work has been reproduced and confirmed by independent labs in a couple of countries. Overcoming initial controversy to his findings, his fusion results are now considered the basis for further work. Examining evidence taken from the World Trade Center site he employs the accepted forensic techniques of analysis arson investigators use. He has confirmed a “eutectic” of sulfur in once-molten steel, which a FEMA analysis also found but did not explain, and confirmed the presence of once-molten iron spheres the USGS discovered in dust samples. These samples contain evidence suggestive of explosives: sulfur, aluminum, barium, manganese, with other compounds, in unusually high concentrations.

            Dr. Griffin has exhaustively examined the 9/11 Commission report. Comparing known reports gathered from the news media, from authors, academics, government documents, Dr. Griffin has written extensively on the evidence the Commission focused on in great detail, and the evidence it inexplicably omits. And the devil really is in those details. Many people hold the Commission report in high regard as the most complete investigation of the events of 9/11. Dr. Griffin’s books convincingly show that the evidence in support of the official conspiracy theory received special treatment, while witnesses who brought contrary testimony, along with those who came forward but were ignored, are inexcusably rejected or marginalized, their evidence unreported.

Scant mention is made in the Commission report of the documented meetings of the chief of Pakistani intelligence at the time, General Mahmoud Ahmad, with CIA director Tenet, officials from the Pentagon, the State Department, and National Security Agency from Sept 4 through Sept. 13, 2001. The report completely denies what the Times of India discovered, and which the Wall Street Journal editorialized, “…US authorities sought [Ahmad’s] removal after confirming the fact that $100,000 were wired to WTC hijacker Mohammed Atta from Pakistan by Ahmad Umar Sheikh at the instance of Gen. Mahmoud…” Instead the Commission report states, “…we have seen no evidence that any foreign government – or foreign government official – supplied any funding.”

The back-stories of halted FBI investigations, credible whistleblowers silenced by federal gag orders, FBI field agents’ reports of suspicious behavior ignored, or requests for warrants altered or denied, all make compelling arguments for foreknowledge and complicity by some in the administration. But all these are difficult to prove to the satisfaction of a court of law.

The science, though, is compelling. Pools of flowing molten iron were found under the rubble of the three World Trade Center buildings. They persisted for 100 days. Office material fires simply cannot produce heat to melt steel or iron. Both the National Institute of Standards and Technology and FEMA studies clearly state that fact in their reports, and neither study so much as attempted to answer the question of what caused those pools of molten metal. And then there is Building 7. Not hit by a plane, not substantially damaged by the other collapses, Building 7 fell straight down in the exact same manner as if by controlled demolition. To this day, no official explanation has been issued explaining how this happened.

I no longer have vague doubts. I have important questions. Nearly 3000 people were murdered on September 11, 2001, and even the accused perpetrators have not been brought to justice. I am one of many calling for a new, independent investigation into 9/11. The elaborate cover up we have now is an utter disgrace to this country, and the basis for what many scholars consider near tyranny.

Have Your Say: 9/11 Truth: How I Came To Distrust the Official Version
Please read our posting guidelines before posting.
Alternatively you can discuss this report in our forum .

Firefighter: Giuliani ‘ran like a coward on 9/11′

Thursday, January 24th, 2008

David Edwards and Adam Doster

Raw Story

Families of firefighters killed in the Sept. 11 terror attacks on the World Trade Center rallied in Orlando Tuesday in anticipation of the state’s upcoming Republican primary. Unfortunately for Presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani, the firefighters are not in his corner.

“We want America to know that [the Giuliani campaign] is lying to America and to the American pubic,” said Jim Riches, a deputy chief in the New York Fire Department, “telling all of Florida that the New York City Fire Department backs him, when that’s another lie.”

Firefighters and their families vowed to dog the former New York mayor at all of his Florida campaign stops because the state figures prominently in Giuliani’s big-state primary strategy. The protesters think that Giuliani was aware that firefighters who responded to the World Trade Center attack were carrying defective radios and did not hear the order to evacuate.

“He didn’t prepare us before, during, or after,” says Riches.

Giuliani has campaigned strongly on his leadership during the attacks on New York, claiming he is the best suited to prevent an “Islamic terrorist war against us.” But the firefighters were quick to question that courage.

“Yeah, the decision he made was, which direction he was going to run,” says Riches. “And he ran north, and that’s all he did.”

The Giuliani campaign labeled the display a misleading, partisan attack. The former mayor is also emphasizing his ability to deal with the economy, distancing himself from the 9/11 pitch.

This video is from CNN.com, broadcast January 22, 2008.

Have Your Say: Firefighter: Giuliani ‘ran like a coward on 9/11′
Please read our posting guidelines before posting.
Alternatively you can discuss this report in our forum .

Related News

• The ‘uncensored’ history of the 9/11 Commission
• How Karl Rove and Torture Influenced the 9/11 Report
• 9/11 Commission Secret White House Ties?
• U.S. Reportedly Planning $20B Saudi Arms Deal
• Bin Laden Firm to Build Saudi Arabian Prisons to Replace Guantanamo Bay

This entry was posted on Friday, February 29th, 2008 at 7:13 pm and is filed under 9/11 Truth, Latest News . You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.