London Evening Standard: An explosion of disbelief - fresh doubts over 9/11
London Evening Standard

An explosion of disbelief - fresh doubts over 9/11 - thisislondon.co.uk

09.02.07
A new film alleges the U.S. staged the 9/11 disaster to justify the Iraq war

The official story of what happened on 9/11 never fails to shock. Four American airliners are hijacked by Osama Bin Laden's terrorists in an attack on the heart of the Western world on September 11, 2001.

Two are deliberately flown into New York's famous Twin Towers, which collapse. A third rams into the United States defence headquarters at the Pentagon, in Washington D.C.

The last goes down in rural Pennsylvania, 150 miles north of the capital, after a tussle between the hijackers and some of the passengers onboard, whose bravery was recently portrayed in a Hollywood film, United 93.

Nearly 3,000 ordinary, decent Americans die in the attacks, provoking the U.S. President George W. Bush to mount a global war on terror, which leads to the invasion of Iraq, with Britain in tow.

Or that's how the official story goes.

Yet today, more than five years on, this accepted version of what happened on 9/11 is being challenged by a 90-minute internet movie made for 1,500 on a cheap laptop by three young American men. The film is so popular that up to 100 million viewers have watched what is being dubbed the first internet blockbuster.

The movie was shown on television to 50 million people in 12 countries on the fifth anniversary of 9/11 last autumn. More than 100,000 DVDs have been sold and another 50,000 have been given away. In Britain, 491,000 people have clicked on to Google Video to watch it on their computers.

Called Loose Change, the film is a blitz of statistics, photographs pinched from the web, eyewitness accounts and expert testimony, all set to hip-hop music. And it is dramatically changing the way people think about 9/11.

full article..its all coming out now...public hangings spring to mind,Blair,Bush,Cheney and co?...and the rest of the friggin 'jon' boys!

09.02.07
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23385010-details/An+explosi on+of+disbelief+-+fresh+doubts+over+911/article.do


A new film alleges the U.S. staged the 9/11 disaster to justify the Iraq war
The official story of what happened on 9/11 never fails to shock. Four American airliners are hijacked by Osama Bin Laden's terrorists in an attack on the heart of the Western world on September 11, 2001.

Two are deliberately flown into New York's famous Twin Towers, which collapse. A third rams into the United States defence headquarters at the Pentagon, in Washington D.C.

The last goes down in rural Pennsylvania, 150 miles north of the capital, after a tussle between the hijackers and some of the passengers onboard, whose bravery was recently portrayed in a Hollywood film, United 93.

Nearly 3,000 ordinary, decent Americans die in the attacks, provoking the U.S. President George W. Bush to mount a global war on terror, which leads to the invasion of Iraq, with Britain in tow.

Or that's how the official story goes.

Yet today, more than five years on, this accepted version of what happened on 9/11 is being challenged by a 90-minute internet movie made for 1,500 on a cheap laptop by three young American men. The film is so popular that up to 100 million viewers have watched what is being dubbed the first internet blockbuster.

The movie was shown on television to 50 million people in 12 countries on the fifth anniversary of 9/11 last autumn. More than 100,000 DVDs have been sold and another 50,000 have been given away. In Britain, 491,000 people have clicked on to Google Video to watch it on their computers.

Called Loose Change, the film is a blitz of statistics, photographs pinched from the web, eyewitness accounts and expert testimony, all set to hip-hop music. And it is dramatically changing the way people think about 9/11.

A recent poll by the respected New York Times revealed that three out of four Americans now suspect the U.S. government of not telling the truth about 9/11. This proportion has shot up from a year ago, when half the population said they did not believe the official story of an Al Qaeda attack.

The video claims the Bush administration was, at the very least, criminally negligent in allowing the terrorist attacks to take place. It also makes the startling claim that the U.S. government might have been directly responsible for 9/11 and is now orchestrating a cover-up.

Unsurprisingly, the film's allegations have been denied, even roundly condemned, by White House sources and U.S. intelligence services.

Only this week, the letters page of the Guardian newspaper was full of discourse about Loose Change, which was made by a trio of twentysomethings, including a failed film school student and a disillusioned ex-soldier.

Indeed, the movie's assertions are being explored by a number of commentators in America and Britain - including the former Labour Cabinet Minister Michael Meacher - who are questioning the official account of 9/11.

Mr Meacher, who last year proposed holding a screening of Loose Change at the House of Commons (he later changed his mind), has said of 9/11: "Never in modern history has an event of such cataclysmic significance been shrouded in such mystery. Some of the key facts remain unexplained on any plausible basis."

These words were written in a foreword for Professor David Ray Griffin's bestselling book, The New Pearl Harbour (a pointed reference to the conspiracy theory that President Roosevelt allowed the Japanese to assault the U.S. fleet in 1941, in order to force America into World War II).

Griffin, now nearing retirement, is emeritus professor at the Claremont School of Theology in California and a respected philosopher. While Loose Change is capturing the interest of internet devotees, Professor Griffin's equally contentious theories are receiving standing ovations in book clubs across the U.S.

Together, the book and the movie have raised the question: could the attack be a carbon copy of Operation Northwoods, an aborted plan by President Kennedy to stage terror attacks in America and blame them on Communist Cuba as a pretext for a U.S. invasion to overthrow Fidel Castro?

In other words, on a fateful September morning in 2001, did America fabricate an outrage against civilians to fool the world and provide a pretext for war on Al Qaeda and Iraq?

This, and other deeply disturbing questions, are now being furiously debated on both sides of the Atlantic.

Why were no military aircraft scrambled in time to head off the attacks? Was the collapse of the Twin Towers caused by a careful use of explosives? How could a rookie pilot - as one of the terrorists was - fly a Boeing 757 aircraft so precisely into the Pentagon? And who made millions of dollars by accurately betting that shares in United and American Airlines, owners of the four doomed aircraft, were going to fall on 9/11 as they duly did?

An extremely high volume of bets on the price of shares dropping were placed on these two airline companies, and only these two. In the three days prior to the catastrophe, trade in their shares went up 1,200 per cent.

Initially, like most people in America, Professor Griffin dismissed claims the attacks could have been an inside job.

It was only a year later, when he was writing a special chapter on American imperialism and 9/11 for his latest academic tome, that the professor was sent a 'timeline' on the day's events based entirely on newspaper and television accounts. It was then that he changed his mind.

And one of the most puzzling anomalies that he studied was that none of the hijacked planes was intercepted by fighter jets, even though there was plenty of time to do so and it would have been standard emergency procedure in response to a suspected terrorist attack.

Indeed, it is mandatory procedure in the U.S. if there is any suspicion of an air hijack. In the nine months before 9/11, the procedure had been implemented 67 times in America.

Readers of The New Pearl Harbour and viewers of Loose Change are reminded that it was 7.59am when American Airlines Flight 11 left Boston. Fifteen minutes later, at 8.14am, radio contact between the pilot and air traffic control stopped suddenly, providing the first indication that the plane might have been hijacked.

Flight 11 should have been immediately intercepted by fighter pilots sent up from the nearby McGuire Air Force Base in New Jersey. They could have made the journey to the World Trade Centre in three minutes.

But, surprisingly, F-15 fighter jets were instead ordered out of an airbase 180 miles away at Cape Cod. They appear to have flown so slowly - at 700mph, instead of their top speed of 1,850mph - that they did not arrive in time to stop the second attack, on the South Tower of the World Trade Centre. They were 11 minutes too late.

And this is not the only worrying question. Incredibly, the attack on the Pentagon was not prevented either. The defence headquarters was hit by the hijacked American Airlines Flight 77 at 9.38am. But fighter jets from Andrews Air Force Base, just ten miles from Washington, weren't scrambled to intercept it.

Instead, jets were ordered from Langley Air Force Base in Virginia, 100 miles away. By the time they arrived, Flight 77 had already hit the Pentagon.

So what of the fall of the Twin Towers?

The official version is that the buildings collapsed because their steel columns were melted by the heat from the fuel fires of the two crashed planes.

It is a mantra that has been repeated in White House briefings, official inquiries into 9/11, leaks by the American intelligence services and almost every TV documentary on the attack in the U.S. and Britain.

But, according to the allegations of Loose Change (which are endorsed by Professor Griffin), the science does not stand up. Steel does not begin to melt until it reaches around 2,800 degrees Fahrenheit, but open fires of jet fuel - such as those in the Twin Towers inferno - cannot rise above 1,700 degrees.

Professor Griffin and the makers of Loose Change are convinced the Twin Towers were deliberately blown up.

The film shows clip after clip of the towers coming down in one fell swoop to loud and distinct booms. Were they the sound of detonators being set off?

And the Pentagon attack? The hotly disputed theory of the film and Professor Griffin is that a passenger plane never hit the building at all.

The terrorist pilot, Hani Hanjour, was so slow to learn the fundamentals at flight school that his tutors reported him to the authorities for his incompetence five times.

How could he have guided the huge aircraft in such a complex manoeuvre into the building? And if he did, what happened to the aircraft?

The Loose Change narrator says: "The official explanation is that the intense heat from the jet fuel vapourised the entire plane. Indeed, from the pictures, it seems there was no discernible trace of a fully loaded Boeing 757 at the crash scene.

"But if the fire was hot enough to incinerate a jumbo jet, then how could investigators identify 184 out of 189 dead people found at the defence headquarters?"

Intriguingly, the narrator adds: "The only visible damage to the outer wall of the Pentagon is a single hole no more than 16ft in diameter. But a Boeing 757 is 155ft long, 44ft high, has a 124ft wingspan and weighs almost 100 tons.

"Are we supposed to believe that it disappeared into this hole without leaving any wreckage on the outside? Why is there no damage from the wings or the vertical stabiliser or the engines which would have slammed into the building?

"Remember how big the engines were," the film adds persuasively.

"If six tons of steel and titanium banged into the Pentagon at 530mph, they would bury themselves inside the building, leaving two very distinct imprints. And yet the only damage to the outer wall is this single hole."

And what of the Boeing's 40ft high tail? "Did it obligingly duck before entering the building?" asks Professor Griffin.

So if a commercial aircraft did not hit the building, what did? The wildest of all the theories in Professor Griffin's writings - echoed in Loose Change - is that the Pentagon was attacked by a military missile of some kind. Certainly, several onlookers quoted in the film claim that they saw a tiny aircraft piercing the defence HQ.

Another witness says it made a shrill noise, quite unlike a giant passenger plane.

So if it wasn't hijacked and flown by a terrorist into the Pentagon, what happened to Flight 77, last heard of on its way to Ohio?

No one knows. But one thing is sure, asserts Professor Griffin. Dick Cheney, the U.S. vice- President, and Condoleezza Rice, at the time President Bush's national security adviser, were in the White House bunker as the drama unfolded.

They, and their advisers, knew a hijacked aircraft was heading towards Washington. The obvious target was the White House, not the Pentagon. Yet Cheney and Rice were never evacuated from the White House. Did someone in high places already know that they were safe and that it was the Pentagon that was going to be the target?

Of course, no account of 9/11 by the conspiracy lobby is complete without a minute-by-minute observation of President Bush's behaviour.

He was hundreds of miles away in Florida, about to read a book to primary school children when the worst terrorist attack of the modern age happened.

The President reportedly showed little reaction when an aide told him that the first plane had crashed into the Twin Towers. Why not?

He, apparently, told the school's principal: "A commercial plane has hit the World Trade Centre, but we're going ahead with the reading thing anyway."

Then President Bush, who is also the commander-in-chief of the American military, settled down to recite My Pet Goat to a group of seven-year-olds.

He was interrupted a few minutes later by a whispered message in his ear from an aide that a second aircraft had hit the Twin Towers.

The President's face, captured by photographers at the school, remained completely passive. He showed no sign of emotion.

Now it must have been obvious a terrorist maelstrom was being unleashed on his country. But three days later, back in the American capital, he was a different man. By now he was certain that Osama Bin Laden and his Al Qaeda henchmen were to blame.

Surrounded by the Christian evangelist preacher Billy Graham, a cardinal, a rabbi and an imam, the President delivered a sermon in America's national cathedral in Washington.

The words he uttered are recounted by both Professor Griffin and the makers of Loose Change.

President Bush announced: "Our responsibility to history is already clear: to answer these attacks waged against us by stealth, deceit and murder and rid the world of evil."

The scene had been swiftly set for the West's war on terror.
_________________
http://www.mindcontrolforums.com/pro-freedom.co.uk/part_6.html

Yawn.

maestro - for once a useful post if controversial.

I have downloaded and watched the video, alright if you like conspiracies which you obviously do.

It was well known for instance that heavy shorting of the said airline companies did happen just prior to the 9/11, however it is also since known that the parties were acting on behalf of the terrorists.

Shame the assets were freezed, but hey that's business!

seawall...depends which terrorists you mean...beginnng with 'z'?

z?

No it was ascertained that they had Arab connections.

al-Qaeda

What a whole load of rubbish...just a means of making money by making this nonsense movie.

al queada is a fictional regime dreamt up by some idiot in MI5...the terrorists that did 911 and 7/7 were in the vicinity of both attacks...onethat springs to mind is the new york mafia man Rudi GULIANI

maestro - yes I'm sure..............

hlyeo98 - no harm in looking at an "alternative" perspective even if you think it's bonkers.

As to money making?

I watched it for free using maestro's link, as most seem to.

seawall...i'm serious mate

Read this

and this

maestro - in this land of free speech and thought, you can be serious if you want to, and why not?

Four unanswered questions that virtually make all the demolition conspiracy theories impossible 'til such time as if/when they are.

When were the alleged demolition charges placed?
Who placed them?
How many people placed them?
How long did it take?

An upset and enraged onlooker, remonstrating with the sickening, placard wielding truth movement fruitcakes at ground zero, was pacified with these words from a policeman, one of New Yorks finest.

Dont let the retards spoil your day

Navajo - I'm not taking sides, but I would ask where is the air plane wreckage from the Pentagon crash?

Planting of explosives in such a manner is not as difficult as you may have assumed however I have assumed that the collapse of the Towers was because of the excessive weight of the aircraft embedded in the structures, although in the back of my mind, I have a feeling the towers were constructed in such a way as to withstand any such collision.

It's always nice to see an alternative view, whatever I believe to be the truth.

seawallwalker.
-------

Inside the building. The fact the aircraft was travelling so fast accounted for the lack of wreckage outside. The largest parts left intact were undercarriage and engine parts, of which numerous photographs exist. Most of the passengers and crew were also identified via dna samples also found inside. Of course it goes without saying that you won't find any mention of that in maestro's loony (in it for the money) websites :o)

"The largest parts left intact were undercarriage and engine parts, of which numerous photographs exist."

Please show me where to find them.

I found them here dont worry, thank you

seawallwalker.

Re explosive demolition. One good example of how long it takes can be found on British companies that perform them. : If you insist I'll post the demolition co's URL.

A shopping mall in Manchester. I think it was four TEN story buildings. It took 6 months with dozens of men working. A dozen or so explosive experts and hundreds of charges placed in UNOCCUPIED buildings. Now maestro et al would have us believe that (in the mocking words of George Galloway) 'George Bush in his boiler suit blew up WTC7' eg.

Navajo - I don't need the link thanks.

I was unlucky enough to watch it live as it happened on TV on the day apart from the first crash, although I later saw the footage.

As far as maestro goes?

He loves to cause an effect, which is why he publishes these extreme articles on a regular basis.

Sorry to say I have reacted again, I was intrigued by the video, and I have now done plenty of digging as I had nothing else to do, it's the UFO conspiracy all over again.

A number of people have said that the US never went to the Moon and it was faked. One of the astronauts said that this rumour was put around by unbalanced attention seekers. I think the same comment applies here.

Just an asside. maestro informed people on various sites some time ago that he was selling Loose Change dvd's on ebay. 'Say no more' ;o)

Okay thanks

navajo baby...yeah for a 1..hardly going to get rich am i...even forked out for a bloody duplicator 250 that rejected 50% of dvds

That makes you an even bigger fool than your average conspiracy theory 'nut' :o)

yeah well..sold about 1000 so got the ball rolling...i was the first to sell it on Ebay,now hundreds are doing the same..even sold 300 on qxl...now i'm sitting back waiting for the shit to hit the fan

Tonight's BBC2 programme on the 9/11 Conspiracy theorists and "Loose Change" in particular buried it completely.

Completely! Only the the mentally challenged will still believe.

Quite agree - their conspiracy "evidence" has been shown to be flawed based on no real facts.

The true inside facts about the 7/7 London bombings
By James Casbolt, former MI6 agent February 18, 2007

The British and US government are stirring an atmosphere of animosity and hatred between white and Asian people in the UK, US and around the world. Whites verses Asians invents the excuse for the invasion of the Middle East. They are also looking for a minority to blame for the terrorism in the UK and US that the governments themselves are responsible for.

This is known as false flag terrorism. 'Al Qaeda' is an MI- 6, CIA organisation utilising Middle Eastern assets. These are big claims but this is backed up with evidence from my MI 6 contacts. My friend below was briefed in detail regarding what really happened on 7/7 and how the British Government were responsible.

James Casbolt- So you are saying the bombs were planted into the bus several days before the 7/7 London bombings

X10- Yes, the British government switched the safety checking team. When they went into the bus depot a few days before hand a trade union spokesman who was asked about this said he couldnt understand who the security was. He didnt recognise anybody. These were people who come into check the buses. They normally check the buses for things like suspension, braking systems and the security cameras. Instead of staying what is usually an hour or so these people were there for the entire day. When workers approached them and started making small talk they wrere basically ignored . So they had the feeling that these people were not regular security.

James Casbolt- So they were probably MI 5?

X10- They were MI 5. They were there primarily to make sure the video camera went off at a certain time. Which is of course what happened. Isnt it is amazing that on that day, this was similar to what happened with the cameras prior to the death of Princess Diana. All the security cameras that counted on 7/7, not the ones that didnt count, the ones that really counted weren't working. The security camera on that bus wasn't working on that particular day.

James Casbolt- So where did they plant the bombs on the bus?

X10- Inside the seats and under the floor. I know that the eye witness accounts of what happened were all at variance with one another. The BBC relied exclusively on a testimony given by a Scottish guy. The Scottish guy contradicted himself so many times and yet no one in the media asked him about these contradictory statements. He said in one report that he got off the front of the bus and in another report he said he left through the rear door. One report said he was the first out and another report he said was the last off the bus. So there appears to be a lot of confusion in terms of the report

James Casbolt- So the four Asian lads were they MI 5 assets?

X10- They were stooges

James Casbolt- Do you think they consciously knew they were working for MI5?

X10- No they werent working consciously for MI 5. They would just be a shadow team lured into London to be part of a covert programme of simulated attacks. They were paid to be in a certain place at a certain time to take part in a simulated attack. A company was running a simulated terror attack at the time. Those boys were part of that. They were told Your backpacks represent explosive devices but of course they aren't explosives

James Casbolt- So they were told this is just a dummy run

X10- It was a dummy run. They were part of the dummy run. They stopped their car just outside of Luton and they were briefed by somebody. When they left Luton of course, they didnt leave Luton at the time described because there was a cock up with train times. So whether they managed to get to London or not is an unknown because the video camera evidence has been shown to be faulty. There is a problem with the timing on some of the video footage.

James Casbolt- So they bought return tickets?

X10 - Yea, they bought return tickets. Of course you wouldn't but return tickets if you knew you were on a one way journey to hell. Some of the other reports that were briefly mentioned in the quality, alternative media and not the tabloid media. Then they were completely ignored by the controlled tabloid media, was one eye witness who was talking about the fact that as she was coming off the train were the bomb exploded. The police officer said Mind the hole! and he pointed to a huge blast which showed the metal structure of the under carriage facing upwards as if the bomb had blown upwards. This was the security services taking the extra insurance that in case any of the bombs that their agents had left on the train and those were ex MI 5, ex SAS people, that they would have had a back up, a contingency to make sure those explosions did take place. A number of reports reported more bombs than there were alleged terrorists.

James Casbolt- Why is it ex MI 5 doing it? Why is it not active MI5 agents?

X10- In a way there is no such thing as ex MI 5. Once your MI 5 youre always MI 5 (I would have to disagree with that statement as I managed to get away from my involvement with MI 6- James Casbolt). A lot of MI 5 people get jobs with other organisation that are similar in structure when they leave the security services. These organisations are usually part of the private sector. There have been a number of these organisations over the years. A very, very famous intelligence unit that used to work under Peter Mandelson involved in the oil business, and they announced a disclosure about three years ago. Norton Taylor who works for the intelligence part of the Guardian. He pointed out then that such organisations often announce their demise and its nothing of the sort. Its just disinformation or they just change into another company with exactly the same brief. There a lot of these little private organisations that soak up people who have left these intelligence services and they have them working on a private basis but more often than not they are contracted and they get work contracted out to them from the government

James Casbolt- So the four Asian lads, they were probably having their strings pulled by MI 5 officers

X10- Oh yea, absolutely without a doubt. They were runners, a dummy team. Ive spoken to a few people about the way in which dummy teams are run. They interest lads like that, what MI5 do is they say something like We want you to be part of a film, part of a dummy run working with the government and also working with BBC producers on developing scenarios in which terrorist attacks in the UK could take place. You get to London and then you do this, meet us at a certain place and we give you a thousand quid. Thats easy money and its easy money for what? Travelling to London, sitting on a train with a backpack for about half an hour or so and you collect your loot

James Casbolt- Do you think Mohammad Sidique Khan would have been a conscious MI 5 agent?

X10- He may have been paid by MI 5 to go through that on the TV. The same way as, there is another guy who is a known MI 5 agent. He used to be the sidekick of Abdul H the Muslim preacher. He was no 2. He was a Mr fixer and had links to all sorts of exotic quasi terrorist organisations, which are of course almost all run by British intelligence. I wish I could remember his name

James Casbolt- You said one of the ex SAS men who was responsible for the bombings was called Mcgreagor and he was disguised as a homeless person.

X10- That's what they do to blend in, well not blend in but to make them look conspicuous. If youve got a homeless person clutching an old Tescos bag or something you dont tend to look at him and say the guy looks like security threat

James casbolt- Can you explain what he did

X10- He was on the train and left a package with explosives in. The man who told me this, I developed a close relationship in the past and trusted him

James Casbolt- And this man was an MI 6 officer?

X10- Ex MI 6. He longer worked for them. Even in the days when I knew him he had already left the service. As far as the bus operations were concerned that was not his main topic. He was talking mostly about the people in the tube bombings. When all of the eye witness statements came up later on talking about the possibility that the bombs may have been placed under the buses, what the government did was put in a fail safe to make sure that even if some thing went wrong on the day with those people who were involved in the bombings themselves, they would at least have a secondary system to ensure the bombs exploded at exactly the time they wanted

James Casbolt- So would they have been set on timers?

X10- They were set on timers

James Casbolt- So they wouldnt have needed to remotely detonated?

X10- No. This whole remote system is quite strange because on the day itself Ian Blair took down all of the mobile phone communications. Everything was switched off. You couldnt make a mobile phone call. He knew in any event that there were no remote detonators and he was just covering his arse in case any curious journalists asked him a pertinent question later on. There were no remote detonations on the day at all. They were all personally delivered to the destinations

James Casbolt- What happened on the tube then?

X10- The agents were there at the exactly the right time they were supposed to be. If it was the actual case that those guys actually did get the train from Luton. I dont believe they got the train from Luton because apparently that train never turned up. But if they had got to London before hand which s probably the case, they would have had plenty of time to receive the briefing in London. They would have got on train. They would have then been followed by these ex MI 5, SAS officers so that they were actually in the same cart as the so-called juvenile bombers. It would have taken place as scheduled

James Casbolt- So the guys on the train who were ex MI 5, ex SAS, they left the explosives on the train and then got off. What were their names again?

X10- The ex MI 5 man was codenamed J-boy and Mcgreagor was the ex SAS guy

James Casbolt- And then you say they escaped in a Vauxhall cabriolet?

X10- Yes and they were driven away from the scene

James Casbolt- So your MI 6 contact confirmed it was a Vauxhall cabriolet?

X10- Yes

James Casbolt- So J-boy and Mcreagor left explosives in bags under the seats but there were secondary explosives under the train carriage (See photos. Ed.) in case they didnt go off

X10- Yes

James Casbolt- Do you know were the safe house was were Mcgreagor and J-boy went afterwards

X10- The safe house was in South London. This is a very unfortunate event that is going to be churning around in peoples minds for a long time to come. We need a proper public enquiry

To the government factions who were involved in this act of mass killing I say this. How dare you blow up and murder my British people! All those who are accountable will be held fully accountable when the time comes! That time is coming soon. In my vision I see Asian and white brothers and sisters coming together in love and harmony in this country. We will confront the government peacefully for their terrorist crimes.

James Casbolt
http://jamescasbolt.com/bombings.htm

Notes:
1 these people were not regular security: www.prisonplanet.com/articles/july2005/150705busbombing.htm

2 A company was running a simulated terror attack at the time: www.prisonplanet.com/articles/july2005/110705bombingexercises.htm

3 cock up with train times: www.financialoutrage.org.uk/thameslink_database.htm

4 Mind that hole: www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=3583

5 Mohammad Sidique Khan: www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=4260

6 See photos: www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=3583

For further background also see:

The Road To World War Three
www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=4121

Who Was Albert Pike?
www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=1086

How Could They Get it So Wrong?
www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=3478

"Only the the mentally challenged will still believe."

!!!!!

Look.

That can't be right.

I'm mentally challenged in many wa'heys and I do'hont believe!

Bebrill be brill bebrill dibblle dibble dibble drot.

Have a look at the rest of Casbolt's site. It's a laugh a minute.

UFO Spotter

Dunno MM, seems quite reasonable to me?

"They [MI6 and the CIA] are using this drug money to fund projects classified 'Above top secret' which include the building and maintaining of deep underground military bases (DUMBS). There are now over 4000 of these bases worldwide and the average depth of these bases is four and a quarter miles. Some are shallower and some are deeper. The bases are on average the size of a medium sized city and yes, he says there are aliens in them."

Also this hybrid human/alien looks quite feasible.

Producer Struggles to Defend Flaws & Bias of BBC Hit Piece
Guy Smith says 'we can debate these issues all day' without being able to debate any of them


Paul Joseph Watson & Alex Jones
Prison Planet
Tuesday, February 20, 2007

The producer of the BBC Conspiracy Files documentary, a poorly researched and bias hit piece against the 9/11 truth movement, appeared on the Alex Jones Show yesterday and struggled to defend charges that the program was laden with glaring flaws and crass emotional manipulation throughout.

Judge for yourself by listening to the MP3 audio.

Smith began by claiming that he conducted the investigation in an "objective and balanced way" and yet there were as many as thirteen individuals representing the official story or a whitewash version of it versus just three individuals representing 9/11 skepticism. How can a more than four to one ratio be judged as balanced? In addition, the debunkers were allowed to talk at length while the skeptics were tightly edited and had extremely little on screen time.

Smith is completely dishonest in claiming the evidence alone led the nature of the documentary because the way in which it is filmed and edited clearly betrays an overwhelming bias and a zeal to discredit the skeptics by means of editorial deceit and cinematic manipulation of the audience.

Smith was forced to state "no I'm not denying that" when he was questioned on the imbalance of having four times the amount of debunkers compared to skeptics.

Dylan Avery's first question for Guy Smith was to ask, "How can I drop out of something I never attended." In the hit piece, the narrator calls Avery a "self-confessed dropout," a clear smear attempt to undermine his trustworthiness, when in reality Avery never even attended college.

Smith bizarrely tried to wriggle out of this basic factual error by claiming that in England the term "dropout" doesn't mean to drop out of college or University, but merely to go a different route. Being British, I immediately confirmed that dropout, in the overwhelming majority of its usage and certainly in this context, means to have attended University or school and dropped out. It means the same thing in England that it does in America and a simple search of the BBC News website shows that the term 'dropout' is almost always used in this context. In claiming otherwise, Smith is dishonestly trying to hide from the fact that the term was deliberately used to undermine and smear Avery in the documentary.

Trying to change the meaning of words in the context they are used is a crass attempt to deflect accusations of bias and Smith needs to take a long and serious look at himself in the mirror.

When asked about the deliberate implosion of the twin towers, Smith responded, "We looked into that and we came to the conclusion that the evidence just doesn't support the conspiracy theory."

Unfortunately for Mr. Smith, the evidence the BBC was using to illustrate its ridiculous "pancake theory" collapse scenario, which was so implausible that even official NIST investigators had to back away from it, was a graphic animation that shows just ten floors collapsing every six seconds, meaning the BBC is telling us that the twin towers took around 66 seconds to collapse when in reality they fell in just fourteen.



Above is an excellent debunking of this animation and below you can see how the BBC used it to support their flawed case.



When challenged on this flaw, all Mr. Smith could say was "it's not misleading," despite the fact that anyone with two brain cells to rub together can look at it and see that it is. Guy Smith will probably recoil in embarrassment at the You Tube explanation above when he realizes he has used a completely flawed animation as the central supporting evidence for his advocacy of the official conspiracy theory that two modern 110 story steel buildings were demolished into small pieces and dust in under sixteen seconds without the use of incendiary devices.

When challenged why Smith failed to include the words of just one of the dozens and dozens of first responders, police and firefighters who heard and saw explosions, and namely Craig Bartmer, the former NYPD official who heard bombs tear down Building 7 as he ran away from it, Smith at first claimed ignorance to who Bartmer was, even though he had met and interviewed him at Dylan Avery's home.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Internet leader in activist media - Prison Planet.tv. Thousands of special reports, videos, MP3's, interviews, conferences, speeches, events, documentary films, books and more - all for just 15 cents a day!
Click here to subscribe!
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Smith says that he tried to "go back to primary sources, to eyewitnesses" when in reality the show gave 10 minutes to a Hollywood sci-fi producer of a show that went off the air five years ago, and there was no coverage whatsoever of the primary eyewitnesses who reported bombs and explosions, just one selective clip of a fireman talking about damage to Building 7's sprinkler system.

When challenged with why he didn't even mention firefighters who reported bombs, never mind use any of the literally dozens of video clips and audio segments from the official NYFD tapes, Smith had no answer and began talking about people who had complained that he gave too much air time to "conspiracy theorists," implying that a ratio of four to one in favor of the debunkers was not enough.

Smith began to sound like a broken record at this point, repeating the line 'we could debate this all day' and variations of it without ever actually being able to debate or defend the numerous flaws and bias throughout his hit piece.

The producer had the gall to claim he had looked at the evidence in an "objective and dispassionate" way when the documentary was laden from beginning to middle to end with emotional manipulation about how asking questions about 9/11 was insulting and hurtful to the victims, a ludicrous and cynical attempt to discredit the 9/11 truth movement. In reality, Bill Doyle, who lost his son in the attack, and represents the largest group of 9/11 victim's family members, says that over half of his members are asking the same questions, not to mention the Jersey Girls and numerous polls of New Yorkers that consistently show the majority believe there is a government cover-up surrounding 9/11.

When challenged on the notion that Smith had already come to a conclusion before filming for the show had even finished and therefore betraying an implicit bias, in addition to Alex Jones' claim that Smith laughed off 9/11 "conspiracy theories" in a restaurant meeting months before the show was aired, Smith stuttered before claiming he went into the project with an "open mind."

I would suggest Mr. Smiths blatant and offensive bias in producing this sham documentary comes as a result of his zeal to maintain his perch in the media establishment peanut gallery and on the BBC gravy train. Maybe its Mr. Smiths fear that because of journalistic cowardice in tackling the weapons of mass destruction farce, he realizes his role in the media is under threat because people dont trust the mainstream any more and are increasingly turning to the alternative press in search of truth.

The Conspiracy Files charade will ultimately only fan the flames of 9/11 truth even more, being that its flawed evidence, inherent bias and manipulative smear tactics will be obvious to those who still maintain the ability to think for themselves.

BBC Discredited; Retractions on 9/11 Hit Piece Forthcoming?
Complaint responses suggest consternation within corporation on revelations of bias in Conspiracy Files documentary, indicates large number of complaints received

The BBC's response to complaints made against the bias and inaccuracy of the 9/11 Conspiracy Files documentary suggests that an overwhelming backlash has caused considerable consternation at the network and possible retractions or apologies may be forthcoming, with BBC bosses potentially fearing the company's credibility has been tarnished.

Following the airing of the show on Sunday evening, numerous websites representative of the 9/11 truth movement issued precise and detailed rebuttals to what many saw as nothing more than an outright hit piece that used crass emotional manipulation, concocted evidence and cynical bias in an attempt to dismiss questions about the official story behind 9/11.

Appearing on the Alex Jones show on Monday, the show's producer Guy Smith offered little to defend against allegations that the program represented nothing more than yellow journalism and an attempt to create a strawman argument in the interests of debunking 9/11 skeptics.

From what can be gleaned from how the BBC is treating complaints made against the show, it seems that the backlash has forced the complaints to be passed up the chain of command and that the overwhelming response is forcing bosses to consider whether it might be necessary to issue retractions or clarifications in an attempt to calm the furore.

Here's the BBC's standard response to complaints being made about the Conspiracy Files program.

Thank you for contacting the BBC.

This is to let you know that we are dealing with your recent complaint but are waiting to clarify some points with other colleagues in the BBC before we reply more fully to you.

We will of course respond as soon as possible but trust you will understand that the time taken can also depend on the nature and number of the other complaints we are currently investigating. The BBC also issues public responses to issues which prompt large numbers of significant complaints and these can be read on our website at www.bbc.co.uk/complaints

We would be grateful if you would not reply to this email and, in the meantime, would like to thank you for contacting us with details of your concerns.

Regards
BBC Information

Because the BBC is funded solely through taxpaying British citizens via their TV license fee, the corporation is obliged to issue retractions and apologies if complaints about a particular broadcast are high. On most occasions, they are at least forced to clarify their position on their editor's blog website. 9/11 truth websites across the spectrum are encouraging readers to make complaints and so it's safe to speculate that the BBC has been inundated with them.

There have been numerous instances where BBC investigative programs have had to issue retractions and apologies due to faulty research or deliberate bias, a notable example being a 1999 Horizons documentary which sought to debunk the research of controversial archeologist Graham Hancock. An investigation upheld Hancock's complaint that his response to debunkers was not included in the show, and the BBC had to air the re-edited documentary.

The BBC divides complaints into four different categories - accuracy, bias, taste/standards and other. Since the Conspiracy Files farce displayed overwhelming inaccuracy in several claims it made, most notably the "pancake collapse" animation which even official NIST authorities have backed away from, and also betrayed patent bias in pitting thirteen debunkers against just three 9/11 skeptics, while ridiculing the character of the skeptics by means of false accusations and stereotyping, it fits into at least two of these categories.

We must push now for a retraction, an apology, or at the very least a clarification from the BBC in regards to this blatant hit piece. The basis for our accusations that the program was a hit piece are documented here and here.

Go to http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/make_complaint_step1.shtml and select "make an official complaint." Please be as polite as possible and remember that the person reading your complaint will most likely have no connection to the production of the hit piece. Be clear and concise in your complaint, and stick to the facts about the bias and inaccuracy of the program.

If the BBC are forced to respond to the backlash, it will deter other networks and producers from creating malicious hit pieces designed to discredit the 9/11 truth movement in future.
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/february2007/210207bbcdiscredited.htm