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.

"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