Monday, February 26, 2007

BBC Producer: There Was No Sympathetic Piece on the Deniers

In the week or so before the BBC aired their wonderful show on the 9-11 conspiracy theorists, Alex Jones tried to convince people that the Beeb had prepared two versions of the show; one sympathetic and balanced, and the other a "hit piece". Of course, according to Jones, the NWO insisted that the "hit piece" be aired.

According to the producer, there was no sympathetic piece and the one that aired was balanced.

Only trouble is there weren’t two versions, no-one bothered to check with us and, what's more, we worked very hard to make sure the programme was fair and balanced.

We didn’t find anything conclusive proving the conspiracy theories. Instead we found a lot of evidence which supported the official version and contradicted the various conspiracy theories.

Where there was some evidence of a conspiracy after the event to cover-up intelligence failures, we included that in the programme, together with an interview with Senator Bob Graham, who co-chaired a Congressional Inquiry into 9/11.

Hat Tip to an emailer who will remain anonymous for now.

Labels: ,


At 26 February, 2007 09:46, Blogger The Masked Writer said...

Speaking of BBC News, here is clear evidence of something fishy with WTC 7. This clip is remarkable. The reporter is reporting on the collapse of WTC7, aka, the Solomon Brother's Building. Pay particular attention to the reporter's statments and the news banner at the bottom. The segment begins at approx. 14:48 into the broadcast. Classic shit, debunkes, just classic.

1. Who issued a press release 23 minutes before the building collapsed stating that it had already collapsed???WTF!

Source: BBC World

At 26 February, 2007 09:47, Blogger Unknown said...

"fair and balanced"

BBC, just like Fox News.

At 26 February, 2007 10:24, Blogger Avery Dylan said...

Like, hey man I mean, they could always do it over!

At 26 February, 2007 12:13, Blogger Sword of Truth said...

Who issued a press release 23 minutes before the building collapsed stating that it had already collapsed???WTF!

Qualified engineers and firefighters predicted the collapse, remember? They created a safety zone around the building to prevent loss of life when it did collapse.

Obviously, some desk jockey in a news office somewhere got his signals confused and assumed it already had collapsed.

You're grasping at straws again, Sieg_Heiler.

At 26 February, 2007 12:16, Blogger James B. said...

1. Who issued a press release 23 minutes before the building collapsed stating that it had already collapsed???WTF!

Why would you assume that someone issued a press release? Did anyone need to issue a press release to announce the collapse of towers 1 and 2?

At 26 February, 2007 12:43, Blogger Unknown said...


Look into this some more. It's amazing.

At 26 February, 2007 12:45, Blogger Unknown said...

Link to Google Video as described above.

At 26 February, 2007 12:50, Blogger Sword of Truth said...

BG, your latest post came 1/2 an hour after I offered an explanation for the discrepancy so you can't claim you didn't read it.

Maybe you should explain to us why the scenario I described above should be ruled out?

At 26 February, 2007 13:03, Blogger The Reverend Schmitt., FCD. said...

BG said...

"fair and balanced"

BBC, just like Fox News.

Oh, yes, the frequent lament of the Conservative party: the BBC is leaning too far to the right.

At 26 February, 2007 13:03, Blogger undense said...

Lord knows the media never jumps the gun and releases bad or completely incorrect information in their haste to try to out-do each other. Therefore, if the Beeb reported that WTC7 had fallen before it actually did, there absolutely has to be some conspiracy and coverup! Like, ohmygawd!

Don't you dare question prima facia evidence if it suits the CT agenda. Only question it when it doesn't suit that agenda and then proceed to take conjecture and non-critical thinking into absolutely absurd and irrational places.

That ends today's lesson on how to be a CT. Feel free to attend tomorrow's class when we will discuss how thermite can be made from pack matches and baking soda, and hidden in kittens.

At 26 February, 2007 13:36, Blogger CHF said...

BG, Swing,

please enlighten us as to YOUR scenario.

Was the BBC tipped off on WTC7 ahead of time for no reason at all?

Or was it just a case of someone assuming it had already collapsed since its collapse was predicted by the FDNY several hours before hand?

At 26 February, 2007 13:46, Blogger CHF said...

The media were told that WTC7 would likely come down and the BBC obviously just got mixed up.

For more forknowledge of WTC7's collapse go here:

Ashleigh Banfield of MSNBC is interviewing a woman when WTC 7 collapses in the background.

Banfield: This is it!

Newsman Brian Williams: What we’ve been fearing all afternoon has apparently happened. We’ve been watching number seven World Trade, which was part of the ancillary damage of the explosion and collapse of the other two.

OOooooooo....creepy! If you're retarded.

BG and Swing are really showing their desperation with this one.

At 26 February, 2007 13:52, Blogger CHF said...

So there's 2 options here, kids.

1. BBC confused reports that WTC 7 was about to collapse, and reported that it had actually had. The anchor didn't actually know which building WTC7 was.

2. Silverstein and Bush released a statement about WTC7s collapse to the press and the BBC read it on air too soon.

Anyone here dumb enough to go with option 2?

At 26 February, 2007 14:14, Blogger Unknown said...

With all the crazyness that went on that day, it is a wonder anyone got anything right. They were saying for hrs on TV that they were worried about 7 collapseing

At 26 February, 2007 14:15, Blogger CHF said...

Keep in mind that these are the same tards who think Flight 93 landed in Cleveland.

Apparently they've learned nothing about media mistakes in chaotic situations.

At 26 February, 2007 14:34, Blogger Alex said...

So now the BBC was "in on it" too? Wow. So the never-ending list of conspirators continues to grow....

At 26 February, 2007 14:42, Blogger CHF said...

Check out the reaction over at Dylan's playpen.

The kids think this BBC video is their big momment - the missing link.

Don't they ever get tired of fooling themselves like this?

At 26 February, 2007 14:44, Blogger Jay said...

If i rememeber correctly, they reported multiple airplane hits on other buildings to that day, that never happenend. Guess the twoofers need every straw they can hang on. Sad bunch really.

At 26 February, 2007 14:45, Blogger James B. said...

BG, you avoided answering my questions. Why did you assume there was a press release? When were press releases issued announcing the collapse of towers 1 and 2, and by whom?

At 26 February, 2007 14:48, Blogger Jay said...

As long as the BBC is supporting in some way their idiotic ideas, the BBC is top notch!, if they totally burn down all the compsiracies, the BBC is a sad bunch. Make up your mind dammit, you goddarn toofers :)

At 26 February, 2007 14:54, Blogger CHF said...

If i rememeber correctly, they reported multiple airplane hits on other buildings to that day, that never happenend. Guess the twoofers need every straw they can hang on. Sad bunch really.

There were also reports of a car bomb and up to 8 jets hijacked, as I recall.

So I guess that means it was all covered up!

At 26 February, 2007 15:19, Blogger Jay said...

To bad u wont ever see those reports in a conspiracy nut video :)

At 26 February, 2007 15:36, Blogger shawn said...

BBC, just like Fox News.

Only a moron would say the BBC is like Fox News. They're polar opposites.

Oh, yes, the frequent lament of the Conservative party: the BBC is leaning too far to the right.

hahah bingo.

At 27 February, 2007 06:23, Blogger The Masked Writer said...

Yeah, the BBC screwed up. The building is still standing, but they report on detail of its collapse. Then the 'feed' is lost. Ok. Nothing to view here.

Who do you think told them everyone on the ground thought it was going to collapse or is going to be brought down as is the most likely scenario?
Or did the BBC just guess wrong?
Which BBC reporter on the ground, that reported back to BBC HQ reported the building had collapsed?

No one reporting for the BBC from ground level was credited with that in the initial report at BBC HQ.

Two, how does that translate into the building has already collapsed when it is sitting there behind them and it collapses 23 minutes later??

Three if they thought it had already collapsed, why wouldn't they have filmed it as they were already set up for the report?

Sure the press makes errors. However, when your sitting in front of the skyline that has the building behind it still standing and the host at BBC HQ reports on its collapse as well but with no video footage of the collapse, I find it difficult to brush it aside as an 'error'. Especially after the feed goes bad which is comical.

Keep making excuses fellas!

Hey James, you ever going to answer my request to post your concrete questions you have about the FAA and NORAAD? Or are you afraid by doing so you might be labeled a Troffer?

If i rememeber correctly, they reported multiple airplane hits on other buildings to that day, that never happenend.
Can you link to that? Two, when they reported on that was it a direct report from the ground or was it heresay?

There were also reports of a car bomb Truck bomb in the basement as stated by the FBI because of those huge explosions in the sublevels.
and up to 8 jets hijacked, as I recall. A result of the war game/ hijacking drills going on.

I'm inclined now to believe that Silverstein had the building CD, to save money from the costly repairs to the structure(replace those beams and the damage to the outside, the warnings at ground level, the claps of thunder, the footprint collapse, expert statements, BBC report, video footage of the firemen and police at ground level, etc.) It is all starting to add up boys so you keeping grasping at straws.

At 27 February, 2007 06:59, Blogger Unknown said...

Radar is the NEADS controllers' most vital piece of equipment, but by 9/11 the scopes were so old, among other factors, that controllers were ultimately unable to find any of the hijacked planes in enough time to react. Known collectively as the Green Eye for the glow the radar rings give off, the scopes looked like something out of Dr. Strangelove and were strikingly anachronistic compared with the equipment at civilian air-traffic sites. (After 9/11, NEADS was equipped with state-of-the-art equipment.)
In order to find a hijacked airliner-or any airplane-military controllers need either the plane's beacon code (broadcast from an electronic transponder on board) or the plane's exact coordinates. When the hijackers on American 11 turned the beacon off, intentionally losing themselves in the dense sea of airplanes already flying over the U.S. that morning (a tactic that would be repeated, with some variations, on all the hijacked flights), the NEADS controllers were at a loss.
"You would see thousands of green blips on your scope," Nasypany told me, "and now you have to pick and choose. Which is the bad guy out there? Which is the hijacked aircraft? And without that information from F.A.A., it's a needle in a haystack."
At this point in the morning, more than 3,000 jetliners are already in the air over the continental United States, and the Boston controller's direction-"35 miles north of Kennedy"-doesn't help the NEADS controllers at all.
Incredibly, Marr has only four armed fighters at his disposal to defend about a quarter of the continental United States. Massive cutbacks at the close of the Cold War reduced NORAD's arsenal of fighters from some 60 battle-ready jets to just 14 across the entire country. (Under different commands, the military generally maintains several hundred unarmed fighter jets for training in the continental U.S.) Only four of NORAD's planes belong to NEADS and are thus anywhere close to Manhattan-the two from Otis, now circling above the ocean off Long Island, and the two in Virginia at Langley.
The transcripts of the ATC's are available

At 27 February, 2007 08:19, Blogger Alex said...

If you really want to see what NEADS had to deal with that day, check out this graphical representation of air-traffic patterns on any typical day. It's stunningly beautiful, and more than a little awe-inspiring. I've always been aware that there are literally tens of thousands of aircraft in our skies every day, but seeing it like this really drives the point home.

At 27 February, 2007 10:56, Blogger CHF said...


I'm inclined now to believe that Silverstein had the building CD, to save money from the costly repairs to the structure

So now you're back to "pull it." Pathetic.

the warnings at ground level


the claps of thunder

Dozens of claps just before the building came down?

the footprint collapse

As opposed to....?

expert statements

Jowenko says the WTC towers were not CD, you stupid shit.

Yeah, we're grasping at straws alright.


At 27 February, 2007 18:51, Blogger Crungy said...

Dewey defeats Truman.

At 28 February, 2007 04:10, Blogger krizla said...

Come on people, it's just a BBC bit-piece. It's so obvious 9/11 was an inside job, you belive some guys from a cave in Afghanistan with box cutters did this? They had a NORAD stand-down, come on, ask questions! Who benefits?
Look at what a most respected and world famous Dutch demolition expert has to say when he first sees the video of WT7 collapsing:

At 28 February, 2007 05:19, Blogger krizla said...

At 28 February, 2007 13:52, Blogger Der Bruno Stroszek said...

Krizla, are you a parody? You seem to have fitted most of the Denier cliches into one post.

"You think a bunch of wogs in caves could do it?!!?!?! Not that we're racist or anything, but it was DA JOOOOOOOOOOZZZ!!!!11 Come on, ask yourself - who benefits? Ask yourself that because it's easier than finding substantial evidence."

By the way, Dylan Avery has benefitted from 9/11. So I guess he did it.


Post a Comment

<< Home