Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
Friday, June 20, 2008
The BBC is set to launch another savage smear attack on the 9/11 truth movement with two documentaries about the September 11 attacks and the 7/7 bombings that attempt to debunk evidence of government complicity and smear doubters of the official story as holocaust deniers, Neo-Nazis, and crop circle fanatics.
 |
|
 |
|
| The BBC has also completed a documentary on the 7/7 bombings, set to air in Autumn, which puts forward an individual called Nick Kollerstrom as the main proponent of “conspiracy theories” surrounding the 2005 London Underground attacks. | |
Having taken its rightful place alongside Popular Mechanics and The History Channel as one of the 21st century’s most plentiful peddlers of yellow journalism with their first 9/11 hit piece last year, “Auntie Beeb” is set to have another crack at the whip on July 6th when it airs a documentary about the collapse of WTC Building 7, the 47-storey skyscraper that imploded into its own footprint on 9/11 without being hit by a plane, called The Third Tower.
The preview clip for the show claims that the program will offer the solution to the “final mystery of 9/11,” presumably self-satisfied that the BBC’s previous woeful effort to debunk 9/11 truth dismissed the mountains of other contradictions and outright falsehoods of the official story.
Judging from the end of the clip, it seems as if the BBC is ready to violate the fundamental laws of physics and proclaim that fire caused the steel-framed building to collapse, an unprecedented event in history.
The making of the show was undoubtedly motivated by the BBC themselves having been shamed last year by footage that emerged of them reporting the collapse of Building 7 before it had happened, a revelation that prompted a series of blundering PR gaffes on behalf of the corporation and seemingly a vendetta against 9/11 truthers who bombarded the company with bad publicity at the time.
The BBC’s flustered attempts to adopt damage control over questions about why their correspondent reported the collapse of Building 7 before it happened only provoked a firestorm of new interest in 9/11 truth and exalted questions surrounding WTC 7 to the point where it is now the Achilles’ heel of the official conspiracy theory.
The new hit piece features an interview with 9/11 shill extraordinaire and former chief counter-terrorism adviser to the White House Richard Clarke, who denies a controlled demolition took down Building 7.
The BBC’s first stab at debunking the 9/11 truth movement was a jaw-dropping exercise in journalistic prostitution more befitting of state-controlled TV stations in Communist China or Zimbabwe.
The show was a tissue of lies, bias and emotional manipulation from beginning to end, structured around fallacy, lying by omission and an overwhelming dearth of impartiality.
During a follow-up radio debate, producer Guy Smith had no answers for the plethora of inaccuracies that littered the program.
The BBC has also completed a documentary on the 7/7 bombings, set to air in Autumn, which puts forward an individual called Nick Kollerstrom as the main proponent of “conspiracy theories” surrounding the 2005 London Underground attacks.
Despite the fact that we were at the forefront of 7/7 coverage immediately after it happened and have produced scores of articles on the subject that received millions of readers, the BBC did not choose to speak to us and instead interviewed a radical astrologist who also dabbles in crop circles, holocaust denial and making apologies for Hitler.
Kollerstrom is just about the wackiest person the BBC could have picked to represent alternative explanations behind 7/7. The idea behind it is simple - pick a nutcase closet Neo-Nazi to talk about 7/7 thus sending a very clear message to the viewer - anyone who questions the official government story behind 7/7 is a holocaust denier, a lunatic, and potentially dangerous.
In pursuing such dirty smear tactics once again, the BBC has proven itself to be not only biased and agenda-driven, but the producers of the show have displayed their complete ineptness in judging who to interview for the documentary.
“The stakes are high because conspiracy theories are spreading suspicion about the official account of what happened, ultimately questioning whether the authorities can be trusted,” writes producer Mike Rudin. “Establishing whether what is argued is true or false, and scrutinising the way proponents conduct themselves, is clearly in the public interest and is a serious and legitimate task for the BBC.”
Oh diddums, now we wouldn’t want to question whether the authorities should be trusted now would we Mike? Because we know governments never lie, have never engaged in any conspiracies and always have the interests of the people at heart.
The BBC thinks it is in the “public interest” and a “legitimate task” to run defense for this criminal Blair-Brown government that has already aided in the slaughter of over 600,000 innocent people in Iraq based on their own conspiracy theories about weapons of mass destruction, by smearing anyone that questions the official story behind 7/7.
This is a damning indictment of how the BBC views itself and corporate media today as a whole - not as an independent media outlet tasked with putting politicians’ feet to the fire, muckraking, and asking hard questions - but acting as a Ministry of Truth to put a lid on the shocking facts behind 7/7 and backing up a Labour government that has refused all along to allow a proper investigation into the bombings come hell or high water.
“Scrutinising the way proponents conduct themselves,” as Rudin calls it is merely newspeak for “taking the piss out of mentally unstable Neo-Nazis and then claiming they represent conspiracy theorists.”
The BBC masquerades as some kind of credible arbiter of “case closed” truth, yet the corporation is almost universally loathed in the United Kingdom because Britons are forced to fund its existence through a TV license tax and in return the BBC provides them with utter garbage on a regular basis.
The BBC’s latest serving of yellow journalism is likely to be little improvement.
We invite readers to leave a comment on producer Mike Rudin’s blog so as to give him the opportunity to write a new blog expressing his phony outrage to hostile put-downs of his career in yellow journalism.
Loading ...
December 25th, 2009 at 10:52 am
Let’s just face a few simple facts.Skyscrapers MUST hold themselves up. They must also sway in the wind. The people who design skyscrapers MUST figure out how much steel and how much concrete they are going to put on every level before they even dig the hole for the foundation.After EIGHT YEARS why don’t we have a table specifying the TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE that were on every level of WTCs 1&2? The NIST report does not even specify the TOTAL for the concrete. The total for the steel is in three places. So even if the planes did it that 10,000 page report is CRAP!Conspiracies are irrelevant. The Truth Movement should be marching on all of the engineering schools in the country.Watch that Purdue simulation. If a 150 ton airliner crashes near the top of a skyscraper at 440 mph isn’t the building going to sway? Didn’t the survivors report the building “moving like a wave”? So why do the core columns in the Purdue video remain perfectly still as the plane comes in?That is the trouble with computer simulations. If they are good, they are very good. But if they have a defect either accidental or deliberate they can be REALLY STUPID once you figure out the flaws.The distributions of steel and concrete are going to affect the sway of a skyscraper whether it is from the wind or an airliner. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - How much does one complete floor assembly weigh?You know those square donut floor slabs? They were 205 ft square with a rectangular hole for the core. There was a steel rebar mesh embedded in the concrete which was poured onto corrugated steel pans which were supported by 35 and 60 foot trusses. There has been talk about those things pancaking on each other for years.But has anyone ever said what the whole thing weighed? Why haven’t we seen that A LOT in EIGHT YEARS? The concrete alone is easy to compute, about 601 tons. But the concrete could not be separated from the entire assembly, the upper knuckles of the trusses were embedded into the concrete. So what did the whole thing weigh and why haven’t the EXPERTS been mentioning that A LOT in EIGHT YEARS? - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -So why hasn’t Richard Gage and his buddies produced a table with the TONS of STEEL and TONS fo CONCRETE that were on every level of the WTC? How much computing power do they have now, compared to the early 1960s when the buildings were designed? I asked Gage about that in May of 2008 at Chicago Circle Campus and he got a surprised look on his face and gave me this LAME excuse about the NIST not releasing accurate blueprints. Gravity hasn’t changed since the 1960s. They should be able to come up with some reasonable numbers.
September 7th, 2008 at 9:58 am
I am always amazed when people go to great lengths to find elaborate conspiracies when apathy and incompetence are usually the most likely answer.
August 8th, 2008 at 9:20 am
Re: “Troofers”
Some people are so ‘open minded’ their brains fall out.