Saturday, 21 June 2008


Reviewing the BBC's coverage of the 2001 attack on the World Trade Center & the Pentagon

*  On the 10th anniversary of 9/11 the BBC screened "Ten Years On" an update of the 2007 Conspiracy File reviewed below. A complaint was filed and after some considerable difficulty was acknowledged by the BBC. The history of the specious Kafkaesque response by the BBC is posted [Here]

* If you are at all concerned by the power of influential media the 1000 word appeal to the BBC Trust should be of interest [More] as may the appeal to dissidents to stand together as witnesses to the treasonous usurpation of the British Broadcasting Corporations. [More]

[Watch the 60 minute BBC documentary]

Is the BBC in compliance with its Royal Charter obligations?

IntroductionHow do BBC statements compare with evidence in the public domain? Is the BBC coverage accurate? Does the BBC output divert attention from the most relevant issues and events? Are the key questions addressed?

Monitoring Authority reviews the BBC documentary, "911 Conspiracy File", broadcast in Feb 2007 and July 2008 plus the BBC web site.
It asks whether the programme can fairly be seen as deceptive and whether it could condition our minds to reject further inquiry.

The evidence is verified,
collated and presented for the reader's judgement.

After Sept. 11th President Bush declared:

"You're either with us or you're with the terrorists"

How did the BBC react to this confrontational statement?

The BBC investigation backs the official theory: 19 Muslims conspired with Osama bin Laden to attack the US, because they "hate freedom". [More]

Is the BBC guilty of misrepresentation of the evidence and "spinning" the phrase "conspiracy theory" in an attack on freedom of expression? Was there censorship of dissent?

A deconstruction of the programme [transcript] pointing to information in the public domain contradicting the BBC content. It does not make statements that cannot be substantiated.

It does however examine the frequent repetition of the phrase - "conspiracy theory" - and whether this phrase has been used subliminally to condition us to react, in a predictable Pavlovian manner, to support US & UK government policy.,

This phrase now lights up pathways in our brains that resonate with “paranoid stories by sad souls”, as if asking a question, how? who? when? where? constitutes evidence of psychological disturbance and flawed character. But is this really how the BBC "911 File" spins those who doubt or inquire?

We should consider whether the UK public-financed broadcasting corporation ignored its Charter obligations in a programme about arguably the most important political event of the 21st Century - leading as it did to war in Afghanistan and Iraq with draconian increases in state power at home - all vital, we're told, to fight terrorism.

The BBC’s Chairman and Director General lost their jobs when reporter Andrew Gilligan claimed the government had "sexed up" a dossier on Iraq to rally public support for war. [More]

Can the punishment for this "Charter infringement" inform us on the level of accountability we should expect of our public broadcast service if its obligation of "due accuracy and impartiality" is flouted?

Can it be right:
* the BBC commentator telling you that the computer scientist she is introducing and his project, are not funded by the government, when they were: [More]

* presenting interviewees, supporting the official story, who are seriously compromised by conflict of
interest: [More]

* endorsing the Bush administration's excuse for the unprecedented failures of the US "defence & intelligence
systems" as SNAFU (situation normal all fu*ked up) [More]

* and then ...........

“Omission is the greatest
form of lie”
George Orwell

The BBC totally omits doubting eye-witnesses ... relatives ... independent experts ... or analysis of key issues ... plus much [More]

Pressure from the Jersey Girls, (wives and mothers of 911 victims) together with survivors such as William Rodriguez and many [More], was largely responsible for the setting-up of the 911 Commission. William Rodriguez was the "last man out alive" celebrated by President Bush as "All American Hero". None were mentioned.

Neither is any
mention made of the many politicians, military personnel, scientists, engineers and pilots who question the accuracy of the government’s account. [More]
Understanding the breadth and credibility of those questioning the official explanation is a basis for assessing this pivotal event: Click for a general intro to [sceptics] and [More] for military/political dissent. Are they just sad souls seeking to make a name for themselves?

The BBC ignores, or skates over, the most pertinent recorded physical facts, photographic / video evidence, fire-fighters & air traffic controllers reports - just some of the mountain of empirical evidence waiting for answers.

The BBC omits the all-important question of physics, with the Twin Towers and Building 7 disintegrating at near free-fall speed - yet no account made for conservation of energy momentum, nor of the source of energy needed to turn most of the towers into dust, fragmented rubble and pockets of molten iron. HOW WERE THE IMMUTABLE LAWS OF PHYSICS SUSPENDED? [More]

Unbalanced Reporting

plus 14 Bush supporters versus 3 critics

The BBC prides itself on being balanced but in this crucial documentary, 14 interviewees, plus the BBC voice-over, support the official theory as opposed to 3 individuals,
presented erroneously as representing 911 critics, allotted just 7 minutes; [More]

BBC & the US "security state"

BBC links with US Joint Forces Command
Finally, this review draws your attention to connections between the BBC and the rapidly expanding surveillance operations of US intelligence services monitoring: Google, Facebook, MySpace, credit card transactions, e-mails. [More]

These networks are data mined to see " if the public mood is good or bad" ..... "whether they're ready for a revolution " (Army Sargent John Cupp USJFCOM Public Afairs).
Is the BBC erecting a barrier to serious inquiry while at the same time acting as a matador's red cape to test public reaction to a BBC white-wash of 9/11?

When this BBC documentary is examined in any depth, does it appear to be more a reinforcer of the US administration's official line with "ad hominem" attacks on unnamed doubters, rather than serious analysis of evidence?

If you check the BBC web-site you find the main thrust of the Conspiracy Files appears to focus on sidelining dissent and mocking all souls who question official versions of controversial events. [More]

On their Sept. 2001 page the BBC state,
“Incredibly some believe the American Government allowed or actively helped the attacks” . They fail to reveal even one of the prominent academic/political/military names questioning the official theory before they spin the tale of flawed paranoid souls. [More]

Are we obliged, as citizens paying a licence fee for access to honest information about our world, to peer at the record? Standard psychology text books and developments in linguistics and evolutionary behavioural theory indicate how malleable we all are. Are we on guard?

How ever much we may want to believe ourselves free-thinking individuals, there are obvious facts that are unavoidable: like the vast sums spent on market research and advertising to encourage shopping.

Politicians and rulers have long revealed their prowess in the dark science of persuasion. Machiavelli and Shakespeare, among others, revealed the tricks of the trade, as did


“tell a big enough lie & keep repeating it people will believe it”

And Napoleon:
"if you can't convince the people then confuse them"

The review of the 911 Conspiracy File highlights some obvious conflicts with the BBC Royal Charter obligations as the BBC programme -

A. Gave inaccurate information.
[Physics] [Independent scientists] [Steel melted] [Storyline] [Air defence]

B. Was partisan and biased. [Conflict of interest] [Interviewees] [Storyline]

C. Omitted key issues.

D. Confused and diverted attention from key issues. [BBC Spin] [Storyline]

E. Made repeated ad hominem attacks on those that question. [BBC Spin] [Storyline]

These accusations are backed with reference to information in the public domain posted through the BBC 911 File storyline [programme transcript with links to deeper analysis]

Regarding journalistic integrity and professionalism.
How did the BBC meet its promise to "Travel across the United States to investigate the truth about 911, speaking to eye witnesses to seperate fact from fiction" (BBC trailer) ?
In an hour the BBC could be expected to outline information in the public domain relating to the main questions surrounding the 2001 attack on America. It is a complex, multifaceted event but the key issues are clear. The BBC would know what they are.

Key issues.

1. The “on the public record”
history of US involvement in penetrating, monitoring, funding, directing & arming Islamic Jihadists.[Terror] [Gladio] [Storyline]

2. The direct and repeated warnings, from numerous governments, that an attack on the USA mainland was imminent some specifically citing hijacking and use of airliners as missiles.
[Warnings] [Storyline]

3. Hijacking four airliners and avoiding interception for two hours - constituting a virtually total stand down for two hours of all defence systems.
[Air defence] [War games] [Storyline]4. The suspension of the laws of physics on Sept. 11th 2001.[Physics] [Storyline]5. The breach of laws covering crime/accident events and obstruction of serious inquiry.[Embargoed] [Storyline]

6. The aftermath both physical and personal.
[environment] [personal] [military] [liberty] [Storyline]

For reasons unknown the BBC merely repeated the official White House conspiracy theory that 19 Muslims, lead by a man in a cave in Afghanistan, defeated the intelligence services and defence systems of the most powerful military force this world has ever known. [bin Laden]

There is no evidence of a serious commitment to hypothesis testing by the BBC of either the official conspiracy theory or the mountain of questions raised by that theory.
Why was the official version a conspiracy theory? [More]

The unaccountability of the BBC

The BBC is a self regulating body in political matters. Can this position be equivalent to a [proven] arsonist being placed in charge of fire service investigations?

A close examination of the information in the public domain shows without doubt that the BBC, in its 911 investigation and continuing support for the official theory, has committed grave breaches of the BBC Charter and the BBC declaration of "Trust".
We, the public, have trusted the BBC to provide a honest, balanced and professionally researched picture of our world.
The evidence points to a betrayal of that trust.

Without trust in the highest echelon of information provision there can be no security. Without a secure and informed citizenry there can be no "democracy".

Britain is deeply involved in two wars of aggression on the basis of policies that emerged from the rubble and deaths of September 11th. British troops are losing their lives but the main victims are Moslem civilians. Do we have a responsibility to examine the evidence, to determine the truth?


Thursday, 5 June 2008

Film - DVD

The "BBC 911 Conspiracy File": programme broadcast in February 2007 is available "Free View" on Google Video. [View]

Sometimes the page opens on conspiracy file related programmes. The BBC 911 Conspiracy File is posted in one part, 59 minutes long. See the left hand column to select. If you have problems try the link below. There is an interesting 90 min. political response to the BBC911 File from the Bristol 911truth Campaign also on this page.

There are many other films available that you can watch easily on your computer. They are informative and challenging. They offer a stimulus to investigation.

"Zero": An Investigation into 911.

The film, dubbed ‘The Sensation At The Rome Film Festival’ has been re-edited with an English voice-over for Berlin 2008 where it will be screened as part of the market place offerings. In addition the European Parliament will screen the film on February 26th.

Zero is the first million+ Euro investigation into 9/11 and features interviews with Nobel prize winner Dario Fo, Gore Vidal, Moni Avadia and Giulietto Chiesa MEP, who is also a member of the Security and Defence Commission of the European Parliament. [View] Google Video

"Power of Nightmares": A BBC documentary by Adam Curtis [View] Google Video
[LA Times review]

B52 6 live Nuclear Cruise Missiles - Loose: Barbara Starr

Film Documentary, "Building the World Trade Center": Directed by Pilowski andf Winestine, (1970) Thanks to Architects & Engineers for 911Truth. [View]

Sunday, 1 June 2008

Designed to deceive?

Was the BBC programme intelligently designed to deceive?


There was black is white “inaccuracy” in introducing the Purdue University computing community as “independent academics” - in pointedly claiming the Pentagon “simulation” by Hoffmann as "not funded by government" when it was - and imbalance in number and screen time between critics and supporters of the official conspiracy theory.

We are confronted with a travesty that shames the reputation of a British institution respected around the world.

If you have browsed this review you will be aware of omissions so fundamental to any genuine inquiry into the attack on New York and Washington that it nullifies the BBC claim that the Conspiracy File “investigates the truth about 911 to separate fact from fiction”.

So what is the purpose of the 911 Conspiracy File and the BBC web site that reinforces this and the other programmes in the series?

The BBC web site raises hopes of a fair investigation but approaches the subject in the fun style of a popular newspaper. The tone is dismissive - "incredibly some believe that the American Government allowed or actively helped the [911 perpetrators]".

The documentary promises to "investigate the facts" but opens with a clip of a horses arse. (n: An oblivious idiot who generally says and does things that draw laughter at him, for being such an unbelievable moron.) The BBC is telling the viewer, at the start of the programme, what they think of critics of the official government theory.

The BBC line is to spin the phrase “conspiracy theory” as a flawed mindset of emotionally disturbed dreamers. They employ the authority of the BBC in articles of pseudo science and specious political analysis. [More]

A page, "How the WTC Fell", presents unscientific analysis
similar to NIST's discredited report of 2003. The 13th Sept 2001 [BBC web page] falsely states "The columns would have melted, the floors would have melted".

Repeating the official theory and "audience participation" psychology tests
, "see how conspiratorial you are", replaces serious investigation:

The 60 minute 911 Conspiracy File echoes
this theme. [Watch the 60 min documentary] Judge for yourself.

Is the BBC erecting a barrier to serious inquiry into abuse of authority. It is not the first time.

In the 1985 Miners Strike the BBC reversed the sequence of events at Orgreave. The BBC broadcast "news reel" showing miners throwing stones provocatively at police then a "response" with mounted police baton charging the demonstration, which included women and children. The truth is the police charged first. It took six years to get the BBC to accept it had re-cut the footage to grossly misrepresent the events on the day. They have not apologised. It was a key moment in history: [More]

In 2004 [Glasgo University Media Group]
published “Bad News From Israel” painstakingly detailing the tremendous bias in favour of Israeli government policy. A BBC internal enquiry was held acknowledging the complaint but making specious excuses. That misrepresentation of events continues.

These are major political events; gross injustice is being whitewashed out of history; people's lives are being destroyed. The attack on America and the wars in the Middle East are similarly spun by commercial media networks. The BBC, a public body with a duty to accuracy and impartiality,
does likewise.

However, despite the BBC manufacturing a false history and censoring dissent, 7 years after the events there is a growing global rainbow of “people of goodwill” with a conscious sense that the individual has the duty in appropriate circumstances, to stand up and be counted - to say "NO! not in my name” - and to point to the truth for the common good of the wider community.

That the BBC should censor this dissent is a disgrace and absolutely contrary to its Royal Charter obligations.

How could it have happened? How can it still be happening despite criticism pointing out the obvious errors and omissions? The BBC re-broadcast the 911 Conspiracy File in summer 2008 along with another hour long "File" re-stating the official theory on Building 7.

Does it mean the old adage is true: "you can fool all of the people some of the time and some of the people all of the time" and it doesn't matter that "you can't fool all the people all of the people all of the time" because too many of the comfortably off will have gone shopping and too many of the poor will be preoccupied finding next week's rent?

Is the Machiavellian take on human psychology the core to understanding why President Bush and Vice President Cheney have not been impeached and the BBC along with the five global media corporations (controlling 90% of broadcasting) robotically parrot the authorised version of events?
"Most humans prefer to steer a middle course, which is very harmful because they end up neither saving their souls nor adding to the stock of human glory" - Machiavelli
Or put another way, if life treats you comfortably enough you can call it freedom; though if you speak out you could end up losing your job. See. [Whistleblowers]

Look again at the BBC 911 Conspiracy File. Try considering whether tricks and games have been played to manufacture a false understanding of a pivotal moment in history. Can you convincingly argue that each of the many crafted, sophisticated visual and oral cameos supporting the White House versions of events were just SNAFU? (Situation Normal All Fu*ked up) The researchers just got their facts wrong?

Are we to believe the BBC is satisfied to employ dumbos who can get the facts all wrong as long as the "product" is an "entertaining" drama doc for an hour of prime time TV?

The alternative to concluding the BBC got it so wrong through gross incompetence is that the Conspiracy File was intelligently designed to mislead as a result of pressure from government or from security services.

In the wake of its bosses’ heads rolling after the Gilligan affair would the BBC be more susceptible to that kind of pressure? Was it perhaps an experiment in testing public reaction to lies and distortion from a world renowned public broadcasting authority, in a programme so palpably skewed in the White House's favour?

Whatever the cause,
Machiavellian acquiescence for vested interested, incompetence or deliberate deception, the 911 Conspiracy File is a gross violation of the BBC Charter and a disgraceful misuse of licence payers’ money.

The evidence for that statement can be found on the Storyline which is a virtual transcript of the hour long programme showing how virtually frame by frame there is diversion, false information, selective coverage, irrelevant issues, omission, omission, omission. [Storyline]


Monitoring Authority offers unqualified thanks and respect to the countless researchers who have made this review of BBC output possible.
The sites and book list below are the real authors of this blog.

For support on this 1st edition


Complete 911 Timeline, Paul Thompson

Summary of Complete 911 Timeline


Wide range of evidence and links

US Constitution-huggers gather 911 evidence

Top 40 reasons to doubt the official story & more


"How the towers fell" 13th Sept. 2001

BBC 911 Conspiracy File full original copy


Dr David Ray Griffin:
The Destruction of the WTC: Why the Official Account Cannot Be True

CNN tapes of fire fighters

Kevin Ryan: Steel softening

Gordon Ross: Engineer challenges 911 Commission Report

Architects & Engineers for 911 Truth


(monitoring, protecting, funding, directing, arming)

Alhazmi and Almihdhar: The 9/11 Hijackers Who Should Have Been Caught

Power of Nightmares, Adam Curtis BBC Documentary
Freeview 3 part series/info/transcripts

LA Times review of Power of Nightmares


BOOK: War on Truth by Nafeez Ahmed
BOOK: The London Bombings by Nafeez Ahmed
BOOK: Crossing the Rubicon by Michael Rupert
BOOK: Forbidden Truth by Brisard & Dasquie


House Homeland Security Sub Com Terrorism & the Internet

BBC coverage of Palestine/Israel

Wikipedia: some history of oligarchy manufactured history
[Disinformation] .. [Censorship] .. [Propaganda] .. [Big Lie]


Air Traffic Controllers Tape/New York Times
Copy saved here

Key Warnings from Complete 911Timeline

Failure to defend the skies

Public record of plans to attack America]

911 Military Exercises. Co-operative Research, 911 Timeline

War Games

War Games

War Games


WTC Environment Org (Jenna Orkin)


Kenneth Williams:
Time/CNN article

Ken Williams Phoenix Memo
[] Execute a page search to find Ken Williams.

Sibel Edmonds: Kean letter


Detail analysis, photo's, conjecture.

Kiltown Flight 77

Pentagon: Plane parts/Allyn Kilsheimer

911 Timeline (Lt Col Steve O'Brien - C130 pilot)

Pentagon Research

Information Operations Roadmap: Pentagon upgrades importance of information and intelligence in the 21st Century: [] .. [BBC] ... [IOR] pdf


Unanswered Questions F93 plus more

F93 Crash site

F93 Links to local newspaper reports

Cleveland Airport Oddities


Multiple failures of US Air Defence

Pilots & aviation professionals question

New York Times: "Air traffic controllers tapes destroyed"

Minot B52 Missing nuclear missiles

Feb. 2nd 2009 Another strange death of Minot personnel


Barry Jennings interviewed by Dylan Avery

The Third Tower 1 hour programme
(Doesn't always play 1st time. Try moving the timeline peg along a little then it should play)


Associated Press Writer.
The Sept. 11 attacks would not have happened if the State Department had followed its own guidelines and denied visas to the hijackers, said two top Republican senators.


World Trade Centre Environmental Organisation

There is a lot of false information "out there". Regrettably the BBC is one of the worst offenders when their record is examined against information in the public domain as recorded above.
These links are offered in the belief they present a fair account of history with references to confirm sources.