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]