Ipswich 911 interview removed from BBC website after 1 day

Light Infantree · Post by **Light Infantree** » Thu Nov 12, 2009 2:37 pm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/local/suffolk/hi/ ... 331966.stm

I was approached by the webmaster of the BBC East site and asked to do an interview about 911 Truth. The results speaks for itself.

flamesong · Post by **flamesong** » Thu Nov 12, 2009 3:25 pm

I hate to tell you this, but when I click the link I get a generic BBC Suffolk page with nothing but a full stop as actual content.

flamesong · Post by **flamesong** » Thu Nov 12, 2009 3:34 pm

I just did a search for '9/11' on the BBC Suffolk page with these results:

BBC Suffulk Search

Your link can clearly be seen with the text:

Searching for 'truth' about 9/11
Ipswich Truth is an organisation asking questions about events such as 9/11 and they insist they're not 'conspiracy crackpots'..
news.bbc.co.uk/local/suffolk/hi/people_and_places/history/newsid_8331000/8331966.stm

But that link leads to the same blank page.

Looks like you have been re-evaluated

flamesong · Post by **flamesong** » Thu Nov 12, 2009 3:38 pm

And here is a Google cached version of their front page with link:

BBC Suffolk front page cached

Post by **fish5133** » Thu Nov 12, 2009 4:56 pm

Nobbled by the PTBs. We had better luck on BBC radio merseyside. Couple of good presenters who are not in the PC brigade have given air time To William Rodriguez and a half hour slot for 9/11 truth.
Keep plugging away they are always looking for different things to fill the schedule.

scienceplease 2 · Post by **scienceplease 2** » Thu Nov 12, 2009 7:19 pm

Google cache provided this:

Page last updated at 12:27 GMT, Wednesday, 11 November 2009

Searching for 'truth' about 9/11
The plane hits the south tower of the World Trade Center, 11 September 2001
Flight 175 crashed into the south tower at 0903 EDT

The Ipswich Truth Campaign is still asking questions about the 2001 attacks on New York's World Trade Center (WTC).

The group claims elements within 'the establishment' dismiss them as crackpots to stop people taking notice.

They say the mainstream media has failed to ask the right questions about September 11.

"I would encourage people not to see us as 'conspiracy theorists' because that is merely a buzzword," said Carl Friar from Ipswich Truth.

Alternatives to the official theory that terrorists were solely responsible for the attacks have mushroomed on the internet.

The most famous example is the Loose Change film made in the US which was the subject of the BBC documentary The Conspiracy Files , which is a good portal to the official theories, alternative theories, questions and counter-claims that are out there.

Ipswich Truth is a group which meets to discuss these matters at venues including PJ McGinty's pub in the town centre.

9/11 cover up?

There are various alternative theories into the 2001 events at the WTC and Pentagon and the flight which crashed in Pennsylvania.

Some theorists claim the events were allowed to happen, or even given assistance, by the US security forces who knew something was going to happen.

In this version, it gave a pretext for the subsequent invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. They would claim the ultimate motive is securing oil and gas supplies.

For some (not all theorists sing from the same hymn sheet), the WTC collapses, including the third tower WTC7, were aided by demolition and the failure by the US Air Force to intercept any of the passenger planes was intentional.

Jonathan Adams and Carl Friar
Jonathan Adams is a film maker while Carl Friar is an NHS paramedic

"It was really off the back of so much information coming my way that suggested to me that the overall facts behind the 9/11 atrocities were not complete and that the mainstream media were not delivering all the information," said Carl Friar.

"I have no political affiliations," said his Ipswich Truth colleague Jonathan Adams. "This is a cross-spectrum dis-organisation just keen to get at the truth.

"The term 'conspiracy theorist' is put about to elicit what's called a 'slide response'.

"By heavily promoting it in a negative fashion what happens is that as soon as people hear that term they're programmed to ignore whatever is said next.

"If you want to hang a tag on what we're doing, we're part of the evolution, not the revolution. We need to think of a new way of looking at things and part of that is looking at inconvenient truths.

"You look at the companies that have done well out of the misery and slaughter in Afghanistan and Iraq - companies that have been paid well out of the spoils of war.

"The big money-making areas in the UK now are IT, security, weapons and pharmaceuticals and if you follow the money to the top it's the same corporations.
'Ground Zero' - World Trade Center, New York City
The World Trade Center clear-up operation, February 2002

"It does sound sinister and there are people who would rather not buy into it. We don't want to think that our governments, that are supposedly there to protect and serve you, are capable of stuff like this.

"That's not to say there aren't good people in the NHS, the armed forces, the police etc. We're not suggesting that they're all part of some huge conspiracy."

Carl added: "People will often choose not to engage with the information because their world will be torn apart."

Theory vs evidence

However, counter-critics would say these are all just wrong conclusions drawn from theory rather than hard evidence.

"What about these people who may call you crackpots?" asked Carl. "Well, they will say that because they haven't gone there and they're full of fear about it.

"There's nothing to fear but fear itself."

"We all have huge amounts of power - our heart, our intellect, our minds," added Jonathan.

"In my view this is one of the tricks that's played on us by 'them that are they' - the idea that we don't have any power when in actual fact the opposite is the truth."

Ipswich Truth is part of a wider East Anglia Truth network.

http://209.85.229.132/search?q=cache:HQ ... 331966.stm

Post by **TonyGosling** » Thu Nov 12, 2009 9:22 pm

WTF happened Carl?

Have you spoken to them? I suppose the BBC being the crumbling edifice of the ministry of truth is the easiest one to control with all sorts of creeps etc. having login codes put there by spooks and 'consultants' they can use.

I remember the most blatant censorship I ever saw on the BBC site was a headline before the invasion of Iraq saying "Arab League say Iraq invasion could 'open gates of hell'" That one had its content and headline replaced not removed within a matter of minutes.

They are getting rather slipshod.

This censorship could easily be a big story so we need to know the facts, quotes from the people who did the reporting etc.

I guess putting it up on this forum may well have triggered the censorship zombies to get a jolt of electricity and kick in to pseudo-life.

Meanwhile I'll circulate the censored material far and wide on email.

Light Infantree · Post by **Light Infantree** » Thu Nov 12, 2009 9:59 pm

Thanks Tony,

The page was up long enough for me to save it in my cache so we have at least the genuine article.

I have emailed the guy who did the interview, Andrew Woodger who is also the webmaster and the person who asked us to do it. He was a real breath of fresh air and he has a particular interest in truth generally. He mentioned that he attended this years 'Secret Garden Party' festival and said that he spent most of the weekend in the 'conspiracy area'.

We filmed the interview or at least most of it. There were a couple of times when he asked us to stop filming because of things he wanted to say off the record which would indicate that he is sensitive to the bigger picture and indeed keeping his job!

I'll give Andrew a call tomorrow to find out more and keep everyone in the loop.

As to what has happened? It is possible that someone within the Beeb received an email from me today. I sent out a generic email to all contacts on the Ipswich Truth mailing list with a link to the page in question. The list includes radio, tv and newspaper media as well as supporters. So questions may have been asked. This may have been a bad move on my part. Lets see what the morning brings.

Thanks to everyone for their efforts in searching for the page.

In communist Russia everyone knew it was propaganda, today in the modern 'free' society, people actually believe todays propaganda to be the truth. Such is the power of this paradigm.

Post by **TonyGosling** » Thu Nov 12, 2009 10:22 pm

Just to cheer you up a bit (god what utter shysters) and hopefully help you see that it is possible here is the interview with the BBC in 2007 here on Radio Bristol - there is a lot of resistance to this sort of thing from the zombies though. Incidentally the stats are way out because wakey had his account knobbled and had to re-upload.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XnFc16_XwYo
This excellent morning phone in presenter Dave Barrett has now gone - apparently voluntarily - and has been replaced by some guy that drones on like most of the rest about nothing.

scubadiver · Post by **scubadiver** » Fri Nov 13, 2009 8:56 am

I've submitted a post on 9/11 blogger.

scienceplease 2 · Post by **scienceplease 2** » Fri Nov 13, 2009 4:15 pm

scubadiver wrote:I've submitted a post on 9/11 blogger.

Debate within this website from comment 36 onwards...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2 ... blems.html

flamesong · Post by **flamesong** » Fri Nov 13, 2009 5:49 pm

scienceplease 2 wrote:Debate within this website from comment 36 onwards...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2 ... blems.html

My new website is CMS driven and when I saw the article it looked like the text and title of it had been replaced with full stops.

I don't buy the comment that blames a server side scripting error because, as I have occasionally found to my horror, the text of server side scripting errors have the habit of appearing on the page.

I don't think it was systemically censored - I think that it was sabotaged by a lone gunman.

petros · Post by **petros** » Fri Nov 13, 2009 7:30 pm

I really like the way this forum has been used to share this article and respond to it's censorship. I hope more people get to read it as a result of them removing it than if they had just left it there.

I posted it on digg: http://digg.com/d319xIm

so this post gets a few more views.

Post by **TonyGosling** » Sat Nov 14, 2009 8:39 pm

This one is perfect for email
Especially with the complaints page and blog to post on

petros wrote:I really like the way this forum has been used to share this article and respond to it's censorship. I hope more people get to read it as a result of them removing it than if they had just left it there.

I posted it on digg: http://digg.com/d319xIm

so this post gets a few more views.

scienceplease 2 · Post by **scienceplease 2** » Sun Nov 15, 2009 1:27 pm

Any news from the BBC about this?

Anybody want to chip on this debate here?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2 ... blems.html

Light Infantree · Post by **Light Infantree** » Sun Nov 15, 2009 9:53 pm

The latest from the BBC is that this was removed because it did not contain a balanced point of view. Make of that what you will.

...go back to your living rooms and prepare for Christmas

The edited page should re-appear soon.

Light Infantree · Post by **Light Infantree** » Sun Nov 15, 2009 10:10 pm

..and the latest from google cache...

Yes, you guessed it; its now disappeared from there too.

So as the world's thought police seem to have had a busy few days I'm sending big love to all spooks who are reading this post - Enjoy the karma that's coming your way guy's

This is a natural and necessary balancing that ensures the light of truth shines into enternity. The difference is that this balancing cannot be wiped from the universal cache.

You gotta laugh really.

George Orwell would have been proud

this story is picking up momentum:
http://letsrollforums.com/jerome-hauer- ... b&p=169680

http://911blogger.com/node/21843

Light Infantree · Post by **Light Infantree** » Mon Nov 23, 2009 3:36 pm

Here is an update concerning this; an email exchange with Charlotte Spakman, the Editor of BBC Suffolk following the removal of the story from thre BBC website.

Points to note are that there have been a number of similar complaints sent from different sources notably including the author Michael Moorcock! Also it is apparent that the reply from Charlotte is a somewhat hurried and limited response.

We (Ipswich Truth) are continuing with the process of knocking on the BBC's door with this in the form of another follow up email as we feel that there is still many unanswered points from the complaint and the we still have yet to see any re-written piece materialise.

If you would like to add your own voice to this please contact
charlotte.spackman@bbc.co.uk.

Cheers for now

Carl
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Jonathan Adams [mailto:jonathan@pentosfilms.com]
Sent: 20 March 2009 21:33
To: Charlotte Spackman
Cc: Carl Friar
Subject: Mysterioulsy vanishing journalism: A complaint

CHARLOTTE SPACKMAN

EDITOR

BBC SUFFOLK

Dear Charlotte Spackman,

ON the 12th November, an interview with Carl Friar and myself was posted to the BBC Suffolk website.

“Searching for the ‘truth’ about 9/11

http://news.bbc.co.uk/local/suffolk/hi/ ... 331966.stm

We were both heartened and surprised to find such a balanced piece where our usual experience has been that the mainstream media, BBC included, tends to treat all doubters of the official story of the events of the 11th September 2001, as something akin to the modern equivalent of ‘flat Earthers’.

But the surprises kept coming. Within hours the piece vanished altogether, to be replaced with a basic generic BBC page layout, which persists even now. Enquiries to establish an explanation ranged from false claims about downed servers, to scripting errors.

We were told eventually that there were editorial issues that pronounced that the piece had not been balanced enough, itself a fairly odd claim, given the content, but that an amended piece would replace it shortly.

I’ve waited until now before making a complaint, as I felt you should be given the opportunity to display this amended version. Its’ failure to materialise is the reason I write now.

Inasmuch as the piece has now also vanished from the google cache, in itself a very troubling development, it’s difficult to see an explanation other than simple censorship.

If this is indeed the case it is extremely worrying for a public service broadcaster, charged with impartially reporting the news and reflecting the diversity of British culture. If it is not the case, I invite you to offer an alternative explanation before I take the matter further.

In closing I attach a copy of the collective statement of support by journalists appearing as a privately funded advertisement in The Daily Telegraph of Saturday 31st January 2004. It was entitled, The Independence of the BBC and had the following preamble:

“The following statement is from BBC employees, presenters, reporters and contributors. It was paid for by them personally, not the BBC itself.

Greg Dyke stood for brave, independent and rigorous BBC journalism that was fearless in its search for the truth. We are resolute that the BBC should not step back from its determination to investigate the facts in pursuit of the truth.

Through his passion and integrity Greg inspired us to make programmes of the highest quality and creativity. We are dismayed by Greg’s departure, but we are determined to maintain his achievements and his vision for an independent organisation that serves the public above all else.”

Unless I’m much mistaken, yours is one of the names appearing on the list.

I look forward to hearing from you

Kind regards

Jonathan Adams

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

RE: Mysterioulsy vanishing journalism: A complaint

Mon, 23 November, 2009 14:02:16
From: Charlotte Spackman <charlotte.spackman@bbc.co.uk>

Dear Mr Adams and Mr Friar,

Thank you for your emails. I apologise for any incovenience or nuisance. Andrew Woodger went out to look at a possible story about your group. He did not set out to conduct a proper investigation into global events. But without conducting that investigation he should not simply have allowed a series of claims about those events to be made without any attempt to look at them properly. There should therefore not be any mystery about why this piece was taken down it was a poor piece of journalism and has been taken down for that reason and that reason alone.

I appreciate that people may well speculate about the reasons for its removal and of itself that will encourage those who believe in consipracy theories. But I'm sure you can also appreciate if you reflect for a moment this is not how a serious look at the various Conspiracy Theories surrounding 911 would happen. The BBC has done that work in the past and we'd refer anyone interested to

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/c ... efault.stm

That extensive Online resource I hope shows that the BBC does report on these matters. But just as it’s important to be balanced it's also important to properly research items. That did not happen in this case.
Yours sincerely

Charlotte Spackman

Charlotte Spackman
Acting Editor
BBC Suffolk
www.bbc.co.uk/suffolk
01473 250000

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Stephen · Post by **Stephen** » Mon Nov 23, 2009 6:30 pm

Ipswich 911 interview removed from BBC website after 1 day

Nothing new! Its not really a surprise coz they dont want any of this stuff getting out.

Light Infantree · Post by **Light Infantree** » Tue Nov 24, 2009 1:55 am

Nothing new? It's not meant to 'surprise' anyone either. What's your point apart from giving the impression we are all powerless Stephen?

Powerless we most certainly are not.

It's blatent blooming censorship and we have caught them with there trousers down. Yes, it's as you'd expect from Aunty Beeb and yes 'they' do not want this 'out' but for goodness sake, here we have a situation where a BBC journalist has put out a brilliant report to the public in a fair and honest way and his organisation have tried to remove every trace of it from existance. Should we just say, oh well never mind, maybe tomorrow?

For what it's worth we are making waves with this and locally and it is creating some good vibes within the truth community. We are not expecting the complete story of 911 truth to be exposed because of what is going on here but if you go back to the actual article (post 6) you'll see that it is well written and by a member of the BBC. This journalist may have marked his card from the perspective of his empolyer but he also represents many others within the media who are waking up. Perhaps the cracks are appearing in the MSM at last?

Post by **TonyGosling** » Tue Nov 24, 2009 10:20 pm

Common Purpose?
What are this saccarine-sweet 'editors' credentials?
Has she ever made a programme?
A soap opera maybe?

Light Infantree wrote: CHARLOTTE SPACKMAN
EDITOR
BBC SUFFOLK

scienceplease 2 · Post by **scienceplease 2** » Tue Nov 24, 2009 11:14 pm

The BBC wrote

The BBC has done that work in the past and we'd refer anyone interested to

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/c ... efault.stm

That extensive Online resource I hope shows that the BBC does report on these matters.

You could reply that there was over 5500 comments to Mike Rudin's report on the WTC7 collapse, providing irrefutable evidence that the BBC had not covered the main issues of the collapse:

a) it's unprecedented nature - all the amazing after the unprecedneted collapses of the twin towers.
b) molten metal that was not investigated by NIST and which could not occur by a natural collapse
c) freefall collapse
d) the contents of the tower which included fraud investigations linking Enron with certain Texan politicians
e) scientific evidence of hi-tech explosives found in the dust.

Therefore we can conclude that the BBC is censoring itself and actively concealing evidence.

Light Infantree · Post by **Light Infantree** » Wed Nov 25, 2009 3:40 am

scienceplease 2 wrote:You could reply that there was over 5500 comments to Mike Rudin's report on the WTC7 collapse, providing irrefutable evidence that the BBC had not covered the main issues of the collapse:

a) it's unprecedented nature - all the amazing after the unprecedneted collapses of the twin towers.
b) molten metal that was not investigated by NIST and which could not occur by a natural collapse
c) freefall collapse
d) the contents of the tower which included fraud investigations linking Enron with certain Texan politicians
e) scientific evidence of hi-tech explosives found in the dust.

Therefore we can conclude that the BBC is censoring itself and actively concealing evidence.

Thanks for the suggestion SP2, I'm in the process of replying and will include a reference to the 5500 comments. Are those comments viewable?

scienceplease 2 · Post by **scienceplease 2** » Wed Nov 25, 2009 5:18 am

Light Infantree wrote:

Are those comments viewable?

Yes, indeed. This is the last page...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2 ... ml?page=12

Stephen · Post by **Stephen** » Wed Nov 25, 2009 10:16 am

What's your point apart from giving the impression we are all powerless Stephen?

I was just making the point that the main stream meadia is controled.

CALM DOWN MATE!

TorsteinViddal · Post by **TorsteinViddal** » Wed Nov 25, 2009 2:56 pm

Light Infantree wrote: Thank you for your emails. I apologise for any incovenience or nuisance. Andrew Woodger went out to look at a possible story about your group. He did not set out to conduct a proper investigation into global events. But without conducting that investigation he should not simply have allowed a series of claims about those events to be made without any attempt to look at them properly. There should therefore not be any mystery about why this piece was taken down it was a poor piece of journalism and has been taken down for that reason and that reason alone.

Shocking! As if the BBC has EVER conducted a proper investigation of the 9/11 events in the past. And as if it's even possible to make a story about a 9/11 Truth group without allowing the people in the group to make statements about what went down on 9/11.

I know you're not allowed to do much in the way of opposition in your country because of your current regime, but the BBC seems to be one of your main oppressors.

Do tell if there's anything we can do to help from 9/11 Truth Norway.

Light Infantree · Post by **Light Infantree** » Mon Nov 30, 2009 11:49 pm

Stephen wrote:
What's your point apart from giving the impression we are all powerless Stephen?
I was just making the point that the main stream meadia is controled.

CALM DOWN MATE!

Sincere apologies for that Stephen, I think I needed a day away from the computer when I wrote that.

Light Infantree · Post by **Light Infantree** » Mon Nov 30, 2009 11:58 pm

TorsteinViddal wrote: Do tell if there's anything we can do to help from 9/11 Truth Norway.

Thanks for your comments TV, if you feel motivated you could air your feelings to the BBC.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/homepage/

Anything that shakes their tree to get them to repond to this will help. Just ask why has the page not been re-written? What was so wrong about its content? etc

Cheers
Carl

Post by **TonyGosling** » Tue Dec 01, 2009 2:20 pm

Simply emailing the censored text around. Wikileaks etc etc.

TorsteinViddal wrote:Do tell if there's anything we can do to help from 9/11 Truth Norway.

9/11, 7/7, Covid-1984 & the War on Freedom

Ipswich 911 interview removed from BBC website after 1 day

Ipswich 911 interview removed from BBC website after 1 day

Ipswich Truth - Update

Re: Ipswich Truth - Update

Re: Ipswich Truth - Update

Re: Ipswich Truth - Update

Re: Ipswich Truth - Update