BBC2 9/11 Conspiracy files - pre-transmission

[ianrcrane]

BBC 9/11 Questions - comments page

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2 ... ostcomment

[AntiNWO]

In a rush to post this I never noticed someone already posted the story
Excuse my first post and first balls up!

[DDD911]

BBC 9/11 Questions - comments page

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2 ... ostcomment

Cheers for the link, posted my feelings on the matter.

[Graham]

BBC 9/11 Questions - comments page

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2 ... ostcomment

great comment on there....

* At 08:48 PM on 14 Feb 2007,
* ray wrote:

Anyone who knows anything about buildings and watches video segments from 9/11/01 can't help but wonder how the official story is believable. The buildings exploded into dust symetrically. When I drop a chunk of concrete onto a piece of steel, the steel doesn't turn to dust. When I cook a steak in my cast iron bbq, the bbq is there to cook another steak tomorrow. Wake up and smell the stink. I applaud the BBC for their inquisition into this controversial topic.

[QuitTheirClogs]

Has the question been formally put to the BBC?

e.g:

1) is there more than one edit

2) when was the decision made regarding the broadcast edit

3) when was the broadcast edit finalised

or will they just ignore the question?

[GazeboflossUK]

My comment has been censored. Haha, good old BBC.....take my money and run.

I did talk about Norman Mineta and the Pilots For 9/11 Truth's key flight data findings quite well so I assume it was too much truthful info for the Beeb to handle.

I send them another one saying perhaps GARTH ANCIER gave them list of things to block.

[Patrick Brown]

All,
The leak was made to me personally in the last 48 hours.

No names will be released but I have absolute confidence in the validity of this story.

The two different versions are made with two distinct aims in mind. There are people getting very very flustered in the BBC about this.

It IS WORTH emailing/writing/phoning. I have been ASKED by the leaker to pressurise people in the BBC by exposing this and calling them.

No arguments DO IT NOW while there exists a chance to sway opinions.

Calum

Thanx for the clarity Calum although I still think it's a storm in a teacup. Am I the only one that can understand that it's standard practice to edit at least two versions coming from different angles?

When I was younger I was a sound engineer and it was pretty much standard practice to do several mix-downs of each song. In certain cases, normally dance music, five or more mixes would have been mastered.

Seeing that many aspects of 911 remain unknown I can imagine that the “boys upstairs” might be a bit twitchy about any sweeping statements being made. If nobody else has got the balls to say it I will:

There is no conclusive evidence that 911 was an inside job. Further the evidence for CD is compelling but not a proven fact.

We should all just be happy that the documentary is going out. FFS

[GazeboflossUK]

Yes, but I somehow don't think that a different mixdown of a dance track could hold up to a crime against the human race i.e purposefully creating a major 9/11 whitewash documentry and airing it all over the world.

I know you say that "there is no proof that 9/11 was an inside job" but you must see the difference?

[Jack]

welcome to the forum, AntiNWO

[AllThatWeSeeOrSeem]

And once more Patrick tries to throw people of the scent.

Please ignore his counter-posts. They do not represent the movement.

Why do we put up with it?

You are fooling no one Patrick - and of late you are sounding a little desperate - critical mass getting too big now?

[marndin]

Thank you for your email about 9/11: The Conspiracy Files.


I would like to assure you that reports on the internet that we have made two alternative versions of this documentary for broadcast on BBC TV are not true.

There is only one version – and that will be broadcast this coming Sunday, 18th February, at 9:00pm on BBC Two.

I do hope you find the programme of interest.

Yours sincerely

Guy Smith

Producer

9/11 The Conspiracy Files

[stav]

I have had an email back from Guy Smith concerning my letter to him about this topic. - this has just been copy/paste by me from my email, -

Thank you for your email about 9/11: The Conspiracy Files.

I would like to assure you that reports on the internet that we have made two alternative versions of this documentary for broadcast on BBC TV are not true.

There is only one version – and that will be broadcast this coming Sunday, 18th February, at 9:00pm on BBC Two.

I do hope you find the programme of interest.

Yours sincerely


Guy Smith

Producer

9/11 The Conspiracy Files

[scubadiver]

I received this message and it IS genuine

>Thank you for your email about 9/11: The Conspiracy Files.
>
>I would like to assure you that reports on the internet that we have
>made two alternative versions of this documentary for broadcast on BBC
>TV are not true.
>
>There is only one version - and that will be broadcast this coming
>Sunday, 18th February, at 9:00pm on BBC Two.
>
>I do hope you find the programme of interest.
>
>Yours sincerely
>
>Guy Smith
>Producer
>9/11 The Conspiracy Files

[AllThatWeSeeOrSeem]

Folks I just got an email from Guy Smith - I imagine others received similar - however I can't see a copy anywhere yet - so I'll share mine. My email is first in Red, Guy's is in Blue...-----------------------------


Dear Guy,

I am writing to you about something of the utmost importance. I believe that the integrity of the BBC as a democratic institution might be about to be compromised. This is not hyperbole. I am a Lecturer in the North West – and sensible and level headed.

911 marks one of the darkest days in the worlds history, and it has produced some of the fastest mandates for war ever conceived. The glaring anomalies in the official line are obvious. Those who simply seek scientific answers to simple questions are treated like so many oddballs and crackpots. Yet the official line would have us believe that:

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

19 Arab muslims outwitted the most sophisticated military defence system in the world - 4 times in succession

They defeated the laws of physics - by having collapsing buildings fall at free fall rate

They defeated the laws of chemistry - by melting steel girders [2750F] with aviation fuel [1517F]

They brought down THREE WTC buildings (#1,2 and 7) by hitting only TWO of them

Each building happened to fall neatly into its own ‘footprint’

All of the hijackers were on board - we’re not sure yet why none of their names appeared on any of the flight manifests

At least five of the hijackers turned up alive and well, after their suicide missions on 9/11 - they now live in the middle east

- some interviewed by the BBC

A plane hit the Pentagon (one of the most guarded buildings in the USA) - Unfortunately no CCTV footage of the actual plane exists

(the wreckage, plane parts, luggage and bodies were never found)

Cell phone calls were made at altitudes and speeds that are usually impossible (over 2,000 feet / over 230 mph). We still don’t know how they did this------------------------------------------



Does the above sound reasonable and plausible to you, or to any journalist and broadcaster?

I understand that there are 2 versions of the "Conspiracies" documentary about 9/11. Some people in your organisation still adhere to standards of truth and journalistic integrity, but others want to produce a “sanitised version.” I understand that the main person backing the sanitised version is a Mr Garth Ancier.

To me, this calls into question the honesty and integrity of the BBC. And it raises SERIOUS QUESTIONS about professionalism. We know that there are those who won’t calmly asses the official line which is shown to be scientifically absurd. The EVIDENCE points clearly to 911 being an inside job.

How can an executive have such a say in what the British people can or can’t see? And why is he allowed such control?

I am writing therefore to insist that the honest version be broadcast on Sunday – and if it isn’t then the BBC’s good name will forever be degraded and flawed.

Because people like Michael Meacher, David Shayler, Annie Machon, Professor David Ray Griffin, William Rodrigueez and thousands of scholars (engineers, scientists, lecturers like myself) are speaking out clearly about the truth – it will soon gain critical mass and most people will know that 911 was an inside job. If the BBC do anything to prevent the truth from coming out it will never be forgotten and instead will take away all credibility from your organisation.

As a lover of the BBC and of democracy, I am watching keenly to see which version is shown, but also I am watching to see how every 911 story is reported.

Yours sincerely,

XXXXXXXXXXX
BA(Hons), Cert.Ed., NLP Master Practitioner (INLPTA
-------------------------------
Thank you for your email about 9/11: The Conspiracy Files.


I would like to assure you that reports on the internet that we have made two alternative versions of this documentary for broadcast on BBC TV are not true.

There is only one version – and that will be broadcast this coming Sunday, 18th February, at 9:00pm on BBC Two.

I do hope you find the programme of interest.

Yours sincerely

Guy Smith

Producer

9/11 The Conspiracy Files

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

[Jack]

I got the same message.

I replied:

Thank you very much for your reply.

I do hope the programme treats 9/11 with respect. It would be embarrassing and sad for such a credible institution to have practised selective research in order to prop up the official conspiracy theory. The popularity of this theory has taken global politics down a very dangerous path. This will have been the BBC's opportunity to open up 9/11 to an independent, international, scientific investigation and thereby reverse the process of "post 9/11" authoritarianism and imperialism. I hope the opportunity has not been wasted.

Yours sincerely,

Jack Morgan

[malcks]

do you have an e mail address for guy?

[The Watcher]

Hey Scubadiver:

I just received the exact same message!

Whatever the truth, Mr Smith, Mr. Rodin and the management of the BBC will by now be very well aware that this documentary will be scrutinised scene by scene. Any clear bias, one way or the other, would be justifiable grounds to launch a complaint.

Just in case, the relevant Email address is:

HelenBoaden.Complaints@bbc.co.uk

The Watcher

[GazeboflossUK]

I too received a similar message from the BBC.

[Stephen]

Let's hope the doc on Sunday is the fair and balanced version.

http://prisonplanet.com/articles/februa ... ssured.htm

[scubadiver]

guy.smith@bbc.co.uk

[malcks]

and another one flies through cyber space to our beloved bbc

[fish5133]

Spread a rumour and the conspiracy theorist mindset will be the first to jump on it.. We can do the movement no credibility if people start seeing bogeymen behind every lamppost. I did email BBC but my letter did include the cautious note that the rumour may just be a scurrilous one. Received back the assurance from Guy Smith that 2 films dont exist.
The programme will not be able, in the time to cover all the facts in depth so there will be plenty of opportunity to do post programme flyers "What the BBC didnt tell you". We should be prepared to use the publicity that this programme will generate. Any truthful facts shown should generate interest.
Lets Roll BBC

[scubadiver]

I have to say Fish you are right but either way, it is in our favour!

[Stefan]

I don't agree that a response saying "there aren't two versions of the film" means that there neccesarily aren't. Although we can't say there definatley are, I would privaledge the word of the member who leaked this above a faceless BBC goon with a standardised response.

I'm sure the letter writers weren't expecting an admission, just to put a seed of worry in the execs mind about the existence of a whistleblower in their ranks.

Job done.

[Bongo]

and another one flies through cyber space to our beloved bbc

Well done Malcks. Hey, You'r not half getting into this 'Technology malarky'! Mind not to piss the wife off too much though.

Bongo.

[TonyGosling]

Reaction from the three accusers to BBC denials please

Guy's is an anodyne reply - but it looks like Snowygrouch, Ian and Andrew may have been led up the garden path.

I think that we deserve some proof of the supposed second version - as we may all, via. Snowygrouch, Ian and Andrew, have been the victims of a professional disinformation hit.

Can we have some more info guys - such as whether these BBC sources really were certainly from the BBC at all? And are they personally known as reliable people?

It is always possible, of course, that Guy has been forced to deny this as part of a serious internal BBC cover up.

[ianrcrane]

TonyGosling wrote:

Guy's is an anodyne reply - but it looks like Snowygrouch, Ian and Andrew may have been led up the garden path.

I think that we deserve some proof of the supposed second version - as we may all, via. Snowygrouch, Ian and Andrew, have been the victims of a professional disinformation hit.

How did you expect Guy Smith to respond, Tony? Let's assume that this was a piece of deliberate disinformation, which I doubt, but let's assume that this was the case; it should now be evident, to even the most casual observer, that the content of this documentary is going to be more closely scrutinised than anything transmitted in the history of the BBC.

The BBC has a responsibility to broadcast balanced investigative journalism. If the programme simply follows on where Monbiot left off, the BBC will be in breach of Charter.

Tony wrote:

It is always possible, of course, that Guy has been forced to deny this as part of a serious internal BBC cover up.

Now, there's a thought!

Ian R. Crane

[fixuplooksharp]

You know what would be funny. If the BBC deliberately put a leak out saying all this * just to see the reaction. Then they would use it to make us look silly.

[ianrcrane]

BBC Integrity

If the BBC transmit a fair and equitable 9/11 documentary, showing the available unadulterated footage from that fateful day, giving equal opportunity to both the defenders of the OCT and genuine representatives of the 9/11 Truth Community, to express their views/concerns, I will be amongst the first to congratulate Messrs. Rudin & Smith and will readily offer my apologies for having called their integrity into question.

If, on the other hand the documentary employs the standard psyop' propaganda template, we will know that pressure was indeed brought to bear on the producers and the management of the BBC.

Watch for any combination of the following:
- Failure to properly discuss pre 9/11 PNAC Reports and PNAC participants
- Failure to include balanced witness testimony; particularly that of the Emergency Services.
- Failure to address the Free Fall collapse of WTC1 & 2
- Failure to address the collapse of WTC 7 at 5.20pm
- Failure to address the single entry hole of a twin-engined jet at the Pentagon.
- Failure to report the testimony of Air Traffic Control personnel who were monitoring the approach of what was alleged to be Flight 77
- Failure to address the deaths & disabilities due to the environmental aftermath.
- Failure to address blatant omissions & distortions within the 9/11 Commission Report.
- Failure to acknowledge the rapid growth of the international 9/11 Truth Community.
- Defenders of the OCT resorting to ad hominem attacks on members of the Truth Community.
- Failure to mention 'Scholars For Truth' and/or David Ray Griffin's pivotal publication 'The New Pearl Harbour'.
- Any attempt to dismiss the 9/11 Truth Community as psychologically flawed.

Get the picture?

Ian R. Crane

[Dogsmilk]

At any rate, all this has made 'the news'

http://prisonplanet.com/articles/februa ... ssured.htm