Will this Sunday's BBC documentary whitewash 9/11?

[Snowygrouch]

Bit of news for you all;
A contact of mine in C4, tells me that there are TWO DIFFERENT EDITS of this program!!!

He says the BBC still have not decided which one to air

The producers name is Mike Rudin, I suggest we contact him to helpufully suggest that very informed people will be watching and that lack of accuracy will not be acceptable.

C.

[marky 54]

i saw an introduction to this on bbc news this morning.

they started of with jfk conspiracy, then the moon landing fake, then princess diana's death THEN 9/11 documentary to be aired.

talk about make people think conspiracy before talking about it like all of us must believe in the fore mentioned or something.

they also showed a quick clip that showed the pentagon hole, however it was the hole after the building had collapsed.

i have a very big feeling this is how they will present the facts guys.

lots of comparisons to other conspiracy theorys and not showing all the evidence which of course the public will be non the wiser.

[Wokeman]

I imagine that the BBC will produce the documentary with the same objectivity with which it deals with all conspiracies. For example: (I shamelessly give the game away in the case of the JFK assassination, because I believe this explanation by former Washington correspondent, Gavin Esler is beneath contempt, nobody has EVER seriously believed this version, not even the US Congress!)

"The absence of any real evidence of involvement by anyone other than Oswald, plus the computerised reconstructions of the assassination, which
demonstrate how a single bullet passed through Kennedy before injuring Texas Governor John Connally in the front seat of the limousine, convinced me that there was no conspiracy.

None.

Oswald fired the fatal shot.

There was no second gunman.

There was no conspiracy".

[Andrew Johnson]

Good points both!

Thanks for the Heads-up Calum

[Andrew Johnson]

I Just sent Mike.Rudin@bbc.co.uk this:

(Note: Message Copied to Fellow UK Campaigners)

Dear Mr Rudin,

I am writing with regard to the broadcast of this programme. It is probably one of the most important broadcasts in recent years - maybe even ever. From where I am standing, due to the information sent repeatedly to the BBC over the last 2 years, the corporation's credibility is very much at stake.

If you broadcast a fair and balanced discussion of the evidence, it may go some way to allowing historians to look more favourably on the BBC's role. If it represents any kind of whitewash or debunking of the fact that 9/11 WAS an "Inside Job", history will not judge you or the people involved with your programme lightly.

Regardless, as campaigners, we will continue to reveal the truth about 9/11 to the British Public and I now personally regard the media as a controlled entity and one that is ducking its responsibility. It is therefore now MY responsibility to spend my own time and money to promulgate the truth about 9/11 being an Inside Job and I will, unless this programme changes things, continue to discuss my e-mail exchanges with BBC News Director Helen Boaden, who has blatantly ignored evidence and refused opportunities for us to present our evidence in some broadcast vehicle or other. This is now documented and will, if possible, be used to prosecute the BBC for a breach of its charter.

Thanks for reading, and I am hoping you realise the significance of the juncture at which you and the BBC stand.
Yours Sincerely,

Andrew Johnson
22 Mear Drive
Borrowash
Derbyshire
DE72 3QW
Tel: 01332 674271

[conspiracy analyst]

They mentioned previous conspiracies such as the moon landing, Diana and Kennedy. They also had a 'psychologist' on there who basically argued the point that 'conspirators' are individuals without many inter-personal skills, who shy away from groups, distrust many and hate big business.

They are creating a character assasination of anyone who questions what the government feeds them on a daily basis under the guise of 'analysis' as they have a 'scientist' who is only peddling a line to get paid.

They did mentin WTC 7. They seem to have created the ideological back up for this.
a) Buzz Aldring was recently on tv in some chatshow
b) Monbiot wrote an article about 9/11 being a virus
c) Articles about Loose Change in more than one paper

There is a theory that the proportion of propaganda from the newsnetworks in in direct proportion to the disbelief in general to what they are presenting. Even if they argue that aliens did 9/11 or that anyone who questions it is a 'nutjob' and should be carried away in a white suit, the context withing which this is occurring, the possibility of a new war in the Middle East, does not bode well for them.

Less and less people believe the official propapaganda tales of a man in a cave orchestrating these acts. More and more people believe they are planning a new war, new lies will be told and new provocations may emerge.

The producers of such propaganda have blood on their hands. The victims of Bushs 'war on terror', both those that died when the twin towers blew up as well as the hundreds of thousands who have died in the 9/11 oil wars.

This real not imagined conspiracy is one all the paid journalists of the BBC will never cover up.

[conspiracy analyst]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/p ... 332485.stm

Produced programmes with respect to the Hutton inquiry or more appropriately whitewash.


All these producers are embedded soldiers of Bush's new world order.
Nothing more nothing less.

They are in a war against time. Trying to produce propaganda programmes most people will dismiss, 5 years after the event!!

There will be one positive outcome. Even more people will hear about Loose Change, WTC7 and even less will believe the lies.

[Patrick Brown]

I also saw the little piece on the breakfast news this morning. I did get the feeling that the whole buildup, and probably the show itself, are being tainted with a “so you're a conspiracy nutter” slant.

We also have Andrew angling to be seen as some kind of truth movement leader in the UK (See above: http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewt ... 4106#54106 ) while at the same time pushing Beam Weapons and NPT. So even if the show does wake a few people up you can be sure if Andrew ever gets interviewed on the BCC that will be the end of it.

Andrews self-importance over recent weeks has become somewhat frenzied. We also have his disciples TC and 4U2P constantly causing friction as well as being abusive. So as others have said I'm sure there will be a large influx of new members which Andrew and his gang can get their teeth into! It was a false start last Sunday and you note that everything has calmed down but come this Sunday I'm sure the general section of this forum will be full of complete rubbish.

My advice is to stick to the simple hard hitting evidence come Sunday.

As the saying goes “keep your powder dry”!

[ian neal]

..........We also have Andrew angling to be seen as some kind of truth movement leader in the UK!

Which shows what you know.

My experience of Andrew, which I will wager is considerably better informed than yours, is that the guy is 100% genuine and on the level. You may disagree with his understanding of the evidence (obviously) but that does not mean Andrew is not genuine. There is absolutely no evidence that he has ever been seeking a leadership position.

[Patrick Brown]

So has Andrew always been an administrator of this board? Don't you think that having administrator rights gives Andrew a degree of power over what happens on this board? Wasn't it Andrew in collusion with Mr Gosling that conspired to have at least two members banned from this forum without due cause? And what was Andrew up to when he conceived his infamous : The New “9/11 Hijackers”? article ( http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=7006 )?

Normally any individual of impeccable character would relinquish any claim to authority and power for the cause. So if Andrew is truly not seeking to promote himself as some kind of UK Truth Movement leader wouldn't he return to the ranks of us lowly members?

[ian neal]

So has Andrew always been an administrator of this board?

No

Don't you think that having administrator rights gives Andrew a degree of power over what happens on this board?

More like a poisoned chalice than power if you ask me. Without getting drawn into discussing in detail the tedious deliberations between moderators, I can tell you that to the best of my recollection Andrew has never called for anyone to be banned. Andrew was asked if he would be willing to be a moderator largely on the grounds that he has relevent IT skills. At the time, none of this NPT controversy was part of the picture. He most certainly did not seek out any position of 'power'.

I presume the reason he wrote his article is that he wished to put on public record his story and account of events at scholars for truth. As is clear from the article, there is a whole back story that only those who have been involved from the inside would be aware of.

Anyway enough. I will type up this moderation policy and then share it.

[Andrew Johnson]

Patrick Brown has yet to reveal as many details about himself as I have. His posting style is pretty consistent. Some facts:

Number of threads Patrick Brown has started about Andrew Johnson: at least 2

Number of threads Andrew Johnson has started about Patrick Brown: 0

If anyone wants to call me a "leader" then frankly it would make me vomit. However, I have posted evidence of my activities, which probably totals up to quite a few different things. This DOESN'T make me a leader - one only has to think of what Ian Crane and Annie Machon and David Shayler have done, as well as many others who don't post to the forum.

So, once again, Patrick Brown is distorting evidence to (apparently) fit his agenda. Enjoy it.

So, Patrick, have you e-mailed Mr Rudin yet? Why not e-mail him some evidence?

[Patrick Brown]

Patrick Brown has yet to reveal as many details about himself as I have. His posting style is pretty consistent. Some facts:

Number of threads Patrick Brown has started about Andrew Johnson: at least 2

Number of threads Andrew Johnson has started about Patrick Brown: 0

If anyone wants to call me a "leader" then frankly it would make me vomit. However, I have posted evidence of my activities, which probably totals up to quite a few different things. This DOESN'T make me a leader - one only has to think of what Ian Crane and Annie Machon and David Shayler have done, as well as many others who don't post to the forum.

So, once again, Patrick Brown is distorting evidence to (apparently) fit his agenda. Enjoy it.

So, Patrick, have you e-mailed Mr Rudin yet? Why not e-mail him some evidence?

Evidence!!! Err that's a bit rich.

Andrew do you believe Scott Forbes is telling the truth: http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=7155

I never did get a straight answer to my question so come on Andrew did aircraft hit the twins towers YES or NO?

I also think it's you that needs to start providing some evidence for the Beam Weapon or accept that it's not true.

Also, why I'm at it, you've still to explain what importance heating aluminum to the temperature of molten steel has to do with the events of 911.

[DDD911]

I Just sent Mike.Rudin@bbc.co.uk

Is that email address correct? I've just had my email bounce back.

[conspiracy analyst]

Patrick Brown has yet to reveal as many details about himself as I have. His posting style is pretty consistent. Some facts:

Number of threads Patrick Brown has started about Andrew Johnson: at least 2

The original post was regarding the future programme.

Whilst the original discussion was centred on that Patrick brown came in for a typical diversion tactic.

The trick is as old as the internet. Its a tactic. Start asking questions on as many threads as possible as many times to divert what was originally said, so people cant be bothered to follow all the points.

What did he actually have to say about Mike Rudin the programme producer?
Andrew Johnson last time I looked isn't a BBC producer of cheap propaganda films.

Brown appears to be their unelected spokespersons in the way I have noticed him produce endless pointless vitriol...

[Andrew Johnson]

I Just sent Mike.Rudin@bbc.co.uk

Is that email address correct? I've just had my email bounce back.

Well, I sent one earlier today and it didn't get bounced. It was posted on another thread.

http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewt ... udin#41580

But I just sent another now and it bounced.

[flamesong]

It doesn't mean there is anything wrong with the address.

If he is on a Mac (which is likely if he is a producer) and using Apple's Mail client, he can bounce any e-mails which he doesn't want to bother with and give the impression that it hasn't arrived. I do it to David Icke's weekly non-unsubscribeable spam myself all the time.

[paul wright]

I do it to David Icke's weekly non-unsubscribeable spam myself all the time.

nonsense, man, there are so many around here that appear to have a personal problem

[flamesong]

I do it to David Icke's weekly non-unsubscribeable spam myself all the time.

nonsense, man, there are so many around here that appear to have a personal problem

Well, if he or his webmaster/postmaster would deal with it...

Plus, he has given his mailing list out. I know this because I was signed up using a unique to him e-mail address (icke@my-account-etc.etc.co.uk) and I get e-mail from people to whom he is connected delivered to the same address. There is no other explanation.

Anyway, I was just pointing out that the BBC producer could well be simply hitting the white arrow button and bouncing their mail.

[Pikey]

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

[Fallious]

After reading this I send my letter a couple more times, both got bounced within a few seconds. The third I changed the subject to "Some questions..." and, well, as of now it's not come back.

Dudes up late. I'M UP LATE! holy nonsense. gnight.

[THETRUTHWILLSETU3]

What will happen If

they tell the truth

- They are admitting that they and the rest of the media have been party to the cover up for 5 years

- Joe public may start asking what else they have been lying about

- Blair and co will be implicated for endorsing the OCT

- The 911 websites will have exponential growth

- Joe Public will wake up

- Anarchy will prevail

- The End of Big Brother Society


If they go along with the hit piece

- BBC will be no different to Fox News

- 911 websites will have exponential growth

- truthers may take direct action and the law into their own hands

- Anarchy will prevail

- Big Brother Society gets bigger

[blackcat]

I know of no 9/11 truth activists who endorse a policy of "Taking the law into our own hands". There is no need to do any such thing. Enlightenment of the majority is all that is needed and justice will follow without the need for violence. Your comment and any other which even hints at a violent agenda should be scotched immediately by the moderators, together with a statement which reaffirms that this is a peaceful movement. Anger yes. Violence and law breaking no. Never.

[Pikey]

I know of no 9/11 truth activists who endorse a policy of "Taking the law into our own hands". There is no need to do any such thing. Enlightenment of the majority is all that is needed and justice will follow without the need for violence. Your comment and any other which even hints at a violent agenda should be scotched immediately by the moderators, together with a statement which reaffirms that this is a peaceful movement. Anger yes. Violence and law breaking no. Never.

Thanx blackcat, I totally endorse every word of that.

We are a TRUTH, JUSTICE & PEACE movement.

As far as anarchy I think non co-operation is more apt, the Gandhi example is the way forward. History has shown us that.

[THETRUTHWILLSETU3]

I know of no 9/11 truth activists who endorse a policy of "Taking the law into our own hands". There is no need to do any such thing. Enlightenment of the majority is all that is needed and justice will follow without the need for violence. Your comment and any other which even hints at a violent agenda should be scotched immediately by the moderators, together with a statement which reaffirms that this is a peaceful movement. Anger yes. Violence and law breaking no. Never.

Who said anything about violence?

Law breaking? So if this government passses a law requiring you to be microchipped, then you will abide by the law and roll up your sleeve.

NOT ME.

[scar]

- truthers may take direct action and the law into their own hands

Who said anything about violence?

No mention of refusing to be chipped in the first post, it was completely open to interpretation. Taking the law into your own hands is often used to describe violence.
You know that.

[THETRUTHWILLSETU3]

- truthers may take direct action and the law into their own hands

Who said anything about violence?

No mention of refusing to be chipped in the first post, it was completely open to interpretation. Taking the law into your own hands is often used to describe violence.
You know that.

So will you allow them to microchip you Scar?
How about you Pikey?

You know this is on the agenda.

You fail to turn up for your appointment to be microchipped

Then the thought police turn up at your home to forcibly take you to the microchipping centre. What will you do?

Check out what the Verchip company are already doing

http://www.verichipcorp.com/

[olly onions]

http://ollysonions.blogspot.com/2007/02 ... .html[url]

[blackcat]

http://ollysonions.blogspot.com/2007/02 ... d-conspira cy.html[url]

Don't you have any adult humour?

[THETRUTHWILLSETU3]

http://ollysonions.blogspot.com/2007/02 ... d-conspira cy.html[url]

Don't you have any adult humour?

So will you break the law Blackcat if breaking the law is refusing to be microchipped?