Prison Planet Forum
Sunday, July 6, 2008
I just read the article Evolution of a Conspiracy Theory written by the producer of the new wtc hitpiece Mike Rudin. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/conspiracy_files/7434230.stm 
It is full of errors, non-sequiturs and false claims. A couple struck me as so blatant I feel embarrassed to be British.
1. He claims that most experts disagree with the controlled demolition hypothesis:
“But most controlled experts disagree.
Mark Loizeaux who runs one of the world’s leading demolition companies, Controlled Demolition Incorporated, and who holds the world record for bringing down the largest steel structure, the J L Hudson building in Detroit, says it is simply not possible to bring down a building like Tower 7 which was fully occupied and without anybody seeing or hearing something.”
This is unbelievable. The “expert” that Rudin digs up is none other than the man who was called in to “clear up” after the demolition. Is this what investigative journalism has come to? On what planet does someone investigating a crime scene ask the person who destroyed all the evidence to testify as an objective third party expert? Its just laughable. In no place in the article does he mention Loizeaux’s connection to 911. Even for Rudin, this is pretty extreme.
(Article continues below)
2. The part about the BBC tape of Jane Standley reporting the collapse before it happened. His attempt at an explanation is to say that the BBC and CNN just made an error. Earlier in the article he admits that this is the first steel structured building ever to collapse as a result of fire. How the hell could a mistake predict that? If it was a mistake, I really want to get a hold of that person and get them to repeatedly make mistakes all over my lottery numbers. Maybe I should get the BBC to come with me to the racetrack and help me out with some of their special magical errors. Take a look at some of the pictures of the other WTC buildings. I cant remember which ones but a couple of them are just completely burnt out wrecks, yet they did not collapse. If they were burning more vigorously and this statement was a genuine mistake, surely they would have predicted one of those to fall. Its just one impossibility on top of another impossibility.
Before the BBC started their hitpieces I was not fully convinced that 7 was brought down by explosives (although I was convinced about many other aspects of 911 truth). However, seeing how manipulative and anti-reason these “documentaries” are, they have pushed me over the edge. I think that we should all use these documentaries to produce the exact opposite effect to which they are designed. If it is made so obvious how deliberately disingenuous they are, then more people will wake up. Just how many Ron Paul supporters woke up when they saw how he was treated by the MSM. The reaction documentary to the previous BBC hitpiece made by David Shayler was truly excellent and is required viewing. (Shame he subsequently had a very public spiritual opening and claimed to be every major figure from history).