Prisonplanet Reader 
Tuesday, July 8, 2008
I saw this laughably biased piece of BBC propaganda the other day and while I was angered at some parts of it, at other bits I just had to laugh out loud.
I mean for a start, you have to ask yourself: I thought their previous ‘Conspiracy Files’ programme was supposed to have ‘debunked’ all the ‘conspiracy theories’ in the first place, so it’s a bit funny that they felt the need to make a second programme, wouldn’t you say?! I thought the BBC was supposed to have done the job already, isn’t that right BBC?
And while I’m sure in some people’s minds this programme has further cemented their view that ‘it wasn’t a inside job’, I have been reading comment boards since the programme aired and the encouraging thing is a LOT of people still aren’t convinced by it (just see Mike Rudin’s blog as one example!)
(Article continues below)
But what did make me laugh out loud was the BBC’s pathetic ‘explanation’ as to how they managed to report the collapse of WTC7 before it happened. Apparently as we know the tapes got, ahem, lost… and in the ‘confusion’ of the day they simply ‘made a mistake’ and reported the physically impossible and unprecedented collapse 100% accurately purely by coincidence.
But what happened to the tapes? Yes, that’s right they had been accidentally placed in the — 2002 — section!! AHHHH… it all makes sense now. Easy mistake to make isn’t it!!! I mean, when was the event again… Sept 11, two thousand and….. one? two? three? One of those, anyway. I mean it’s not like it was a particularly historic event or anything. I struggle to think how the female commentator was actually able to say all of this with a straight face.
I was initially encouraged when they allowed Steven Jones and Richard Gage to make some pertinent points briefly and it appeared for a short time that this may possibly turn out to be a balanced documentary after all… until the end of course when the usual ‘it might LOOK like an inside job, but don’t worry it wasn’t because our hand-picked experts say so’ angle typically employed by the BBC was used.
- A d v e r t i s e m e n t
The proponents of the official version were all shown in suit and tie with letters after their names, robotically parrotting the official narrative coherently while a clip of Dylan Avery is shown saying ‘I don’t fucking care how many years experience he has, he’s wrong’ like a hormonal teenager (I’m sure they had hours of footage of Avery they could have chosen from, but for some reason decided to use that part. Hmm…)
Then of course the tiresome ‘Truthers are terrorizing the victims of 9-11/journalists/Jane Standley/everyone else in the world and are causing untold suffering’ angle was trotted out once again. Plus they didn’t let Alex Jones or any of the most credible speakers in the 9/11 movement get a chance to even say anything at all, although hardly a surprise there.
But to all those in the 9/11 truth movement.. don’t let hit pieces like this worry you too much, the very fact that they keep having to put out programmes like this proves that a) we are having an effect… b) they are being forced to address the issues and as such are growing ever more desperate to shut the lid on public opinion on this matter. c) most ‘thinking’ people should clearly be able to see the blatant bias once again employed here anyway.
I sat watching it with my Nan and she had never even heard of Building 7 before.. as, I suspect, many other people hadn’t either. So this might just have the reverse effect than the BBC had wished and may educate people that there IS more to 9/11 than they already know. From there they may be inspired to go research it on the net with an open mind, and…. it just wake a few more people up! Quite the opposite effect the producers were hoping for I’m sure.
One thing is for sure, the BBC certainly hasn’t ’solved the final mystery of 9/11′ and this is far from over..