by Len Hart, The Existentialist Cowboy
Like a cornered dog, the BBC has lashed out at a growing movement of organized critics of Bush 'conspiracy theories' of 911. How credible is this offensive? BBC reporting of 911 is at the very least 'questionable', at worst, 'dishonest'. I suggest that the BBC is trying to save face, having blown almost every opportunity to report honestly with regard to the events of 911.
The BBC's coverage of Building 7 is the part that contains the whole! It's a sorry 'incredible' mess! Anyone watching the BBC report of the collapse of WTC Building 7 when the building is seen still standing behind the reporter should question BBC motives, sources, ethics, and operations. Where did the BBC get the information that a standing building had collapsed before it could have or did? Why did the BBC report
as fact the collapse of a building that would not collapse for another 23 minutes? How did the BBC know?
Another video of the BBC's Screw Up
The BBC might have known had Larry Silverstein or 'agent' tipped them off! Silverstein, the building owner, is on video tape 'confessing' that the building had been 'pulled'. That being the case, the BBC is open to charges of 'omitting' the fact that Building 7 was 'pulled'. BBC cannot have it both ways!
Perhaps the venerable BBC is perversely comforted by the fact that it was not alone; other media also reported the collapse of Building 7 before it, in fact, collapsed. The swamis at Fox were obviously consulting the same oracle:
The video footage speaks for itself. Fox-5 anchor Tracey Neale says that a 47-story building had collapsed in downtown Manhattan which is an obvious reference to WTC-7 because it too was a 47-story building in downtown Manhattan. Then just seconds after Neale reports on the building collapse, they witness WTC-7 collapse at free fall speed in their own video footage.
Following the collapse both news anchors state that the building must have come down due to structural failure which has of course been the official cover story for the WTC-7 collapse. Neale appears visibly flustered after she realizes that she reported on a building collapse in advance of the collapse actually happening. After the collapse, Neale’s co-anchor states the following which is incredibly surreal considering all the information that has now come out about the events of 9/11.
--Fox Reports Building 7 Collapse before it happened. (click the link; there is VIDEO of the Fox swamis caught in the act!)
Prior to 9/11, no steel framed building had ever collapsed as a result of fire damage. Building 7 is a threat not only to Bush's absurd cover story which defies the laws of physics, it is a threat to the 'bend over and take it' school of journalism which regurgitates official stories and covers its ass with an attribution. The 'news reader' in the above video states --as if it were fact --that Building 7 collapsed because 'it had been weakened' though it was never struck by aircraft of any sort! In fact, Building 7 would not have collapsed from the existing fires even if it had not been "intentionally designed to allow
large portions of floors to be permanently removed without weakening" the structural integrity of the building.
It was the venerable New York Times which reported that fact. Their source was Larry Silverstein the man who later admitted --on broadcast TV --that WTC 7 had, in fact, been 'pulled'. "Pulled" is industry jargon for "controlled demolition".
BEFORE it moves into a new office tower in downtown Manhattan, Salomon Brothers, the brokerage firm, intends to spend nearly two years and more than $200 million cutting out floors, adding elevators, reinforcing steel girders, upgrading power supplies and making other improvements in its million square feet of space...
In some office buildings, that alteration would be impossible, but Silverstein Properties tried to second-guess the needs of potential tenants when it designed Seven World Trade Center as a speculative project.
''We built in enough redundancy to allow entire portions of floors to be removed without affecting the building's structural integrity, on the assumption that someone might need double-height floors,'' said Larry Silverstein, president of the company. ''Sure enough, Salomon had that need...
MORE than 375 tons of steel - requiring 12 miles of welding - will be installed to reinforce floors for Salomon's extra equipment. Sections of the existing stone facade and steel bracing will be temporarily removed so that workers using a roof crane can hoist nine diesel generators onto the tower's fifth floor, where they will become the core of a back-up power station. ...
--New York Times, The Salomon Solution; A Building Within a Building, at a Cost of $200 Million
Since that date, the BBC has tried to paper over the incident with many
ex post facto versions. Likewise, the BBC has offered up an
apologia for having reported a
fact: when it was still honest, the BBC had tracked down and interviewed several alleged Arab 911 hijackers
after they were said to have died in the 911 attacks.
Now a cornered BBC, it's credibility on the line, blames its critics, just as the U.S. GOP always blames its victims though they are the victims incompetent and often criminal policies. Why is the BBC lashing out? Its very survival as a network was at stake. My theory --for what 'theories' are worth --is that the BBC had a stake in promoting the Bush/Blair orthodoxy.
In a recently broadcast documentary, The Conspiracy Files: 9/11 - The Third Tower, the BBC presents the second of two programs confronting claims made by a growing activist movement comprised of people who doubt the official story of 9/11. This time the BBC looks into one of the most compelling areas of 9/11 research, the theory that WTC 7 was brought down by controlled demolition. [my note: Larry Silverstein is heard on video tape broadcast on TV and cable that WTC 7 was, in fact, 'pulled'! ]
The perfect vertical implosion of this enormous building—the last of seven WTC buildings to be completely destroyed on 9/11—was filmed from several excellent angles and is further supported by aerial photos (fig. 1). Those theorists who claim that the Twin Towers as well were brought down with explosives have enjoyed an exponential boost in credence from strong evidence supporting the intentional demolition of WTC 7.
--911 Blooger.com, The BBC’s Demolition of 9/11 Truth
As building owner Larry Silverstein had said, WTC 7 was 'pulled', raising the question: when was the building prepped for demolition? One does not merely decide to 'pull' and building to watch it happen a few hours or less later. The process of rigging a building of some 47 stories for a perfect and symmetrical, controlled demolition may take weeks. Often, the plans and engineering specifications must be examined. 911 was planned well in advance.
I have a nit to pick with 911 Blogger's title. BBC cannot 'demolish' 911 truth. They can only lie about the events as it tries to rewrite its own history. The BBC has tried to do this with several issues. First --the fact that the BBC interviewed several of the alleged 911 hijackers at a time when the Bush administration and then Prime Minister Tony Blair were telling the world that they had perished in the attacks. So --who's lying? The
BBC story is still available with a change that the BBC has tried to gloss over so:
In an effort to make this clearer, we have made one small change to the original story. Under the FBI picture of Waleed al Shehri we have added the words "A man called Waleed Al Shehri..." to make it as clear as possible that there was confusion over the identity. The rest of the story remains as it was in the archive as a record of the situation at the time.
--Steve Herrmann, 9/11 conspiracy theory
Here's my note to Steve: first of all, your headline itself pure propaganda, intended to imply that critics of Bush/Blair have posited some kind of 'conspiracy' about 911. Some of the them may have --but criticism of the Bush/Blair theory is not a theory. It was, rather, Bush and Blair who put forward the most asinine, stupid, fallacious, and outlandish 'theory' to have ever come down the pike.
Critiques of the 'official theory' which would have you believe that a team of rag-tag Islamic radicals, who most certainly could
not fly Cessnas, managed to co--ordinate an attack that resulted in the complete and utter destruction of two of the world's largest, tallest structures and
a third building in New York that was not even struck by ANY aircraft at any time. Sorry, Herrmann, critics of this theory are not 'theorists'; they are
realists and
true skeptics. The 'official theory' is, however, a theory. It is also pure bunkum which even the co-chairs of the 911 commission now disown! They don't believe it. Why should you?
That brings up the topic of Building 7. Bush/Blair
gullibles have always included Building 7 as a part of the terrorist attack. By putting itself in the position of defending the outlandish, official conspiracy theory of them all, the BBC has, perhaps unwittingly, assumed the
burden of proof! If the BBC wishes to 'demolish' critics of the 'official conspiracy theory', it must then PROVE the 'official conspiracy'. BBC is sticking its neck out, perhaps pinning it own future on proving an 'official conspiracy theory' for which there is not a shred of evidence. Making minor changes to its story about surviving hijackers is a band-aid. Unless the BBC can rescue Bush/Blair, it may be finished. It is not wise for a news organization to pin its credibility, indeed, its hope for survival upon the word of two known liars: Bush and Blair.
Here's what the BBC must do to prove the Bush/Blair Official Conspiracy Theory of 911:
- The BBC must explain why steel melted and collapsed in a relatively cool kerosene fire when, in fact, no other building in the world had ever so collapsed! In fact, the fires at WTC --including Building 7 --were NEVER hot enough at any time to have melted steel! Moreover, by the time the Twin Towers collapsed, the billowing smoke was black. Any firefighter, any veteran reporter will tell you that 'black smoke means a cooling fire'. The fires were spent and the steel was never hot enough even for a second to have melted steel! Again --the burden of proof is upon BBC, Bush and Blair to PROVE the most stupid and outlandish conspiracy theory ever perpetrated upon a gullible pubic!
- The BBC must offer a credible explanation for the precise maneuver that is attributed to Flight 77 said to have hit the Pentagon. Bluntly --Hani Hanjour couldn't even fly a Cessna. He could not have banked a 757 90 degrees without crashing it, let alone execute a maneuver that many experienced pilots say is absolutely impossible in a 757.
- The BBC must PROVE, with photographs if it can get them, that it was a 757 that struck the Pentagon. Surely, Bush, eager to assist BBCs efforts on his behalf will will turn over every one of hundreds, possibly thousands of photos that were taken of the Pentagon and whatever it was that crashed into the Pentagon that fateful day! Surely, Bush will want to help the BBC out! Won't he?
- The BBC must PROVE that Flight 77 Flight Data is consistent with its crashing into the Pentagon. I am confident that the Flight Data from Flight 77 will prove conclusively that Flight 77 flew over the Pentagon at an altitude of about 200 feet or slightly higher. Let's open up the Black Box and see who is correct! Me? Or the BBC/Bush? I'm not sweatin' it!
Now let's talk about what is perhaps the BBC's biggest gaffe --more egregious even than its various after-the-fact circumlocutions in the wake of its report that Building 7 had collapsed when, in fact, it was still standing. That is: the BBC censored
only that portion of David Frost's interview with Benazir Bhutto in which she stated that Omar Sheikh had murdered Bin Laden years ago. Why did the BBC censor this portion and this portion
only? Did the BBC feel obliged to keep alive the myth that Osama Bin Laden --a CIA asset --was still alive? Why?
The Bush administration, it seems, has kept Bin Laden alive for about seven years. Bhutto's remarks confirmed numerous reports including those by Fox and the New York Times that bin Laden had been dead for several years. The BBC was not alone in "censoring" Bhutto's references to the death of bin Laden.
On November 2nd, 2007 two weeks after the first attempt on her life resulted in the deaths of 158 people, former Pakistani President Benazir Bhutto spoke with British interviewer David Frost about her plans for Pakistan, the botched assassination and her feelings about working with current President Pervez Musharraf. (In light of her death, this is a difficult video to watch.) In the course of the past few days, however, FOX News has aired short clips from this interview on Special Report. No one - including Frost - seems to have picked up on an astounding claim made by Mrs. Bhutto, namely, that Osama bin Laden is dead. Mme. Bhutto claimed that a man named Ahmed Omar Saeed Sheikh is "the man who murdered Osama bin Laden." With video.
FOX News & Other Media Outlets Ignore Benazir Bhutto's Claim That Osama bin Laden Is Dead
Fox News had a stake in keeping bin Laden alive --but it was trapped.
Fox had already reported him dead! Thus Benazir Bhutto was confirmed. It was on December 26, 2001, that the
Fox network reported that Osama bin Laden died of "serious lung complications" in mid-December of that year. The original Fox report is as follows:
Wednesday, December 26, 2001
Usama bin Laden has died a peaceful death due to an untreated lung complication, the Pakistan Observer reported, citing a Taliban leader who allegedly attended the funeral of the Al Qaeda leader.
"The Coalition troops are engaged in a mad search operation but they would never be able to fulfill their cherished goal of getting Usama alive or dead," the source said.
Bin Laden, according to the source, was suffering from a serious lung complication and succumbed to the disease in mid-December, in the vicinity of the Tora Bora mountains. The source claimed that bin Laden was laid to rest honorably in his last abode and his grave was made as per his Wahabi belief.
About 30 close associates of bin Laden in Al Qaeda, including his most trusted and personal bodyguards, his family members and some "Taliban friends," attended the funeral rites. A volley of bullets was also fired to pay final tribute to the "great leader."
The Taliban source who claims to have seen bin Laden's face before burial said "he looked pale ... but calm, relaxed and confident."
Asked whether bin Laden had any feelings of remorse before death, the source vehemently said "no." Instead, he said, bin Laden was proud that he succeeded in his mission of igniting awareness amongst Muslims about hegemonistic designs and conspiracies of "pagans" against Islam. Bin Laden, he said, held the view that the sacrifice of a few hundred people in Afghanistan was nothing, as those who laid their lives in creating an atmosphere of resistance will be adequately rewarded by Almighty Allah.
When asked where bin Laden was buried, the source said, "I am sure that like other places in Tora Bora, that particular place too must have vanished."
Bin Laden, therefore, could
not have issued a video tape on October 29, 2004 --just two days before the US election. This is the famous tape that many pundits believe "swung" the election from John Kerry to George Bush.
On October 29, 2004, two days before the US elections, the Arab television network al-Jazeera sprung an October Surprise by broadcasting a videotape of a healthy looking bin Laden addressing the people of the United States in which he took responsibility for the September 11, 2001 attacks. He also condemned the Bush government's response to the attacks, and presented the attacks as part of a campaign of revenge and deterrence begun after personally seeing the destruction of the Lebanese Civil War in 1982. See 2004 Osama bin Laden video.
President Bush opened up a six-point lead over John Kerry in the first opinion poll to include sampling taken after the videotape was broadcast. [21] Walter Cronkite found the video very convenient for the Bush administration, and said of it “I'm a little inclined to think that Karl Rove, the political manager at the White House, who is a very clever man, he probably set up bin Laden to this thing.” [22]
--Colin Bett, A 'Conspiracy Theory' Too Far?
Not only Fox, but the
New York Times also reported the death of Bin Laden.
Osama bin Laden is dead. The news first came from sources in Afghanistan and Pakistan almost six months ago: the fugitive died in December [2001] and was buried in the mountains of southeast Afghanistan. Pakistan's president, Pervez Musharraf, echoed the information. The remnants of Osama's gang, however, have mostly stayed silent, either to keep Osama's ghost alive or because they have no means of communication. With an ego the size of Mount Everest, Osama bin Laden would not have, could not have, remained silent for so long if he were still alive. He always liked to take credit even for things he had nothing to do with. Would he remain silent for nine months and not trumpet his own survival?
--New York Times. July 11, 2002
NYT has apparently re-published the story. The original publication date was: July 11, 2002. Fox, it would appear, scooped the NYT but, apparently forgot what they had reported. Professional journalists?
The issue of bin Laden's pulse surfaced more recently when the venerable BBC clearly censored remarks by Benazir Bhutto to the effect that bin Laden had been murdered. Why would the BBC have deleted only that portion of the interview? Following is the original, unedited version in which Bhutto states that Bin Laden had been murdered.
A fallacious rationalization has surfaced. It is said --as if scripted --that Bhutto misspoke, that she had meant to say "Daniel Perle". There is absolutely no reason to suppose or speculate that Bhutto misspoke. She did not pause. She did not struggle to find a name. Secondly, only an idiot would mistake Bin Laden for Perle. Bhutto was not an idiot.
Even if Bin Laden were alive, it would not prove that Bhutto misspoke, only that she was wrong. Not the same thing.
Theories that Bhutto 'misspoke' are baseless, pure supposition for which there is not a shred of evidence in support.
An essential resource:
Can someone with no flight training safely land an airliner? Plus: Pilotless planes, overpaid pilots and other aviation myths.
Perhaps the BBC is trying to make amends for having told the truth about 911 and the events leading up to it when it was not yet 'treasonous' to tell the truth. The best BBC reporting was done before 911, before the axis of Bush and Blair would deceive the world and intimidate the media. All would not go smoothly; Pakistan and Ahmed Shah Massoud's government in Afghanistan, meanwhile, had already signed a pipeline deal with an Argentinean company.
BBC - American government told other governments about Afghan invasion IN JULY 2001.
The wider objective was to oust the Taleban
By the BBC's George Arney
A former Pakistani diplomat has told the BBC that the US was planning military action against Osama Bin Laden and the Taleban even before last week's attacks. Niaz Naik, a former Pakistani Foreign Secretary, was told by senior American officials in mid-July that military action against Afghanistan would go ahead by the middle of October.
Mr Naik said US officials told him of the plan at a UN-sponsored international contact group on Afghanistan which took place in Berlin. Mr Naik told the BBC that at the meeting the US representatives told him that unless Bin Laden was handed over swiftly America would take military action to kill or capture both Bin Laden and the Taleban leader, Mullah Omar.The wider objective, according to Mr Naik, would be to topple the Taleban regime and install a transitional government of moderate Afghans in its place - possibly under the leadership of the former Afghan King Zahir Shah. Mr Naik was told that Washington would launch its operation from bases in Tajikistan, where American advisers were already in place.
He was told that Uzbekistan would also participate in the operation and that 17,000 Russian troops were on standby. Mr Naik was told that if the military action went ahead it would take place before the snows started falling in Afghanistan, by the middle of October at the latest.
He said that he was in no doubt that after the World Trade Center bombings this pre-existing US plan had been built upon and would be implemented within two or three weeks. And he said it was doubtful that Washington would drop its plan even if Bin Laden were to be surrendered immediately by the Taleban.
--US 'planned attack on Taleban', BBC
By July, 2001, the US State Department was reported to have been threatening the Taliban with carpet bombs.
U.S. Policy Towards Taliban Influenced by Oil
By Julio Godoy, Inter Press Service
PARIS, Nov 15 (IPS) - Under the influence of U.S. oil companies, the government of George W. Bush initially blocked U.S. secret service investigations on terrorism, while it bargained with the Taliban the delivery of Osama bin Laden in exchange for political recognition and economic aid, two French intelligence analysts claim.
In the book ''Bin Laden, la verité interdite'' (''Bin Laden, the forbidden truth''), that appeared in Paris on Wednesday, the authors, Jean-Charles Brisard and Guillaume Dasquie, reveal that the Federal Bureau of Investigation's deputy director John O'Neill resigned in July in protest over the obstruction.
Brisard claim O'Neill told them that ''the main obstacles to investigate Islamic terrorism were U.S. oil corporate interests and the role played by Saudi Arabia in it''. [emphasis mine, EC]
The two claim the U.S. government's main objective in Afghanistan was to consolidate the position of the Taliban regime to obtain access to the oil and gas reserves in Central Asia.
They affirm that until August, the U.S. government saw the Taliban regime ''as a source of stability in Central Asia that would enable the construction of an oil pipeline across Central Asia'', from the rich oilfields in Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, and Kazakhstan, through Afghanistan and Pakistan, to the Indian Ocean.
Until now, says the book, ''the oil and gas reserves of Central Asia have been controlled by Russia. The Bush government wanted to change all that''.
But, confronted with Taliban's refusal to accept U.S. conditions, ''this rationale of energy security changed into a military one'', the authors claim.
''At one moment during the negotiations, the U.S. representatives told the Taliban, 'either you accept our offer of a carpet of gold, or we bury you under a carpet of bombs','' Brisard said in an interview in Paris.
According to the book, the government of Bush began to negotiate with the Taliban immediately after coming into power in February. U.S. and Taliban diplomatic representatives met several times in Washington, Berlin and Islamabad.
To polish their image in the United States, the Taliban even employed a U.S. expert on public relations, Laila Helms. The authors claim that Helms is also an expert in the works of U.S. secret services, for her uncle, Richard Helms, is a former director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).
--US Policy Towards Taliban Influenced by Oil
The negotiations with the Taliban broke down. In that summer of 2001, the American people were distracted by the American media noise machine. See:
All Condit All The Time. The US Government was informing other governments that the US would be at war in Afghanistan no later than October. The US timetable for war was set
before 911 would conveniently provide the pretext. Pure luck? I don't think so.
Kansas City, MO (Zogby International) September 6, 2007 - As America nears the sixth anniversary of the world-churning events of September 11, 2001, a new Zogby International poll finds a majority of Americans still await a Congressional investigation of President Bush' and Vice President Cheney's actions before, during and after the 9/11 attacks. Over 30% also believe Bush and/or Cheney should be immediately impeached by the House of Representatives.
The 911truth.org–sponsored poll also found that over two-thirds of Americans say the 9/11 Commission should have investigated the still unexplained collapse of the 47-story World Trade Center Building 7 at 5:20 p.m. on September 11, 2001. ...
by Len Hart, The Existentialist Cowboy
