Forum

profile |  register |  members |  groups |  faq |  search  login

BBC: Unwilling to address facts?

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Media Lens Forum Index -> off-topic
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
marc



Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Posts: 491

Post Post subject: BBC: Unwilling to address facts? Reply with quote

"This year, for the tenth anniversary, the BBC and Mike Rudin are planning another episode on 9/11. Unfortunately, it is not expected to be an apology for the BBC’s promotion of war and societal destruction through promotion of the official conspiracy theories. Instead, word on the street is that BBC will attempt to smear and discredit professor Niels Harrit, [whose paper] has gone unanswered in the mainstream scientific literature for two and a half years. BBC has interviewed at least one known disinformation specialist for the purpose, and has once again declined my offer to help." - Kevin Ryan.

------- --------
Article by scientist and whistle-blower Kevin Ryan:
The BBC to Take Another Shot at 911 Truth
http://digwithin.net/2011/08/01/the-bbc-to-take-another-shot-at-911-truth/


"A nice propagandist who is not willing to address the facts."
Letter from whistle-blower Kevin Ryan to Mike Rudin, producer of BBC's "Conspiracy Files: 911"

Three years ago, the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) put out another episode in its ongoing “Conspiracy Files” series of programs. This series has covered many issues of public concern about government reports on inexplicable events, including the Lockerbie bombing, the 7/07 London bombing, the Oklahoma City bombing, and the mysterious death of microbiologist David Kelly.

In every single case, the BBC program concludes that there was nothing to worry about, that the official reports are correct, and that citizens should just go about their business and trust the government.

The 2008 episode was a second such program covering the events of 9/11, this one focused specifically on World Trade Center (WTC) building 7. It was entitled “The Third Tower” and surprised millions of people around the world by stating that the mystery surrounding the collapse of that 47-story building, which fell into its own footprint in 7 seconds, had finally been solved.

The BBC told us that the US government investigators would soon put all our minds to rest regarding this inexplicable event. That was far from the truth, however, as this earlier blog post makes clear.

In 2008, I had the opportunity to view a re-run of this program on the internet. After doing so, I wrote to the program’s producer, Mike Rudin, offering suggestions for improvement prior to the revision of the program for world-wide consumption.

The letter I wrote is below. Rudin must have been impressed as he asked to speak with me on the phone and we did so later for about 30-minutes. Basically, he is a very nice propagandist who is not willing to address the facts or correct his mistakes.

This year, for the tenth anniversary, the BBC and Mike Rudin are planning another episode on 9/11. Unfortunately, it is not expected to be an apology for the BBC’s promotion of war and societal destruction through promotion of the official conspiracy theories.

Instead, word on the street is that BBC will attempt to smear and discredit professor Niels Harrit, whose paper on nanothermite found in the WTC dust has gone unanswered in the mainstream scientific literature for two and a half years. BBC has interviewed at least one known disinformation specialist for the purpose, and has once again declined my offer to help.

It is unfortunate that the BBC, which is funded through mandatory television license fees charged to every British citizen, is insistent on spreading bad information that perpetuates the wars. The way in which it does that is becoming increasingly transparent, however, and therefore we can hope that the public catches on sooner rather than later.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
10th of July, 2008

Michael Rudin, Editor – The Conspiracy Files, British Broadcasting Corporation
Dear Mike,

Thanks for responding to my request to post your new episode. It appears that a number of others have now done so without your permission, and I’ve had a chance to view one of these bootleg versions.

In doing so, my first impression was to focus on the negative aspects, anticipating that it would be another Hearstory Channel propaganda piece. And although there was a definite slant toward the US government story, there were also a number of good points made in favor of the many citizens who are questioning that official conspiracy theory. So, thank you for your willingness to allow some of those points to be made.

But if I may be so bold, let me offer a few suggestions as you begin to edit for the “world version.” To begin with, please do keep the great truth representatives that were included, like Steve Jones, Richard Gage, Kamal Obeid, Scott Grainger, Dylan Avery and Luke Rudkowski. All these folks did very well, and should be proud. For example, we saw a licensed structural engineer being quoted on the BBC saying that the official story for WTC 7 is “impossible”. God bless him.

There are a number of cock-ups though, that could be easily corrected. To begin with, many non-British are not aware that "cock-up" is the British term used when speaking of mistakes, like predicting the collapse of a 47-story building, then losing the tapes that would verify this prediction, then finding the tapes much later in the adjoining file. [BBC earlier claimed to have lost the tapes]. I’m sure you’ve already considered changing that term.

Next would be the problem with discussing the latest research being done as part of the independent investigation. A few days ago I sent your research reporter, Kate Redman, a message about my new essay “NIST and Nano-Thermites”.[1] She had been asking, a few months ago, for more information. At the time, I forwarded some materials to her, including a patent issued to scientists at LLNL for nano-thermites, a US DOD quarterly magazine explaining how the process works, and a thesis published by a major US university. None of these documents were classified and all were easily found on the web.

Unfortunately, I understand that LLNL would not allow you to show the photos of the nano-thermites they had created (despite LLNL being funding with tax dollars). This was not a surprise, but it was a surprise the way you handled the information we did provide.

[Mike Rudin's production] "The Third Tower” ultimately said of nano-thermites only that –”the internet has references to secret forms of thermite”. I wonder, is it now a secret only because LLNL won’t cooperate? In any case, as you can read in my new essay, there are many, many people for whom it’s not a secret. And it just so happens that a number of them ran the NIST WTC investigation. For these reasons, I recommend you consider adding more detail on the possibilities.

Here are a few more aspects of the show that could be improved.

The opening statement is — “We all remember how the twin towers were destroyed on 9/11.“ But the fact is, many people won’t even look at the video. How, then, are we to “remember how the twin towers were destroyed“? And if we did, should we remember the first, second, third or fourth official story given?

We’re told that, at the time WTC 1 falls, “Tower 7 takes a direct hit” and “Fires were immediately reported in the building.” But little or no evidence is presented to support these claims. Additionally, you neglect any mention of the fact that the Verizon building (and the USPO building), equi-distant from the towers and right next to WTC 7, had no damage or fires whatsoever.

It is suggested that “conspiracy theorists” are now blaming the police and fire departments as being part of the conspiracy. This is repeated several times. But after investigating 9/11 for five years, and having never heard anything like this before, I can say the claim is highly exaggerated at the very least.

The narrator cautiously suggests that the Loose Change crew was able to find only one demolition expert. Yet then, to support the government’s position, you trot out Mark Loizeaux. Of course, Loizeaux is the same one demolition expert (not counting his daughter) that Popular Mechanics used, and the same guy that cleans up the evidence every time “terrorists” blow up a building in the US.

Despite the fact that he works with the US DoD, Loizeaux implies that he has never heard of explosive thermite. He also suggests that explosives cannot work without wiring, undoubtedly making viewers wonder how our soldiers are continually blown up by IEDs in Iraq, without any wiring whatsoever.

Mark goes on to suggest that he and his family “have been the subject of a hate campaign.” No evidence is given for this.

At one point, it is dramatically announced that — “Conspiracies have become big business.” But not one big businessman or businesswoman was given as evidence for this claim.

For my own part, I can say that I’ve contributed to two books, many videos, a scholarly journal, given presentations around the country for years, and not made one penny on any of it. So who is making this alleged killing? Apparently, only those profiting from the 9/11 Wars.

Much of the clamour in this new piece centers on Barry Jennings, whose June 2007 testimony I had never actually heard before. Jennings is foisted on us [by the BBC] as “the key witness“, as if no one ever had a problem with the “collapse” of WTC 7 until last year.

Apparently BBC missed the 60 FDNY members who reported hearing pre-warnings of the collapse of WTC 7 [2], and the more than 25 medical and emergency workers who claimed to have been cleared out because WTC 7 was coming down. My suggestion is to add the long-established website WTC7.net to the show and your website.

It was repeated that Steve Spak had verifiable photos of the damage to the south side of WTC 7. But only the one old, smoky photo suggesting damage to the southwest corner of WTC 7 was shown. We’ve all heard the old adage that “where there’s smoke, there’s fire”, but your precarious smoke = damage insinuation quickly evolved into the grand assumption that smoke = damage = 6.5 second collapse of a skyscraper. That’s a mighty stretch of the imagination. I suggest that you avoid this speculation if you can’t find more photos to support the idea of actual damage, and not simply smoke.

The BBC’s own 9/11 prediction of the “collapse” of WTC 7 was treated poorly. The reporter’s actual statements were never given, with the clips carefully edited to remove the prediction altogether. [BBC's Jane Standley reported WTC7's fall 20 minutes before the actual implosion]. The brief clips just showed her talking about other events, with the narrator talking over her, and with WTC 7 behind her. It seemed kind of odd though, and many viewers were sure to be left wondering what this segment was actually about.

[...]

Finally, comments from the ever-evasive [NIST director] Sivaraj Shyam ("Pancake Theory") Sunder should be considered.

He came up with a new claim, repeated several times, that the WTC 7 investigation was only about two years old. Of course, the idea that NIST had completely ignored WTC 7 for several years is probably not the best new tack for Sunder to take. But it makes us wonder if NIST’s “working hypothesis”, published in June 2004, after two years of work, was also just a cock-up.[4]

NIST had already told us that they began their investigation in August 2002, temporarily decoupled the WTC 7 report in June 2004 after completing a good deal of work, and then began work on WTC 7 again in October 2005 [5].

That means they’ve worked on WTC 7 for at least six years minus 16 months. That’s more than two years, even in the English system, isn’t it?
Could be just a math error on NIST’s part; forgot to carry the one, you know. It is true that NIST management has exhibited some poor analytical abilities of late.

In December, as they were preparing to publish yet another list of “responses to FAQs”, NIST’s spokesman Michael Newman made a number of embarrassing errors just reading the program for the Boston 9/11 Truth conference that was about to get under way. Newman wrote several messages to the organizers in an attempt to make absolutely clear that I was not an employee of NIST, having misread the subject line of the program. Funny, though, he didn’t mistake Ray McGovern as a former employee of “Opening Remarks”.

In any case, thanks again for your response and please do consider these points. We will all fare better for it.

Sincerely,

Kevin R. Ryan
Bloomington, IN

Co-editor, Journal of 9/11 Studies

Notes:
[1] Ryan, KR, The Top Ten Connections Between NIST and Nano-Thermites, J 9/11 Studies, July 2008 http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2008/Ryan_NIST_and_Nano-1.pdf

[2] MacQueen G, Waiting for Seven, J 9/11 Studies, January 2008 http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200701/MacQueenWaitingforSeven.pdf

[3] Cooperative Research History Commons, Context of September 11, 2001: WTC Building 7 Collapses; Cause Remains Unclear http://www.historycommons.org/contextsearch.jsp?queryString=ua&scale=3&type=context_search

[4] NIST interim Report on WTC 7, Appendix L, June 2004 http://wtc.nist.gov/progress_report_june04/appendixl.pdf

[5] NIST update on progress of WTC 7 investigation, June 2007 http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/wtc_062907.html

[6] BBC, 9/11 third tower mystery ‘solved’, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7485331.stm

Full article at Ryan's site: The BBC to Take Another Shot at 911 Truth - K Ryan
http://digwithin.net/2011/08/01/the-bbc-to-take-another-shot-at-911-truth/
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Scholars for Truth and Justice
http://stj911.org/blog/?p=1204

From The Horses Mouth: "We were set up to fail" Kean - 911 Commissioner
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a0LBARGBupM&feature=player_embedded

"This culture of denial in which we find ourselves is letting the crime of the century
slip unmolested into fake history
." - commentator at 911blogger

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

http://911blogger.com/news/2011-08-15/bbc-take-another-shot-911-truth#comment-252153

[1] Please complain to BBC Editorial Standards Committee

[Word is that] a lawyer is in correspondence with the BBC Trust, complaining about the BBC's partial reporting of the 9/11 attacks. He says that they seem to recognise that there is "a case to be answered" and that it is therefore essential that as many people as possible email them or preferably write in.

Please send an email to

trust.enquiries@bbc.co.uk.

and put "For the Attention of the Editorial Standards Committee" in the subject line.

The address for letters is BBC Trustees, Editorial Standards Committee, 180 Great Portland Street, London W1W 5QZ."


Last edited by marc on Wed Aug 29, 2012 12:53 pm; edited 7 times in total
Sun Aug 07, 2011 11:13 am
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
marc



Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Posts: 491

Post Post subject: Reply with quote

Shameful that BBC supports this Popular Mechanics position in all its essentials

The Popular Mechanics IQ Test

A look at Popular Mechanics and its failed defense of the official story

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5PGth7KbI0

Popular Mechanics is a consistent arms industry and war supporter - it ran a laudatory article on the 'Fallujah battle', for example.


Last edited by marc on Sun Nov 24, 2013 7:26 pm; edited 2 times in total
Wed Oct 26, 2011 12:20 pm
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
marc



Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Posts: 491

Post Post subject: Reply with quote

MONITORING AUTHORITY: BBC CHARTER COMPLIANCE
Reviewing the BBC's coverage of the 2001 attack on America. The review highlights some obvious conflicts with the BBC Royal Charter obligations

http://www.bbcmot.blogspot.com/

"It is as a scientist that I have the most trouble with the official government conspiracy theory, mainly because it does not satisfy the rules of probability or physics” - - Lt. Col. Karen U. Kwiatkowski, PhD, U.S. Air Force (ret)


Last edited by marc on Sun Nov 24, 2013 7:28 pm; edited 1 time in total
Mon Mar 12, 2012 9:26 am
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
marc



Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Posts: 491

Post Post subject: Reply with quote

Up until now, mainstream journalists have either
(a) ignored the anomalies of the Official Theory
(b) ignored people who indicate they would like public discussion
(c) disparaged the issue, using loaded pejorative words
(d) conflated the issue with non-related phenomena
(e) made a discernable habit (particularly in the case of the BBC) of ignoring the best evidence and promoting the hoaxes, as well as ignoring the strongest spokesmen and promoting the weakest.

Why does the BBC, when it ventures into 911 territory under its "Conspiracy" banner, choose to ignore suitably qualified people and feature Frank Spotnitz, a Hollywood X-Files scriptwriter?

A closer look at the BBC's condescending and biased 'Conspiracy' corner

http://bbc911confile.blogspot.com/2008/06/conspiracy-files-web-page.html


Holding the BBC to account
(human rights lawyer Paul Warburton's action)

http://911blogger.com/news/2012-05-20/holding-bbc-account-over-911-coverage-call-action-global-truth-movement

Holding the BBC accountable

http://www.ae911truth.org/en/news-section/60-action-alerts/631-hold-the-bbc-accountable.html

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

BBC interviews Niels Harritt


BBC journalist hard at work, arguing in the US Dept of Commerce NIST corner ...

What a revealing) performance from the BBC's Mike Rudin, continually trying to draw Professor Niels Harrit [Copenhagen University Chemistry department] into speculation. Note the way Rudin quotes both himself and "the BBC" as authoritative sources, in lieu of science discussion between experts in the public domain. The BBC censors this discussion out of the news section. The info is categorised under the "Conspiracy Files" banner. Orwell could not have set it up better.

Harrit wisely insisted on personally taping this interview alongside the BBC camera and owning his own copyright, because well over 90% of interview ended up on cutting room floor.

May 2011 BBC interview with Niels Harrit
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IT-pFzOo5YM

Notes:
(i) Rudin brings up the primer paint story again. Harrit correctly asks for Rudin's sources to present a paper in the public domain, rather than communicate via the BBC.

(ii) Rudin stays quiet when Harrit points out the NASA satellite thermal images which show that extremely high temperatures persisted in the WTC rubble pile for five days, despite rain and chemical coolants. Officially unexplained to this day. Harrit also mentions the Environment Protection Agency/Uni of Calif. Davis readings of volatile chemical spikes 'never before seen in structure fire'.

US Geological Survey - Nasa images
http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0429/thermal.r09.html

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/rubblefires.html

Environmental Anomalies at Ground Zero - The Environmentalist (Springer Journals)
http://www.springerlink.com/content/f67q6272583h86n4/fulltext.html

Extract from above paper:

Quote:
1 Introduction

For months after the destruction at the World Trade Center (WTC) on 11th September, 2001, the fires at Ground Zero (GZ) could not be put out, despite the following facts:

• Several inches of dust covered the entire area after the destruction of the WTC buildings.

• Millions of gallons of water were sprayed onto the debris pile.

• Several rainfall events occurred at GZ, some heavy; and

• A chemical fire suppressant called Pyrocool was pumped into the piles (Lipton and Revkin 2001).

The characteristics of these un-extinguishable fires have not been adequately explained as the results of a normal structure fire, even one accelerated by jet fuel.

Conversely, such fires are better explained given the presence of chemical energetic materials, which provide their own fuel and oxidant and are not deterred by water, dust, or chemical suppressants
/ paper continues at link...
"Environmental Anomalies at Ground Zero" - The Environmentalist (Springer Journals)
http://www.springerlink.com/content/f67q6272583h86n4/fulltext.html



The corporate liberal left media has been a crucial if unwitting partner to the US military in *voluntarily* bundling, marginalising and placing beyond the bounds of acceptable discourse those who question official narrative. Who benefits from the fact that the media omits serious critique?


Last edited by marc on Sun Nov 24, 2013 7:33 pm; edited 6 times in total
Thu May 17, 2012 8:52 am
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
marc



Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Posts: 491

Post Post subject: Reply with quote

BBC Campaign Shifts Into Second Gear

http://www.ae911truth.org/en/news-section/41-articles/647-the-bbc-campaign-shifts-into-second-gear.html

Three of our [Architects and Engineers] petition signers in the UK have filed separate and formal complaints with the British Broadcasting Corporation over two documentaries it aired last year around the 10th anniversary of 9/11. The BBC has breached its Royal Charter and its Agreement and Editorial Guidelines, which include Editorial Values that promise truth, accuracy, impartiality, editorial integrity and independence, fairness, transparency and accountability in all the BBC’s programs.

In our first Action Alert on this subject, we said, “The BBC Trust will make a decision any day now on whether to have a meeting with three petition signers who have filed a complaint over the BBC’s biased coverage of 9/11.”

Apparently, the Editorial Standards Committee (ESC), part of the BBC Executive Branch, is the gatekeeper in this process. They can decide whether the BBC Trust would be interested in an appeal and, if they think not, they can choose not to forward the appeal to the BBC Trust. This is what happened with all three of our petition signers’ complaints. The same thing may have happened to your letters to the ESC. The Editorial Standards Committee met again on July 5 and will publish their minutes in August.

The BBC Executive Branch has delayed and denied this complaint process all along. They remain utterly uninterested and have resorted to very questionable interpretations and applications of the Editorial Guidelines and guidance to justify their denial of the complaints.

Our petition signers in the UK who are running this campaign have decided to ask for a meeting with the 11 MPs (Members of Parliament) on UK’s Culture, Media and Sport Committee, which has oversight authority over the BBC and to ask the Committee to conduct its own inquiry into the biased coverage of 9/11 by the BBC. The MPs on this Media Committee are the ones who can really hold the BBC accountable to its Royal Charter and Agreement and Editorial Guidelines. We are asking you to write a letter to the MPs in support of this request with a cc to the individual BBC Trustees. You can do all of this through our website.

"Hold The BBC Accountable"

http://www.ae911truth.org/en/news-section/60-action-alerts/631-hold-the-bbc-accountable.html

"To make a long story short, the BBC Executive Board has rejected the complaints and appeals filed by our 3 petition signers in the UK and has prevented them, and probably your 250 letters, from even being seen by the BBC Trustees. The BBC's complaint process is compromised and the BBC's Royal Charter, Agreement, and Editorial Guidelines are not being upheld. "
Mon Aug 06, 2012 7:09 am
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
marc



Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Posts: 491

Post Post subject: Reply with quote

"That is one of the things I warned you about:
In the 20th Century, steel melted at 1535 degrees C
but in the 21st Century, it melts at 800 degrees C
" - J McMichael, Muslims Suspend Laws of Physics!.
J McMichael's article was published in October 21, 2001. He, along with others, was branded a conspiracy theorist and his observations were ignored and/or ridiculed by corporate media.

20 July 2011

Dear BBC

BBC Asserts It Knows Exactly What Happened, 48 Hours Later:
Can You Explain Your Dry-Labbed Journalism
?


Quote:
The 13/09/01 graphic from the BBC is thoroughly inaccurate.


BBC Graphic 13 September 2001,13:59 UK
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/1540044.stm

Why is it inaccurate?

- It describes the columns as steel-reinforced concrete when in fact they were 100% steel.

- It depicts the core as a being a fraction of its actual dimensions.

- It states that 800ºC temperatures can melt steel, when steel's melting point is 1535ºC.


The BBC quoted a Chris Wise less than 48 hours after the event in its September 13, 2001 piece How the World Trade Centre Fell. Wise spoke with cinematic emphasis:

Quote:
"It was the fire that killed the buildings. There's nothing on earth that could survive those temperatures with that amount of fuel burning ... The columns would have melted, the floors would have melted and eventually they would have collapsed one on top of each other."



"[But] the fundamental problem with the jet-fuel-melting-steel explanation is that its premise contradicts the laws of physics," write scientist Jim Hoffman in Waking From Our Nightmare. "No amount of ‘aviation fluid’ burning in the open flames of a building fire could even begin to melt steel."

"1535ºC is the melting point of structural steel, whereas 825ºC is around the maximum temperature attainable with hydrocarbon-fueled fires without systematic pre-heating or pressurization of the air. "

The BBC executive has announced it will appoint a new science editor to raise the profile of science in BBC news. This is to be welcomed. http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/jul/20/bbc-climate-change-science-coverage

Alison Hastings of the BBC Trust is reported as saying the BBC must avoid "bias by elimination" and include "dissenting voices" in debates over all science issues. She added that "clearer identification of individuals' expertise and agendas" would help audiences "judge their comments".

Here is one example of an article where clearer identification by the BBC of the journalist's "expertise and agenda" would have been helpful.

How the World Trade Centre Fell
by Sheila Barter
Thursday, 13 September, 2001, 12:59 GMT 13:59 UK
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/1540044.stm

Date and time are highlighted to indicate that this journalist - on a BBC platform - purported to explain the wholly unprecedented building performance of steel skyscrapers (a science issue) a mere 48 hours after the event, prior to any forensics or independent investigation and citing no solid supporting evidence or peer-reviewed paper.

When British-educated physicist John Wyndham (PhD) was asked to list the scientific errors in BBC articles pertaining to the WTC buildings he replied: "Where to begin?" His 73-strong group of named, science-educated professionals seems well placed to run through the article with the new BBC science editor - discussing related issues like fire temperatures, steel performance, NIST's own refutation of the "pancake theory" (depended upon by BBC expert Chris Wise) and Newton's laws of conservation of momentum. Find the group at http://www.scientistsfor911truth.org/about.html

To ignore the viewpoints of scores of credentialed science professionals does unfortunately leave the BBC open to accusation of "bias by elimination". If you look at the BBC Editors Blog "Conspiracy Files:911" files during the period 2006 - 2009 you will note that many thousands of listeners requested then that the BBC not engage in bias by elimination. Many were appalled that the BBC never reported NIST conceding 'freefall' after physicist David Chandler's correction, though many viewers requested it do so.

If the BBC wants to 'help the audience judge the comments [of a wide-range of experts]' as it says it does, unpacking the article by the BBC's Sheila Barter - in a transparent manner - would be a good place to start.

A further suggestion would be to call back Chris Wise ** - the expert the BBC consulted 24 hours after the event - for an in-studio live debate with two or three of the engineers and physicists who have continued studying the issue over the last decade.

Clearly, both sides cannot be correct. Open debate among experts will soon sort out who has the weak argument. Should Sheila Barter be proved correct in a free and fair forum, the BBC will be the stronger for it.

Kind regards.

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

Note:

** Chris Wise explaining the tower implosions to BBC viewers 24 hours later
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w2hZW9XKcPY

Note his reference to:
- - WTC 7 (Saloman Bros Bldg), which was not hit by a plane, being brought down by 'debris'.
Fallacious. Even NIST conceded debris had nothing to do with this.
- - According to Wise, jet fuel suddenly had the ability to melt steel.
- - Global 'pancake' collapse. Discredited by NIST itself and by Newton's Laws of conservation of momentum.
[See also "Can You Spot the Pile Driver?" at http://911review.com/coverup/fantasy/piledriver.html ]

Quote:
One of the first people to point out the absurdity of the idea that building fires with hydrocarbon fuels could melt steel was J. McMichael who published "Muslims Suspend Laws of Physics!" on October 21, 2001.

e x c e r p t : Muslims Suspend Laws of Physics!

"Using jet fuel to melt steel is an amazing discovery, really. It is also amazing that until now, no one had been able to get it to work, and that proves the terrorists were not stupid people.

"Thankfully, I found this note on the BBC web page: "Fire reaches 800 C — hot enough to melt steel floor supports."

"That is one of the things I warned you about: In the 20th Century, steel melted at 1535 degrees C but in the 21st Century, it melts at 800 degrees C... I try not to wonder how the fire reached temperatures that only bottled oxygen or forced air can produce. And I try not to think about all the steel that was in that building -- 200,000 tons of it."
www.911review.com/articles/jm/mslp_1.htm
Sun Nov 24, 2013 7:13 pm
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
marc



Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Posts: 491

Post Post subject: Reply with quote

Holding the BBC to account for public deception

In 2007, mechanical engineer J Blacker planned to sue the BBC for public deception for their unscientific documentaries hosted under the BBC: Conspiracy Files/ 911 umbrella. Mr. Blacker said: “The BBC is being sued for lying to viewers and a formal apology and a new film correcting the scandalous misinformation is needed.
[John Blacker: Physics, Mechanical Engineering M.Sc. Semiconductor Device Physics, University of Lancaster, 2004]

Blacker (part of Scientists for 911 Truth) reported that when he first took the action he 'believed the BBC had made genuine errors.
"As I received replies from the BBC and their barristers it became clear the BBC was in fact totally dishonest and no amount of genuine 911 evidence would change their intention to peddle propaganda. Where I was unsuccessful in my prime objective, I did have minor success with respect to the BBC being exposed for the propaganda machine it has become."

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

"The science is pretty simple; only its political consequences are complicated, and troubling"

See: 'NEWTON 1 - NIST 0' :
http://medialens.org/23_fg_75_lc/viewtopic.php?t=3206
Sun Nov 24, 2013 7:16 pm
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
marc



Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Posts: 491

Post Post subject: Reply with quote

Letter of complaint regarding a BBC Editors Blog entry by Mike Rudin, producer of the BBC's Conspiracy Files: 911 programme: The Truth About The Third Tower. No reply ever received.

The salient paragraph, perhaps:
"There is no legal authority on 911. No evidence has ever been provided to prove the official theory correct beyond reasonable doubt. This means that neither the BBC nor its journalists, lacking full subpoena powers, are in a position to assert precisely which theory – official or alternative – is correct. An impartial journalist would give the official version, opposing theories and credible science papers their due weight in order to facilitate viewers forming their own opinion."

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

To: BBC Complaints Department
- 22 June 2009.


We wish to complain about Mike Rudin’s lack of impartiality and accuracy in his BBC Editors Blog entry, 'Caught Up in a Conspiracy Theory' [1]

Rudin has engaged just once with the 3 300 comments posted at his blog.

At 4:21pm on 22 May 2009, he wrote:

“There’ve been some really interesting comments and debate, but the substantial issues remain… The official investigators, NIST, have provided a detailed explanation of what happened.’

Rudin indicates that he has read the comments,which means he has seen the endlessly repeated references and links to:

(i) David Chandler’s work, disproving a key National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) calculation and demonstrating a period of freefall in WTC7, which NIST itself now finally admits. [2] Freefall - consistent with all resistance being instantaneously removed - is not consistent with NIST’s fire-led, gravitational collapse theory.

(ii) The recent peer-reviewed paper authored by Dr Niels Harrit of the University of Copenhagen and eight others: a forensic study supported by physical testing, which identifies incendiary [3] residue in WTC dust [4].

Issues (i) and (ii) post-date the screening of Rudin’s “The Truth Behind The Third Tower” documentary and his last Blog entry. Rudin dismisses these important new disclosures by using “but” – a word expressing opposition - followed by the phrase “… the substantial issues remain”.

So what is one such “substantial” issue, that in Rudin’s opinion outweighs issues (i) and (ii) to the extent that he feels no need to acknowledge or cover them?

The “official investigators, NIST” and their “detailed explanation”, it turns out.

“Substantial” can mean “real, true, important, firmly constructed” (Merriam-Webster Dictionary). In classifying the US Department of Commerce's official NIST explanation as “substantial”, Rudin infers it is “true” and “firmly constructed”.

Given that the Harrit paper passed through stringent peer-review according to its authors (who collectively have scores of previously-published, peer-reviewed science papers behind them) - the Harrit paper (absent a scientific rebuttal) could also be described as “true” or “firmly constructed”. Chandler - a trained physicist and upstanding member of the American Association of Physics Teachers - also produces work which is "firmly constructed".

Rudin’s assessment amounts to a one-sided value judgement, favouring NIST. Rudin is not neutral here.

The BBC needs to explain exactly why the work of Harrit and Chandler should be ignored and discounted - or the BBC risks charges of censoring their work.

There is no legal authority on 911. No evidence has ever been provided to prove the official theory correct beyond reasonable doubt.

This means that neither the BBC nor its journalists, lacking full subpoena powers, are in a position to assert precisely which theory – official or alternative – is correct.

An impartial journalist would give the official version, opposing theories and credible science papers their due weight, in order to facilitate viewers forming their own opinion.

This journalist does not afford each side of the ‘911’ discussion its due weight.

Rudin ignores significant new disclosures while implicitly upholding the official NIST report, even though:

- the NIST final report on WTC7 does not support itself with evidence;

- the NIST report has never been peer-reviewed;

- NIST has been forced to admit to a period of freefall in WTC7, essentially undermining its own conclusion;

- NIST’s ‘fire-led gravitational collapse’ conclusion has been called into doubt by some credible science professionals. [5]

- The new paper by Harrit et al raises disturbing questions about why NIST declined to test for thermite arson in defiance of standard US fire codes.

As series producer on the “911” subject and presumably the BBC’s expert on the subject, Rudin’s failure to update his material leaves the BBC’s reportage on ‘911’ in an incomplete, inaccurate and misleading state.

Rudin’s reply and work do not measure up against BBC’s own Editorial Guidelines, such as: “We must ensure we avoid bias or an imbalance of views on controversial subjects’ and “We should not distort known facts, present invented material as fact, or knowingly do anything to mislead our audiences.”

Is it a journalist’s proper role to stand silent as significant new facts emerge?

We look forward to a reply.
Kind regards [ ]


Notes
[1] BBC Editors Blog: The Conspiracy Files: 911 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2008/10/caught_up_in_a_conspiracy_theo.html?page=7#comments

[2] David Chandler – NIST Finally Admits Freefall
http://www.ae911truth.org/flashmov13.htm

[3] Pyrotechnics in the WTC Made Simple – Jim Hoffman http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/thermite/thermitics_made_simple.html

[4] Active Material Discovered in WTC Dust After 911 Catastrophe, Harrit et al, Open Chemical Physics Journal (Bentham) . - http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/context.php?TOCPJ/2009/0000000200000001/7TOCPJ.SGM

[5] Fourteen Points of Agreement with Official Government Reports on the WTC Destruction, Jones et al The Open Civil Engineering Journal (Bentham)
http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCIEJ/2008/00000002/00000001/35TOCIEJ.SGM
Sun Nov 24, 2013 7:59 pm
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
marc



Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Posts: 491

Post Post subject: Reply with quote

Strawman argument from the BBC:

'Part Of The Conspiracy' by Richard Porter / BBC Editors Blog

'Everyone' is 'accusing' the BBC of 'being part of a conspiracy', apparently.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2007/02/part_of_the_conspiracy.html


Last edited by marc on Wed Nov 27, 2013 7:01 am; edited 1 time in total
Sun Nov 24, 2013 8:13 pm
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
marc



Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Posts: 491

Post Post subject: Reply with quote

IF 911 building performance researchers are ridiculous kooks, why do serious people waste time responding to them at all? Luckily, some serious people do feel compelled to respond and it's fascinating to see who they are and what they have to say.

One of the most interesting official-story-defenders turns out to be a clever engineer from the University of Cambridge's Engineering Department, a member of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA), according to his website. [ww-civ.eng.cam.ac.uk/struct/kas/research.html]

The University of Cambridge is cloaked in authority, as is the BBC, so it was interesting to see with what alacrity the authoritative BBC pounced on the authoritative Cambridge Uni lecturer's paper before it was even published.

BBC on Seffen: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6987965.stm

'Ordinary' seemed to be the take-away message. The eleven-second-plunge-through-the-path-of-greatest-resistance of steel structure X 2 amounted to very 'ordinary' building performance, according to Dr Seffen.

A research scientist from the University of Iowa, Dr Crocket Grabbe, swiftly unpacked Seffen's parcel to expose a one-dimensional take on 3-D reality, but the BBC unfortunately did not pounce on that paper, published ASCE Feb 2008 Vol 134 No 2 and available here >
Dr Crocket Grabbe's discussion of the Seffen paper (pdf): http://www2.ae911truth.org/docs/Seffenrevpub.pdf

In essence, Dr Grabbe points out that:

- Seffen 'completely ignores conservation of momentum in all his uses of the word "freefall"

- The Towers "cannot be analysed as one-dimensional sticks, ie 1500-foot telephone poles." Seffen's 1-D maths model neglects the 3-D nature of the structure

- Seffen sees gravitational as the only force involved, ignoring the horizontal forces clearly evident in video of multi-ton steel assemblies hurtling laterally and photographic evidence of steel assembly impaled in buildings 100 metres away.

- Seffen claims the 'factors responsible for the onset of collapse are well-established' ie. 'fires compromised columns near the impact'. These factors are not 'well established'. It turns out Seffen is improving on the officially-embraced Bazant-Zhou "Crush-Down Crush-Up" theory.

- The "Crush Up Crush Down" theory does not agree with observations. Video documentation shows that, for example, the South Tower did not even come close to "crushing up" after the bottom part of the Tower "crushes down" all the way to the ground in 11 seconds, despite the fact the steel columns got progressively thicker in the lower sections of these heavily redundant buildings (NBC 2001).

Dr Paul Craig Roberts has written " if the government’s story has to be improved by outside experts in order to be plausible, then it is not irrational or kooky to doubt the official explanation."

See: "Keep Your Hats On: Keith Seffen's "Mathematical Model Of The WTC Collapse" Is Incoherent, Inappropriate And Almost Meaningless
http://winterpatriot.blogspot.com/2007/11/keep-your-hats-on-keith-seffens.html


Dr Seffen and the Progressive Collapse of Western Science

- from www.canadianspectator.ca/stuff/Seffen.html

Quote:
"Profanity given up - Due to fatigue."
- Mark Twain (The Notebooks)

WITH ME, it's not the profanity, it's the spectating I'm inclined to give up due to fatique.

But whenever I turn my thoughts from the crimes and corruption of the global ruling elite, to matters closer to home [...] something astounding comes down the pike from the more distant scene that seems impossible to ignore.

Among the latest of such items, is the BBC's report that Dr. Keith Seffen of Cambridge University is to publish a paper in a "peer-reviewed" scholarly journal proving that the collapse of the World Trade Centre Towers at free-fall speed is easily explained, contrary to "many conspiracy theories [which propose] that the buildings came down in a manner consistent with a "controlled demolition".

But as the conclusions of the paper appear to contradict Newtonian mechanics, and in particular the principal of the conservation of momentum, it must be assumed to be nonsense.

A hoax, in fact, designed to exploit the credibility of the world's most famous centre of scientific learning to conceal the cause, and thereby the perpetrators, of the 9/11 mass murders, not to mention the ensuing mass murder of over a million Iraqis and an unknown numbers of Afghans.

Now a technical assessment of Seffen's paper by a highly qualified reviewer is available, [see below] which seems to confirm that the paper is a hoax, and a poorly executed one at that. Seffen's paper ... appears to provide evidence, if more were needed, that we are now witnessing the end, or at least the beginning of the end, of the age of western science.

What Seffen's hoax (perpetrated with the backing of the University of Cambridge - Isaac Newton's alma mater) reveals is that the discovery of knowledge is neither the exclusive, nor even the primary objective of the leading western institutions of science. Rather, western science has embarked on its own era of Lysenkoism*, its most important role being to implement the will of an anti-democratic elite intent on applying every means to the business of social control and the globalization of monopoly capitalism.

As C.S. Lewis noted, the seeds of Western science's demise have existed from the outset:

"If we compare the chief trumpeter of the new era (Bacon) with Marlowe's Faustus, the similarity is striking. You will read in some critics that Faustus has a thirst for knowledge. In reality he hardly mentions it. It is not truth he wants from the devils, but gold and guns and girls. In the same spirit, Bacon condemns those who value knowledge as an end in itself... The true object is to extend Man's power to the performance of all things possible. He rejects magic because it does not work; but his goal is that of the magician ..." - (The Abolition of Man)

We should not, therefore, be astonished if what we now see is the "progressive collapse" of the culture of Western science at free-fall speed"



* Lysenkoism: used colloquially to describe the manipulation or distortion of the scientific process as a way to reach a predetermined conclusion as dictated by an ideological bias, often related to social or political objectives http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysenkoism

The Guardian also covered Seffen's view, unchallenged:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2007/sep/11/highereducation.uk1

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

Dr Crocket Grabbe has recently brought out a book that challenges the official narrative from a science perspective: "National Swindle: The WTC Attacks". [SeaLink Publishing]. Grabbe quotes NIST whistleblower: "Former NIST chief of Fire Division Dr James Quintiere declared in 2007 that he no longer accepts NIST's work, noting we need to 'look at real alternatives that might have been the cause of these collapses,' which NIST refused to do.'

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
"It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong. Reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled."
-- Physicist Richard P. Feynman.


Last edited by marc on Sun Jan 26, 2014 6:56 am; edited 2 times in total
Mon Nov 25, 2013 10:20 am
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
marc



Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Posts: 491

Post Post subject: Reply with quote

BBC At It Again

BBC talks up neo-con think-tanker and conspiracy-obsessed Jonathan Kay (author of a David Aaronovitch-type book on conspiracies) as well as arms-industry-promoting magazine Popular Mechanics, while side-lining professional, fully qualified engineers and architects, trained at leading universities like M.I.T.

BBC article exposed:
http://rethink911.org/news/bbc-article-rethink911-keeps-building-7-in-the-headlines/
Wed Dec 18, 2013 4:41 pm
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Media Lens Forum Index -> off-topic All times are GMT + 1 Hour
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2005 phpBB Group
    printer friendly
eXTReMe Tracker