BBC Conspiracy Files 9/11

Tweet

The new Conspiracy Files documentary on BBC2 tonight very much took the line that the 9/11 'conspiracy theories' were just that, and set out to demolish them. This is of course what you would expect the BBC to do. There was some solid journalism ie talking to credible sources - the thing that those who question the official theory sorely lack. It had at least 2 very convincing sources. First of all, the architect of WTC 1 and 2 said that the planes hitting the towers and the fuel released were sufficient to bring down the buildings in the manner that they collapsed. The steel in the buildings did not need to melt in order to give way, merely to become weak and then buckle. This could happen at lower temperatures than the demolition theorists have claimed. I have long thought this. However, it was seriously remiss of the programme not to interview anyone from Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth (1500 signatories) or Pilots for 9/11 Truth. In regard to flight 77 hitting the Pentagon, they had the convincing account of the airforce pilot who witnessed the American Airlines jet hitting the Pentagon from the air. This is hard to refute - although the FBIs's failure to release lots of CCTV footage does still raise questions. They interviewed Niels Harrit, the Danish co-author of the 2009 paper on the WTC7 collapse, which found thermitic materials in the WTC dust - and they found 2 American scientists who did an unconvincing job of refuting his work. No scientific paper has refuted the Harrit paper in the 2 years since it was published.

The programme used the effective but unfair technique of only interviewing the more unconvincing or out there 'conspiracy theorists' while ignoring the credible ones. In particular, going to the Loose Change film makers was a clear effort to discredit those who question the official theory. (The film takes in so many claims that they tend to undermine the more credible claims.) And Dylan Avery himself, Loose Change director, comes over like an wannabe upstart in this film. They then wrapped up the programme by saying that the victims' families would have to continue suffering the indignity of these theories for some time to come. This is an outrageous slur on the very same families who have supported calls for a new investigation of 9/11 - there are a large number of these. Are they all just conspiracy fools too? Disappointingly, the film makers decided not to interview any 9/11 family members calling for a new investigation.

The programme just scratched the surface of the massive evidence that the intelligence services and their masters in government knew that there was a plot to use jets to hit the WTC and the Pentagon. Attorney General John Ashcroft stopped flying commercial jets on news of a threat. There are credible insider witnesses they could have interviewed but chose not to - although they did give a few seconds to one senior Bush official, Richard Clarke, who has recently suggested that the government did not act on the information it had. All in all, some good journalism, but a basic failure to give air to the most convincing advocates and witnesses to a cover up. It is true there is no real hard evidence of an 'inside job' - with the possible exception of building 7 - but there is hard evidence that some in the government knew what was planned and did not act to stop it.

Furthermore, by focusing on the idea of a Bush led plot to use the attacks to start wars, it sets up a premise that cannot be proven without an investigation. It is one thing to say the official narrative is a false one - another to set up another narrative that is also unproven. The only thing that can be proven is that the official account does not add up and hence a new investigation is needed.