There were also some nice touches of sophistry and cack reasoning, ...
Famous for 15 Megapixels

In a comment on the above Tony provides the following excerpt from the transcript of the BBC's program:

Minute 44 and following:

Frank Spotnitz: "And we assemble bits of information and tell ourselves stories. And I think the world is so complicated, that conspiracy theories are very appealing because they take only a few bits of information and string them together in a way that seems logical and to certain people with a certain political or ideological bent pleasing in fact. Because it vindicates, it justifies what you already believe."

Aside from being, as Stef points out, an example of the BBC's plausible bullshit reasoning, it diverts attention from the fact that it may take only a single bit of information to prove the U.S. Government's account of 9/11 entirely false.

The dog that did not bark, for example.

One of the single facts that collapses the official 9/11 official story as spectacularly as explosives demolished the Trade Towers, is Larry Silverstein's admission that Building 7 was "pulled".

You can do the math (PDF) to prove that building 7 came down at free fall speed, which would have been impossible without the use of explosive. But why bother when the building lease owner has stated on the PBS special "Rebuilding America" that the collapse of Building 7 was a controlled demolition.

The presence of molten metal in the basement of the Trade Towers is another single fact that collapses the official story. The Government claims that jet fuel melted the steel and brought down the towers.

We know the steel melted. There were pools of it in the basement. We also know that a jet fuel fire cannot melt steel. Therefore, we know that the Government's claim that the Trade Towers were brought down by jet fuel fires is false. Therefore, we know that something other than jet fuel, thermite possibly, melted the steel and brought the towers down.

Bollocks from the BBC: Part 27
9/11 Conspiracy Files: Points Ignored
Fact: FEMA was in New York on September 10.

Fact: Odigo workers received warning of the 9/11 attacks.

Etc., etc. ...
WRH

BBC to retract 9/11 bollocks?
The BBC's response to complaints made against the bias and inaccuracy of the 9/11 Conspiracy Files documentary suggests that an overwhelming backlash has caused considerable consternation at the network and possible retractions or apologies may be forthcoming, with BBC bosses potentially fearing the company's credibility has been tarnished. ...

From what can be gleaned ...
Prison Planet

"From what can be gleaned..." What does that mean? Not even "a BBC official said." How do they do this gleaning? Listening at keyholes? Picking through garbage cans, or what?

We'll believe the BBC has lost its nerve when we see the apology and retraction:

"The BBC hereby acknowledges that with all deliberation and with the earnest intention to deceive, the Corporation did knowingly and willfully broadcast a load of bollocks to help cover the crimes of omission and commision by the Government of the United States in connection with the mass murder that occurrred in New York on September 11, 2001."

In the meantime just remember that the BBC is crap.

BBC 9/11 "documentary" producer acknowledges bias
Smith was forced to state "no I'm not denying that" when he was questioned on the imbalance of having four times the amount of debunkers compared to skeptics. ...
Prison Planet

Don't take Alex Jones' word for it. Listen to what Guy Smith from the BBC had to say when asked why they did not consider in their film how pools of molten structural steel (melting point greater than 3000 F) were created by a jet fuel fire (maximum temperature 1800 F).

Here's the answer:

"Er, well, the reality of it is that we had 59 minutes and, frankly, we could have spent all day talking about just the Twin Towers. We covered a lot of ground in the program. Everything from ...

so we only had 59 minutes just as now we only have one hour for this program ... so we decided to concentrate on some things more than others. Now clearly one could spend a whole hour discussing the melting point of steel."

Not really, the melting point of steel is a fact, not something that can be massaged out of existence with a lot of "Ers" and "wells" and "frankly's". That's precisely why it's critical. You cannot get around it.

"But I guess the bottom line to the Twin Towers is, are you saying they were demolished. Now if you were you have to look at why that happened and how that happened. And we looked into that, and we came to the conclusion that the evidence just doesn't support that conspiracy theory."

Oh very good, if you say the government account is a pack of lies, and the U.S. Government is known for its strict adherence to the truth come what may -- right, then you have to look at this and you have to look at that, and so we looked at this and we looked at that and, by gum, we found everything the Government said was the gospel truth. Take my word for it. Or if you don't take my word for it, well, er, um, frankly, Tony Blair will tell you the same thing.

And there, dear reader, you have conclusive evidence that the man is either a scoundrel or a witling.

The Government claims that jet fuel melted the steel and brought down the towers. We know the steel melted. There were pools of it in the basement. We also know that a jet fuel fire cannot melt steel. Therefore, we know that the Government's claim that the Trade Towers were brought down by jet fuel fires is false. Therefore, we know that something other than jet fuel, thermite possibly, melted the steel and brought the towers down.

To avoid considering that fact, because one is too busy looking here and looking there, is as fatuous and as conclusive of dishonesty or imbecility as George W. Bush's pathetic search for WMD under the Oval Office couch.

In fact, the only plausible reason for "We covered a lot of [other] ground in the program" was to avoid confronting one of several irrefutable physical facts that collapse the Government's absurd conspiracy theory about 19 hi-jackers and a family fried on the President's in a cave in Afghanistan.

One thing's for sure. The BBC is crap. And now everyone knows it's crap.

Blair's Britain: Part 95
A catalog of BBC 9/11 bollocks
Explosives in the twin towers were "debunked" by Popular Mechanics (now there's a joke). The demolition of WTC 7 was also "debunked" by the ever reliable Popular Mechanics. The rest of the programme was dedicated to straw men. Was the Pentagon hit by a plane? Did Flight 93 crash in Pennysylvania or did it land elsewhere? Did 4000 Jews skip work in the WTC on 9/11? Were the attacks predicted in the pilot of the "Lone Gunmen" TV show? ...
WRH

One has to wonder if it's the cover up that will get them. The first rule of propaganda warfare is never respond to what your opponent says, it only spreads his message. The BBC's exercise in crude distortion and fabrication to negate the message of the 9/11 Truth movement suggests panic, rather than a well managed campaign of disimulation and disinformation.

Blair's Britain: Part 94
More on bollocks from the BBC
The BBC hit piece is a tissue of lies, bias and emotional manipulation. The 9/11 truth community demands answers from Guy Smith, immediate retractions and apologies urged, savage agenda driven yellow journalism an insult to the truth ...
Prison Planet

Listen mate, what's your problem? Anyone who thinks we go to all the trouble of running a ruddy broadcasting corporation to make sure the public gets the inside dope, is just the kind of dope the BBC is meant for.

Blair's Britain: Part 93
Debunking the Debunkers
On February 18, 2007, the BBC broadcasted an hour-long episode which it claimed would examine and answer the questions of the 9-11 truth movement. However, both the episode and the written Q&A turned out to be attacks on the skeptics rather than a true investigation. ...
British Broadcorping Castration

If the Beebe says 9/11 was no conspiracy, they must mean that the 19 so-called hi-jackers really had nothing much to do with it, except possibly as disposable window dressing (Some of them were never disposed of). But if it was not a conspiracy, then it must have been an inside job. Right?

Furthermore, since Blair has surrounded himself with liars and speaks only to obfuscate, misdirect or deliver the lie direct, why would the BBC bother with an exercise like this unless to conceal the truth?

QED. 9/11 must have been an inside job.

Anyway, it had to be. You cannot blow up buildings as large as the Trade Towers with nothing but heap of smoldering office furniture (look at the pictures, if you don't believe the Towers were demolished with explosives). A pancake collapse doesn't blast human bone fragments hundreds of feet onto the roof of an adjacent bank building. And you cannot reduce steel to pools of molten metal using jet fuel.

So not only is the BBC lying. They are lying in the face of insurmountable evidence. Which suggest that the killers are worried. Worried as in thinking of faking their own deaths, maybe, a la Kenny Lay, to avoid a rope.

Blair's Britain: Part 78
BBC vs. 9/11 Truth
In "BBC vs 9/11 Truth: The Smear Begins", I half-jokingly claimed the upcoming documentary would be "nothing more nor less than Popular Mechanics on skates". Imagine my surprise, then, to see the current BBC offering taking the same approach used by PM.

The BBC purports to explain the events of 9/11 by asking and answering 10 questions ...

the selection of 10 key questions in effect amounts to a ruling that all the hundreds of others are beyond the pale, and this is the necessary first step in the ongoing propaganda campaign to get you to believe lies about what really happened.

First they get you thinking it all boils down to 10 easy questions, and then they lie to you about the questions -- and then they lie to you about the answers, and kaboom! ... or should I say "Zzzzz" ... you're sound asleep! ...
WinterPatriot

The Canadian Spectator is optimized for viewing with Firefox Version 1.02.

Please address correspondence to .