Roger Whittaker

View Roger Whittaker's profile on LinkedIn

Valid XHTML 1.0 Transitional

"The Conspiracy Files: 9/11"

Monday 19th February 2007

This programme was shown on BBC2 last night.

The programme took a number of assertions that have been made by people sceptical of the official story of the events of September 11th, examined each in turn and then closed with a "refutation" of it.

In some cases the original assertion was not at all essential to a disbelief in the official story (for instance the "no plane at the Pentagon" question.

In other cases the original assertion was a straw man (for instance "were Jews forewarned about the attacks?").

In each case, the narrator quickly came to a conclusion, stating that the "conspiracy theory" was wrong and easily refuted by the facts.

The outline of the programme and the questions posed can be seen here.

The spokesmen for the 9/11 truth movement who were interviewed were Jim Felzer, Dylan Avery and Alex Jones.

The programme would have been very different had they invited David Ray Griffin, Paul Thompson or Michael Meacher, for instance. It would also have been very different if (for example) some of the facts about Mohammed Atta's life in Florida (as unearthed by Daniel Hopsicker) had been brought out. Like so many other details, these facts are so incongruous with the official story anyone reading them becomes sceptical.

The format of the programme meant that an agenda was set whereby an impression could quickly be given that there is no reason at all to doubt the official story. By selective choice of the the evidence presented, the programme was grossly biased.

Even so, their answers to two questions: "Could the US Air Force have prevented the attacks?" and "Was WTC7 deliberately demolished by explosives?" were lame and unconvincing in the extreme, relying on the official 9/11 Commission report and the FEMA report respectively.

Many other important facts were not mentioned -- a few important ones:

  • The notorious PNAC document's mention of the need for a "catastrophic and catalyzing event -- like a new Pearl Harbor".
  • The obviously "planted" clues such as the Korans and Arabic flying manuals found in a car at Boston Logan airport, the famous "magic passport" and other items left behind including Atta's dubious will.
  • The fact that several of the hijackers had been trained at US military bases.
  • The close connection between the flying school attended by Mohammed Atta and both the CIA and drug running operations.
  • Other evidence for the "controlled demolition" theory, including the appearance and speed of the collapses, eye-witness reports of explosions, and other physical evidence. Although a belief in controlled demolition is by no means necessary for a disbelief in the official story, the question (which will only eventually be settled by detailed scientific research) was not given anything like a fair hearing.
  • The fact that the US government has been so unwilling to release evidence which it holds (for instance other films, which certainly exist of the Pentagon attack) and black box data.
  • The long history of false-flag terrorism carried out by the US and its allies, including "Operation Gladio".

More generally, the programme (predictably) scoffed at the "conspiracy theorists" and cast psychological aspersions.

This is also the tone of some of the TV reviewers in the papers today. And yet these people have probably not looked into the details of 9/11 at all, but feel confident in accusing others of "knowing nothing".

See also: