Mar 5, 2007

BBC 9/11 Footage Fires Up Conspiracy Theorists

Share

This video is circulating all over the Internet, and those who view the events of September 11, 2001 as a conspiracy are pointing to this as "evidence" of the conspiracy.

The reporter announces - about 23 minutes prior to the event in question - the collapse of WTC7, also known as the Salomon Brothers Building. You can see WTC7 abover her left shoulder.

My own take is that the BBC reporter - in the chaos of the day - was reporting one of the myriad rumors floating around. Those on the ground had already been warned that WTC7 was about to collapse, and I suspect that the reporter merely provided inaccurate information.

The biggest problem I see with 9/11 conspiracies - as with all conspiracies that require a great deal of participants - is that by now one would expect someone to have a pang of conscience, or a desire to write a best-selling book about the "conspiracy."

The only 9/11 conspiracy that seems remotely plausible to me is the possibility that Flight 93 was shot down by Air Force fighters. This would require complicity on the part of a very few participants - namely, the pilots and crews of the intercepting fighters - while the remote Pennsylvania location would mean that few ground witnesses would be around.

But hey - what do I really know?

15 comments:

Anonymous said...

Oh, please this is the greatest non-story in the history of mass media. The entire mess was cobbled together by "inside jobbers". The only objectively verifiable timeline is that the BBC World tape is an over five year old pastiche. What more is there to know?

The "truthers" are using the same "hit list" tactics on their critics that, say, the Bush Administration used on members of the Pentagon's "Able Danger" project when they tried to come clean before the 9/11 Commission and Congress.

Basically, the only thing the 9/11 "truth" movement has accomplished is to provide a beard for the Bushistas. Their "dungeons and dragons" absurdity has made Bush's lazy, frat boy incompetence seem reasonable.

Anonymous said...

There is no evidence Flight 93 was shot down. No F-15, no F-16. No military aircraft were observed by anyone who was interviewed immediately after the crash. The one civilian aircraft in the area was tracked down and verified the same day. The crash site was full of small debris consistent with an airliner hitting the ground at over 400 miles per hour. The debris reportedly found "miles away" did not get to it's location by following the same mapquest twisty turny roads most "troofers" quote
as the distance between the crash site and the location of the light debris that was actually found.

Incidentally, the BBC documentary that appeared debunking most of the "troofer" movement claims including the ones about Flight 93, appeared just before the video in question appeared on youtube. To quote the "conspiracistas," coincidence? Or more?

historymike said...

Anonymous #1 is an example of the true believer.

A question for you, Anonymous #1: Why have all these hundreds - nay, thousands - of "inside jobbers" stayed quiet? Why did they never tell this secret conspiracy to friends, lovers, or publishers?

Are you also someone who buys into conspiracy theories about the moon landing, Pearl Harbor, or the JFK assassination?

historymike said...

Anonymous #2:

The reason I cited Flight 93 as "remotely plausible" is that this conspiracy would have required relatively few people to pull off.

I agree that there is a lack of direct evidence of military engagement (not that I would be a forensic expert), but keeping the lid on a "conspiracy" that would involve a handful of military personnel would be much easier than a "conspiracy" that involves either the detonation or intentional participation of the masses of actors necessary to secretly blow up the Twin Towers and WTC7.

microdot said...

I find it pretty syptomatic of our world that instead of writing about, analysing and exposing the real reasons 9/11 occurred, the most attractive way to escape these realities is to indulge in endless speculation of conspiracy theories.
I have some theories as well, but they deal with the chain of events that lead up to the triggering of the Al Qaeda terrorist act at the time it happened.
Hey I saw all happen too, I missed the first plane smashiong into the first tower, but I saw it a few moments after it happened from my roof top. I saw the second plane from my bike on 6th Avenue and I saw the collapse of the first tower from the corner of Canal and Church Street and was caught in the dust cloud as I tried to pedal out of range in the paralysed traffic!

The Screaming Nutcase said...

I'm convinced that belief in conspiracy theories is an almost religious experience, only without the advantage of a deity (whose existence cannot be proven or disproven), requiring faith even in the presence of contrary evidence.

I love the South Park theory: that the government started the 9/11 conspiracy theories to make the government seem capable. Who was it that said we should never attribute something to conspiracy that we could attribute to incompetence?

Anonymous said...

Mike, 93 went down near Johnstown -- home to a multi-agency operation that deals with domestic security under the guise of gathering drug information internationally. The facility is not what it seems to be, but, admittedly, 93's downing is likely what it seems to be. still, I'm just sayin'...

MP said...

The only conspiracy theory that I will buy, and people are welcome to call me crazy for it, is that everyone in the Bush Administration knew the potential for an attack on the World Trade Center and did nothing. Considering the unfeeling nature of the Bush Administration, I think this is completely plausible.

Regardless, America had the chance to do something about it in 2004 and didn't. So this is all a moot point.

I could ask how many more must die because of his incompetence, but who really knows that answer at this point?

And for the record, the footage does look doctored.

Anonymous said...

Your argument is certainly one to consider among the many about the newscaster’s report on the collapse of Building Seven. What I find odd is that out of all the buildings the reporter could mistakenly said they collapsed prior to their actually collapse time, she quoted Building Seven to collapse. I find it very ironic that the one tower that had minim fires was the first predicted to collapse. This leads one to believe that there may have been more to the incident such as the government’s approval for the collapse of Building Seven.

Also I do not know if you’ve heard of the book called The 9/11 Commission Report Omissions and Distortions by David Griffin but it is very popular among the conspiracy theorist and I highly recommend it.

-mnp

-Sepp said...

Hey there's a "it's a hoax / conspiracy" crowd for dang near everything. I work with a guy who says the moon landings were all done at area 51 on a sound stage. There are those who claim 6 million jews went into hiding after building concentration camps during WW2...just to make the Germans look bad.
I work in a department with about 100 people. NOTHING stays a secret for long. I find it hard to believe that thousands of people could be in on something and, word NOT leaking out sooner or, later. All any secret needs is one person to get pissed off about something and the secret is no longer.

microdot said...

Sepp, I have a buddy who normally is pretty sane and is actually an astronomy fanatic, but his one strange leap of logic is his deep belief that the moon landings were hoaxes. He loves to argue and nitpick details for hours with anyone. We actually egg him on when we are hanging out in situations where he loosens up after a few glasses of wine.
For Christmas I got him a video of the Capricorn 1 movie with OJ Simpson...
The thriller based on the premise that the moon landing weas a fake...
Now he is using factoids from the movie for his "arguments". Sad isn't it?

Subcomandante Bob said...

Certainly Americans are lied to by our government, and we sometimes have to wait years (if ever) before we know the entire truth about a given series of events.

But one need look no further than Watergate (or Iran-Contra) for evidence of the inability of government agencies to effectively pull off major conspiracies undetected.

Eventually someone starts talking, reporters and prosecutors start sniffing around, and dominoes fall.

(Bob crawls off into the corner to sleep off a hangover, likely induced by a government conspiracy)

Mad Jack said...

inability of government agencies to effectively pull off major conspiracies undetected.

Or even minor conspiracies with plausible denial. SCB said it before I could.

Dariush said...

"I have a buddy who normally is pretty sane and is actually an astronomy fanatic, but his one strange leap of logic is his deep belief that the moon landings were hoaxes."

An uncle of mine in North Carolina (who, believe it or not, makes an obscene amount of money as a psychiatrist) also believes that the moon landings were a staged hoax.

The general argument of the "truthers" is that "Arabs living in caves" simply couldn't have pulled this off.

Not only, then, is the Bush admin endowed with near-supernatural powers of omniscience, stealth and micro-management -- but Arabs and Muslims are made into incompetent unintelligent boobs who couldn't rub two sticks together to make fire, if there weren't a CIA agent right beside them showing them how.

Kind of a mirror-image of neocon racism -- "the rising tide of color" on the one hand vs. "incompetent morons" on the other.

Hooda Thunkit said...

It still amazes me how some people can read so much into the facts and come up with a conspiracy.

Sounds to me like the same bunch of nuts who believe that the Holocaust never happened.