BBC Discredited; Retractions on 9/11 Hit Piece Forthcoming?
Complaint responses suggest consternation within corporation on revelations of bias in Conspiracy Files documentary, indicates large number of complaints received

Prison Planet | February 21, 2007
Paul Joseph Watson & Alex Jones



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.

Following the airing of the show on Sunday evening, numerous websites representative of the 9/11 truth movement issued precise and detailed rebuttals to what many saw as nothing more than an outright hit piece that used crass emotional manipulation, concocted evidence and cynical bias in an attempt to dismiss questions about the official story behind 9/11.

Appearing on the Alex Jones show on Monday, the show's producer Guy Smith offered little to defend against allegations that the program represented nothing more than yellow journalism and an attempt to create a strawman argument in the interests of debunking 9/11 skeptics.

From what can be gleaned from how the BBC is treating complaints made against the show, it seems that the backlash has forced the complaints to be passed up the chain of command and that the overwhelming response is forcing bosses to consider whether it might be necessary to issue retractions or clarifications in an attempt to calm the furore.

Here's the BBC's standard response to complaints being made about the Conspiracy Files program.

Thank you for contacting the BBC.

This is to let you know that we are dealing with your recent complaint but are waiting to clarify some points with other colleagues in the BBC before we reply more fully to you.

We will of course respond as soon as possible but trust you will understand that the time taken can also depend on the nature and number of the other complaints we are currently investigating. The BBC also issues public responses to issues which prompt large numbers of significant complaints and these can be read on our website at www.bbc.co.uk/complaints

We would be grateful if you would not reply to this email and, in the meantime, would like to thank you for contacting us with details of your concerns.

Regards
BBC Information

Because the BBC is funded solely through taxpaying British citizens via their TV license fee, the corporation is obliged to issue retractions and apologies if complaints about a particular broadcast are high. On most occasions, they are at least forced to clarify their position on their editor's blog website . 9/11 truth websites across the spectrum are encouraging readers to make complaints and so it's safe to speculate that the BBC has been inundated with them.

There have been numerous instances where BBC investigative programs have had to issue retractions and apologies due to faulty research or deliberate bias, a notable example being a 1999 Horizons documentary which sought to debunk the research of controversial archeologist Graham Hancock. An investigation upheld Hancock's complaint that his response to debunkers was not included in the show, and the BBC had to air the re-edited documentary.

The BBC divides complaints into four different categories - accuracy, bias, taste/standards and other. Since the Conspiracy Files farce displayed overwhelming inaccuracy in several claims it made, most notably the "pancake collapse" animation which even official NIST authorities have backed away from, and also betrayed patent bias in pitting thirteen debunkers against just three 9/11 skeptics, while ridiculing the character of the skeptics by means of false accusations and stereotyping, it fits into at least two of these categories.

We must push now for a retraction, an apology, or at the very least a clarification from the BBC in regards to this blatant hit piece. The basis for our accusations that the program was a hit piece are documented here and here .

Go to http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/make_complaint_step1.shtml and select "make an official complaint." Please be as polite as possible and remember that the person reading your complaint will most likely have no connection to the production of the hit piece. Be clear and concise in your complaint, and stick to the facts about the bias and inaccuracy of the program.

If the BBC are forced to respond to the backlash, it will deter other networks and producers from creating malicious hit pieces designed to discredit the 9/11 truth movement in future.

http://www.infowars.com/articles/sept11/bbc_discreditied_retractions_forthcoming.htm

http://www.infowars.com/articles/sept11/odonnell_bonaduce_says_odonnell_should_be_hung.htm

"They have the right to be an idiot on the air. That's the American way!"

When did Danny Bonaduce become a political commentator? Why is he on the news offering his opinions about things?

God that was terrible to watch. I don't normally watch the mainstream US news channels. Bonaduce with golden cross dangling over his hairy chest, calling Rosie fat and saying she should be strung up. Yikes.

They showed Rosie saying that the third tower which fell without being hit by a plane could only have fallen if it had explosives inside. That sounds reasonable to me. But they didn't discuss that at all.

Also, Rosie never actually blamed the US govt for 9/11, she just said that it would be the first time in history that a building had fallen like that.

"Didnt we hear all this before? Rehashing old conspiracy theories does not = a trial."

For lack of anything better , people often resort to beating a dead dog. There is no other explanation that suits how they want things to turn out. It`s simply more reassuring to them to believe the "dead dog" theory.
This shall simply continue on for decades ie. pulling the dead dog out of the basement from time to time in the hope that beating on it will somehow give it life.

Then there are the really mad , pschotic live kitty chokers ; that`s another story only fit for DNC shenanigans.

"For lack of anything better , people often resort to beating a dead dog."

If it's a choice between admitting a pattern of the long history of fake attacks allowing invasions - Canned Goods, Gulf of Tonkin, Northwoods - otherwise known as "false flag" operations ... and at the same time noticing fire doesn't normally melt steel buildings to the ground

or on the other hand

being accused of "rehashing old conspiracy theories" and "beating a dead dog" ... then bring on the fido morto!

http://www.videosift.com/video/The-Gulf-of-Tonkin-explained

O'Donnell Pledges Allegiance To 9/11 Truth
Says America is great because of "freedom to speak and think freely"

Prison Planet | April 2, 2007
Paul Joseph Watson

After quoting George Orwell in response to Bill O'Reilly's intimidation tactics, Rosie O'Donnell has now pledged allegiance to 9/11 truth, writing on her blog that the reaction of those who have savaged her for simply asking questions proves freedom of speech and the country itself is under severe threat.

Earlier today it was revealed that ABC had gagged O'Donnell from talking about Bill O'Reilly's sex scandal after O'Reilly threatened to "go after" O'Donnell and her colleagues.

O'Donnell has faced fierce criticism from Neo-Con talking heads following her comments Thursday in which she discussed WTC 7 on The View , a show that averages 30 million viewers.

In her latest blog entry , O'Donnell announces her continued intention to investigate questions surrounding 9/11 and arrive at the truth, though she stated that at present she had come to no firm conclusions.

O'Donnell heralds America as a great country because it still provides a forum to "speak and....think freely."

Here's O'Donnell's blog entry in full.

"9/11 affected me deeply, as I know it did many Americans. The falling of the twin towers served to remind me that many of the assumptions Americans have about their lives are rooted in false feelings of security. In light of this reminder, I have begun doing exactly what this country, at its best, allows for me to do: inquire. Investigate. America is great in so many ways, one of which is the freedom to speak, and indeed think, freely. I have, of late, begun exercising the rights bestowed upon me by the democratic system I value, and the exercising of these rights has taken the form of an inquiry into what happened five years ago, an inquiry that resists the dominant explanations and that dares to entertain ideas that push me to the edge of what is bearable. I have come to no conclusions and, given the scope of the subject, will not for some time."

"If the very act of asking is so destabilizing for people, than I have to wonder whether the fabric of our democracy is indeed so raveled it is beyond salvage. My own belief is that the act of asking is itself reparative, because it brings to life the values on which our constitution rests. I am, therefore, pledging my allegiance, hand over heart, trying, as always, for a rigorous truth."

O'Donnell should be applauded for refusing to shut up amidst a climate that has seen many call for her to be fired by ABC simply for questioning official pronouncements regarding both 9/11 and the Iran hostage crisis, with one talking head, failed actor Danny Bonaduce, even calling for her execution .

The events of the past two weeks have underscored that fact that the real extremists are the feverish Neo-Cons that have called for retribution against O'Donnell simply for exercising her first amendment rights and asking questions that are shared by a sizable majority of the American public.

http://www.infowars.com/articles/sept11/odonnell_pledges_allegiance_to_911_truth.htm

i dont know if it has been mentioned in this thread but maybe you guys should give this a watch...there is obvious flaws in it, but it still gives a good argument from the other side.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3214024953129565561&sourceid=docidfeed&hl=en-CA

"Screw Loose Change" ... I remain unconvinced. Just typing "no connection" after the Northwoods or PNAC segments doesn't make it so - there are obvious connections that sane people who understand the history of false flag ops would understand.

And the part about Silverstine not being smart blowing his own buildings up ... they had to be demolished anyway, due to the asbestos:

"The Twin Towers had large amounts of asbestos fireproofing which would have necessitated costly removal had they remained standing. The exact amount and distribution of the asbestos in the Towers remains unclear, like other details of the buildings' construction and history, but the evidence suggests that the cost of its removal may have rivaled the value of the buildings themselves."

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


You could go through "Screw Loose Change" and do this at every point ... it's not that well researched.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/november2004/281104unmistakablecharges.htm

This video goes against what "Screw Loose Change" claimed: "no squibs on WTC7".