A court challenge to the BBC over 9/11 coverage

The South tower twists east as it falls down on 9/11. from a window at my place of work.

The South Tower tilts east (toward where I was sitting)  as it falls down on 9/11. The photo was taken from a window at my former place of work (you can see the window frames in the photo).

Last year I told you all to watch a video about 9/11 that was not Loose Change or some other odd piece of Youtubery that your cousin found late one night before the Xanax kicked in (I especially like the two minute long file  of two seconds of video purportedly showing that both jets hitting the Trade Center buildings had missile pods and fired missiles just before hitting the  Towers—according to the person uploading it, you can see the reflection of the missiles taking off in the glass of the South Tower for a quarter-second). The video I recommended was from the Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth and though they try to jazz it up (when they cut back to the narrator, there’s this dramatic music), it’s mostly talking heads. There’s an occasional cutaway to archival video (I want to say ‘footage’, but that clearly dates me), but it’s mostly very serious professionals talking about their professions in engineering and architecture and metallurgy. All have professional experience combined with advanced degrees, and some of them teach their specialties at the university level. And these men (mostly men) are talking not about conspiracies so much (more later). They are talking about the events of 9/11 with the context of their expertise. And based on their understanding of the science of the construction of the Trade Center buildings (especially WTC 7), they have spoken publicly to inform the lay public that based on their knowledge, those buildings had no good reason to collapse that day.

The people in this video are staking their personal and professional reputations on the line by speaking up. But their motives are very clear and have a great deal to do with professional pride. And they have a personal AND professional stake in what happened on that Tuesday. Because if you believe the 9/11 Commission report, the science on the safety of truly large buildings is wrong—the mega-tall buildings built since the 1970’s are much more fragile than the designers and engineers thought. And if THAT’S true, there’s several billion worth of retrofits in NYC alone in order to make sure these buildings don’t fall down when they’re full of people.

It’s also possible (not likely, but possible) that the three buildings that fell were compromised for some other reason. The New York Construction scene in the 60’s and 70’s was rife with corruption, and although supposedly all structural elements of the Towers were tested and signed off on prior to construction, a few cut corners could, if multiplied, possibly bring a building down. Remember that during the design of what would become the Brooklyn Bridge, engineer John Roebling overdesigned it—made it far stronger than it needed to be—in order to make sure that if substandard materials worked their way into construction, the structure would stay up. One of the facts brought up by one researcher after another is their disappointment and anger at the fact that the bent and twisted steel and rubble from what has been called ‘The World’s Biggest Crime Scene’ was immediately hauled off to Staten Island to be sold off as scrap.

So perhaps it’s understandable that the professionals took umbrage at the BBC when it lumped them in with the other 9/11 truth movements. But push came to shove and on 2/25, The British Broadcasting Company (BBC) will be challenged in court in Horsham, United Kingdom, for two documentaries they made about 9/11 to commemorate the 10th anniversary of the attack.  The documentaries, 9/11: Conspiracy Road Trip and The Conspiracy Files: 9/11 Ten Years On , disparaged those who did not believe the official account of the buildings’ collapses. Per the articleFormal complaints were lodged with BBC over the inaccuracy and bias of these documentaries, which, according to 9/11 activists, was in breach of the operating requirements of BBC through their ‘Royal Charter and Agreement’ with the British public. This document requires BBC to show information that is both accurate and impartial. These complaints were supported by the US-based educational charity Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth (AE911Truth), which submitted detailed scientific evidence to BBC to buttress the complaints. 

I’m no expert on these issues, so I point you toward the article (which deals with the nuanced obligations the BBC has as a result of its quasi-official status as a taxpayer-supported entity in the UK). But people here should be watching this case carefully. If the court decides that the BBC has not served the public interest by ignoring the evidence presented by groups like Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, expect a request for a more sympathetic documentary.

Remember: The BBC became infamous on 9/11 when one of their on-the-scene reporters announced that WTC 7 had collapsed TWENTY MINUTES BEFORE IT DID. In fact, the camera shows WTC 7 behind her in one piece.  The BBC announced this at 4:54 EST. The tower actually fell 20 minutes later. And the AE911Truth group have a laser-focus on the collapse of WTC 7. Because unlike the Twin Towers, Building 7 was not struck by any aircraft. There were fires inside the building, but before 9/11, no structural steel skyscraper had ever failed due to fire alone.

Keep watch on this case when it opens on February 25.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: