Caught up in a conspiracy theory - BBC on WTC7 documentary

[jingofever]

Link.

Mike Rudin talks about Barry Jennings, Mike Hess and some other things.

[MacCruiskeen]

God, Rudin is such a ****.

More later.

[MacCruiskeen]

This is my correspondence with the BBC. (Helen Boaden is Director of BBC News.) Excuse the repetitiousness. If they won't answer even the simplest questions, then you have no option but to repeat them (in vain - I've still had no reply to this third email, and no answer whatsoever to any of the questions, ever).

---------

Priorität: hoch
Von: ******
An: "zzHelen Boaden Complaints" <HelenBoadenComplaints@bbc.co.uk>
Betreff: New Formal Complaint (Hess, Jennings & "The Third Tower")
Datum: Tue, 07. Oct 2008 19:16:03 +0200


Dear Ms. Boaden,

Thank you for forwarding Mike Rudin's elusive email to me. Unfortunately, although you call it a "reply", Mr Rudin does not in fact answer even one of the questions I asked him. Instead, he frankly evades them. (This is easily verifiable: my original email of July 15th 2008 is attached below, along with Mr. Rudin's response.)

I cannot understand why those simple questions should be so very difficult to answer, and I believe the BBC has a public remit. Therefore, I hereby restate those questions, again in the form of a Formal Complaint:

1. In "The Third Tower", why did you not once mention the name of Michael D. Hess, who accompanied Barry Jennings throughout his ordeal in World Trade Centre 7?

2. Did you ever, at any time during the making of "The Third Tower", attempt to contact Michael D. Hess for an interview? If so, what was Mr. Hess's response? If not, why not? He too was a "key witness", was he not?

3. You describe Barry Jennings as “the key witness”, as if he were the only one. Why, then, did you edit your interview with Barry Jennings, so that – bizarrely, and without any explanation – he was suddenly heard speaking in the first person plural? Mr Jennings' "we" meant him and who else, precisely? (He must have mentioned a name!) Did the person or persons who accompanied him include Michael D. Hess? If so, why was Mr. Hess left entirely unmentioned by the BBC?

4. Why did you falsify Mr. Jennings’ testimony by cross-cutting reconstructed scenes of his hurried departure down 17 flights of stairs at WTC7 with lengthy and disturbing documentary film sequences showing the collapse of the TwinTowers at 9:59 am and 10:28 am respectively? In his interview with the Loose Change people, Mr. Jennings clearly states: a) that he arrived in the OEM on the 23rd floor very shortly after 9:00 am; b) that he and Mr. Hess began to leave Building 7 as quickly as possible only minutes after getting there; and c) that the explosion which trapped him and Michael Hess on the 8th floor of Building 7 took place *before* either of the Twin Towers had collapsed:

http://www.911blogger.com/node/16573?page=1

5. Were you aware that Mr. Jennings says he has received threats at his place of work? If so, did you investigate this claim in any way?

Also:

6. As you no doubt know, Barry Jennings is now dead. Will you mention this, or deal with any of the foregoing questions, in your forthcoming follow-up programme?

I also expect the BBC to use some of its very considerable resources to discover the exact cause of Mr. Jennings's death, which can hardly be a state secret. Heart attacks, for example (if it was, in fact, a heart attack), are not terribly uncommon in overweight 53-year-olds; but I cannot imagine that Mr. Jennings' life had been made any less stressful recently by his starring role as "the [sole] key witness" in the BBC's "The Third Tower".

Certainly, I am glad to hear that Michael D. Hess will appear in Mr. Rudin's follow-up programme on October 12th; but this does not alter the fact of "The Third Tower", or the fact of Barry Jennings' death, or the fact that the questions I am now asking the BBC for the third time are important, easily answerable, and yet still inexplicably unanswered. You will perhaps also understand why I currently have little faith that Mr. Rudin's forthcoming programme will answer all, most, or indeed any of those questions.

Again, I should add that I am forwarding this email to a lawyer.

It is now October 7th, 2008. I would appreciate a fairly speedy response to questions 1-6, as those questions are by now familiar to you and Mr. Rudin, and I can see no reason why the BBC should be unwilling or unable to answer them.

Yours sincerely,

[MacCruiskeen]


-------- Original-Nachricht --------
Datum: Fri, 26 Sep 2008 15:25:25 +0100
Von: "zzHelen Boaden Complaints" <HelenBoadenComplaints@bbc.co.uk>
An: ******
Betreff: RE: Formal Complaint (Michael D. Hess & "The Third Tower")

Dear Mr *****

This is the reply that Mike Rudin asked to be sent to you in July and we do apologize that it seems not to have been sent:

"The Conspiracy Files: 9/11 - The Third Tower" was a 59 minute programme and dealt with the main allegations that there was a conspiracy to demolish a third tower at the World Trade Centre - Building 7. Inevitably the duration means interviews have to be edited and we cannot include all the information we find during the course of our investigation.

However, I can assure you that the programme was carefully researched and we did not make comments without factual support.

We edited the interview with Barry Jennings both fairly and accurately. We also included Dylan Avery playing an interview he had conducted with Barry Jennings to talk about different interpretations of Barry's own words.

You will find more information on our website and I have also an extensive blog on the Editors' Blog. We are also planning to update the programme once the NIST report is published.

Mike Rudin also informs me that we have interviewed Michael Hess for an update programme to be transmitted on 12 October.

Again, I do apologize for your not receiving the earlier response.

Yours sincerely

pp Helen Boaden

Director, BBC News


http://www.bbc.co.uk
This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and may contain personal views which are not the views of the BBC unless specifically stated.
If you have received it in error, please delete it from your system.
Do not use, copy or disclose the information in any way nor act in reliance on it and notify the sender immediately.
Please note that the BBC monitors [what does this mean??]e-mails sent or received.
Further communication will signify your consent to this. www.bbc.co.uk/conspiracyfiles


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: *******
Sent: 14 September 2008 22:37
To: zzHelen Boaden Complaints
Subject: Formal Complaint (Michael D. Hess & "The Third Tower")
Importance: High


Dear Helen Boaden,

Having had no reply to my reply to my email of July 15th 2008 (reprinted below), I hereby re-submit it as a formal complaint.

I would greatly appreciate, and indeed now expect, serious answers to the serious questions raised.

Yours sincerely,

[MacCruiskeen]

-----

Dear Ms. Boaden,

Your recent ‘Conspiracy Files’ programme, “The Third Tower” appears to merit an urgent formal complaint. (I have been unable to find email addresses for Mike Rudin or Guy Smith.)

Before submitting such a formal complaint, I respectfully request answers from them, or from you, to the following questions:

1. Why did you not once mention the name of Michael D. Hess, who accompanied Barry Jennings throughout his ordeal in World Trade Centre 7? Mr. Hess is a lawyer, and indeed a very prominent one. He is a key witness to the events of that day. His testimony would, therefore, be of enormous interest and great public importance. As you no doubt know, he is also a good friend of Rudolph Giuliani, who was Mayor of New York at the time of the attacks.

2. Did you ever, at any time, attempt to contact Michael D. Hess for an interview? If so, what was his response? If not, why not?

As is well known, Mr. Hess is already on the record with a very brief interview given to an American TV station shortly after he and Mr. Jennings were rescued together:

http://www.911blogger.com/node/10425

3. Why did you edit your interview with Barry Jennings (whom you describe as “the key witness”) so that – bizarrely, and without any explanation – he is suddenly heard speaking in the first person plural? Was this because he had mentioned Michael Hess? If so, why is Mr. Hess so entirely unmentionable, even if this results in grammatical absurdities being forced upon Mr. Barry Jennings, whom the BBC describes as “the key witness”?

4. Why did you falsify Mr. Jennings’ testimony by cross-cutting reconstructed scenes of his hurried departure down 17 flights of stairs at WTC7 with lengthy and disturbing documentary film sequences showing the collapse of the TwinTowers at 9:59 am and 10:28 am respectively? In his interview with the Loose Change people, Mr. Jennings clearly states: a) that he arrived in the OEM on the 23rd floor very shortly after 9:00 am; b) that he and Mr. Hess began to leave Building 7 as quickly as possible only minutes after getting there; and c) that the explosion which trapped him and Michael Hess on the 8th floor of Building 7 took place *before* either of the Twin Towers had collapsed:

http://www.911blogger.com/node/16573?page=1

5. Were you aware that Mr. Jennings says he has received threats at his place of work? If so, did you investigate this claim in any way?

I have some further questions, but I would appreciate hearing your response to these before I proceed any further. I should also advise you that I am furthering this email to a lawyer.

Yours sincerely,

[MacCruiskeen]

--
Der GMX SmartSurfer hilft bis zu 70% Ihrer Onlinekosten zu sparen!
Ideal für Modem und ISDN: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/smartsurfer

[Hugh Manatee Wins]

Link.

Mike Rudin talks about Barry Jennings, Mike Hess and some other things.

Rudin doesn't talk about anything we need to know. It's just agit-prop.

He's plugging the BBC's October 26, 2008 show about the WTC and priming us with what a victim he is of 'hostile misinformed truthers.'

Almost inevitably I've been enmeshed in the ever growing net of the conspiracy theory. They've added my name to a long list of imagined conspirators - the secret services, police, people who worked in the building, first responders, the fire service, city officials...and also those who they think have deliberately set out to cover up this huge conspiracy - the official investigators, the world's media...

Physical evidence tells us all we need to know. Move away from it at your peril.

It really doesn't matter what Jennings, Hess, Silverstein, or anyone else said.
Mere talk is cheap and unreliable and even more so when it is reported on by a chain of potentially hostile actors.

[MacCruiskeen]

It really doesn't matter what Jennings, Hess, Silverstein, or anyone else said.

Of course it matters. Ask any lawyer, unless you're too busy trying to construct a legal case in a toyshop.

[MacCruiskeen]

That interview with Hess is a disgrace to journalism - the lack of any context, the tasteful blend-outs, the hypercareful editing, the unquestioned contradictions in his account, the lack of any timeline whatsoever (was no-one wearing a watch?), the tactful absence of any questions whatsoever, not to mention the grotesque belatedness of the whole sorry enterprise.

Last not least, not a fucking word about Barry Jennings, who is now dead and whose death is still entirely unexplained and indeed entirely unmentioned. Black guy... fat black guy. - "conspiracy theorist" - a nobody... So fuck 'im. Right? Who cares. Mister Hess has spoken, and by the very act of speaking he has discredited Barry Jennings and proven him wrong.

Right?

The BBC has become a wholly despicable organisation. Mike Rudin is an utter shit and he and Helen Boaden are craven liars.

[MacCruiskeen]

Bump, fuck it.

Question to lawyers, and to Brits: Is there a legal method of compelling these smug-arsed lying careerist arseholes to answer the questions - and to publish the original full-length video-interview with Hess?

[MacCruiskeen]

Michael Hess was Mayor Rudolf Giuliani's chief lawyer, in charge of 800 New York City lawyers. In his first interview since 9/11 he confirms our timeline. Hess says all the lights went out and he felt the building shake like an earthquake and he adds that he did not hear explosions.

In his mind he thought there might have been an explosion. In the only interview he did on 9/11 he told a reporter he had "walked down to the eighth floor where there was an explosion."

But as our interview with him shows, he is now certain that he did not hear an explosion. He just assumed on the day it could have been an explosion because he had witnessed the lights going out, the staircase filling with smoke and the building shaking vigorously.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2 ... _theo.html

Jesus christ almighty. Investigative Journalism 2008: A smug rich powerful fart makes an implausible and unverifiable claim seven years after the fact (and months after you had carefully concealed his existence!), and then you serve it up to the plebs as the gospel fucking truth.

Then you complain about the public giving you a hard time.

[MacCruiskeen]

Aaaarggh, does nobody see why this matters?

For a global audience, the BBC rolled out a "key witness" (the obscure Barry Jennings), all the time concealing the fact that he had been accompanied throughout his entire ordeal by Rudy Giuliani's pal, the most important lawyer in New York. Jennings claimed that Giuliani's OEM in WTC7 had been abandoned - at the very latest - very shortly after 9:00 am, long before either of the Twin Towers had collapsed, and that an explosion in WTC7 - very shortly afterwards - had prevented him and [a carefully edited-outed person] from leaving that building.

The BBC very carefully gave the impression that Jennings had been alone in WTC7 the entire time.

Then the BBC refused to answer any questions about who had accompanied Jennings.

Then the "key witness" (Barry Jennings) died, with no explanation.

Only then did the BBC even mention that anyone had accompanied Barry Jennings! And their "interview" with Michael Hess is a sick joke and a disgrace to journalism.

- Jack Riddler, any comments on this? Jeff?

Anyone?

[Iroquois]

I don't believe I've ever heard of Barry Jennings before nor seen his name in print. And, no, I haven't seen any of Avery's movies. I also doubt that I ever will hear or read of him again outside of this forum and maybe not even that.

RIP, Barry.

[slimmouse]

I met some old friends last week, and was attempting to explain to them, through their absolute incredulity, precisely what a mouthpiece the BBC is for the Old World Order, which is of course to become the New World Order.

If anyone wishes to dispute that view, or the claim that the BBC is just a big bunch of lying complicit fucks in all of this, then I guess this thread should be compulsive reading.

Needless to say , none of this comes as any surprise whatsoever to those of us in the real know. That should have been obvious to anyone with half a nonce following the truly excellent "British Broadcasting Conspiracy" documentary.

I admire your resolution Mac. Rodin, Boaden etc know their place. I can only wonder if they sleep well at night.

[kenoma]

Good work, Mac.
The July 7th Truth campaign had an unpleasant encounter with this same 'Conspiracy Files' crew. Might be worth getting in touch with someone there.


http://www.julyseventh.co.uk/j7-refuse-bbc-conspiracy-files-offer.html

This week, the UK 9/11 Truth Campaign began advertising an event which is taking place later this month, at which prominent author and researcher Nafeez Ahmed is due to speak; the flyer for which was also advertising the presence of "J7 researchers".

J7: The July 7th Truth Camapign were not at any time approached with regard to this event, nor were we asked permission for our website to be included on the flyer. After asking for an explanation regarding this oddity, we were told that the "J7 researchers" was in fact Nick Kollerstrom, a man who we recently discovered is a keen participant in the making of the BBC's 'Conspiracy Files' programme, whose approach to 7/7 research is markedly different to that of J7, who recently discovered that his theories regarding the holocaust of the second world war were rather unpopular and who, needless to say, is not affiliated to or associated with J7. It also transpired that the BBC were due to film the event - something which had not been previously made clear to at least one of the participants.

Mike "I was right away impressed with just how little I knew" Rudin from the BBC stated on Wednesday of this week, "Along with his views of 7/7, Nick Kollerstrom's views about the Holocaust will be scrutinised and challenged in the programme."

[Hammer of Los]

Yeah great work Mac. Keep on rubbing their noses in the facts.

It's appalling, isnt it?

Has Hess done any other interviews about his experiences in WTC7 on 911 since that day? I had thought he was noticeable by his absence thus far.

Well, in choosing to come forward now, Hess need not fear public contradiction by Barry Jennings.

About those "explosions" this is what Hess said in the video interview;

Hess: ..in my mind I assumed there had been an explosion, erm, in the basement. I dont know why that hit me that way, but we couldn't go anywhere, the wall was blocking it, it was pitch dark. I was nervous, but once the building stopped shaking then I calmed down. I figured yes, there was an explosion in the basement, maybe, but it stopped.

Interviewer: And what had you heard at that stage, by this stage, had you heard any sounds, like explosions, or big sounds?

Hess: No, nothing. You heard two things. You heard tremendous wind, and you heard a tremendous number of sirens. And I look out the window, and number one, this ash is flying around and papers, computer papers are flying around, and again I was looking north and west, and the world trade centre towers were south so I couldn't see in that direction, and in my mind they were just still on fire. My position, and I'm quite firm on it, there were no explosions. Did I feel the building shake? Absolutely, and I wrote/recollect that. And I know now that that was caused by the northern half of number one falling on the southern half of our building. And we were in the northern half of our building, so we weren't, luckily we weren't crushed.

Explosions? Did I say explosions? Well, I thought there had been explosions, but now I am sure there weren't any explosions. I know I said explosions. I don't why I said that. Nope, I have no idea why I said there were explosions in the basement. I didn't hear anything. Nope. Only a bit of wind. Woosh, blowing around, that sort of thing. And sirens. But I heard nothing else at all. There were certainly no explosions. I am totally sure of that now. I am quite firm on it, there were no explosions. No explosions, got that? Good.

[vigilantwarrior]

Thanks for bird-dogging those bastards, Mac.

[orz]

I know the whole idea of journalism was probably always massively overrated but at least in decades gone by they made at some effort to report news. These days 99% of 'journalism' seems to consist of verbatim reprinting ad press releases and old 4-chan memes, and occasionally indulging themselves in smug public trolling matches with the more rabid members of minor internet subcultures.