VIEW Recent Articles
Browse by Category
Graphic image for 9/11 foreknowledge
Graphic: unanswered questions
Graphic of paper shredder- destruction of evidence
Graphic: conflict of interest
Cui bono graphic
Alleged Hijacker graphic
9/11 Commission Shield

BBC Hit Piece a Tissue of Lies, Bias and Emotional Manipulation

CleanPrintBtn gray smallPdfBtn gray smallEmailBtn gray small

Outraged truth community demands answers
from Guy Smith, immediate retractions and apologies urged, savage
agenda driven yellow journalism an insult to the truth

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
Monday, February 19, 2007

Audio – Paul Joseph Watson & Dylan Avery Debate Guy Smith
on the 9/11 BBC Hit Piece

The BBC’s Conspiracy Files documentary about 9/11 was a tissue
of lies, bias and emotional manipulation from beginning to
end. Producer Guy Smith should be ashamed of himself for inflicting
this travesty of yellow journalism upon the 9/11 truth movement
and he is assured to encounter a vociferous and outraged response
in its aftermath.

You can watch the one hour show via Google Video.

Separated into two categories below are a number of questions
intended to highlight Guy Smith’s production for what it was
– a deliberate hit piece on the 9/11 truth movement structured
around fallacy, lying by omission and overwhelming bias. We
invite Mr. Smith to respond to these questions and the hundreds
of others that are already being asked by furious and informed
community of people who were made sick to their stomachs by
Smith’s yellow journalism hatchet job.


1) Why did the BBC use a thoroughly debunked graphic animation
from PBS’ Nova show to illustrate the collapse of the twin
towers? This graphic portrays the tower collapsing at a rate
of ten floors every six seconds. For this to be accurate,
the tower’s 110 floors would have taken 66 seconds to completely
collapse. In reality, the towers collapsed in just 14-16 seconds
at the extreme end of the estimation. The graphic also erroneously
depicts the floors collapsing without resistance, which could
not have happened if the building’s collapse came as a result
of fire damage alone. Furthermore, the thoroughly debunked
“pancake theory” holds that the core column remained
upright and static as the animation shows when in reality
the entirety of the towers, including the concrete support
structures, were pulverized into small pieces and dust. A
video explanation of the erroneous Nova animation is included
below. Does producer Guy Smith consider using an animation
that portrays a tower collapsing in 66 seconds an accurate
reflection of how the twin towers collapsed? Will producer
Guy Smith retract this error before his show is aired again?
Will the BBC announce a retraction of this error as is common
practice for proven factual inaccuracies carried in BBC programming?

2) Why did the program claim that debris from Flight 93 having
been found 8 miles from the crash scene was a factual error
on behalf of 9/11 skeptics? Both the FBI and the NTSB admitted
that mail the plane was carrying had been found 8 miles from
the crash scene. Pittsburgh
Tribune Review: Crash debris found 8 miles away

3) Why did the program claim that the collapse of Building
7 resulted in no casualties without mentioning the statements
of both an eyewitness at the scene and Congressman Otter who
publicly stated that Secret Service Agent Craig Miller died

as a result of the collapse?

4) Why was footage filmed at ground zero on 9/11 of a firefighter
discussing the damage to Building 7′s sprinkler system used
to support the notion that fires caused the building to collapse
while footage and testimony attesting to the notion that Building
7 was deliberately brought down, that firefighters had been
warned in advance that it was going to be brought down, and
that bombs had brought the building down, uniformly ignored?
Why was the testimony of Craig Bartmer, a former NYPD official
who states he heard bombs tear down Building 7 as it collapsed
, omitted from the final edit? Why were the dozens and dozens
of references to bombs exploding at all levels of the twin
towers including the basement areas made by ground zero rescue
workers and firefighters, caught both on camera and tape recorded
from the firefighter’s communication radios, omitted from
the final edit? Why was there no effort made to include the
testimony of William Rodruigez, who was a witness to underground
explosions in the basement levels?

5) Why during brief coverage of the Building 7 issue were
the words of Larry Silverstein, the owner of the WTC complex
who told a September 2002 PBS documentary that he and firefighting
chiefs decided to “pull” the building, not even
mentioned? Why were the hundreds of millions of dollars Silverstein
made from the collapse of this building alone not mentioned
as a plausible motive for its demolition?

6) Why was coverage of the collapse of the twin towers and
Building 7 narrowed into a mere debunking of the “squib”
issue and testimony from the dozens at the scene who both
saw and heard explosions completely omitted. In debunking
the squib issue, why did the documentary fail to point out
the fact that such emissions could be seen exiting the towers
many floors below the collapse point?

7) Why were the numerous unprecedented wargames that were
conducted on 9/11 dismissed as “routine” when they
were anything but? Though the show admitted that such wargames
slowed down the response to the hijacked airliners, they refused
to ask who was in control of the wargames and refused to mention
the fact that some of these wargames involved planes crashing
into high profile buildings and the huge improbability of
such a coincidence occurring.


1) If the documentary was intended to be a balanced piece,
why were only three individuals who represented the 9/11 truth
movement included in the final edit compared to at least thirteen
individuals who advocated the official story or the incompetence
whitewash? Why were individuals who represented the 9/11 truth
movement and were interviewed by the BBC for this program,
such as former NYPD official Craig Bartmer and Jim Marrs not
included in the final edit? Does Guy Smith consider a more
than four to one ratio of debunkers to 9/11 skeptics a balanced

2) How can Guy Smith justify using the strong implication
on numerous occasions throughout the documentary that questioning
the official story of 9/11 is insulting and hurtful to the
victims? How can he justify such a blatant and cynical attempt
to emotionally sway the viewer when Bill Doyle, representative
of the largest group of 9/11 families,
is on the record as stating that half of the victims he represents
are asking the same questions
as 9/11 skeptics? How can
Smith justify using such virulent and propagandistic techniques
to bury allegations of a 9/11 cover-up in the face of the
fact that it was an admitted government cover-up in the very
hours after 9/11, the
EPA toxic dust scandal
, that is now responsible for the
debilitating illnesses that are killing off 20% of the first
responders, firefighters and other 9/11 heroes? Is Smith’s
outright attempt to pardon the government of a 9/11 cover-up
not itself an insult to the victims in those circumstances?

3) Does producer Guy Smith consider it ethical on the part
of a so-called journalist to laugh off and dismiss the claims
made by 9/11 skeptics before filming for his documentary has
even finished or editing even begun? Can Smith be trusted
to produce a balanced documentary when he has already announced
his personal bias months before the program is completed or

4) Why did producer Guy Smith decide to devote an inordinate
amount of time to theories that are not even embraced by
the majority of the 9/11 truth movement, such as the Jewish
conspiracy angle, the C-130 Pentagon angle and the Shanksville
“no plane” angle? Were such topics given dominant
coverage even over core issues such as controlled demolition,
Building 7, wargames and the stand down, which are uniformly
embraced as the most hardcore evidence by the vast majority
of the 9/11 truth movement? Does such a focus on nebulous
issues prove the charge leveled at the BBC that Smith’s
production was nothing more than a strawman hit piece that
sought to distort and debunk fringe elements that are not
even embraced by the majority of the 9/11 truth movement?
As the Angirfan

“Imagine a historian trying to prove
that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction or that George
Bush was a good president. The bad historian would select
only the parts of the evidence which suited his bad theory;
and the bad historian would give lots of time to the spooky
sources, and very little time to the honest sources. It
was the BBC that led the way in telling us that Iraq had
weapons of mass destruction. Now the BBC is trying to support
the Bush version of 9-11.”

5) Why were 9/11 skeptics afforded only brief, insubstantial
and fleeting air time whereas debunkers were given the chance
to speak uninterrupted at length? Why were the statements
of debunkers subsequently supported in the narrative with
documentation yet the statements of 9/11 skeptics were not,
even though we know the producer was presented with such documentation.
For example, when Alex Jones discussed a desire on the part
of the Neo-Cons to have a 9/11 style event in order to launch
a pre-planned war, the Project for a New American Century
documents which clearly outline an agenda were not shown on
screen or even mentioned. Furthermore, Alex Jones was told
directly by the producers that any discussion of Operation
Northwoods, which is a cornerstone bedrock of the 9/11 truth
community, would not be included in the final edit.

6) Why was Dylan Avery filmed listening to the interviewer’s
question about the coroner’s statements while looking nervous?
This was a blatant attempt to portray Avery as dishonest and
was not mirrored during any of the interviews with the debunkers.

7) Why were the debunkers referred to in sympathetic and
sober terms whereas the personalities of the 9/11 skeptics
were attacked? For example, Popular Mechanics were called
a “no nonsense, nuts and bolts” publication (when
in reality it is owned by the original progenitors of yellow
journalism, Hearst Publishing) whereas Alex Jones was called
an “evangelist” and Dylan Avery a “self-confessed
dropout.” Surely if this documentary was intended to
have been a balanced piece, it would be left to the viewer
to make up their mind about the character of the individuals
featured in the program and not have it dictated to them by
the sardonic female narrator.

8) Why were the 9/11 skeptics filmed and portrayed in an
unflattering light whereas the debunkers were lent credence
and authority as a result of the style and location of their
filming? For example, debunkers were filmed at ground zero,
Washington DC and inside military fighters, whereas 9/11 skeptics
were filmed in untidy offices and, in the case of Alex Jones,
a conference hall that was portrayed as an evangelic religious
cult gathering. Why was Jim Fetzer positioned so close to
the camera so as to make his gestures and facial expressions
seem wild and overexerted? As another blog
points out

When Fetzer and Avery were shown talking to the camera,
they were overwhelmingly depicted as single-minded and emotional,
with a forcible attitude of ‘you’re either with us or against
us’, which was intended to subliminally turn the viewer
off them – and thus discredit their points. t was almost
half an hour before we got to see Alex Jones, who was introduced
when he was yelling to an audience about the New World Order.
The BBC said he was like an ‘evangelist’ — this was another
underhanded technique where the BBC tried to associate alternative
thought with religious fundamentalism.

9) Why were scientists who represented the debunkers interviewed
and yet scientists who represented the 9/11 skeptics, such
as Professor Steven Jones or Kevin Ryan, omitted from the
documentary? Why did Smith seek to interview former government
officials who represented the debunking side and yet omitted
any testimony from former government officials representing
the 9/11 skeptics side, such as Andreas von Buelow or David

Building 7

10) How can Guy Smith have confidence in his conclusion that
Osama bin Laden ordered the attacks when even the world’s
leading expert on Bin Laden now says that the alleged “confession
tape” is a fraud
and the individual seen in the video
is not Bin Laden?

I will now quote at length the excellent observations made
by the ‘Debunking the BBC’ blog. This is just a sampling of
the extensive rebuttal that is fully sourced and supported
the blog website

There was a strong ‘anti-conspiracy’ theme throughout the
programme. The proponents on the official story were given
much more time to discuss their ideas and their opinions,
and there was no camerawork or editing to make them appear
less than respectable. There were only three truth-seeker
proponents and yet they were vastly outnumbered by the proponents
of the official story.

Popular-Mechanics was introduced as a ‘no-nonsense’ magazine,
despite having it’s article disputed and debunked.

The programme began with the narrator saying the theories
were offensive to those families affected by 9-11 – a logical
fallacy called an ‘appeal to emotion’.

The programme shows us bent WTC steel columns and damaged
vehicles in a warehouse, then proceeds onto the official
story, whilst showing the alleged hijackers on CCTV at an
unnamed airport. Then casualties were discussed, videos
of shocked people were shown, and emotional phone calls
were aired. This is all emotional manipulation, and it is
not related to pure theory, as it does not prove or disprove
anything. This did not dissuade the BBC however.

There were scientists used to support the official story,
but no counter-scientists shown, such as Professor Steven
Jones, David Ray Griffin PhD and others [19]. It was continually
stated that blaming the government was scapegoating, yet
it is precisely that act which was carried out by the mainstream
media and the authorities when blaming Bin Laden.

When Fetzer and Avery were shown talking to the camera,
they were overwhelmingly depicted as single-minded and emotional,
with a forcible attitude of ‘you’re either with us or against
us’, which was intended to subliminally turn the viewer
off them – and thus discredit their points.

Before Avery began talking, they called him a college ‘dropout’,
and said he made his money selling Loose Change. Avery is
shown saying he does not care what the debunkers say – we
believe this clip to be out of context, and that Avery was
disagreeing with something else.

Fetzer was always pictured close-up when talking, to make
the viewer uncomfortable and to ensure his gestures were
exaggerated beyond what was reasonable – a technique that
could be used to subliminally turn the viewers off him.
There was no explanation made of Fetzer’s conflicts with
other prominent members of the truth movement regarding
his more unusual theories.

Avery and Fetzer were used the most. Alex Jones was not,
despite the fact that Alex Jones is one of the more eloquent,
respected, and knowledgeable people on these matters.

It was almost half an hour before we got to see Alex Jones,
who was introduced when he was yelling to an audience about
the New World Order. The BBC said he was like an ‘evangelist’
— this was another underhanded technique where the BBC
tried to associate alternative thought with religious fundamentalism.

There were several baseless phrases delivered throughout
the show, like: “secrecy breeds conspiracies”,
it is as if they tried to compare the spread of conspiracies
to the spread of bacteria. The X-Files guy said that debunking
articles aren’t liked by some as they take away those people’s
‘security blanket’, and he said conspiracies are present
because we’ve been lied to before, and that ‘cynicism and
hopelessness still infects us’. He also said ‘we’re all
storytellers’, compares conspiracy theory to ‘myth’, says
conspiracists simplify things, and that conspiracies are
pleasing to certain people with a political agenda.

The BBC tried to say that believing President Bush was
a murderous madman was ‘acceptable’ to conspiracists, but
there was no mention of how widespread that view truly was
across society. There was also an attempt to smear conspiracy
theory as merely ‘Chinese whispers’ on the internet which
quickly grew to ridiculous proportions.

There was a camera shot of a worker outside
the Pentagon; he said: ‘flawed people need to make a name
for themselves’, regarding the Pentagon theories. This appeared
to smear all truth-seekers, regardless of whether they accepted
the Pentagon theory or not, it also wrongly suggested that
truth-seekers wanted fame alone.

The BBC allowed scientists to do a 3D simulation of the
Pentagon crash to support the official story, but a truth-seeker’s
simulation was not used for the WTC collapse. Apparently
the scientists who did the Pentagon crash simulation received
hate mail from ‘conspiracy theorists’, who were overly ‘emotional’
and accused them of being government assets. This was clearly
an attempt to paint truth-seekers as unstable and dishonest.

There was focus on a supposed internet rumour that said
the X-Files team tried to warn people of 9-11 though the
Lone Gunmen WTC episode. It is acknowledged on the internet
that this show ‘predicted’ 9-11, but only in response to
official claims that the 9-11 scenario had not been envisioned
previously, but not that the X-Files team possessed special

The programme finished with the narrator saying the theories
were offensive to those families affected by 9-11 – a logical
fallacy called an ‘appeal to emotion’.

The 9-11 victim’s families are themselves asking for an
investigation into 9-11, so it appears the BBC used some
victims to support it’s hit piece whilst ignoring others.
[20] Furthermore the 9-11 first responders were made ill
by the New York air which they were told was safe to breathe.
[21] Many of the emergency service’s dogs also suffered
fatal illness for the same reasons. The BBC failed to mention
this too.

Amidst the myriad of attacks upon its credibility, the BBC
failed to mention that Loose Change is being revised to filter
out mistakes made and concentrate on infallible evidence.
Will Guy Smith release a version 2 of his documentary? Will
his propagandistic and manipulative tissue of lies be corrected?
Will Smith answer any of the questions listed above? Or will
what has become for many the Blair Broadcasting Corporation
continue to excel in shoddy research, outright factual fallacy
and bias emotional manipulation, while taxing the British
public for the courtesy of having to put up with it?





the BBC’s 9-11 Conspiracy Files

vs 9/11 Truth: The Smear Continues

vs 9/11 Truth: The Smear Begins

Pressured to Air 9/11 Hit Piece?

Implies 9/11 Truth Movement a Cult of Mythology

9/11 Documentary Likely Hit Piece