Skip to content

Reviewing the bbcs coverage of the 2001 attack on the world trade center the pentagon

  • by

(source: Monitoring Authority…BBC Charter Compliance)


How do BBC statements compare with evidence in the public domain? Is the BBC coverage accurate? Does the BBC output divert attention from the most relevant issues and events? Are the key questions addressed?

Monitoring Authority reviews the BBC documentary, "911 Conspiracy File", broadcast in Feb 2007 and July 2008 plus the BBC web site. It asks whether the programme can fairly be seen as deceptive and whether it could condition our minds to reject further inquiry.

The evidence is verified, collated and presented for the reader’s judgement.

After Sept. 11th President Bush declared:

"You’re either with us or you’re with the terrorists"

How did the BBC react to this confrontational statement?

The BBC investigation backs the official theory: 19 Muslims conspired with Osama bin Laden to attack the US, because they "hate freedom".

Is the BBC guilty of misrepresentation of the evidence and "spinning" the phrase "conspiracy theory" in an attack on freedom of expression? Was there censorship of dissent?


A deconstruction of the programme [transcript] pointing to information in the public domain contradicting the BBC content. It does not make statements that cannot be substantiated.

It does however examine the frequent repetition of the phrase – "conspiracy theory" – and whether this phrase has been used subliminally to condition us to react, in a predictable Pavlovian manner, to support US & UK government policy.,

This phrase now lights up pathways in our brains that resonate with “paranoid stories by sad souls”, as if asking a question, how? who? when? where? constitutes evidence of psychological disturbance and flawed character. But is this really how the BBC "911 File" spins those who doubt or inquire?

We should consider whether the UK public-financed broadcasting corporation ignored its Charter obligations in a programme about arguably the most important political event of the 21st Century – leading as it did to war in Afghanistan and Iraq with draconian increases in state power at home – all vital, we’re told, to fight terrorism.

The BBC’s Chairman and Director General lost their jobs when reporter Andrew Gilligan claimed the government had "sexed up" a dossier on Iraq to rally public support for war.

Can the punishment for this "Charter infringement" inform us on the level of accountability we should expect of our public broadcast service if its obligation of "due accuracy and impartiality" is flouted? Can it be right:* the BBC commentator telling you that the computer scientist she is introducing and his project, are not funded by the government, when they were:

* presenting interviewees, supporting the official story, who are seriously compromised by conflict of interest: [More]* endorsing the Bush administration's excuse for the unprecedented failures of the US "defence & intelligence systems" as SNAFU (situation normal all fu*ked up)

* and then ………..“Omission is the greatest form of lie” – George Orwell The BBC totally omits doubting eye-witnesses … relatives … independent experts … or analysis of key issues … plus much.

Pressure from the Jersey Girls, (wives and mothers of 911 victims) together with survivors such as William Rodriguez and many, was largely responsible for the setting-up of the 911 Commission. William Rodriguez was the "last man out alive" celebrated by President Bush as "All American Hero". None were mentioned. Neither is any mention made of the many politicians, military personnel, scientists, engineers and pilots who question the accuracy of the government’s account.

Understanding the breadth and credibility of those questioning the official explanation is a basis for assessing this pivotal event: Click for a general intro to [sceptics] and [More] for military/political dissent. Are they just sad souls seeking to make a name for themselves? The BBC ignores, or skates over, the most pertinent recorded physical facts, photographic / video evidence, fire-fighters & air traffic controllers reports – just some of the mountain of empirical evidence waiting for answers. The BBC omits the all-important question of physics, with the Twin Towers and Building 7 disintegrating at near free-fall speed – yet no account made for conservation of energy momentum, nor of the source of energy needed to turn most of the towers into dust, fragmented rubble and pockets of molten iron. HOW WERE THE IMMUTABLE LAWS OF PHYSICS SUSPENDED?

Unbalanced Reporting BBC plus 14 Bush supporters versus 3 critics The BBC prides itself on being balanced but in this crucial documentary, 14 interviewees, plus the BBC voice-over, support the official theory as opposed to 3 individuals, presented erroneously as representing 911 critics, allotted just 7 minutes;

BBC & the US "security state" BBC links with US Joint Forces Command Finally, this review draws your attention to connections between the BBC and the rapidly expanding surveillance operations of US intelligence services monitoring: Google, Facebook, MySpace, credit card transactions, e-mails.

These networks are data mined to see " if the public mood is good or bad" ….. "whether they're ready for a revolution " (Army Sargent John Cupp USJFCOM Public Afairs).

Is the BBC erecting a barrier to serious inquiry while at the same time acting as a matador's red cape to test public reaction to a BBC white-wash of 9/11? When this BBC documentary is examined in any depth, does it appear to be more a reinforcer of the US administration's official line with "ad hominem" attacks on unnamed doubters, rather than serious analysis of evidence? If you check the BBC web-site you find the main thrust of the Conspiracy Files appears to focus on sidelining dissent and mocking all souls who question official versions of controversial events.

On their Sept. 2001 page the BBC state, “Incredibly some believe the American Government allowed or actively helped the attacks” . They fail to reveal even one of the prominent academic/political/military names questioning the official theory before they spin the tale of flawed paranoid souls.

Are we obliged, as citizens paying a licence fee for access to honest information about our world, to peer at the record? Standard psychology text books and developments in linguistics and evolutionary behavioural theory indicate how malleable we all are. Are we on guard? How ever much we may want to believe ourselves free-thinking individuals, there are obvious facts that are unavoidable: like the vast sums spent on market research and advertising to encourage shopping. Politicians and rulers have long revealed their prowess in the dark science of persuasion. Machiavelli and Shakespeare, among others, revealed the tricks of the trade, as did : Goebbels: “tell a big enough lie & keep repeating it people will believe it” And Napoleon: "if you can't convince the people then confuse them" CONCLUSION: The review of the 911 Conspiracy File highlights some obvious conflicts with the BBC Royal Charter obligations as the BBC programme – A. Gave inaccurate information.

B. Was partisan and biased. C. Omitted key issues.

D. Confused and diverted attention from key issues.

E. Made repeated ad hominem attacks on those that question.

These accusations are backed with reference to information in the public domain posted through the BBC 911 File storyline [programme transcript with links to deeper analysis] Regarding journalistic integrity and professionalism.

How did the BBC meet its promise to "Travel across the United States to investigate the truth about 911, speaking to eye witnesses to seperate fact from fiction" (BBC trailer) ?In an hour the BBC could be expected to outline information in the public domain relating to the main questions surrounding the 2001 attack on America. It is a complex, multifaceted event but the key issues are clear. The BBC would know what they are.Key issues.1. The “on the public record” history of US involvement in penetrating, monitoring, funding, directing & arming Islamic Jihadists.2. The direct and repeated warnings, from numerous governments, that an attack on the USA mainland was imminent some specifically citing hijacking and use of airliners as missiles.3. Hijacking four airliners and avoiding interception for two hours – constituting a virtually total stand down for two hours of all defence systems.

4. The suspension of the laws of physics on Sept. 11th 2001. 5. The breach of laws covering crime/accident36and obstruction of serious inquiry. 6. The aftermath both physical and personal. For reasons unknown the BBC merely repeated the official White House conspiracy theory that 19 Muslims, lead by a man in a cave in Afghanistan, defeated the intelligence services and defence systems of the most powerful military force this world has ever known. [bin Laden] There is no evidence of a serious commitment to hypothesis testing by the BBC of either the official conspiracy theory or the mountain of questions raised by that theory. Why was the official version a conspiracy theory? [More] The unaccountability of the BBC The BBC is a self regulating body in political matters. Can this position be equivalent to a [proven] arsonist being placed in charge of fire service investigations? A close examination of the information in the public domain shows without doubt that the BBC, in its 911 investigation and continuing support for the official theory, has committed grave breaches of the BBC Charter and the BBC declaration of "Trust". We, the public, have trusted the BBC to provide a honest, balanced and professionally researched picture of our world. The evidence points to a betrayal of that trust. Without trust in the highest echelon of information provision there can be no security. Without a secure and informed citizenry there can be no "democracy". Britain is deeply involved in two wars of aggression on the basis of policies that emerged from the rubble and deaths of September 11th. British troops are losing their lives but the main victims are Moslem civilians. Do we have a responsibility to examine the evidence, to determine the truth