Truth News Australia

Subscribe to TNRA

Mike Rudin (BBC Conspiracy Files) on the defensive again

24 October 2008 | Permalink | comments: 0

Categories: [ 9/11 Truth Movement ]

Mike Rudin

21 Oct 08, 11:54 AM

I've just been sent a video on the net which accuses me of being "Eurotrash" and of producing a "hit piece" about 9/11.

World Trade Center

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...

Last month we were in New York to film the seventh anniversary of 9/11 at Ground Zero for a new programme about the allegation of a conspiracy to deliberately destroy the three skyscrapers at the World Trade Centre. "The Conspiracy Files: 9/11 - The Truth Behind The Third Tower" is to be broadcast at 9pm on BBC Two on Sunday 26th October 2008.

We also filmed self-styled truthers who think 9/11 was an inside job, either carried out or allowed by the US government; and they needed to destroy a third tower at the World Trade Center, Tower 7, which they think contained the plans for the plot.

It is a fact that Tower 7 had some interesting tenants - the CIA, the Secret Service, the Department of Defense and the Office of Emergency Management - the very office which was intended to co-ordinate a response to a disaster or terrorist attack.

When we were filming we were surprised that some of the truthers seemed particularly keen to interview us on camera about the last programme we made about this third tower at 9/11. They think we have deliberately set out to conceal the truth. As one said to me "You already know the truth."

The group who made the video are called "We are change". They claim we misrepresented the chronology involving one important witness who we interviewed in our last programme about 9/11.

The first responder Barry Jennings was trapped inside the building for several hours along with another New York City official. They were crucial witnesses to what was going on inside Tower 7 after everyone had been evacuated shortly after the Twin Towers were hit by the two planes.

As I tried to explain to them at the time, we recorded a long interview with Barry Jennings. We also carefully considered other information and came to our own view based on all of that.

As the two men tried to get out of the skyscraper they were suddenly thrown into darkness. Barry Jennings said he heard explosions. We think it is likely that this was when Tower 1 collapsed, showering debris onto Tower 7.

We have also recently recorded an interview with the other man there, Michael Hess.

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.

We now know, courtesy of the final official report on 9/11 [pdf link] by the National Institute of Standards and Technology, that the official investigators think that two areas of Tower 7 were badly hit when the 1,350 foot Tower 1 collapsed. Seven columns were severed on the southwest corner and they suggest debris also hit the top centre face of Tower 7.

The lead investigator of NIST told me that "it's likely that all of those huge failures and damage really caused noises that were incredibly loud."

If our timeline is wrong then why didn't Barry Jennings and Michael Hess see and hear the moment of impact when Tower 1 fell. It must have been very loud.

The group also criticizes us for not including one sentence from an interview with the owner Larry Silverstein. Apologies now because this gets very complicated. However, some people think hidden in this is a vital clue that can unravel the biggest conspiracy in modern times.

The theory is that the owner Larry Silverstein is meant to have implicated himself in a conspiracy to destroy the buildings he owned and leased at the World Trade Center. And what exactly did he say that supposedly gave it all away?

He said "pull it" which some people interpret as an order to demolish the building.

The interview was conducted the year after 9/11 and Larry Silverstein said:

"I remember getting a call from the fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, "We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it."

"We are change" activists think there is something sinister in the fact that we did not include an extra sentence when Larry Silverstein said:

"And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse."

I don't have a problem talking about it. And just for the avoidance of any doubt we included it in the Worldwide version and we will include it in the new programme for BBC Two.

However, I do not understand how that implicates the owner in any wrongdoing. Interestingly one prominent website, 9/11 Research which is highly critical of the official explanation, is not convinced either and thinks it might even be "bait" to discredit the truth movement.

The crucial words seem to be "pull it" and Larry Silverstein's spokesman provides an explanation:

"Mr Silverstein expressed his view that the most important thing was to protect the safety of those fire fighters, including, if necessary, to have them withdraw from the building."

I talked to the man who assumed command of the New York Fire Department that day. Chief Daniel Nigro told me that it was his decision to decide what to do about Tower 7.

In other words there is no way Larry Silverstein could have ordered the fire department to leave the building and wait for it to be demolished. As Chief Nigro told me the fire service was not part of conspiracy, they were doing their job:

"When we are in charge of a building, we are in charge and that decision will be the fire chiefs and his alone...That's why I know there is no conspiracy, because for me to be part of that would be obscene and it disgusts me to even think of it."

For good measure the truthers at Ground Zero added one final criticism, saying that the BBC is funded by General Electric. I'm not sure what that's based on, but I can say with absolute, yes absolute certainty, it isn't...nor have I ever been part of a conspiracy to cover up what really went on 9/11.

Mike Rudin is series producer, The Conspiracy Files

Comments

Enter comments below, then click Submit:

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Please enter the word you see in the image below:


Listen Live

Recent Comments

Geoffrey, I’m inclined to agree with what you say, except that I wasn’t saying ‘anything goes’. I was only pointing out what free speech is, and that it isn’t what most people who like to think of themselves as liberal (or whatever) want it to be. They like to think they are open-minded and progressive, yet they support the assertion of authority over others.

If anyone can dictate what I cannot speak about, that sets a precedent. It means that no-one has freedom of speech at all. I don’t want to say nasty things about gays, for example, but if I support the idea of some body being able to stop others doing that, it would be hypocritical to then oppose that same body imposing other similarly arbitrary limitations on me.

Thus I am opposed to any limitations on speech (that is free speech!). It doesn’t mean I approve of any particular thing someone might say, but I do uphold their right to say it.

By zek on 2015 01 31 - 03:30:57
From the entry 'The free speech paradox'.

Free speech of course is free speech, as ‘Zek’ opines.  He is saying that ‘anything goes’.

On the other hand, some ‘anti-discrimination laws’ particularly in NSW Australia, make it unlawful to make any public statement that is deemed to offend persons who are, or who are reasonably believed to be, homosexual.  This anti-free speech law was bought into existence by Ms Clover Moore and it was called the Anti-Discriminaiton (Homosexual Vilification) Amendment Act 1993. Read more about the nightmare this law can create, here: http://bernardgaynor.com.au/into-battle-backup-required/#comment-384568

This show by Hereward Fenton I found very mind-stretching and interesting.  It was as if he was taking us on an inquiry together in order to discover a deeper truth.  It discussed many aspects of free speech in the current climate of fear and loathing. There are several dictionary definintions of ‘paradox’.  Here’s one definition that I think Mr Fenton had in mind:- ‘a statement or proposition that seems self-contradictory or absurd but in reality expresses a possible truth’.

We can also say free speech is not free speech, in that most of us (except trolls) self-censor.  Our empathy, if we have any, stops our speech from being free.  This raises the question, what do we do about those without empathy, who are psychopaths or trolls, and actually get pleasure from using speech to attack and hurt people. In order to avoid laws that try to control what people can and cannot publicly say, one solution is to change our attitude, and cultivate tolerance and resiliance. This is based on the insight that mothers used to tell their kids who were bullied at school.

Sticks and stones
will break your bones
but words will never hurt you.

This little ditty reresents the opposite of what the vilification laws are about.

By Geoffrey McKee on 2015 01 31 - 00:52:48
From the entry 'The free speech paradox'.

I think the search for answers is pretty obvious now Fenton, it seems most avenues end up in the same place so for you and your followers, I think you are doing a great job, but its time to expose the elephant in the living room, once 9-11, is sorted and the world wars, its pretty much a Rothschild & Israhelli terrorist state purpetrating (ALL) the worlds angst! Imagine no refugees because no wars, MM its like that cure the scource, Breddon O,connell (SPOT ON) mate. Lets support people like this who see the Truth. Here,s to a better world smile Bring it on !

By Lachlan on 2015 01 29 - 20:47:17
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

Sorry guys, “homophobes” in my last post should have read islamophobes…sometimes my finger get a little ahead of my thinking!

By Eugene Donnini on 2015 01 29 - 16:56:08
From the entry 'The free speech paradox'.

josh anonymous thinks his banal obfuscations can dispel any and all concerns regarding atmospheric spraying.
you may believe your bullshit bluff and bluster - but it does nothing to prove your case of no such thing as chemtrails, when that picture is but one of hundreds you will see if you enter chemtrail satellite into a search engine..

you can explain all them away with your unqualified babble - fact is.. if trails require specific rare conditions in oreder to persist, even for a short while.. ie; a few minutes, that doesnt go anywhere near explaining what is shown covering an entire country..  your full of it..  unless you can post evidence of your claim, that there is no such thing as chemtrails, i dont care for anything you have to say, you have proven repeatedly your disposition towards mendacity..

so again.. to put it bluntly.. put up or STFU.

By theehwh on 2015 01 29 - 14:53:44
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

aewt/Andrew Adams/Skywatcher,

the image you posted was taken from this original NASA publication.

Note that it’s an enhanced infrared image, but nevertheless it was a day with many trails in that region (January 29, 2004).

Here is the whole satellite photo (thumbnail) in real color, which provides some perspective about the proportions. Note the cloud band over Florida with the embedded contrails:

The original high-res image (17 MB) is also still available here.


Again, “rare” is a relative term; the actual numbers and the context are more telling.
As the study of R. Sausen and others says (I have referenced it before):

The annual global mean value is 0.09%

(From “A Diagnostic Study of the Global Distribution of Contrails Part I: Present Day Climate”)

Now, the surface area of the Earth is 510 million square kilometers. That means roughly 460 000 square kilometers of pure contrail area - at every moment, excluding all the gaps, and obviously concentrated in areas where there is air traffic.

The central point is that this is the average, so of course there can be local and temporal maxima. Nothing there to make scientists fret about.

By Josh on 2015 01 29 - 01:41:43
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

it appears from this picture

that the specific, RARE, ( i say rare because that is what was said in an article posted by josh anonymous himself ) atmospheric conditions for contrails to persist… actually must in reality, occur all over the world, all the bloody time!

josh and fenton are liars. simple as that.

By aewt on 2015 01 28 - 13:12:16
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

At least Christendom has modified its act…even the Pope calls for peace and reconciliation, admited the Churches complicity in past atrocities, apologized to the Jews and so on…

re free speech: I suppose Hereward needs to be very careful about what he says, and would be fully aware that his every word is being monitored by others. I think he does a great job and has on more than one occasion come very close to the edge. He’s also entitled to his opinion, and although I don’t agree with it at times, in my opinion, it doesn’t detract from the work he is doing.

By Eugene Donnini on 2015 01 28 - 10:51:17
From the entry 'The free speech paradox'.

Free speech is free speech. If you believe in any restrictions on it, then you don’t believe in FREE speech. People often say, “I’m all for free speech but…” - there are no buts, it’s either free or it isn’t. Be honest, if you don’t believe in free speech, admit it. I’m not advocating either side of the argument here, just pointing out a fact.

By Zek on 2015 01 28 - 04:26:08
From the entry 'The free speech paradox'.

Rattus, do you know about the military conquests of Christian nations, from the crusades through to the conquest of Mexico? Do you know about how the ‘Christian’ slave traders operated in Africa? Do you know what the ‘Christian’ French did in Indochina, or the ‘Christian’ English did in India, or the ‘Christian’ Dutch did in Indonesia?

I think maybe your education in these matters is a bit one-sided, in that you have read and absorbed only one polemical perspective and missed the forest for the trees.

If you’re looking for atrocities, look no further than Christendom.

As for the Charlie Hebdo cover, surely you understand that the headline is the main message conveyed? The headline says “The Koran is Shit” - a direct insult to Muslims. Imagine if a magazine had the headline “The Torah is Shit” - how long do you think such a publication would remain in circulation?

By Hereward Fenton on 2015 01 27 - 22:40:05
From the entry 'The free speech paradox'.

Categories