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

OZ-Surprise!!!

By Solaris on 2014 12 19 - 13:59:22
From the entry 'The virtue of selfishness'.

dickhead josh… you seem to be in a very verbose mood..
how many planes hit the pentagon?

By Andrew Adams on 2014 12 19 - 09:40:44
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

OZ-surprise!!!

By Solarisquartz on 2014 12 19 - 09:25:34
From the entry 'Top 10 Crimes Against Truth 2013'.

OZ-surprise!!!

By Solarisquartz on 2014 12 19 - 09:25:33
From the entry 'Top 10 Crimes Against Truth 2013'.

OZ-surprise!!!

By Solarisquartz on 2014 12 19 - 09:25:30
From the entry 'Top 10 Crimes Against Truth 2013'.

Leonard Clampett is correct if he states that airway charts are no direct indication of actual traffic.

However it shows that there are designated routes over South Burnett. It’s not an area where air traffic is unusual.

For the actual traffic consult Flightradar 24 over the South Burnett region.

Regarding the semantics of “from/to Sydney and Brisbane” let me clearly state that I never had the route between Sydney and Brisbane in mind. This might have been more clear to people following the discussion with Cris.

The bottom line and the relevant point is that there is just no evidence for days with “only one jet” over South Burnett. Flight tracking shows clearly that there is constant traffic over the region. Show me a day with only five jets over South Burnett on Flightradar 24 - even limited to the daylight period - and I will be convinced.

The statement of Cris (“We are lucky to get 1 jet a day visible here normally”) can indeed only refer to the visibility with bare eyes on a non-trail day, not the actual traffic, as explained extensively and repeatedly.

Regarding the “3 or more abreast” situation that Cris referred to, I quote my reply from the first time this was brought up:

Next time you see three planes abreast, or circles, or grids - grab a camera and take a picture. Otherwise it’s hard to say what you saw. May have been normal traffic where the many routes are bound to intersect at some points, or circling in holding positions, or military exercises.

Without seeing pictures, it’s just speculation.

I can add now that I have observed several situations on Flightradar where three planes were close together (vertically separated of course), going in the same direction. Why should that be unusual?

 

By Josh on 2014 12 19 - 01:13:29
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

Surprise!!!

By Solarisquartz on 2014 12 18 - 14:36:34
From the entry 'Twilight of Freedom'.

chris

By the way I I still don’t have an answer for when there are 3 or more abreast?????

you dont get answers from josh anonymous.. its beyond his capabilities, you will get a whole heap of incomprehensible bluff and bluster though..

i usually try to make it easy for the poor sap, just asking simple yes or no questions, or those requiring a one word answer..  but they seem to be the ones he struggles with the most? - he really is an enigma.. he should donate his body to science, and i dont think he should wait till he dies either..

By Andrew Adams on 2014 12 18 - 12:45:51
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

Leonard

This means aircraft from/to Sydney and Brisbane. There is no mention of any other geographical locations so it is demonstrable that you refer to those two cities.

he must really struggle with simple day to day tasks.. honestly.. that is another example of when he accussed me of making threats, then denied he wrote that, then wanted me to show him precisely where he did, and when shown, simply ignores all reference to it..  pretends it didnt happen at all.. unbelievable really - if he is the best answer to prove that chemtrails dont exist, they really are struggling.. 

he thinks proving a point, obviously, is simply banging away at the keyboard and hitting submit, with no consideration to rhyme or reason.. relevence, consistency, logic or common sense.

he wont / cant even answer simple questions.. incapable of providing a yes or no answer to a simple question. he feels his inconsistencies, lies, qualifications, credibility, have no relevence to anything so long as he keeps the babble going on and on.. he is doing a good job.

I suspect Janonymous is a whack-job rather than a shill.

you might be right there, it would be almost impossible for a shill to pretend to be so stupid.. and in most instances, id feel a little bit of pity..  but i dont in this case, he needs medication or something, he is obviously in a lot of misery..

By Andrew Adams on 2014 12 18 - 12:42:20
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

Pretty busy here.
Looked at the link late last night.
If there were planes on those routes I would have seen very few as nearly all of the routes don’t come close enough to me.
Maximus, you are not omniscient.
You are clueless.
By the way I I still don’t have an answer for when there are 3 or more abreast?????
What about the ones that intersect those paths….only a few of which go near me?????
What about the stop start ones?
And the ones that make curvy border around an approaching weather front?
Or the giant circle that I took photos of?
Just because the lap dog news can pump out NWO propaganda unopposed because they won’t print evidence to the contrary doesn’t mean you will get away with it.
Do you need hearing aids?
VERY FEW JETS UP HERE UNLESS THERE IS IMMANENT RAIN!!!

By Cris on 2014 12 18 - 12:30:48
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

Categories