Truth News Australia

Subscribe to TNRA
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

oh hell to the yes, this too shall pass. Just hang in there. I like how you say what is on your mind. To me it seems like you are productive in this meannr since you are like officially decluttering your mind so that you can take on the tasks at hand. I can totally relate to this post you have written out here. I am dealing with my own shit. I guess all of us have shit going on now too. Anyway, I had liked your post because it had rang truth. Keep ya head up.      July 23, 2013

By Emmanuel on 2015 03 06 - 11:42:50
From the entry 'Scott Bartle on the dirty little secret about your government'.

josh you pathetic punce -
people dont like jews - for good reason
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mjSonoklkVc
deal with it.

its ok to demonise all muslims on the lies of 9/11, or what you call a conspiracy theory, but any justifiable criticism of israel is automatically anti semetic - either youre a blatant hypocrite or a total knobhead - or both

By gtrfstgh on 2015 03 06 - 11:15:15
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

so i mention the word jews, and josh gets all bent out of shape.. you a jew josh? one of the chosen ones are you? like jon faine?

ya know, its not just me who is a bit pissed of at jews, israel is viewed negatively around the world
http://www.jpost.com/National-News/Poll-Israel-viewed-negatively-around-the-world

and not for no good reasons..
http://www.ifamericansknew.org/stat/un.html

its called justified criticism, not anti semitism you schuck..  - pfffft - such chutzpah!

 

By etrh on 2015 03 05 - 20:53:18
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

josh you feckwit.. do you know what anti semite means? it means anti arab.. to apply just criticism to jews, or anyone else when they deserve it, doesnt make anyone anti anything you pathetic moron.

as for conspiracy theories? lol - are you serious? is the official account of 911 the truth - or is it a conspiracy theory?

is there a company in australia called Australian Rain Corporation? or is that a conspiracy theory?

https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/malcolm-turnbull-rain-man,7437

feckwit.

By thsh on 2015 03 04 - 12:26:12
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

To compare any rational. research with statements like that, is in itself an insult to common sense, one merely has to look past the propaganda to find the truth. Maybe you should learn about that word? TRUTH.

By Daveeed on 2015 03 03 - 20:00:08
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

ydt/Andrew Adams/Skywatcher,

so you are showing your true face now? Antisemitic hate?

You know, blaming Jews for everything and sinking into a delirium of conspiracy theories can end very badly. My whole country went through this once.

It can happen with individuals too. Check out the story of David Joseph Lenio.

By Josh on 2015 03 03 - 19:18:46
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

Get ready for freedom.

By OZ on 2015 03 01 - 19:23:55
From the entry 'Twilight of Freedom'.

Free speech is one paradox to use Hereward’s word.  Another paradox is freedom of choice. Hereward has touched on something here, I reckon, when it comes to exposing little children with jabs that cause some to have adverse affects incliding some reported siezures.  The idea of ‘freedom of choice’ is treated as an article of faith by some people only when it suits them.  Look at this comment on same-sex ‘marriage’ by Fairfax media columnist Clementine Ford (The Age, Feb 3, 2015). Quote, “The pursuit of marriage equality is vital, not least of which is because every Australian of legal age should have the right to embrace or reject it as they see fit and according to their own system of values.”  So what happens if we replace the idea of ‘same sex marriage’ with “vacination’? An interesting mental excercise. . . . . .

By Geoffrey McKee on 2015 02 28 - 16:07:50
From the entry 'The free speech paradox'.

Ankara Travestileri cok güzel bir site tüm arkadaslarima bahsedeceğim. türkiyeden selamlar Ankara Travestileri Travesti ZuhaL

By Travesti on 2015 02 28 - 07:14:18
From the entry 'Bishop and 9/11 Truther Richard Williamson reinstated by Pope'.

fenton works for the jews. thats why he lies. he pretends his unqualified opinion is the ultimate truth.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/chemtrails-the-consequences-of-toxic-metals-and-chemical-aerosols-on-human-health/19047?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=chemtrails-the-consequences-of-toxic-metals-and-chemical-aerosols-on-human-health

By ydt on 2015 02 22 - 12:30:54
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

Categories