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

Leonard Clampett,

just ‘ad hominem’ attacks, no discussion of my arguments?

Did you read up about RHI and RHW? About the products of combustion of hydrocarbons?

You can find a lot of information about these things on the Internet. In fact, that’s how I learned a lot: looking for data and facts when researching conspiracy claims.

This also as an additional reply to Cris:

You don’t need personal input from experts to debunk the central (ever-repeating) claims of conspiracy theorists. There are several thorough and earnest communities that collect arguments - with references! - to counter these claims.

Chemtrail proponents are often passionate and eager to spread their view. Why should debunkers be different?
My personal motivation is that I am worried about the present state of the Enlighentment - scientific and critical thinking seems to be under attack from various belief systems.

Oh, and to Leonard Clampett: if you are so fixated on identities, will it change your position if I give you my full name? Let’s see - it’s “Josua Dietze”, and if you google it with quotes, you will find only references to me.

Now, what does that change?

By Josh on 2014 07 27 - 19:30:49
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

Cris,

I would never claim that we have nothing to worry about, even if there is no evidence for chemtrails. I find it terrifying how fast we humans are changing the surface and the atmosphere of our planet, just by the sum of our activities. I am not optimistic about the view that nature will balance all this somehow sometime.

Back to the claims of metal spraying:

So far, all reports cited for these claims refer to testing on the ground. I include rain water, because rain drops collect dust from the lower altitude levels. Also, wind will carry dust into open collection containers that are left outside for a while.

The test method used for all the tests - plasma chromatography - can not make a difference between metals bound in compounds (like Aluminum as a component of clay) and free/metallic elements, which would indeed be toxic in higher levels. So if your test sample contains dust in any form, your test results will show metals - even if you had harmless mineral grains before. For the test, they are ‘cracked’ to their components by immense heat.

Unfortunately, this bit of information is getting lost in all the claims of toxic spraying.
So what we have is mainly misinterpretation, which is repeated over and over again.

The same is true for blood tests where the term “reporting limit” in the lab sheets is commonly misread as “highest allowed level” which must be reported to authorities - whereas in reality it is the smallest level that can reasonably be reported at all. So it’s in fact the technical detection minimum.

The blood tests I have seen so far - those that were actually released by concerned people - are showing normal levels.

Regarding metallic Aluminum in the soil:

I’m sure that as a farmer you know how acidification can change the chemical composition of soil. There are still countries that are blowing sulfur into the atmosphere which causes acid rain, which in turn raises the level of Aluminum. Also, there are areas where this level was always higher than elsewhere. Monsanto targetting these potential markets is just plain capitalism (not that I like them).

BTW, it took me a while for my first reply because the automatic notification from the TRNA site did somehow not work. I was only notified when Bob McDonld posted.

By Josh on 2014 07 27 - 18:58:52
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

Thank you for the good writeup. It if truth be told used to be a entertainment
account it. Look complex to far brought agreeable from you!
By the way, how can we be in contact?

By best baby monitors 2014 on 2014 07 27 - 10:52:41
From the entry 'Schapelle Corby: drug courier or political prisoner?'.

Thank you for the good writeup. It if truth be told used to be a entertainment account it.
Look complex to far brought agreeable from you! By the way, how
can we be in contact?

By best baby monitors 2014 on 2014 07 27 - 10:52:35
From the entry 'Schapelle Corby: drug courier or political prisoner?'.

Interesting response from JOSH ANONYMOUS, the glider pilot of no experience of that of which claims vast knowledge, most probably after he consulted numerous text books, plus his handlers as to how to respond. It did take some time to get back so he must have trawled through a lot of books to try to find information that could suit his claims. No need for that JOSH as common sense and knowledge you would have should suffice. You remind me of GEOFF SEENEY, now deputy premier of Queensland, who, when told about chemtrails, responded with the most inane claims that he knew how aircraft worked as he had seen them taking off from Rockhampton airport and applying his school-boy science had solved the problem. Two lessons learned from my youth, “never argue with idiots as they have had far more experience at it than you”, and “when you throw a pebble into a chook yard you will always know which one you hit”.
JOSH, your claims confirm to me that you are either exceptionally egotistic, with a constant need to support your self esteem, or are a simple minded stooge, one of the useful tools of the elite, i.e. useful idiots, or have some personal agenda probably tied to your insecurity. I am most certainly glad that you never did any maintenance work on any aircraft I flew. You won’t hear from me again, so you can live your dreams in conjunction with HEREWARD FENTON (if that is his real name) spreading your imaginings through the electrons on the Internet. Try not to fool people, because I can assure you you cannot fool all the people all the time. (Old proverb, old son) and think about why it is you seem so persistent in wanting to support and promote the elite with their agendas.
Ciao,
LEONARD CLAMPETT not an anonymous troll.

By Leonard Clampett on 2014 07 26 - 12:01:50
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

You certainly appear astute Josh. What I can’t figure is the methodology behind your thinking. If you are correct and no Barium, Aluminium, Strontium, vaccination components and a plethora of other nasties are never released in the air above us by the Chemtrail airforce then we have nothing to worry about and life will go as it always has: the self regulating biosphere will simply bring the small man made changes back into balance.
If I am right about the junk being spewed out, then the biosphere will most likely collapse, only to be remediated after we and most higher life forms are composted due to our inaction against the Elite that rule We the Cattle by deception and thuggery.
Let us look at just 2 components: Barium and Aluminium. Barium is an endocrine disruptor, shuts down the sodium/potassium pump that is vital to the survival of each of your cells, is destructive to the soil food web, etc, Aluminium has at least as many problems and strangely enough Monsatan has has developed a gene to deal with aluminium toxicity in the soil: http://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/chemtrails-killing-organic-crops-monsantos-gmo-seeds-thrive/ . How did they know there was going to be too much Aluminium in the soil if they did not know we are being sprayed with it?
You take a while to answer Josh. Is that because you have to go to your minders to glean information about what to write.  Are you being paid? Why don’t you tell us who you are? Are you an NWO employee?
Now are you going to get a PHD microbiologist, a PHD naturopath, an soil chemist, a soil physicist, etc. that have sold their souls, to help you weave misinformation? Most either listen, learn and intelligently discuss or protect their well paid posteriors with silence.
By the way a commercial jet pilot that thought I was exaggerating about the amount of CTs here was surprised to see how much activity there was when rain likely here.
For the record, stuff all when there is no forecast rain and when rain is likely there are often over 50(over the period of a day) in the visible sky in all directions and paterns, even circles and short heaps of short runs.
We are lucky to get 1 jet a day visible here normally. Explain that?
Selah
Cris

By Cris on 2014 07 26 - 10:28:03
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

Bob McDonld,

I for my part do not “deny chemtrails”. I merely point out how weak the evidence is for them to exist.

Can you pick one of the “lies” that you are referring to, and argue why it is actually a lie? Preferably with evidence?

By Josh on 2014 07 26 - 02:26:02
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

Cris,

I am sure your weather observations are sound. However, I am also pretty sure that there is plenty of air traffic even when you don’t see it.
If the upper air conditions are not favorable to trail formation, it is very hard to spot tiny planes at 35000 ft. altitude.

Have a look at real-time flight tracking websites like flightaware.com and flightradar24.com, and go to your location on the map. There you can see actual flights crossing over your place, and then possibly go and look out for them with a pair of binoculars.

It is very true that contrails start to form particularly in the vicinity of weather fronts. That’s when it gets easy to spot the planes.
The reason is that these fronts tend to move up humid air to the cruising levels which makes trail formation more likely.

On other occasions there are just humid layers of air moving in. Contrails are known to trigger large-area haze occasionally, but they can also be just a byproduct with the haze forming anyway.

As for the changes in weather patterns, many people are seeing those around the globe. I’m sure you are aware that there is quite a number of possible explanations.

By Josh on 2014 07 26 - 02:18:22
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

Leonard Clampett,
two points that you missed:

1. Relative humidity with respect to water is different from relative humidity with respect to ice.
Ice supersaturation - which is necessary for persistent contrail formation - sets in at less that 70 % RH (w.r. to water), if the temperature is at or below -40°C.

See page 3 in this paper:
http://www.mbw.ch/papers/RH_WMO.pdf

2. One ton of kerosene generates 1.3 tonnes of water - coming out of the jet engine as invisible vapor.
There is no magic required, the chemical process called “combustion” is sufficient.

Nobody claimed that planes carry water. The hydrogen is part of the kerosene molecules (which crack up during combustion), the oxygen comes from outside air. The chemical reaction creates water from both.

I’m truly at a loss why you won’t accept this. Ask the chemistry teacher of your kids or grandkids. Ask ANYONE who has some sound chemistry knowledge.

By Josh on 2014 07 26 - 01:46:38
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

Another great show.

The very way the story of M777 was delivered to us complete with instantaneous finger pointing at putin was need for immediate concern. i am of the opinion that when this happens it indicates that a propaganda event is underway and in this case regardless of who did it, it had to be the enemy.

the enemy is at this time putin, because putin is a real leader and is outside of ‘their’ control. i wouldn’t like to live in russia, but i do find putin hilarious in his belligerence…

why do they do this? its probably because if they wait to see what evidence appears it might not point to who they want it to point to… this was definitely the case with the chemical attack in syria, however despite the propaganda, truthers and those in the alternative media imo stopped the nato attack.

what im suss about is why this happened in the first place, flying commercial airliners over warzones where both sides have access to these kinds of weapons is ridiculously stupid.

any way

keep up the good work

By rokbebop on 2014 07 25 - 22:45:29
From the entry 'War monger Tony Abbott recklessy accuses the Russian President over downed passenger plane'.

Categories