Truth News Australia

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

I find it hard to believe some still take these wiki articles seriously, most of it is opinion posted as fact, snopes.com uses the BBC as its source, for those of us who are media savvy we know not to trust these sources without first doing some homework, hence why people listen to this program. Wouldn’t it be better to know Kevin Annett exists, rubbish or not rather than not knowing this is going on at all, most of the listeners to this show can discern information and make their own informed decision, i think it is better to be presented with the information rather than casting it out as rubbish based on a few baseless articles.

ITCCS is very active publicly and many people involved in it have come now come forward, Joshua Lemmens and his group in western Canada, the Belgium network around Toos Niejenhuis, the Italian network around Francesco Zanardi. All of their interviews are posted at http://www.itccs.org peopl,e just need to do a bit of looking. The ITCCS isnt just Kevin Annett given groups like ITCCS Coventry are publishing their own newspaper now and organizing courts through the midlands of the UK.
No-one can really know who is who in a world full of deception however we should try to either support, or, if not at-least investigate thoroughly before rubbishing those who are trying to create real change

By Leah on 2014 04 08 - 12:28:37
From the entry 'Introducing the International Common Law Court of Justice'.

International Common Law Court of Justice? Oh please. That site is merely a blog of one mans ramblings.

Can’t believe you posted this utter garbage here.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/International_Tribunal_into_Crimes_of_Church_and_State
http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/popebenedict.asp

By Andy on 2014 04 06 - 23:14:42
From the entry 'Introducing the International Common Law Court of Justice'.

International…..Court? Look at Hereward pushing global government.

By Not Surprised on 2014 03 31 - 23:09:43
From the entry 'Introducing the International Common Law Court of Justice'.

An even better Web site for the latest NIPCC report is http://climatechangereconsidered.org/

By Tom Harris on 2014 03 08 - 16:51:03
From the entry 'Professor Bob Carter on the latest NIPCC report'.

Dear Hereward
Some very good “logical” facts dug up!
You mentioned Bali Bombings in your podcast - Pls have a look back at that “war on terror’ bolstering example and particularly Keelty and the AFP’s role!

By Davo on 2014 03 04 - 10:35:08
From the entry 'Schapelle Corby is a political prisoner'.

This is not on any particular issue posted here but for those interested in global geopolitics go to http://tarpley.net/ Webster Tarpley is an historian and economist. He has a weekly radio show called world crisis radio. He has written a number of books and travels both nationally and internationally to give talks and has also debated his opponents on issues like 911 and gives an analysis on ww1 and ww2 ,how they were brought about.Another great author in my opinion is Ellen Brown who wrote Web of Debt http://www.webofdebt.com/ and The Public Bank Solution both books a must read for anyone wondering how our money works and the solution.

By Rob on 2014 02 21 - 12:36:53
From the entry 'Deconstructing mainstream news coverage on Syria with Mimi Al Laham'.

Josh Anonymous,
The last couple of months seem to have proven my point that this site is a waste of electrons. Your claim that anonymity doesn’t matter seems to be dispututed by Hereward Fenton in his reaction the “Anonymous” group and he then goes on to name a Josh Jackson, which I suspect we can surmise is you. If you are not concerned with names, do you require names and qualifications of those who are presented as “experts” on subjects with which you disagree?
I wonder if you have been able to do any research and discover that the moisture you claim is carried aloft by aircraft in their fuel is actualy there in the atmospherewhen the aircraft passes by? No, well I suggets you could put on your thinking cap and ponder.
LEONARD CLAMPETT

By Leonard Clampett on 2013 11 05 - 17:09:31
From the entry 'Chemtrails Revisited'.

Leonard Clampett,

Non-existence cannot be proven. Known fact.
http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/index.php/logical-fallacies/146-proving-non-existence

Fortunately, science does explain persistant contrails, so there is no need for an alternative (and much less plausible) explanation.

Regarding the video you linked, please pick one topic that you think should be discussed first. Give the time into the video for a reference.

Allow me to treat claims by Dane Wigington with the utmost skepticism. Recently he tried to measure sunlight UV values and failed badly - like on many issues before:
http://metabunk.org/threads/debunked-dane-wigingtons-claims-that-uv-is-off-the-charts.2097/

Wrong interpretation/calculation of measurements - again:
http://metabunk.org/threads/debunked-dane-wigingtons-claims-that-uv-is-off-the-charts.2097/#post-59145

BTW, why are you so obsessed with names? I could not care less about your identity. It has no relevance - either a claim is correct or it is not, no matter who made it.

By Josh on 2013 08 22 - 03:31:25
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

Josh Anonymous,

Rather than hiding behind anonymity, please advise who you are, what your experience is and what factual evidence you have to rebut the speaker in this video referred to below. As a denier you are claiming something does not exist, so it is up to you to prove your claim. As chemtrails exist, and can be seen by competent observers, I believe you have set yourself an impossible task. However, try to get on with it and prove your case.

http://projectcamelotportal.com/blog/1792-dane-wiggington-geoengineering-activist

Cheers,

LEONARD CLAMPETT
50 Harding Street
Enoggera 4051
Tel: 0412 068 186

By Leonard Clampett on 2013 08 21 - 08:54:33
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

Leonard Clampett,

so did you check out the content of the “BREAKING” video? Where does it mention “chemtrail scientists”? Can you give the minute/second where that happens?

Are the findings in the posting that I linked wrong? Did you check them at all?

I’m concerned about facts and issues, not about calling people names.

By Josh on 2013 08 12 - 20:27:29
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

Categories