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

I thought after researching the nwo and having a passion for the truth I knew how the world was being run…Then, by accident I stumbled upon
http://www.tomatobubble.com/index.html
and I realised I had only scratched the surface to the lies we have been raised to believe. 
Also, check out the archives page
http://www.tomatobubble.com/id72.html
I was shocked, so if you want the rest of the story…

By sick of all the lies on 2014 10 01 - 14:30:26
From the entry 'A review of violence and intolerance in Islamic and other societies'.

Leonard Clampett,

can you point out where anyone around here wrote or somehow conveyed the opinion “that governments can, and will, do no wrong”? The fact that contrails can persist and spread doesn’t have the slightest impact on the morality of governments ...

Do you doubt the basic mechanism of cloud formation that I summarized exists? Then please explain where I got it wrong - or the University of North Carolina that I linked to - or all my flight teachers and the text books for the exam - or all the guide books about clouds.
Be specific, don’t just say “misinformation” without giving any reason. By all means, show some actual “scrutiny”, along with references.

Of course I could have introduced dry and saturated lapse rate, condensation nuclei and many more sophisticated details, but that does not alter the principal mechanism of rising, cooling and increasing RH.

By the way, your credentials are not helping, I’m afraid - at least as long as you display a basic misunderstanding of central processes like combustion or supersaturation (which you claim doesn’t even exist).

By Josh on 2014 09 27 - 07:31:30
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

Thanks mate, greatly appreciated.

By Hereward Fenton on 2014 09 24 - 22:27:31
From the entry 'Introducing Professor Garth L Nicolson: pioneering researcher on mycoplasmas'.

I know you don’t buy it, but the whole thing seems very much manufactured. Even the footage and the stories.
Anyways, great work as always. Keep on this topic. I believe it is the defining moment for the future of the middle east. 

I am about to subscribe smile  For the years of your hard work.. Well done mate..

By Shaun on 2014 09 24 - 17:53:41
From the entry 'Introducing Professor Garth L Nicolson: pioneering researcher on mycoplasmas'.

I don’t believe the ISIS propaganda Shaun, but I do believe these are real people dressed in black who are killing lots of innocent people in Syria. This is not a fiction. Cheers.

By Hereward Fenton on 2014 09 24 - 16:31:57
From the entry 'Introducing Professor Garth L Nicolson: pioneering researcher on mycoplasmas'.

I am drawn back to read further nonsense every time I receive a note to advise that somebody has responded to a relevant post. Rosa Koire Speech about Agenda 21 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-qLUQlmBk4 When you read and hear commonsense it makes you think. For Hereward Fenton and the other government shills on this site who insist that governments can, and will, do no wrong, compare the Agenda 21 list of goals to the 8 steps of Carl Marx listed in his Communist Manifesto. None of the claims by Josh or others regarding “lingering” chemtrails stand up to scrutiny so far. Josh’s simplistic dreams about cloud formation and “lingering” contrails are just that. I note some claims about wanting a pilot to comment, but apparently my comments as an Airline Transport Pilot of 14,000 hours and Aircraft Maintenance Engineer do not suit his misinformation, or outright ignorant, position. When the realisation hits these people, I wonder if they will understand what is being done to us all in the name of the New World Order?

By Leonard Clampett on 2014 09 23 - 17:22:21
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

Cris,

you ask: “Why are there so many of these trails when rain is likely or predicted?”

Very good question, and one that should be answered before assuming all kinds of bad things.

Approaching fronts are the most frequent cause of rain. During their approach, they lift the current air mass. Lifting always means cooling (see “lapse rate”), and cooling means rising the relative humidity because cooler air can hold less water vapor. So even while containing the same absolute amount of water, cooling air approaches the point where the relative humidity reaches 100%.

This is the “dew point” - at that moment you get clouds because the water vapor condenses.

Now when a plane comes by and passes through the lifted moist air, shortly before the dew point is reached - then it is obviously much more likely to create a contrail because the conditions for trails are a lot better than usual, and it continuosly contributes water vapor (from the fuel combustion) along its path which adds to the existing humidity, triggering a trail and probably the start of a haze layer.*

This phase may last several hours, especially with warm fronts.

There is a nice schematics of “lifting mechanisms” on this page from NC State University.

Your next question is not quite reasonable. Why should anyone have to prove the non-existence of ongoing geo-engineering? It’s clearly required to prove its existence in the first place before making accusations. Innocent until proven guilty, right?

Patents are no evidence for anything. It’s easy to get one, you don’t have to build anything or even show that your invention actually works.

I’m sure there is a lot of rot that must be stopped. I just don’t think it’s where you assume it is.


* Footnote: the whole thing gets a bit more complicated when ice comes into play.

By Josh on 2014 09 23 - 04:15:04
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

Hi Josh
I don’t need any more evidence. I need answers.
Why are there so many of these trails when rain is likely or predicted?
How about the people at the helm, the political minitures, sign documents at their own unlimited commercial liability saying the there is no Geoengineering happening? Lets see if they have the guts to do that. If not, why not? Is something being hidden? Why are there near 150 patents for chemical weather remediation? Lots of whys and you wish to dampen the fire of resistance. I guess fluoride and vaccinations are no problem either?
The rot must be stopped and it won’t be by sitting on our hands.
Selah
Cris

By Cris on 2014 09 20 - 19:23:32
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

Leonard Clampett,

weather patterns are changing, something scientists have predicted would happen for quite a while.

How is that relevant in the debate about persistent contrails?

By Josh on 2014 09 20 - 17:24:10
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

Cris,

before initiating a petition, you want to be sure that the issues you list are real.

What you need is a sample from a contrail, taken in the presence of witnesses, analyzed in a lab to show all components contained. Pointing to Youtube videos as evidence will not be enough. How do you know that the video creators got it right?

The original meme of Chemtrails is that any trail that is not short-lived must be something else, and that persistent trails are something new. As shown before, both of these are wrong assumptions.

It’s just a matter of the favorable atmospheric conditions, and has been observed since the first airplanes were able to reach high altitudes.

So why assume that persistent contrails are something evil in the first place?

By the way, HAARP and weather modification (rain making) were stacked upon the first claims only later. However, cloud seeding is known since the 1940s and has never been a secret or been applied on a larger scale.

HAARP had interacted with the ionosphere which has no influence on the troposphere far below (where the weather happens). It is being dismantled right now.

What’s left are countless images and videos of contrails, sun dogs, haze layers. Would you accept if officials tell you these are all effects of tiny ice crystals?

If not, then what would you be prepared to accept?

By Josh on 2014 09 20 - 17:22:38
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

Categories