Three years ago, the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) put out another episode in its ongoing “Conspiracy Files” series of programs. This series has covered many issues of public concern about government reports on inexplicable events, including the Lockerbie bombing, the 7/07 London bombing, the Oklahoma City bombing, and the mysterious death of microbiologist David Kelly.  In every single case, the BBC program concludes that there was nothing to worry about, that the official reports are correct, and that citizens should just go about their business and trust the government.

The 2008 episode was a second such program covering the events of 9/11, this one focused specifically on World Trade Center (WTC) building 7.  It was entitled “The Third Tower” and surprised millions of people around the world by stating that the mystery surrounding the collapse of that 47-story building, which fell into its own footprint in 7 seconds, had finally been solved.  The BBC told us that the US government investigators would soon put all our minds to rest regarding this inexplicable event.  That was far from the truth, however, as this earlier blog post makes clear.

In 2008, I had the opportunity to view a re-run of this program on the internet.  After doing so, I wrote to the program’s producer, Mike Rudin, offering suggestions for improvement prior to the revision of the program for world-wide consumption. The letter I wrote is below. Rudin must have been impressed as he asked to speak with me on the phone and we did so later for about 30-minutes. Basically, he is a very nice propagandist who is not willing to address the facts or correct his mistakes.

This year, for the tenth anniversary, the BBC and Mike Rudin are planning another episode on 9/11. Unfortunately, it is not expected to be an apology for the BBC’s promotion of war and societal destruction through promotion of the official conspiracy theories. Instead, word on the street is that BBC will attempt to smear and discredit professor Niels Harrit, whose paper on nanothermite found in the WTC dust has gone unanswered in the mainstream scientific literature for two and a half years. BBC has interviewed at least one known disinformation specialist for the purpose, and has once again declined my offer to help. 

It is unfortunate that the BBC, which is funded through mandatory television license fees charged to every British citizen, is insistent on spreading bad information that perpetuates the wars. The way in which it does that is becoming increasingly transparent, however, and therefore we can hope that the public catches on sooner rather than later.

                                                                                                            10^th of July, 2008

Michael Rudin                                                                                               

Editor – The Conspiracy Files

British Broadcasting Corporation

Dear Mike,

Thanks for responding to my request to post your new episode.  It appears that a number of others have now done so without your permission, and I’ve had a chance to view one of these bootleg versions.  In doing so, my first impression was to focus on the negative aspects, anticipating that it would be another Hearstory Channel propaganda piece.  And although there was a definite slant toward the US government story, there were also a number of good points made in favor of the many citizens who are questioning that official conspiracy theory.  So, thank you for your willingness to allow some of those points to be made.

But if I may be so bold, let me offer a few suggestions as you begin to edit for the “world version.”  To begin with, please do keep the great truth representatives that were included, like Steve Jones, Richard Gage, Kamal Obeid, Scott Grainger, Dylan Avery and Luke Rudkowski.  All these folks did very well, and should be proud.  For example, we saw a licensed structural engineer being quoted on the BBC saying that the official story for WTC 7 is “impossible”.  God bless him.

There are a number of cock-ups though, that could be easily corrected.  To begin with, many non-British are not aware that cock-up is the British term used when speaking of mistakes, like predicting the collapse of a 47-story building, then losing the tapes that would verify this prediction, then finding the tapes much later in the adjoining file.  I’m sure you’ve already considered changing that term.

Next would be the problem with discussing the latest research being done as part of the independent investigation.  A few days ago I sent your research reporter, Kate Redman, a message about my new essay “NIST and Nano-Thermites”.[1]  She had been asking, a few months ago, for more information.  At the time, I forwarded some materials to her, including a patent issued to scientists at LLNL for nano-thermites, a US DOD quarterly magazine explaining how the process works, and a thesis published by a major US university.  None of these documents were classified and all were easily found on the web. 

Unfortunately, I understand that LLNL would not allow you to show the photos of the nano-thermites they had created (despite LLNL being funding with tax dollars).  This was not a surprise, but it was a surprise the way you handled the information we did provide.  The “Third Tower” ultimately said of nano-thermites only that –“the internet has references to secret forms of thermite”.  I wonder, is it now a secret only because LLNL won’t cooperate?  In any case, as you can read in my new essay, there are many, many people for whom it’s not a secret.  And it just so happens that a number of them ran the NIST WTC investigation.  For these reasons, I recommend you consider adding more detail on the possibilities.

Here are a few more aspects of the show that could be improved.

1. The opening statement is — “We all remember how the twin towers were destroyed on 9/11.”  But the fact is, many people won’t even look at the video.  How, then, are we to “remember how the twin towers were destroyed“?  And if we did, should we remember the first, second, third or fourth official story given? 

2. We’re told that, at the time WTC 1 falls,  “Tower 7 takes a direct hit” and “Fires were immediately reported in the building.”  But little or no evidence is presented to support these claims.  Additionally, you neglect any mention of the fact that the Verizon building (and the USPO building), equidistant from the towers and right next to WTC 7, had no damage or fires whatsoever. 

3. It is suggested that “conspiracy theorists” are now blaming the police and fire departments as being part of the conspiracy.  This is repeated several times.  But after investigating 9/11 for five years, and having never heard anything like this before, I can say the claim is highly exaggerated at the very least. 

4. The narrator cautiously suggests that the Loose Change crew was able to find only one demolition expert.  Yet then, to support the government’s position, you trot out Mark Loizeaux.  Of course, Loizeaux is the same one demolition expert (not counting his daughter) that Popular Mechanics used, and the same guy that cleans up the evidence every time the “terrorists” blow up a building in the US.  Despite the fact that he works with the US DOD, Loizeaux implies that he has never heard of explosive thermite.  He also suggests that explosives cannot work without wiring, undoubtedly making viewers wonder how our soldiers are continually blown up by IEDs in Iraq, without any wiring whatsoever.  Mark goes on to suggest that he and his family “have been the subject of a hate campaign.” No evidence is given for this.

5. At one point, it is dramatically announced that — “Conspiracies have become big business.”  But not one big businessman or businesswoman was given as evidence for this claim.  For my own part, I can say that I’ve contributed to two books, many videos, a scholarly journal, given presentations around the country for years, and not made one penny on any of it.  So who is making this alleged killing?  Apparently, only those profiting from the 9/11 Wars.

6. Much of the clamor in this new piece centers on Barry Jennings, whose June 2007 testimony I had never actually heard before.  Jennings is foisted on us as “the key witness“, as if no one ever had a problem with the “collapse” of WTC 7 until last year.  Apparently BBC missed the 60 FDNY members who reported hearing pre-warnings of the collapse of WTC 7 [2], and the more than 25 medical and emergency workers who claimed to have been cleared out because WTC 7 was coming down.  My suggestion is to add the long-established website WTC7.net to the show and your website.

7. It was repeated that Steve Spak had verifiable photos of the damage to the south side of WTC 7.  But only the one old, smoky photo suggesting damage to the southwest corner of WTC 7 was shown.  We’ve all heard the old adage that “where there’s smoke, there’s fire”, but your precarious smoke = damage insinuation quickly evolved into the grand assumption that smoke = damage = 6.5 second collapse of a skyscraper.  That’s a mighty stretch of the imagination.  I suggest that you avoid this speculation if you can’t find more photos to support the idea of actual damage, and not simply smoke.

8. The BBC’s own 9/11 prediction of the “collapse” of WTC 7 was treated poorly.  The reporter’s actual statements were never given, with the clips carefully edited to remove the prediction altogether.  The brief clips just showed her talking about other events, with the narrator talking over her, and with WTC 7 behind her.  It seemed kind of odd though, and many viewers were sure to be left wondering what this segment was actually about.

9. The one insistent witness that you could find, who made claims of an “inferno” and severe damage to WTC 7, was Richard Rotanz, the deputy director of Giuliani’s Office of Emergency Management.  Rotanz was the one responsible for the 9/11 claim of a third plane heading for the WTC, that led to many rescuers evacuating the north tower.  He was apparently on the 23^rd floor of WTC 7 at 9:30 AM, with the Secret Service, when he relayed that false information.[3]  Suggested edits include clarification of the timelines involved here, for example whether or not Rotanz passed Jennings on the stairway.

10. Finally, comments from the ever-evasive Sivaraj Shyam (Pancake Theory) Sunder should be considered.  He came up with a new claim, repeated several times, that the WTC 7 investigation was only about two years old.  Of course, the idea that NIST had completely ignored WTC 7 for several years is probably not the best new tack for Sunder to take.  But it makes us wonder if NIST’s “working hypothesis”, published in June 2004, after two years of work, was also just a cock-up.[4]  NIST had already told us that they began their investigation in August 2002, temporarily decoupled the WTC 7 report in June 2004 after completing a good deal of work, and then began work on WTC 7 again in October 2005 [5].  That means they’ve worked on WTC 7 for at least six years minus 16 months.  That’s more than two years, even in the English system, isn’t it?

Could be just a math error on NIST’s part; forgot to carry the one, you know.  It is true that NIST management has exhibited some poor analytical abilities of late.  In December, as they were preparing to publish yet another list of “responses to FAQs”, NIST’s spokesman Michael Newman made a number of embarrassing errors just reading the program for the Boston 9/11 Truth conference that was about to get under way.  Newman wrote several messages to the organizers in an attempt to make absolutely clear that I was not an employee of NIST, having misread the subject line of the program.  Funny, though, he didn’t mistake Ray McGovern as a former employee of “Opening Remarks”.

In any case, thanks again for your response and please do consider these points.  We will all fare better for it.

Sincerely, 

Kevin R. Ryan

Bloomington, IN

Co-editor, Journal of 9/11 Studies

[1] Ryan, KR, The Top Ten Connections Between NIST and Nano-Thermites, J 9/11 Studies, July 2008 http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2008/Ryan_NIST_and_Nano-1.pdf

[2] MacQueen G, Waiting for Seven, J 9/11 Studies, January 2008 http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200701/MacQueenWaitingforSeven.pdf

[3] Cooperative Research History Commons, Context of September 11, 2001: WTC Building 7 Collapses; Cause Remains Unclear http://www.historycommons.org/contextsearch.jsp?queryString=ua&scale=3&type=context_search

[4] NIST interim Report on WTC 7, Appendix L, June 2004 http://wtc.nist.gov/progress_report_june04/appendixl.pdf

[5] NIST update on progress of WTC 7 investigation, June 2007 http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/wtc_062907.html

[6] BBC, 9/11 third tower mystery ‘solved’, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7485331.stm