The Conspiracy Files

I hardly ever watch television but on Sunday night there was something I had to see: I even missed one of my favourite movies, Gladiator, broadcast at the same time on another channel just to watch it.

I needn’t have bothered

Even before it was broadcast the BBC’s documentary on the events of 9/11 was stirring some controversy, with claims that it would be a “hit piece” or an attempt to discredit the 9/11 Truth Movement.

There were even claims that two versions had been made.

Although this writer does not question the integrity of those making this suggestion – Ian Crane from the UK 9/11 Truth Movement – this notion probably originated in a think tank of some covert disinformation department: the object being to disorientate and confuse those genuinely seeking the truth about 9/11.

The fact that some were ready to entertain such notions can probably be attributed to sheer naiveté; which is a weak point of many of those seeking the truth and a point of vulnerability sought by the powers that be.

As it turned out the program was a “hit piece”, despite its best efforts at seeming like a balanced investigation.

Making me seem all the more stupid because this should have been apparent even before the show was broadcast.

What made this so abundantly clear?

Well a quick look at the show’s BBC website revealed a Question and Answer page that sought to explain why the U.S. Air Force could not prevent the 9/11 attacks.

The reason the US military response was so poor was because they were simply unprepared, explained the shows producer Mike Rudin.

And the source of this revelation was a now notorious article that appeared in popular Mechanics Debunking 9/11 Myths. Written in part by none other than Benjamin Chertoff, nephew of Michael Chertoff, chief of America’s Department of Homeland Security: an impeccable source, for the official version of 9/11 events if ever there was.

Craig Bartmer, a former NYPD official who heard bombs bring down Building 7 as he ran from it, was also interviewed for the show and reportedly came away with the distinct impression that its intention was to dismiss everything as a conspiracy theory.

But we should have known that this would be the case from the very start. The first program in the series, an investigation into claims that Princess Diana’s death was not an ‘accident’ was broadcast last year and like the 9/11 investigation it too sought to buttress the official version of events.

Pointedly, it made no reference to Richard Tomlinson’s affidavit on Princess Diana’s death.

Despite going through the motions of being an impartial investigation the Conspiracy Files is classic, calculated disinformation. Little more can be expected from the B.B.C. though but to add insult to injury, viewers are expected to fund this through the compulsory payment of licence fees.

The Conspiracy Files should be a warning to all of us. The powers that be are getting worried: too many people are waking up and too much is being revealed. This was an attempt to nullify serious research and discredit the findings of previous investigations.

Will it work though?

Somehow I don’t think so, too many people are becoming aware of what is really going on. The Conspiracy Files was an attempt to mislead and deceive with the media equivalent of sleight of hand but too many people are asking too many questions and unless the Internet is shut down, this will only grow.

So we can now expect the infiltration of the 9/11 Truth movement with double agents intent on wrecking it.

Indeed this may already be happening; word is that Michael Meacher, the former government minister who sparked controversy with claims over the Iraq War and September 11 has already been approached

Stay tuned…and switch off your T.V.

BBC 9/11 Documentary Likely Hit Piece

BBC vs 9/11 Truth: The Smear Begins

Two Versions of 9/11: The Conspiracy Files

Could the US Air Force have prevented the attacks?

Debunking The 9/11 Myths

Michael Chertoff: Defender of Terror

NYPD Officer Heard Building 7 Bombs