BBC uses emotional blackmail to fend off critics of their continued lying about 9/11

Keenan's picture

"It was clear that there was a widely-held view that the continued questioning of every aspect of what happened on 9/11 was distressing to the relatives and that it made it difficult for them to reach closure."

The BBC and the Truth about 911
Dennis "galen" Mitrzyk and Peter Wakefield Sault
Sent by reader
Sun, 29 Jul 2007 06:57 EDT

http://www.signs-of-the-times.org/articles/show/137299-The+BBC+and+the+T...

The following exchange of emails between two critics of the BBC and a mouthpiece for that organization looks at the broadcaster's coverage of 911, specifically a documentary aired earlier this year entitled "The Conspiracy Files". The producer of the show, Mike Rudin, has this to say about what they found on his blog:

"We didn't find anything conclusive proving the conspiracy theories. Instead we found a lot of evidence which supported the official version and contradicted the various conspiracy theories."

And there you see how it works: the conspiracy theorists have to offer "conclusive proof" when we are in fact saying that there needs to be an open discussion and objective inquiry into what happened, one that looks at all the evidence, while the official conspiracy theory, as propagted by the US government and its propaganda arms, the mainstream media, is able to put forward evidence that contradicts 'various conspiracy theories'.

Which ones? Conspiracy theories that suggest there were no planes, only holograms? Conspiracy theories that tell us Flight 93 landed in Cleveland instead of being shot down over Pennsylvania? In other words, "conspiracy theories" that are part and parcel of the disinformation campaign waged by the same people that pulled off the 911 false flag operation to begin with?

Dennis "galen" Mitrzyk and Peter Wakefield Sault have kindly consented to our republishing the exchange.

----- Original Message -----
From: galen
To: Mark Thompson
Subject: BBC lying about 9-11

July 18, 2007

Mark Thompson
British Broadcasting Corporation
White City Media Centre
211 Wood Lane
London W12 7TQ

RE: BBC lying about 9-11

Dear Mister Thompson

It has come to my attention that the BBC, earlier this year, produced and aired a 'documentary' titled, "'The Conspiracy Files" which attempted to 'refute' the claim of the 9-11 Truth Movement that the Official Conspiracy Theory (OCT) is simply impossible because it violates well known laws of Physics, Chemistry, and Thermodynamics. I also understand that the BBC is being sued for attempting to intentionally deceive its audience regarding the truth behind the "false flag" attacks on 9-11.

While the average person in the USA and UK may be susceptible to such blatant propaganda, there is a large and growing segment of the population who have more trust in common sense and the rather simple laws of Newtonian Physics than they do in the BBC or NBC Nightly News. Those of us who have studied 9-11 with an open mind -- particularly the near free-fall collapses of WTC 1, 2, and 7, with concrete pulverized to dust in mid-air, steel beams hurled hundreds of feet laterally, and steel columns poking out of the rubble cut at a 45 degree angle with thermate in the cases of WTC 1 and 2 -- know that 9-11 was not the master plan of Osam bin Laden and "19 crazed Arab highjackers"; but rather, yet another in a long history of "false flag" operations carried out by government insiders designed to terrorize their own citizens and whip up a patriot fervor that ultimately leads to war against the alleged perpetrators.

This is a very old game that can be successful only if the media goes along and doesn't challenge the obvious issues with the official account of the events. Even better still for the real perpetrators of 9-11 (see www.whodidit.org ) when the media is actively and enthusiastically involved in as a de facto Ministry of Propaganda to 'debunk' the truth, denigrate and slander those who tell the truth (ask your wily 'investigative journalist' Greg Palast what he had to say about Professor Steven Jones recently), and tell outright lies to defend the indefensible OCT.

The bottom line, Mister Thompson, is that the ruling elite who planned and perpetrated the treason, crimes, and mass-murder of 9-11 have been caught "red handed". Too many people know the truth for this to just slide quietly out of sight. If you align yourself with these people by promoting their impossible account of 9-11, you become an accomplice by attempting to cover up their terrible misdeeds. If, in fact, you don't know the truth of what really happened, your obligation is to research the events of 9-11 with an open mind, as have millions of people around the world.

What say you, sir? Will you listen to reason and air a truthful account of the many unanswered questions of 9-11 or will you continue to spew utter nonsense at your audience?

I look forward to hearing from you.

Best regards,

Dennis "galen" Mitrzyk
9-11 Researcher and Activist

-----Original Message-----
From: Peter Wakefield Sault
To: Mark Thompson-DG
Subject: Re: BBC lying about 9-11

Dear Mr Thompson

I concur with every word of Mr Mitrzyk's email and I look forward to reading your reply at the soonest. Please understand that I am far from being alone in my agreement with Mr Mitrzyk's sentiments and would like you to understand that the worldwide reputation of the BBC, already battered by recent revelations of having cheated both the public and participating children in rigged competitions, will likely be utterly and irreparably ruined if you and your colleagues do not both come clean and take action to rectify your craven toadying to corrupt elements of the US and UK governments, including the CIA, MI6, the White House and 10 Downing Street.

I cannot imagine what kind of world you live in that you and your staff believe that an event such as the controlled demolitions of three buildings of the World Trade Center while over 2,500 people were still trapped inside two of them can be glossed over with such transparent, blatant lies as you have consistently presented to the British public.

Yours Sincerely
Peter Wakefield Sault

12 Moorhen Close
Brownhills
Walsall WS8 6EE

----- Original Message -----
From:
To: Peter Wakefield Sault
Subject: BBC Information [T20070719003SS031Z2518286]

Dear Mr Wakefield Sault

Thank you for your e-mail addressed to Mark Thompson. As I am sure you will appreciate, the Director-General receives more correspondence than he can deal with personally, so once letters have been read they are forwarded by his office to BBC Information. This department has a wealth of knowledge about BBC programmes and policies and is experienced in the workings of the Corporation. The Director-General has therefore authorised us to reply on his behalf.

I appreciate that [you] feel this programme was unbalanced.

Mike Rudin, Producer of '9/11: the Conspiracy Files' addressed viewers concerns in the following news blog:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2007/02/conspiracy_on_conspiracy.h...

Further, the programme twice mentioned the fact that relatives of those who died found the continuing questioning of every aspect of 9/11 distressing. The programme- makers talked to relatives of those who died and to people living in the vicinity of the attacks who have met them. It was clear that there was a widely-held view that the continued questioning of every aspect of what happened on 9/11 was distressing to the relatives and that it made it difficult for them to reach closure.

In investigating the many questions raised about what exactly happened on 9/11, it was felt important to reflect and hear the feelings and concerns of some of the relatives of those who died. We are sorry you feel the programme was offensive to those who question the official story of what happened or deceptive to the viewers - this was never the intention.

Nevertheless, we appreciate your feedback and let me assure you that your complaint has been fully registered on our daily audience log. This internal document will be made available to the production team and Senior BBC Management.

Once again thank you for taking the time to contact the BBC with your views.

Regards

Richard Carey
BBC Information
__________________________________________
The BBC Trust wants to know what's important to you about your BBC. Want to
help it set the BBC's
strategic priorities? To get involved just click on
http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust.

From: Peter Wakefield Sault
To: Richard Carey
Subject: Re: BBC Information [T20070719003SS031Z2518286]

Dear Mr Carey

Thank you for your reply, the content of which I note with interest.

"Unbalanced" is not at all how I would describe the BBC's position on 9/11. My exact words were "...transparent, blatant lies...".

You suggest that our continued insistence on the truth in the face of the BBC's repeated lying (along with that of most of the mass-media in general) allegedly prevents people who suffered the loss of a friend or relative in the event from obtaining "closure". The employment of such emotional blackmail is hardly likely to increase the BBC's credibility. Quite the contrary, in fact, since mind control is only ever employed in the telling of lies. The truth needs no such crutch.

What you and your colleagues at the BBC need to try to understand is that it will never be over as long as you continue to broadcast lies about 9/11. It is in fact your own "closure" that you seek, not that of the relatives and friends who suffered losses. You cannot play the game of Dynamic Silence because the truth is all over the Internet and "By your silence you [would] agree", as Euripides put it. So you are forced to say something and all you can come up with is an admonition that all this fuss is upsetting the relatives. Do you really think that will make the truth go away?

This is not some kids' gameshow that is being falsified here. It is mass- murder and the BBC's repetition of lies, including the blame falsely laid on Mohammad Atta etc., helps the real murderers - those who laid the demolition charges - to evade justice. That makes the BBC an accomplice to mass-murder. Is that quite clear? We are not talking about the "balance" of its programming.

Moreover, such lies are anti-democratic. How can any vote meaningfully reflect the true feelings of a populace that has swallowed a bucket-load of lies about such critical issues as 9/11? Does the BBC's charter give it the right to destroy its host society?

Kind Regards
Peter Wakefield Sault