The BBC finally decided to shift the gears today and present to us “9/11: Conspiracy Road Trip” on BBC Three. It was presented by comedian Andrew Maxwell, who took five “conspiracy theorists” on a trip to America to see if they could get them to “change their mind” about their particular views. They consisted of Charlotte Scott Hays, Emily Church, Shazin Nurse, Rodney Chavrimotoo (hope that’s right!) and, the now infamous, Charlie Veitch.
The first five minutes set the standard BBC tone, with a voice over by Mr Maxwell, where he reinforced the ‘official’ story and stated that he was “as certain as certain can be that Osama Bin Laden ordered the attacks”. This was followed by an introduction to the five “theorists”, interspersed with shots of them crying and shouting at each other. Without going to far off track, you may remember (from my “Popcorn For The Mind” blog series) that I looked into the media use of “love-bombing”, “divide and conquer” and “herd mentality” tactics in it’s programming. It’s certainly something worth looking out for in a re-watch of this program. These first five minutes are classic examples of social engineering aspects, with all the hallmarks of certain organisations: from Tavistock to Common Purpose. Methods that would have raised a knowing smile from the likes of researcher, Brian Gerrish!
Andrew Maxwell pointed out that it was “unbelievable” that there were people out there who questioned the “truth” about 9/11. He first took the group to WTC Ground Zero, believing that by simply going there it would change their mind and giving them a “reality check”. This trite act is akin to taking a group of Ufologists to the desert in New Mexico and hoping they’ll raise their hands to the sky and shout, “My God I’ve Seen The Light!”. It trivialises any real attempt to present a critical analysis of 9/11 research, right off the bat.
He went on to declare that the 9/11 Commission was “totally independent”… you only have to look into the people involved (including the farcically initial period with Henry Kissinger) to know that this is just a biased and misleading comment.
The specific theories were represented by half a dozen of the (what I consider anyway) weaker aspects of 9/11 speculation. “Amateur pilots couldn’t have done it”. The program then went on to take the group to a flight school where one was taken up in a tiny two man plane and proceeded to fly it above Manhattan for ten minutes. The ‘expert’ flight instructor commented that “if you’re tender with the controls, you’ll probably land it first flight”. He claimed it was easy to navigate and land on a runway, but also said that it was “easier to fly a big jet”. If that were the case, then why isn’t everybody flying jets for British Airways within a day of signing up?! They then dropped in a sound bite of Shazin saying that she thought it would be easy to do it with a Boeing. Well I’m convinced already!…
This section was closed with the statement: “All they had to do was fly straight and level”. Clearly this is a ridiculous observation. You need only look at the ‘official’ flight path, altitude and angle of Flight 77...
Next up was the view that the US government screwed up their security procedures. This was quickly dismissed by a quick recollection of the ‘official’ account, with every aspect including the word “Did”. United Airlines pilot Buck Rogers (yes really!) made a staggering remark that there had never been one single aircraft hijacking in the US before 9/11. Where do these people learn their history?!
At this point, it was obligatory to show the group arguing and shouting at each other, whilst Mr Maxwell (apt name!) called them “childlike” and “gullible”. Next stop was the controlled demolition theory. No physics, simple mathematics or laws of gravity here. Just demolition ‘expert’ Brent Blanchard (do some serious research on this man, you’ll be surprised what you find…) and his reassuring claim that “buildings NEVER fall OVER”, they are simply “compressed”. By now, Charlie Veitch was presented as having an epiphany: “It makes sense now”. The producers must have rubbing their hands with glee.
Onto the means used to create a controlled demolition and Rodney was next to be ridiculed. “You would think that a science grad would be more rational”, said Andrew Maxwell (another example of nothing more than insult). Another ‘expert’ displayed combustion of a steel girder which was barely scratched, thus the “conspiracy theory” was definitively debunked. Charlie Veitch was, again viewed, voicing his opinion: “It’s becoming more and more unlikely that this stuff was used to bring down buildings… and planes DID mess up the buildings”. At this point, they showed Charlotte upset because “Charlotte has been relying on Charlie to back her up”.
Onto The Pentagon . The producers obviously didn’t want to touch this one at all, for fear of showing themselves up. They simply presented the ‘official’ commission approved animation of Flight 77’s impact… the one that removes an engine from the schematics in order that it fit’s the pattern of damage (see parts 7 and 8 of my 9/11 blog series, to understand this crucial evidence). Maxwell said here, “Do you think a missile could go in there unnoticed by the public… I think that’s nuts”. Please Mr Maxwell, much more of your profound knowledge and I’ll have to admit defeat and close my blog down…
At this point I nearly choked from laughing when he said, “What’s more important, the truth or the right answer!”. If it wasn’t such a serious matter, I’d have almost mistaken it for a “Carry On…” film. More arguing and he accuses them of “sulking”. He finally shows himself for the dignified and morally superior being by walking off and saying, “Fuck Them!”. He then claims that the group “selectively hear things” and mentions something about Israel and MI5, claims that “Santa does not exist, how do you know he doesn’t exist… this is ludicrous”.
A demonstration of physics followed, in order to explain the crash of Flight 93. This involved a pebble and a mound of flour, followed by the group throwing some eggs and water bombs. Seriously! You couldn’t make this stuff up!
Onto voice analysis of the ‘passengers’ of ‘93 and an expert who bravely commented that the calls could have been edited or faked, however they were not really practical in “realtime”. Lots of crying for the finale, as the group met the mother of Mark Bingham. She said that her son often used his first name and surname in personal conversations because of habits he’d picked up in his profession and commented that people “on the internet” had “not many brains”.
The whole ordeal ended with more arguing and shouting and the final position of the group regarding 9/11. Charlie Veitch was praised as a “realist” because of his decision to renounce the “conspiracy” path and join the rest of the sheeple. At which point I could pretty much feel my brain running out of my ears and decided that an hour in the company of the BBC’s psychological manipulation machine was more than enough…
|Top: Andy Thomas & David Icke|
Bottom Left: Andrew Johnson
Bottom Right: Ian R Crane
These people are ultimately afraid of the truth ever being revealed. There are literally hundreds, possibly thousands, of aspects that raise serious questions about the legitimacy of the ‘official’ 9/11 story. You cannot analyse a lie, cover up, inside job or “conspiracy” in one hour, with a superficial glance at 7 or 8 aspects. It simply won’t do. The fact that they keep coming back to the well, time and again, in such a derogatory manner is indicative of their need to continually reinforce dogma divert people from recognising their fears. And they are afraid, don‘t ever think they aren‘t. They are afraid of the implications, of people waking up, they are afraid of the reveal and they are afraid of YOU. Afraid because you can think and reason, learn and speak of it. Try not to get bogged down in semantics and arguments because, like the road trip, they’ll use that against you.
Be sensible, level headed and informed. I say this all the time but, at the risk of sounding like a scratched record, the truth really does speak for itself.
If we’re wise, we can show them how it’s really done!
Till Next Time,
The Truth Seeker’s Guide.