Friday, 9 September 2011

BBC's "9/11: Conspiracy Road Trip"

   Television coverage of the 10th anniversary of 9/11 has been somewhat different from what I expected. Granted there are still a few days to go yet, but it appears that the media propaganda machine has been completely bewildered as to how to go about their annual reconviction of the ‘official’ story. In the UK, the BBC, ITV and Channel 4 have all (aside a rehashed and laughable 9/11 Conspiracy Files ‘update’ from the BBC) taken the softly, softly approach this year, with the emphasis truly being on the tragedy/loss of life angle. Such programs (a correct use of the word if ever used) were book-ended with a reminder of said ‘official’ account of events and filled with endless examples of lives ended and families torn apart. Whilst I truly feel for these people and always endeavour to try never to besmirch or make a mockery of their memory, this approach is slightly more misleading than people may initially think. It is, sadly, one of the many callous examples of how broadcasters (especially the BBC, but  numerous others also) use to emotionally manipulate the sentiments and rationality of the viewer.

   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
   Overall, it was pretty much what I’d come to expect and wasn’t really surprised. I’ve maybe been a bit hard on Charlie Veitch and Andrew Maxwell. Sometimes, to coin a phrase, “they know not what they do”. I absolutely blame those further up the chain of command for ever approaching the matter in such a shallow and superficial way… but that was always inevitable. Imagine if someone in the BEEB had decided to take the likes of David Icke, Ian R Crane, Andrew Johnson and Andy Thomas on such a road trip?!! They probably could have only used about two minutes worth of footage. In fact, I can safely say that it would NEVER have happened.

   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.

See also:

Books available from Carl James:
Science Fiction and the Hidden Global Agenda - Volume One -
Science Fiction and the Hidden Global Agenda - Volume Two -
What Really Happened at the London 2012 Olympics -


Christopher Dos Santos said...

Namaste brother, I have enjoyed your series very much. Thanks for thaking th time to share as we do not have television to watch for ourselves.

In Lak' ech, prosper in truth live in love...

The Truth Seeker's Guide said...

No probs. Several people have already uploaded the "road trip" to Youtube if you want to check it out. It's a bit of a waste of an hour though!!
All The Best.

13 Muluc said...

Just finished watching the BBC's hit piece. It wasn't quite as bad as I expected it to be, probably because I saw the CBC's "9/11 Conspiracy Files: 10 Years On" only yesterday. (Best not viewed on a full stomach.)
Here's a link, although I don't know if it'll work where you are. If it doesn't, let me know and I'll fill you in on some of the low-lights. I couldn't help noticing the total absence of any mention of WTC 7 in either program. Understandable though, given the repeated assertion that asking questions about 911 is a cruel insult to the victims' families. You'd think the "Building What?" campaign had never happened.

KirkBear said...

Nice write up. Just looking at Mr Veitch sends a shiver down my spine. I've ALWAYS though he was a slime-bag. Just something about him never seemed quite right. His "turnaround" was laughable, like asking a child to change their minds for a bag of sweets, except in this case he got more media attention and that's all he is really interested in. I can't wait for the full story about this guy to come out.

Anonymous said...

Hope you don't mind me posting this. Here's my take on it (Part 1)

world_watcher said...

Charlie Veitch is a narcissist if I ever saw one....!

John Wheatcroft said...

Did anybody notice in the film the white coated scientist playing with what we are told was real thermite.

Well I am a scientist and I have never seen RED thermite before.

Thermite is a mixture Aluminium powder, which is silver in colour and iron oxide, which can be red or black, depending on whether Iron(II) or iron (III) oxide is being used.

Mix these two colour compounds together in say a 50:50 ratio and the result would not be bright red
would it ?

What we saw looked very much like iron oxide burning on its own, NOT with aluminium mixed with it.

I have seen thermite, properly made burn straight through a car. i've even made the stuff an welded nails together with it.

I do not think we saw proper Thermite being used in this film at all, either that or the recipe was mixed wrongly, slanted deliberately to kill the thermite theory, given that none of the participants were scientists, how were they supposed to know what the real deal looked like.

I think the BBC is trying to pull a fast one again.

John Wheatcroft said...

see proper thermite reaction here

John Wheatcroft said...

Here's Mythbusters playing with 1000lb of thermite

Yes we are shown the iron oxide as being red but the clip does not show the final mixed colour.

Discovery channel would not show how to mix the correct proportions for reasons of safety - clever editing.

Nothing wrong with them showing a bathtub full of iron oxide or indeed a bathtub full of aluminium powder either

Not even anything wrong with them showing it being mixed using a cement mixer either....

providing they do NOT repeat DO NOT show you the proportions of the mix.

The result would be a reddy/grey mix, not the bright red we saw in the film

The Truth Seeker's Guide said...

Many thanks 13 Mulac.
The BBC is truly one of my pet hates regardless of the subject matter of their 'programming'. I see them as nothing more than a propaganda machine utilised by 'The Agenda' players. This unfortunatly makes me very biased against their ourput.
It's great to see something that discusses 9/11 truth on mainstream media, however, homing in on just a handful of issues whilst ignoring the rest is worrying. It also concerns me that those in society who know nothing or very little about the reality of 9/11, will see this as representative of the case made by truth seekers. Which, in my own opinion, I dont't think is the case. Thanks also for the link.
Cheers KirkBear,
I'm with you on Charlie Veitch. He's supported some good causes in the past, but I always found his interviews and opinions a bit superficial and lacked serious research.
Maybe this made him an easy target!
All The Best.

The Truth Seeker's Guide said...

Cheers John, for the comments and links on Thermite. I wish I had a better grasp of science involved, but my knowledge is limited. I have looked at the expert opinion of many chemists, engineers and demolition experts who now questioned the 'official' version of 9/11 and I have no reason to doubt them, but like I say I have a limited understanding.
Many Thanks, AbandonCulture, for the link. Feel free to post here.
Cheers World_Watcher, Prima-Donna is the phrase that springs to my mind!
I'm sorry I haven't been able to reply sooner, I've had a busy weekend.
I appreciate all the positive feedback I've had and the comments and messages are most welcome.
All The Best,
The 'Guide.

John Wheatcroft said...

Also Thermite is quite difficult to actually set light too without the aid of some magnesium ribbon or some det cord of some description. You cannot easily set light to it with a Zippo lighter.

Once it is going you cannot put it out either. It is a highly exothermic reaction burning at between 2000 and 4000 degrees Celsius.

Steel melts at around 1500 degrees Celsius, although you only have to heat steel to around 600 degrees to lose about 1/3 of its strength.

Given that jet fuel is based on kerosene, although jet engines will run on practically anything, personally I do not think that an office fire could reach 600 degrees, even if you did liberally soak everything it jet fuel.

If you did surely the fuel would burn away quite quickly after which office furniture and fittings would be the source of the fuel for the fire.

Surely wouldn't the temperature be lower once all the jet fuel had been consumed by the fire ?

John Wheatcroft said...

Surely at this point the fire sprinklers would have kicked in spraying water everywhere and lowering the temperature further.

Wouldn't this result in a rather smokey fire, rather than a hot burning jet fuel fire that we are led to believe.

How long would the office sprinkler system be able to contain an office fire. There was plenty of oxygen around at the altitude of the fire. Ideal for combustion but surely once all the fuel were used up, the fire would have nothing left to consume and thus extinguish itself.

I think you would have to put considerable heat deliberately next to the structure of the building for a considerable amount of time to recreate the 9/11 scenario.

Perhaps the sprinklers were turned off why ?

Who knew what and why ?

John Wheatcroft said...

Here's an interesting mildy scientific article for you Mr Truth Seeker

Worth a read.

John Wheatcroft said...

Being of scientific mind I would tend to concur with the article link I posted earlier that the fire did not weaken the joists per sai, but would weaken the angle joints between the joists holding the floors up.

When these failed they would crash down on top of each other, domino fashion. It might also explain the "explosion sounds" said to be heard by some people at the time of the collapse.

What they probably hears were the joist brackets giving way, which I guess would make a loud bang type out sound and could be mistaken for an explosion. I would probably make the same mistake, had I been there at the time.

If a demolition expert were going to bring this building down on purpose, they would presumably set the charges at the weakest point of the building, which would be the intersections of the joists.

Remove enough of these and the building would fall and it would look like a controlled demolition too,
due to the weight of the floors above further weakening the joints of the floors below.

This still does not answer the WTC-7 collapse though which was NOT hit at all though.

Andrew Johnson said...

Just to advise you, Renegade, the company that made "Conspiracy Road Trip" contacted me regarding the programme. I knew it was a "done deal" before the programme was ever recorded, so I wanted to get it on the record (again) that they had been shown the evidence, and ignored it. Here is a posting I made about this:

The Truth Seeker's Guide said...

Thank you so much for commenting and making people aware of your position re: "9/11 Road Trip".

I am strong supporter of your work at (for anybody who wants to study Andrew's thorough research, you can visit checktheevidence by clicking in the links column to the right of this page).

Keep up the great work.
All The Best!
Carl (The Truth Seeker's Guide)

The Truth Seeker's Guide said...

A few people have asked me to clarify my position regarding the thermite debate, in that it may appear as though I sit on the fence or appear to change my mind!! I don't. (I hope to blog in the next few weeks about the differing positions regarding 9/11 Truth and truth seeking in general.)

It's a varied debate to be sure and one I try not to get drawn on (I'd much rather present all the inconsistancies, then let people make up their own mind... rather than influence their ultimate opinion), but I will attempt to explain my own.

I actually do believe that a process of 'controlled demolition' occurred with the buildings in New York on 9/11, however this statement may seem initially misleading to some.

I agree with many expert who claim that what they are 'witnessing' is 'controlled demolition'.

I am, however, not quite so agreeable on the means. I have a very basic grasp of the science involved (very far from expert though!!) and there appears to be some validity to 'some' aspects of the Thermite debate. I don't believe that this position really explains various aspects of the pattern and degree of destruction left in the wake of the destruction of the buildings. It doesn't fully explain the scorching of various vehicles, the nature of certain fires, the ground level punch marks apparent in aerial photos, etc, etc.

There is a "possibility" that WTC7 was brought down by more conventional demolition means, but I use the word cautiously. This is an area where I am on the fence at the moment.

With The Towers, I lean more toward the Dr Judy Wood / Andrew Johnson position. My position here is "demolition through more unconventional and extreme means".

I cite Andrew Johnson not because he has commented here on this blog (which I am, of course, pleased about!), but because I have always supported his research. You need only read my "The Un-Natural War" blog series to recognise my validation of the possible existance of more exotic means.

As always though, I completely respect the position, research and opinions of contrary points of view. It is the job of any credible researcher to have an open mind, yet remain realistic. We benefit the cause by leaving personal beliefs to the individuals themselves, rather than bashing them into submission.

This is a cause for exposure, disclosure and truth... not Thunderdome!!

We should always have a common goal even if we don't always agree on semantics. Remember though that this is simply and only 'my opinion'!
I hope this clarifies my position.

All The Best.
Carl (The 'Guide)

Andrew Johnson said...

Those considering the validity of the thermite theory (which is precisely what it is) find this video instructive:

Please download the actual documents and check them.

I also have a dedicated blog for those wishing to free themselves of thermite in relation to 9/11:

I encourage you to explore it in detail.

Anonymous said...

This is really interesting, You are a very skilled blogger. I have joined your feed and look forward to seeking more of your fantastic post. Also, I have shared your web site in my social networks!
Blum Minipress MSP Boring & Insertion Machine

Anonymous said...

Nice post. I was checking constantly this blog and I'm impressed! Very helpful info specially the last part :) I care for such info a lot. I was seeking this particular info for a long time. Thank you and good luck.
Sorel Women's Helen Of Tundra Boot

Isaac Domagalski said...

What a paranoid jackass. This article is incredibly biased and irrational. You can't convince a conspiracy theorist of anything, for their belief is not based on evidence, but a deep seated need to believe. Grow up, kid.

The Truth Seeker's Guide said...

Many thanks, Ana & James, for your comments and support.
All the best!
Carl (The 'Guide)

The Truth Seeker's Guide said...

Many thanks for the comment Isaac.

You are right! The article is incredibly biased in as much as it reflects my belief that 9/11 was an inside job (of sorts). However I suspect it is no more biased than the original program is in reinforcing the 'official' perspective of events. All things are relative.

As for being able to convince a "conspiracy theorist" of anything: I DO think we went to the moon, I think the "hollow earth" ideas are just meh!, I'm yet to be convinced about Planet X / Niburu, I don't think anything of any significance will happen in 2012, I think a lot (BUT certainly not all) of the UFO phenomenon is questionable, I don't think The Queen is a shapeshifting lizard (although she is very 'shifty') and I think Elvis is very dead! There are also many others...

So maybe not quite as paranoid or irrational as you might think!

Never the less, I appreciate you taking the time to comment and I wish you all the best.

Carl (The 'Guide)

Alice Cameron said...

I am fairly new to this, but have spent a lot of time looking at all sides, and lots of information. I have more recently spent time on forums discussing the anomalies of 9/11 and found that these types of programme do have a very big effect on public perception. The strength of feeling they seem to have against "9/11 conspiracy theorists" with little or no other knowledge about it, suggests it actually prevents them looking into it further properly.

The Truth Seeker's Guide said...

Many thanks Alice.
I agree that these hit pieces have the effect of making researchers into such subjects look far less than credible, but then they are designed to do just that.
For those who do start looking into 9/11, it can a minefield of misinformation and misdirection (especially amongst those who claim to be researching the subject.)
Such was the case with me. It has been over a year since I wrote these articles on 9/11 and, in this time, my views have shifted substantially. I have left these articles in my blog archive as a point of comparison, to show how my interpretation of the available information has changed.
My most recent article on the subject is "11 Years Later" -
It is an overview of my position now and includes links to the information and researchers that I believe deserve the closest attention, as well as some thoughts on the overall "truth movement" in relation to the matter.
I hope you'll give it a read.
All the best.
Carl (The 'Guide)