The BBC - Conspiracy Central

The BBC has recently become the focus of conspiracy theorists with their show Conspiracy Files digging into the alternative theories of what transpired on 9/11 and 7/7 (the train-bombings of London). Mike Rudin, the producer of the series, posted three separate blog entries during June which addressed and debated a number of the topics involved.

"Controversy and Conspiracies", Part One, discussed whether conspiracy theories should even be given airtime, in response to recent criticisms that the BBC was paying a conspiracy theorist to participate in the feature on 7/7:

The stakes are high because conspiracy theories are spreading suspicion about the official account of what happened, ultimately questioning whether the authorities can be trusted. Establishing whether what is argued is true or false, and scrutinising the way proponents conduct themselves, is clearly in the public interest and is a serious and legitimate task for the BBC.

Parts Two and Three concentrated on the enigmatic collapse of World Trade Center Building 7 on 9/11 - which will feature in Conspiracy Files on BBC Two tonight. A news story by Rudin, posted on the BBC News website on Friday, features a trailer for this weekend's feature, and suggests that a long-awaited report will put the collapse down to fire:

The National Institute of Standards and Technology, based near Washington DC, is expected to conclude in its long-awaited report this month that ordinary fires caused the building to collapse. That would make it the first and only steel skyscraper in the world to collapse because of fire.

The National Institute of Standards and Technology's lead investigator, Dr Shyam Sunder, spoke to BBC Two's 'The Conspiracy Files': "Our working hypothesis now actually suggests that it was normal building fires that were growing and spreading throughout the multiple floors that may have caused the ultimate collapse of the buildings."

However, a group of architects, engineers and scientists say the official explanation that fires caused the collapse is impossible. Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth argue there must have been a controlled demolition.

These new blogs and documentary features on the BBC have riled many of those involved in promoting or researching the conspiracy angle, with plenty of commentary at Alex Jones' Prison Planet and

Personally, I think a lot of the 9/11 conspiracy movement has become a belief system of its own, with a bunch of self-promoters profiting off it to the detriment of those who have something worthwhile to say. Having said that however, I equally dislike the faulty attribution of 'conspiracy theorist = crazy person'. There are very good historical reasons to not trust authority blindly (see Operation Northwoods for just one pertinent example), and I'm actually quite comforted to know that there are people out there who look closely at all the details of these type of events.

And when it comes to the details surroudning WTC7, even if the truth is that it was just fires (after all, it did burn all day, and many people reported hearing creaking and groaning noises coming from it, suggesting an impending collapse), you have to admit that you can't blame suspicious people for seeing conspiracy: The collapse would make it "the first and only steel skyscraper in the world to collapse because of fire". Rather than being investigated, the steel girders were removed from the site and melted down. The owner of the building mentioned on video that he told authorities to "pull it" (apparently referring to fire crews inside the building). News media including the BBC reported the collapse while the building was still standing. The BBC's satellite then went dead at that moment. Then the BBC claimed to have lost the tape of the report. The official report is only now about to be released, more than 7 years on.

If there are no elements of conspiracy behind these events, then it would make a wonderful case study in how a sequence of unrelated events can easily lead people to a certain, incorrect, belief. I've created a nice new controversial poll here on TDG, asking for all your thoughts - was there a conspiracy involved in the collapse of WTC7? Readers in the UK will probably want to check out the documentary tonight for a good overview. You can vote anytime on the poll, or check the results, via the block on the right-hand side of the page.


Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
emlong's picture
Member since:
18 September 2007
Last activity:
1 hour 39 min

Please, editor of TDG. For once give the links to at least some of the Youtube videos which most cogently argue for WTC7 having been a controlled demolition. Copying the following individual titles into the Youtube search window will bring up the videos:





Controlled Demolition Expert and WTC7 (original subtitles)


As a site that normally fleshes out improtant subjects with more thoroughness, I am perplexed by the cavalier manner with which you treat this subject.

Bo Long

Sancho23's picture
Member since:
24 April 2008
Last activity:
6 years 40 weeks

Well, I think if there is ANY angle on this that should be reported, it should be the insane fact that the BBC was putting out information about wtc7 collapsing just some 26mins before it actually occurred!!! They even had the new york correspondent talking about it live with the building still standing behind her!

That doesn't mean exactly conspiracy, but it sure doesn't help the case much!!! Oh, also it doesn't help that after that pre-knowledge footage started coming out, the BBC responded saying they aren't a part of some grand conspiracy, and that they also had LOST ALL FOOTAGE from the entire day!!! All of the footage they had from the biggest news day since Kennedy's assassination, and they have none of it! Not even to mention the companies that ALL news organization hire to record live feeds for them for archival purposes!!!

Smells like rat shit to me.

Kat's picture
Member since:
1 May 2004
Last activity:
25 weeks 6 days

From Part Three of Mike Rudin's blog:

The internet movie Loose Change has been viewed by more than 100 million people according to its makers and it asks this question in the latest film release: "Where did CNN and the BBC get their information especially considering the building was still standing directly behind their reporters?"

It turns out that the respected news agency Reuters picked up an incorrect report and passed it on. They have issued this statement:

"On 11 September 2001 Reuters incorrectly reported that one of the buildings at the New York World Trade Center, 7WTC, had collapsed before it actually did. The report was picked up from a local news story and was withdrawn as soon as it emerged that the building had not fallen."

So... The BBC pawns it off on Reuters, and Reuters pawns it off on an unidentified 'local news story'. And Rudin apparently thinks that's supposed to put an end to it. Right -- because we're all as dumb as tree stumps.

Rick MG's picture
Member since:
2 May 2004
Last activity:
8 weeks 3 days

Was the BBC reporter actually in NYC, or was she standing in front of a green screen in a BBC studio pretending she was there? The Beeb may be covering up their lazy, false sensationalist churnalism, nothing more.

Greg's picture
Member since:
30 April 2004
Last activity:
4 hours 48 min
emlong wrote:

Please, editor of TDG. For once give the links to at least some of the Youtube videos which most cogently argue for WTC7 having been a controlled demolition. Copying the following individual titles into the Youtube search window will bring up the videos:

...As a site that normally fleshes out improtant subjects with more thoroughness, I am perplexed by the cavalier manner with which you treat this subject.

Hi Bo,

I don't think that the post could be considered as handling the information in "a cavalier manner". I posted a whole paragraph at the end listing reasons why people consider there could be a conspiracy. I do believe people who are interested can use Google or YouTube, surely things haven't reached such a point that I have to post every link to every topic discussed?

Kind regards,
You monkeys only think you're running things

Rick MG's picture
Member since:
2 May 2004
Last activity:
8 weeks 3 days

Greg's post is already a mile long, and it focuses on the BBC's conspiracy documentary, not on the conspiracies themselves. He provided two excellent links for evidence of 9/11 conspiracies, Prison Planet and 9/11 Blogger. Besides, you could easily provide the links in your post (which you didn't), or create a new blog entry. Greg posted a news item opinion piece, not a 9/11 conspiracy reference guide, and he's entitled to his opinion regarding the pros and cons of all sides in the conspiracy debate.

bladerunner's picture
Member since:
1 May 2004
Last activity:
10 weeks 6 days

Too many "things" happened for our government not to of been in on this. Any faith I had in God, died on 911. And somehow I haven't had a drink in 7+ years. Man this country is messed up! Time for a 76 redo!

Nostradamus's picture
Member since:
1 May 2004
Last activity:
2 days 3 hours

... a 76 redo?


red pill junkie's picture
Member since:
12 April 2007
Last activity:
23 hours 41 min

what bladerunner refers to would be a 1776 redo, Nostra.

I don't know about faith in God bladerunner, but at least faith in government's capability to deal with sudden unexpected threats should have been shattered that day, even among the most die-hard skeptics who think that all 9-11 cosnpiracy theories are the playground of loonies and crackpots.

It's not the depth of the rabbit hole that bugs me...
It's all the rabbit SH*T you stumble over on your way down!!!

Red Pill Junkie

Kat's picture
Member since:
1 May 2004
Last activity:
25 weeks 6 days

Another American Revolution.

drew hempel's picture
Member since:
16 June 2008
Last activity:
8 years 42 weeks

Well glad to see you getting politic Greg. I tend to agree about 911 conspiracists creating their own dream world but more importantly that is the true meaning of conspiracy, as F.W. Schelling emphasized.

Just as cell phones were tauted as the great saving device after 9-11, so now has youtube replaced what used to be the dominance of the left-brain in modern society. Left-brain logic informs us, upon reflection, that the detective is also the murderer and that the source of the I-thought is inferred as pure consciousness (formless awareness).

On the subject of 9-11 there is no better resource than Professor emeritus Peter Dale Scott's recent UC-Berkeley Press book: The Road to 9-11.

RealityTest's picture
Member since:
16 August 2006
Last activity:
15 hours 18 sec

I. Rebutting the BBC

Some time ago I followed a TDG link to Charles Shaw's excellent compilation of alternate 9/11 explanation resources.

This is on the site at

There's a lot here, a great deal of which I'd never encountered before, including, in II. Full Length Movies, a link to an excellent video rebuttal of the BBC show. This is _Surfing the Apocalypse_ and the link is: .

II. John P. O'Neill

Years ago (1994 or 1995) I joined an on-line community (quite geeky, considering the time, well before nearly everyone had a computer in their home and also well before Internet use had spread much beyond techie, university, and government circles) of enthusiasts of the multi-volume Seth material, channelled by Jane Roberts.

This once vibrant (and highly "psychic") community splintered and faded away long ago, for the most part, although tiny remnants remain here and there.

Before this natural evolution, many -- intrigued by the postings of those gifted in the mediumistic department -- began to experiment with trances, channelling, and similar activities, not surprising considering what each had in common -- familiarity with the teachings Seth had dictated through an entranced Jane Roberts beginning in the mid 1960s. (My own site, , includes techniques and resources for would-be explorers of such realms.)

Not so long ago I wondered how such activities might be applied to the mass event of 9/11.

I focused on how John P. O'Neill, the former FBI man -- the bureau's Al Queda expert -- had died in the WTC.

He'd retired from the FBI and taken the job of head of security for the WTC, his first day on the job being September 10, 2001 (!).

Now here is a "spook" with the training and desire to get to the bottom of things -- if only someone could get in touch with him and translate his thoughts.

Of course those who don't believe in such things wouldn't take any results at all seriously, while should he name names and should this be posted, this could potentially put anyone reading them in jeopardy (a bit of paranoia is prudent in this situation).

Could any information obtained from the deceased FBI man be helpful in illuminating "what happened" on 9/11, even eventually making its way onto the stage of our world media?

If so, this might have to be done quietly to be effective (or, possibly, posed as a science fiction tale or a kind of creative fiction). For obvious reasons, the source of the information could not be emphasized while to be effective, the tale would have to provide sufficient (and accurate) details to spark journalistic and/or criminal investigations, pointing towards relevant personalities, "hard facts," and so on (no such precautions would be necessary if this appeared as science fiction, but then someone would have to follow up on certain details; hopefully, too, the author or authors would not be found dead under suspicious circumstances).

O'Neill is truly the best spook for the job and indeed has already done his own investigation, unencumbered by the restraints of physical embodiment.

Efforts to obtain information from O'Neill could lead somewhere, although they might also simply add to a great mess and a great mystery. 9/11 will remain just that until some truly solid and well documented evidence emerges and is forcefully presented by credible media. _That_ will change beliefs, with awesome consequences.


Bill I.

Carol_Noble's picture
Member since:
3 June 2008
Last activity:
5 years 35 weeks

Carol A Noble

I don't like being called a "conspiracy theorist" because I don't believe it is a theory but actually a fact.

I am now going to upset some Americans by saying, and I apologise in advance for that, but I have thought from day 1 that 911 was actually not what it seemed. So much information did not make sense, and many other people have come up with other evidence to confirm there is something out of the ordinary going on.

Just yesterday I read in my British newspaper that the RAF has been trying out some planes which are able to be flown without a pilot! The ground based "pilot" could even take time away from his desk to go pick up his child from school!!! At the time of 911 I suspected that the planes which flew into the towers did not have any people in them. Up to that time no-one in the public arena had admitted pilotless planes existed.

There are many other aspects which never rung true for me, and others have publicised these in many detailed ways so I won't do it again here.

Long before David Icke, or others, publicised that secret plans were in place which showed that politicians, institutions, and people, were determined to manipulate and control the world (and I am not saying they are aliens or reptilians) I had already come to a similar conclusion, independently. Now my ideas have become "fashionable".

There will always be those who don't want to believe their governments, companies, or individuals, would want to control and manipulate people on a global scale, possibly even slowly destroy the ordinary person's way of life. But for me, I have no other explanation as to why things are happening the way they are, or why these important people and institutions should be determined to hide so much information, unless there is something our of the ordinary going on.

My submission on TDG regarding the evidence in the concentration camps is one such piece of information. It shows how the evidence for the precise story put about regarding the Holocaust and the camps is not quite what everyone has been led to believe. Contradictory evidence is out there, and until the truth is properly investigated, no-one can accept every bit of evidence that the official story gives out. That there was a holocaust in those camps is something I do believe, but not quite in the way we have been taught, and it is the evidence I gained from an official source within the German authorities, that made me come to this conclusion.

What worries me most is not that the holocaust story has some unprovable aspects to it - anyone can believe what they like, should be able to - but that there are governments, including Germany, Austria, and Canada, which have passed laws criminalising anyone who does question some aspects of the official story. That worries me more than anything because it means any story, true in all/some/or none of its aspects must be accepted publicly, even if evidence to the contrary is available. The EU Commission is talking about taking this law on board and making it the norm throughout all of the EU countries, and the UK always agrees with whatever the EU Commission says so a new myth is born, and Big Brother is not only watching but also punishing anyone who can prove even one small aspect of an official story is true, rather than admit this small fact and change it to the truth.

To learn more about the evidence, read my submission. It may surprise you. And it may also allow you to realise why I believe there is a conspiracy to hoodwink the public, and if this succeeds then others will also be perpetrated. Not a good prospect for the future.