bbc in law suit ?

http://rinf.com/alt-news/911-truth/911-truth-we%E2%80%99ve-got-the-bbc-on-the-run/1706/

Since July 2007 British scientist, member of Scholars for 9/11 Truth & Justice and RINF science correspondent, John A. Blacker, has been in an ongoing battle with the BBC over their lie infested hit piece programme ‘9/11: The Conspiracy Files’, which aired in February 2007 and was designed to present an unfair view of the 9/11 truth movement and prominent researchers. Mr Blacker is currently in ‘pre-action protocol’ with the BBC, meaning they have to try and settle the argument out of court.

In this latest update, Mr Blacker has been informed of a scheduled meeting, due to take place in October which has now been pushed back further to late November. This is the third time the BBC has bought more time by delaying the meeting. A clear sign they are struggling to piece together a legal case to defend their actions.

With the BBC desperately on the run, I am making available the latest letter Mr Blacker has sent them, in which he pin points even more of the faults contained in the programme and demands an apology for their blatant lies as their hit piece is a complete disrespect to the truth and an insult to all who died on 9/11.

Please take the time to read the letter published below. As stated many months ago, RINF Alternative News will not allow this issue to be dropped and we’ve only just begun the battle to see justice prevail and the BBC admit it is guilty of mass public deception in a court of law.

Pre action for damages without prejudice.

Thursday, 08 November 2007

Dear Chairman,

Thank you for your letter dated 31 October 2007 and the 6 section Cover notes for appeal of which accompanied said.

Firstly I request and Expect each and every member of the decision panel to disclose their affiliations such as to “Common Purpose” “Masons” etc, etc and to forward said disclosure to the Chair. I am a member of AE911 truth, STJ911 truth and also ST911 truth, I am not currently a member of any political party & I am 1 of three professional partners of Physical Systems, Lancaster England & a qualified Physicist & Mechanical Engineer.

I shall be going through the folder you sent in order stating from section 1 and making my comments & observations as I proceed if I may, as this is the first opportunity I have been given to these information resources in their current format.

SECTION 1

(1) The Item

The Conspiracy files team spoke to and recorded the testimony of many eyewitnesses, fire fighters, police officers, and public high witnesses, plus also officialdom high witnesses and had access to written testimony from many high witnesses via official sites on the WWW.

YET NOT ONE SINGLE HIGH WITNESS WAS PRESENTED IN THE DOCUMENTARY TO PUT THE TRUTH PERSPECTIVE.

If the documentary was not biases — WHY not one?

Take for example the evidence of Fire CAPTAIN KARIN DESHORE who states on page 15 of the official report given to official government 911 investigators quote:

“SOMEWHERE AROUND THE MIDDLE OF THE WORLD
TRADE CENTER THERE WAS THIS ORANGE AND RED FLASH
COMING OUT INITIALLY IT WAS JUST ONE FLASH THEN
THIS FLASH JUST KEPT POPPING ALL THE WAY AROUND THE
BUILDING AND THAT BUILDING HAD STARTED TO EXPLODE THE
POPPING SOUND AND WITH EACH POPPING SOUND IT WAS
INITIALLY AN ORANGE AND THEN RED FLASH CAME OUT OF
THE BUILDING AND THEN IT WOULD JUST GO ALL AROUND THE
BUILDING ON BOTH SIDES AS FAR AS COULD SEE THESE
POPPING SOUNDS AND THE EXPLOSIONS WERE GETTING BIGGER
GOING BOTH UP AND DOWN AND THEN ALL AROUND THE
BUILDING”

What sort of research did the BBC team do? How can a documentary ignore such clear damming evidence?

WHAT WAS THE ACTUAL PROCESS OF SELECTING INFORMATION TO PRESENT TO THE PUBLIC?

What checks and balances ensured impartiality & the delivery of FACTUAL & accurate information worthy of a BBC Documentary & BBC viewers ?????

Alex Jones stated that he was filmed for many many hours and forwarded documentary proof upon proof to the BBC documentary team, yet all of that proof was ignored in favour of what was shown – why? What selection criteria was used, if not to deliberately select out everything which was conclusive in favour of what was actually shown – which was nothing more than Hearsay, Opinion & NEGATIVE Stereotyping of truth members.

High witnesses, actual Fire fighters and actual police were ignored by the BBC crew in favour of 3rd hand 3rd rate information. Why? Where is the journalistic integrity in this so called documentary?

Prof Jim Fetzer states the BBC team recorded many hours with him yet showed next to nothing of what he explained were the key science issues of the truth movement & the key evidence – why – what has the BBC got to hide – perhaps the FACTS???

Why was all of this key evidence censored?

(2.1)

The truth movement

A point which is missing, is the fact NO actual Physics was mentioned either to back the official government (Physically Impossible) lies, or more importantly, to explain why so many informed “intelligent” professional people do not believe the government lies because the official story simply defies the laws of physics.

1 There was not enough energy in the “collapse sequence” to turn the 300,000 tonnes of concrete and all of the floor panels to DUST – by a factor of at least 10.

2 3 buildings came to ground at near freefall; hence the undamaged, heaviest and strongest lower floors offered near zero resistance which was consistent with falling through clear AIR only.

3 Falling bodies never take the path of greatest resistance, EVER, always the path of least resistance only! (without exception)

4 A 757 simply can not fit through a 20 foot hole at the Pentagon – the program did not show the hole prior to collapse at the Pentagon, but misled the public into thinking the Jet had caused the damage after collapse. (TOTAL DECEIT)

I will stick to just 4 points here, however there are more, please see the actual correspondence from myself re key omissions of key & important points.

The Collapse of the twin towers.

There was not a single mention that NIST, who were hired by the US government to explain why the towers came to ground – did not cover the actual collapse sequence AT ALL.

The NIST report’s title was:

“Final report on the collapse of the world trade centre towers.”

Yet the official report did not actually even mention the “collapse” of the world trade centre towers or anything to do with building 007 (demolition 003).

In summary MANY pieces of KEY DAMMING information were deliberately and methodically left out or deliberately & methodically removed from the documentary during editing because they were far too conclusive, and far too damaging to the official government lies peddled by this BBC documentary. Instead of reporting the bread & butter truth issues the program was bulked out with nonsense from a science fiction writer and some really dodgy reporting from “Popular Mechanics” et al who gave not one slither of proof to the statements they made.

NOT a single first hand account was shown or mentioned – why? What process lead to no first hand accounts being selected or deemed worthy to be included or reported on in what was supposed to be a factual documentary?

SECTION 002 correction:

A second version of the letter dated 07/072007 was sent to the BBC via email to replace the one with hand written maths, this second version had typo corrections and also clearer printed maths which was better suited to publication online for the whole world to see.

http://rinf.com/alt-news/911-truth/st911-scientist-to-sue-bbc-for-public-deception/776/

SECTION 3

The original letter was intended to pursue action for damages and apology.
The response by the BBC was very positive as can be seen from the reply letters and it was at this point felt that whilst the documentary was a piece of yellow journalism designed to discredit the truth movement, it was perhaps not necessarily targeting and singling out any would be qualified scientist who was prepared to take a closer look at the evidence in detail, although it certainly did not encourage closer scrutiny as any fair and balanced documentary (considering all the evidence there is) should promote.

NOTE: What is the point of a BBC documentary if it does not promote learning and further research into the subject matter, as opposed to just reinforcing the “Physically Impossible” government lies?

As such after this point the Apology (for total public deception) and hopefully another program incorporating the actual key evidence and the actual first hand High witness testimony, would suffice.

May I complement the team on what was visually, an excellent piece, the problem lies with the integrity of other aspects of the program as stated in correspondence, including this.

SECTIONS 4.

Fine

SECTION 5.

On page 2.

“If a large passenger jet crashed into the Pentagon ….. why was the hole in the exterior wall apparently so small?”

Whilst this script was being spoken, Images of the damage at the pentagon was being flashed, the problem is, it shows the damage AFTER collapse, as being the actual damaged caused by the Jet impact. Only a knowledgeable person would know the image shown was “After Collapse” some 20 minutes later, and was not the damage caused by the jet impact as the sequence implies.

If only the 20 ft hole and the pre collapse images had been shown then this would have been honest journalism. As a result of confusing the viewer by flashing what was dishonest journalism and having those post collapse images associated with the initial jet impact, which was reinforced by the way in which the viewer was fed words and images together – this is propaganda Yellow Journalism portraying FALSE FACTS DECEPTION by stealth.

On page 2 again,

“Could a controlled demolition have caused this building to collapse at the World Trade Centre?”

How misleading could one short question statement & video combination be? The viewer sees a 47 story steel framed building descending straight down at near freefall of which is not one of the twin towers, it is not called by its name, Building WTC007, and the viewer is not informed the building came to ground on the actual day of 911 into its own footprint at near freefall speed.

Seeing as most of the population only know that 2 tall buildings were destroyed on the day of 911, would it not be honest journalism to actually name the building and mention the particular circumstances of which the building came to ground and of which is key to the truth movement perspective at the very least?

Again this is an example of deception by KEY FACT OMMISION.

On Page 12

19:22 into the documentary - the images are not of 5 Alleged Hijackers arriving and checking in at Dulles airport as the commentary suggests, but are in fact 2 young men checking in hundreds of miles from DULLES at 5.45:08 on 9-11-01 in a an alleged link flight.

Why was the misleading CCTV image used to totally deceive the unsuspecting Public viewer in combination with misleading narration? Why was the genuine actual image not shown, if they exist?

On Page 13.

Minutes later the façade of the building collapsed.
The military say there was limited damage to the exterior wall, ……cont
NO mention was made of the no fly zone around the pentagon and how large it is. No mention was made of the two rings of ground to air missile defence. No mention was made of the fact if any unauthorised aircraft reaches the outer zone jets are automatically scrambled to intercept and take under 10 seconds (YES UNDER 10 seconds) from lift-off to reach the Pentagon. No mention that if the unauthorised aircraft reaches the inner zone, regardless of transponder on or off, the missile batteries shoot until the target is destroyed.

These key omissions are clear evidence of deliberate bias in reporting by omitting key information essential for the viewer to make a knowledgeable informed assessment of the Pentagon FACTS.

On Page 14.

21:19 into the documentary an engineer states: “What I usually say is that is Bullshit, but what I’ll say is that it’s just flawed people that have something to dream about to make a name for themselves. It’s absolutely not true.

NOTE: AT no point in this Engineers statement does he once mention a 757 or large JET as hitting the Pentagon. A plane & plane wreckage at the pentagon is not the same as 757 plane wreckage at the Pentagon, indeed, there was an engine and plane wreckage found at the Pentagon.

This part of the documentary has to be one of the most deceitful parts. Pardon the pun.
Firstly the actual question relating to 757 wreckage was never put to the engineer on camera, for all the viewer knows the BBC crew could have asked the Engineer absolutely anything.

And What exactly is “ABSOLUTELY NOT TRUE”?

The journalism here is of the lowest possible quality and is clearly “YELLOW” and a deliberate attempt to make members of the truth movement who question the evidence of a 757 at the Pentagon - look ridiculous - and not actually get to the bottom of the saga via irrefutable evidence etc.

A motorcycle fuel tank & bike parts (small engine & wheels) at a crash scene is not evidence of a Wagon has crashed.

EVEN the Engineer did not say he witnessed ANY parts off a 757 or large Jet - to suggest a qualified Engineer would not know the difference between parts off a BIG jet and parts off a small one would be the height of stupidity.

It would be like saying an Engineer would not know the difference between a motorcycle & a wagon engine or Motorcycle & wagon wheel.

So why did the BBC journalists not ask for specifics, such as how large were the parts etc, could the parts have come off a 757 or large jet, were they large enough to fit a 757?
On Page 17.

The pilot Steve O’ Brien not once states he observed a 757, does anyone suppose he would not know a 757? The man is a trained observer who’s job it is to know and identify every type of aircraft without exception, does anyone think he would not state 757 if he had actually observed a 757 at his 12 o clock?

If he was on a routine flight do you suppose a USAF pilot or any other pilot would not know that the Pentagon was in a defended air exclusion zone and off limits to unauthorised non military planes. Why did he not mention this in his video statement?
Does anyone think a 500mph 757 is not the easiest target for a missile defence system to shoot down?

Why were none of these types of questions put to the pilot as these and many like them had been informed to the BBC crew by Prof Fetzer and Alex Jones?

Is there anybody alive who believes commercial jets are permitted to pull 4 G turns by the onboard fly by wire system?

In conclusion the Conspiracy Files Documentary was a work of Total Public deception from start to end, perfectly crafted to stealthily deceive and forward nothing which was conclusive either one way or the other, in other words, perfect propaganda YELLOW journalism by stealth, omission & deception.

Kind regards

J A Blacker MSc IMI (Physical Systems)(Lancaster England)

PS: Why was Prof Judy Wood not asked to explain the 911 physics?