BBC actually produced 2 9/11 documentaries. Forced to air pro-gov version.

*not sure if this twist of the story has been adressed already. If so, please delete this thread*

Hi, since a lot of you have seen the widely debated 9/11 conspiracy documentary, it has come to my attention that some sources are now claiming that the beeb actually produced 2 versions. One being a tough piece of investigative journalism, asking some pretty difficult questions, the other one being the spoon-fed official version, 'no questions asked cos all CT are loonies'.
I'm taking this with a grain of salt since for now, all sources come from UK truth seeker Ian R. Crane (link) and prisonplanet (link).
Crane claimes that the new head of the BBC's commercial operations in the US, former Fox senior executive Garth Ancier, is the guy who persuaded program directors to air the hit piece, fearing that a more balanced appraisal would anger corporate partners and sales across the Atlantic (quote from prisonplanet).

It would be nice if we could get a confirmation of this from real BBC people.
Any thoughts on this twist?

peace,
mr.Jones

I'm sorry, who forced the BBC.? The U.S government or the U.K government. Neither have any sway on what the BBC does. The BBC does as it pleases. Much of its News and Documentaries are very left wing, anti-war, anti-American..the list goes on.

Originally posted by Peyres
I'm sorry, who forced the BBC.? The U.S government or the U.K government. Neither have any sway on what the BBC does. The BBC does as it pleases. Much of its News and Documentaries are very left wing, anti-war, anti-American..the list goes on.

bbc gets all its funding from the government, the government(i.e mi5 run bbc). people outside uk, may not know that bbc runs no commercials and they get all there funding from the government. so they are not an independent media, the sky conspiracy show on illuminati did a better job, and thats owned by r murdock.

on the basis that it is said they edited two versions. what does it matter, they could of made 10 versions, at the end of the day, they showed the one they showed, does not really matter if they have another version.


[edit on 2/19/2007 by andy1033]

Originally posted by andy1033
bbc gets all its funding from the government, the government(i.e mi5 run bbc). people outside uk, may not know that bbc runs no commercials and they get all there funding from the government.

The BBC are actually funded by TV licence fees that every UK Household with Television must pay (roughly £130 per year). The Government only set the annual fee. It's the BBC World Service that is payed for by Government grant. Not that any of this means that they aren't firmly seated on the "Corporate Cock," mind you.

Originally posted by MassiveOrigamiRacoon

Originally posted by andy1033
bbc gets all its funding from the government, the government(i.e mi5 run bbc). people outside uk, may not know that bbc runs no commercials and they get all there funding from the government.

The BBC are actually funded by TV licence fees that every UK Household with Television must pay (roughly £130 per year). The Government only set the annual fee. It's the BBC World Service that is payed for by Government grant. Not that any of this means that they aren't firmly seated on the "Corporate Cock," mind you.

Thats handy then how come its against the law to not have a licence. even if you never watch bbc, you still have to have a licence, if you have a tv.

i remember years ago, someone got done, and he tried to say that he never watched bbc, and he tried to prove it, but he was done and had to pay a fine whatever.

uk people even have sites set up to talk about it, is nothing more than a tax, and is government owned.
bbc.state-51.co.uk...

The UK's television licence fee is one of the longest-standing unjust stealth taxes imposed on the British public by their government and should be abolished now.

How can you tell me that the government do not own the bbc.

BBc site on license

yep your right in saying world service is paid for by government grants, but that also makes it more of a government run organisation.

[edit on 2/19/2007 by andy1033]

[edit on 2/19/2007 by andy1033]

If the BBC is a Govt owned mouthpiece how come EVERY successive govt of whichever party does nothing but whine about the BBC being biased against them?

During the Gulf War there was much hoo-har, some of it created by US media, but quite a lot also coming from within the British Govt, about how the BBC was undermining the war through what were, in reality, balanced reports based in fact and refusing to give out the spoon fed propaganda that the likes of Fox revelled in.

Yet here we are with the BBC apparently being the mere puppets of this same govt, spoon feeding us the 'official' story and ignoring 'the truth'.

Surely both these viewpoints cannot be right?

Here's a theory, how about the Govt was thoroughly embarrassed by some of the truths they would rather the BBC had not broadcast during the war and now some of the 911 conspiracy nuts are feeling the same way. Simply accusing the BBC of a whitewash whilst firmly clinging to your own blinkered theory is all right, but to criticise other people who see things differently who will not be swayed to YOUR way of thinking is a tad hypocritical, no?

Here's another thought, if the BBC has managed to anger and alienate both the Govt AND the conspiracy brigade, maybe both extremes are in fact wrong and the BBC is truly and impartially relating something that is as close to the unbiased truth that they can get? Maybe?

A case in point is the guy on another thread about this subject who refuses to believe anything in this programme might be right because it did not conclude that a 757 didn't hit the Pentagon, and therefore must be lying.

Pardon?

There is so much evidence in the public domain both now and right at the very time on live news feeds, that there is no way anyone with any sort of understanding of aviation and air crashes or even an ability to evaluate evidence accurately can have any doubt whatsoever that it was a 757.

There are indeed many unanswered questions about 911 and the programme could indeed have done a better job perhaps, but the questions of whether it really was a 757, or whether the BBC is a Govt run propaganda machine, are equally brainless and redundant.

EDIT, oh, and yes. The idea that the BBC made two versions but were pressured into broadcasting the 'safe' one?
Not a chance. If this had been the case the BBC would have pulled the programme altogether and every BBC news bulletin would have shouted loud and clear that the programme was cancelled due to Govt pressure. How do I know this? Well, for a start try the fact that this is what they have done several times already in the past when pressure has been brought to bear on 'sensitive' programmes. They might broadcast programmes you don't like or disagree with, but anyone who thinks they are anyones patsy is just deluding themselves.

[edit on 19-2-2007 by waynos]

Originally posted by andy1033
Thats handy then how come its against the law to not have a licence. even if you never watch bbc, you still have to have a licence, if you have a tv.

Indeed you do, but that is irrelevant. Whether or not you ever watch the BBC, if you own a Television, the Money from your licence fee will still go to funding it. I know what you are trying to say, and I do agree with you that the Government are involved, but essentially funding from Television licences isn't really the same as Government Grant funding. Again though, I agree with you that if the BBC were really as independent as they claim then they would be responsible for setting their own licence fees and collecting them -- rather than the Government.

Originally posted by andy1033
i remember years ago, someone got done, and he tried to say that he never watched bbc, and he tried to prove it, but he was done and had to pay a fine whatever.

Yeah, he tried to prove it, but can such a thing really be proven?

Originally posted by andy1033
uk people even have sites set up to talk about it, is nothing more than a tax, and is government owned.
bbc.state-51.co.uk...

Essentially yes, it is sort of a Tax, but it funds all the programmes that you see on the BBC, and pays all their staff (except for World Service). The other channels are all funded by advertising and selling their programming to other networks. I hate advertisements, they drive me completely insane, but I would probably rather the BBC was funded by them instead because it would save me £12 or so per Month. I very rarely watch Television anymore, either, and am considering banning them from my home forever I can download what I need to see and buy anything that's actually worth buying.

Is the BBC state owned? I would say it's a bit of half and half, but they certainly tow the state line a hell of a lot. Anyone who sais the BBC are "Liberal" or "Leftist" must be an absolute Nazi. Although, the term "Nazi" could quite easily describe many Liberals too.

*MassiveOrigamiRacoon skillfully dodges flying swivel Chair*

Originally posted by andy1033

EVEN BLIND PEOPLE ARE REQUIRED BY LAW TO HAVE A TELEVISION LICENCE! The BBC Web site's television licence fee page proudly boasts: "It is free if you are over 75, half-price if you are registered blind.

How can you tell me that the government do not own the bbc.

How does charging blind people half price for services rendered that they only use half of unequivocally show that the Government own the BBC? The Government are involved, and there are probably at least 500 MI5/6 Agents working there, but it's different to an actual state maintained Corporation, although you wouldn't know it from the amount of propaganda these Bastards come out with.

Originally posted by andy1033
BBc site on license

yep your right in saying world service is paid for by government grants, but that also makes it more of a government run organisation.

I guess you're right there, World Service is funded directly by Government Grant and by the selling of their programming to other Networks. World Service is a branch of the BBC, so I guess that would make the BBC more state owned.

Please don't take this post as a defence of the wretched British Broadcasting Corporation. I despise almost everything about them except for their Space and Wildlife documentaries. I just wanted the facts about them to be straight, is all, lest some foul individual with dark views come in here and start causing trouble.

LOL BBC isent goverment owned, and the goverment cant interfer with what they decide to show.

Im danish and we have a channel called DR1. This the exact same thing as BBC. We are required to pay a license fee, no matter what. Thats just how it is.

A few weeks ago they aired a documentary showing danish troops in Iraq, sending people into the hands of the americans knowing well that they would be tortured.

Our goverment freaked out about this saying that i shouldnt have ben aired and so on. Now every single journalistic institution is flaming the goverment for even saying such a thing.

Its the DUTY of license payed channels to be critics of the goverment in which the channel reside. And both DR1 and BBC are doing a very good job at this (Yes i have BBC, i watch it alot, so dont say that they are a pro Blair channel...)

I think I'm in danger of veering off topic but I hate it when people whine about the licence fee but happily stump up £400+ per annum to watch endless repeats on Satellite.

Technically the BBC is a corporation established by Royal Charter. Ultimate control is effectively exercised by Parliament, (as opposed to Government), although you may need a constitutional lawyer to work out who would ever get the money in the hypothetical event of its sale. Day to day control of the corporation is through an independent Board of Governors and its Director General (effectively a CEO).

I know it's popular to have a pop at the BBC and it's proabably fair to say that it is a pretty inefficient organisation...

Q. I say, I say, I say, How many people work for the BBC?

A. About half of them?

...but I strongly believe that it's one of those things that you wouldn't half miss if it was gone. With some notable exceptions, (yes I am looking at you Anne Robinson), it produces television of a quality considerably above that of most commercial stations and its flagship shows such as "Newsnight" and Radio 4's "Today" are rightly regarded as benchmark programmes.




[edit on 19-2-2007 by timeless test]

countries are mainly run by intelligence agencies, not government. governments come and go, while intelligence services stay the same.

being run by mi5 is not the same as being run by blair. bbc projects english opinion, not blairs opinion. who would be more powerful in power, Blair or MI5. i know which one i would think was more powerful.

sorry double post, please ignore.

[edit on 2/19/2007 by andy1033]

Originally posted by Jugg
(Yes i have BBC, i watch it alot, so dont say that they are a pro Blair channel...)

I wouldn't say that they are really pro-Blair, but they are certainly pro-Government, and pro-big Business. Notice how the BBC never really much get into a debate about whether the War on Terrorism is actually a farce, they will just nitpick about how the individual leaders within the coalition go about the task. Variations of this tactic are common in the Modus operandi of the BBC. They leave out crucial information that may indicate serious wrongdoing on behalf of the Government, and sidetrack it with some sensational 'Pop' Story. Any criticism of individual Prime Ministers and Presidents by a News Network should not necessarily be viewed as favourable, considering they are just pulling the "Blame it all on the fall guy" card that our current Political systems and those behind the scenes rely so heavily upon.

Have you ever heard the phrase "Meet the new Boss, same as the old Boss." Differences in our Political leaders are most usually superficial, and irrelevant.

I find that around half of the time the BBC will be quite impartial with its Internet articles, yet impartial far less on Television. Anyone who has ever watched BBC Breakfast News on a reguler basis for any period of time will understand this. It remains almost as bad throughout the rest of the day, only improving somewhat in the evening.

Here are two examples of just how pro-Government the BBC can become:

news.bbc.co.uk..." target="_blank" class="postlink">Applause as Marines enter Basra
Blair promises to back Iraqi people (A page long dick-sucking.)

There are thousands of those. Read those carefully to spot the sly tactics and you will see what I'm saying. While the BBC can also be critical and impartial, the times that they are not seem to outweigh the times that they are.

Take a look next at the BBC's War in Iraq: Day by Day Guide:

War in Iraq: Day by Day Guide

I don't spot a great deal of anti-Government or even anti-Blair sentiments on that page, and I've read through about 30 of the articles. If anything, it's just insignificant 'mock' criticism, if you ask me.

The BBC supports the UK state, you only have to listen to it over a period of time to know that.

Originally posted by waynos
Here's a theory, how about the Govt was thoroughly embarrassed by some of the truths they would rather the BBC had not broadcast during the war and now some of the 911 conspiracy nuts are feeling the same way. Simply accusing the BBC of a whitewash whilst firmly clinging to your own blinkered theory is all right, but to criticise other people who see things differently who will not be swayed to YOUR way of thinking is a tad hypocritical, no?

Here's another thought, if the BBC has managed to anger and alienate both the Govt AND the conspiracy brigade, maybe both extremes are in fact wrong and the BBC is truly and impartially relating something that is as close to the unbiased truth that they can get? Maybe?

If they think differently and announce it in their attempt at debunking 9/11 conspiracy theories then how are they unbiased and impartial? I also resent being called a 'nut' and demand that you either retract that insult or apologise.

Originally posted by waynos
A case in point is the guy on another thread about this subject who refuses to believe anything in this programme might be right because it did not conclude that a 757 didn't hit the Pentagon, and therefore must be lying.

Pardon?

You have no case in point because the programme did actually include a section on the Pentagon and the no-plane theories. Did you even watch this pseudo-documentary?

Originally posted by waynos
There are indeed many unanswered questions about 911 and the programme could indeed have done a better job perhaps, but the questions of whether it really was a 757, or whether the BBC is a Govt run propaganda machine, are equally brainless and redundant.

Yes there are many unanswered questions about 9/11, and yes the programme could have done a far better job. Whether a 757 hit the Pentagon or not is redundant, but the only person here even mentioning that is you. Why, if it's redundant? Whether the BBC is a propaganda machine run by the Government or not isn't brainless or redundant, though -- considering that the very 'documentary' we are discussing was produced and aired by the BBC.

Originally posted by waynos
EDIT, oh, and yes. The idea that the BBC made two versions but were pressured into broadcasting the 'safe' one?
Not a chance. If this had been the case the BBC would have pulled the programme altogether and every BBC news bulletin would have shouted loud and clear that the programme was cancelled due to Govt pressure. How do I know this? Well, for a start try the fact that this is what they have done several times already in the past when pressure has been brought to bear on 'sensitive' programmes. They might broadcast programmes you don't like or disagree with, but anyone who thinks they are anyones patsy is just deluding themselves.

[edit on 19-2-2007 by waynos]

Bull#! If you haven't watched the programme then I suggest you do so to see just how much was left out, distorted, or outright lied about. I will not bother compiling a list here. Go and see it for yourself.

[edit on 19-2-2007 by MassiveOrigamiRacoon]

Sorry mate, MI5 reports to the PM.

The BBC may be funded by public money but its the goverment who decides whether the corporation carries on being funded by this millions and does not earn it through commercial means, like everyone else.


The 'Gov' own the BBC...lol

If they think differently and announce it in their attempt at debunking 9/11 conspiracy theories then how are they unbiased and impartial?

Everyone has an opinion, even a BBC reporter. As long as both sides of the argument are presented they have done their job.

I also resent being called a 'nut' and demand that you either retract that insult or apologise.

I don't recalling calling anybody anything, if you took a general remark as a personal insult and can see no distinction between yourself and one of the many rabid nuts that populate the internet it says more about you than me and is not my problem. I retract and apologise for nothing in that comment.

You have no case in point because the programme did actually include a section on the Pentagon and the no-plane theories. Did you even watch this pseudo-documentary?

Of course it did, this is called presenting both sides as I remarked. My case in point was not *the theory*, but rather the members on here who are unable distinguish between provable fact and fantasy and simply refuse to believe those points which are easily provable. That is an example of the nut element. Yes, they are here.

but the only person here even mentioning that is you. Why, if it's redundant? Whether the BBC is a propaganda machine run by the Government or not isn't brainless or redundant, though -- considering that the very 'documentary' we are discussing was produced and aired by the BBC

The reason I brought up the no-757 theory was that I read it put forward not two minutes before I came to this thread, on another ATS thread in this forum, as a reason *why* this documentary is not to be believed. That is not to say the documentary is 100% correct, only that silliness like that serves no useful purpose as it makes the conspiracy theorist look just as silly as the programme he is complaining about does, does it not?

Regards the second point, what is it about constant Govt moves to try to gag the BBC over several decades and, on the few occasions when sensitive programmes have been dropped on the insistence of the Govt the BBC makes sure it announces the fact publicly on the News programmes, makes you think they are a Govt mouthpiece? Do you remember the furore over the BBC's open reporting during the invasion of Iraq? Why would they do that if the Govt was controlling them?

The failings of the documentary are editorial failings, nothing more sinister than that, hampered also by the need to try to compress a very complex subject into a one hour programme, the results are never going to be satisfactory and yes, the programme was more entertainment at the conspiracists expense than educational or investigative. I'm not arguing that point.

Its the supposed fact that the programme makers failings were due to *another* conspiracy and MI5 control etc that just emphasises the paranoid nature of these things. The programme can't just have been crap, it has to be a cover up. Thats what is Bull#! as you eloquently put it.

The case for the BBC being a govt controlled propaganda machine is nothing more than a poor programme that the people on here disagree vehemently with (surprise!). Well hows that for leaping to a conclusion?

The things I've seen in all my own years of experience however convince me that the BBC is actually a thorn in the side of whichever ruling government is in power precisely because it WILL NOT be told what to say. (maybe someone could put together a reel of all the political leaders that have stormed out of interviews where they have been exposed and outmanouvered by the likes of Frost, Day, Paxman etc over the years)

Of course, after this you may well turn round and call me an agent of the propaganda machine myself for daring to have a different view on this but, for the record, my opinion is that those exposed as idiots on the show deserved it. I also feel that the show steered clear of the more difficult points on 911 that are made by the saner conspiracists that inhabit this site and whos posts I follow with deep interest.

on topic
this is the guy who spreaded the leak (IF genuine):

All,
The leak was made to me personally in the last 48 hours.
No names will be released but I have absolute confidence in the validity of this story.
The two different versions are made with two distinct aims in mind. There are people getting very very flustered in the BBC about this.
It IS WORTH emailing/writing/phoning. I have been ASKED by the leaker to pressurise people in the BBC by exposing this and calling them.
No arguments DO IT NOW while there exists a chance to sway opinions.

Calum

link

and this is what the producer of the show answered to hundreds of emails:

Thank you for your email about 9/11: The Conspiracy Files.
I would like to assure you that reports on the internet that we have made two alternative versions of this documentary for broadcast on BBC TV are not true.
There is only one version – and that will be broadcast this coming Sunday, 18th February, at 9:00pm on BBC Two.
I do hope you find the programme of interest.

Yours sincerely
Guy Smith
Producer

link

Personally, i dont think there were 2 versions for one simple reason.
If you read the article Guy Smith wrote on the BBC site prior to the TV documentary, it is pretty obvious that this producer already had a strong preconcieved opinion on conspiracies (more a mental thing, for people afraid to face reality) and had no intention what so ever in going into issues that could burn his fingers... his article here

IMO, this is one of the worst pieces of journalism i have ever seen on the beeb.

mr.Jones

I saw it and it debunked more or less everything they brought up, saying the only conspiracy was that of negligence of beforehand information they had, and the delays in responding etc..

bla bla bla blaaaaaaaaa