'Barry Jennings Uncut' (& BBC exploded)

[MacCruiskeen]

Thanks, FB and HoL.

"Dog with a bone"... I had to drop it eventually. Life intervened, and I don't get paid for this. Michael Rudin and "Dame" Helen Boaden do get paid for what they do. It's their life. So their responses were not just routinely but hideously evasive, and instructively so. It was a real lesson in how the BBC works, especially under pressure, and in how Britain's "special relationship" with the USA functions. Propping up that special relationship at all costs is one of the BBC's main responsibilities.

Poor Barry Jennings. It is really appalling. He has been almost entirely forgotten. I wish somebody more influential or better connected than I am would take up his case again. But I'm not really surprised that nobody has. It is genuinely frightening what happened to him, from the day of the attacks (including the phone call to his family claiming that he had died in WTC7), to the death threats that apparently followed, to his still-unexplained sudden death and the subsequent silent disappearance of his family from the city they had lived in for years.

Jennings was a real whistleblower, and what he reports is a real smoking gun. The blatant dishonesty and evasiveness of the BBC in itself constitutes further strong evidence that something very important was being covered up there. I can't escape the feeling that the whole Jennings-Hess episode is one of those tiny, barely-noticed loose threads that could eventually lead to the unraveling of the entire official yarn. But certainly, someone would need to worry at it more persistently and more effectively than I ever managed to.



On edit: hoplessly mixed metaphor slightly unmixed

[munkiex]

Not that we didn't already know this, but the way Barry Jennings has been forgotten by many who doubt the 9/11 official story shows how successfully the serious argument about a 9/11 conspiracy has been muddled.

Before Ruppert went off the deep end (whether he was pushed or got there on his own), I really enjoyed his approach to investigating the 9/11 case; i.e., treat it like a court case and put reasonable doubt into the official version of events. All sorts of interesting things came from that because each piece of evidence didn't need to stand on its own. Even if the holes of doubt created by an individual event/story/testimony are tiny, at some point the official story can't hold.

My only hope is one day the truth comes out (high fantasy, I know) and brave people like Barry Jennings get the recognition (in many cases posthumously) that they deserve and the thanks of a grateful nation.

[FourthBase]

Not that we didn't already know this, but the way Barry Jennings has been forgotten by many who doubt the 9/11 official story shows how successfully the serious argument about a 9/11 conspiracy has been muddled.

Before Ruppert went off the deep end (whether he was pushed or got there on his own), I really enjoyed his approach to investigating the 9/11 case; i.e., treat it like a court case and put reasonable doubt into the official version of events. All sorts of interesting things came from that because each piece of evidence didn't need to stand on its own. Even if the holes of doubt created by an individual event/story/testimony are tiny, at some point the official story can't hold.

My only hope is one day the truth comes out (high fantasy, I know) and brave people like Barry Jennings get the recognition (in many cases posthumously) that they deserve and the thanks of a grateful nation.

I was just about to start a thread about this. No doubt (or, negligible doubt) that Jennings is a hero. But that promised land of 9/11 revelation, were it to occur, may not turn out like we would expect, or hope.

[slimmouse]

I think the Barry Jennings story is something that those who believe that "troofer" CD is just plain corrosive to the 9/11 truth movement, should be prepared to comment on.

Those buildings were blown up one way or another. The evidence is fairly legion. Before, during and after the event.

A great data dump would be 9/11 heroes who mystically died.

[munkiex]

I was just about to start a thread about this. No doubt (or, negligible doubt) that Jennings is a hero. But that promised land of 9/11 revelation, were it to occur, may not turn out like we would expect, or hope.

Just curious, what do you mean by the bolded part? That the truth would not be what many of us may believe or that no one would really care? Or something else?

[MacCruiskeen]

Now this is strange: an actual film of Michael Hess calling for help from the 8th floor of WTC7. I wish there was a timestamp on it, and I wish I could hear everything that's said. It certainly appears to be genuine, though, and it certainly looks like him. You can hear the guys on the ground calling, "Mr.Hess!" and "That's Mr Hess, he's corporation counsel." and "Which floor?" "Eighth floor!" "We'll get you out of there."



Length: 2 min 51 sec. Uploaded on 30.08.2010 by someone called IC911STUDIES.

[Nordic]

I was just about to start a thread about this. No doubt (or, negligible doubt) that Jennings is a hero. But that promised land of 9/11 revelation, were it to occur, may not turn out like we would expect, or hope.

Just curious, what do you mean by the bolded part? That the truth would not be what many of us may believe or that no one would really care? Or something else?

I think he was referring to the "ugly math" thread. In that it might turn out that people would accept that 911 was done for some sort of "greater good" argument.

Conceivable, considering the suggestibility of the American people.

Thanks for the revival of this thread; somehow I either missed it the first time around or forgot it! These days it's hard to tell. Feels like the hard drive in my skull is getting full.

[bks]

Mac,

As usual, your tenacity is a model for lovers of honesty everywhere. Raising a virtual Guinness to you at the moment

You alluded upthread to Rudin's and Boaden's responses to your query as "routinely but hideously evasive, and instructively so. It was a real lesson in how the BBC works, especially under pressure, and in how Britain's "special relationship" with the USA functions."

Can you share anything about the particulars? Did they email you within that week's window? If you're comfortable posting emails from them, I'd love to see them.

Thx.

[Jerky]

Just want to add my "Thanks" to the chorus of thanks to you, MacK, for your stellar work and admirable tenacity on this count. I am preparing an in depth blog post about Jennings and your efforts on his behalf will be noted and referenced, so expect a PM from me some time in the next week or so.

Thank you, thank you, thank you.

Jerky

[AhabsOtherLeg]

I think he was referring to the "ugly math" thread. In that it might turn out that people would accept that 911 was done for some sort of "greater good" argument.

Conceivable, considering the suggestibility of the American people.

Another danger, perhaps one underestimated by us, is that when you finally, fully "unmask the beast" it no longer has any reason to keep up it's pretence of humanity.

The state-corporate apparatus would begin an all-out fight for it's own survival, and the preservation of it's current privilleges.

At the moment most of us are allowed to imagine that we have a "broad array" of freedoms and rights - but all of these are dependent on our compliance with power, and they can be withdrawn at any time if the state were to feel genuinely threatened by us. If 9/11 was blown wide open, and the truth was revealed to be along the lines of what we think it could be, then the state would feel more than threatened. It would go to war. Domestically. Again. But more openly this time, with no shame about it's methods, and nothing left to hide.

Or it might... I dunno really.

But it's something I've been worrying about in relation to the latest ever-expanding paedophile scandal in Britain. What happens if it is established publically once and for all that many of the care home scandals are directly linked, that MI5 was indeed filming high-ranking politicians engaged in child sexual abuse in these establishments, and then using their knowledge of this abuse to control these politicians, and thus directly influence public policy (not just defence and intelligence policy, either) for decades now? 'Cos that's what it looks like to me. And I can't see the security services and the political establishment just moving on from this. "That's all in the past; we must look to the future!" doesn't really work with that sort of thing. Even Tony Blair couldn't pull that one off. They're not going to just disband themselves and go home (or to jail) either. If their power is threatened they'll fight for it.... and they have all the power.

In more optimistic moments, though, I see the whole thing falling apart like the Soviet Union. It looks big, it looks strong, it has all the tanks and guns and nukes... but it can only exist if people believe in it, and fear it.

Barry Jennings was a great man (well, he was just a normal man, but he stuck by what he knew to be the truth in the face of massive pressure to capitulate), and the BBC are rapidly being revealed as the most dishonest institution in the country. It's about time too.

[semper occultus]

...funnily enough this happened yesterday apparently..?

court victory for protestor

Moral Victory for Protestor who says BBC 9/11 Coverage was False

Campaigner and film maker Tony Rooke claimed a moral victory today after a UK court gave him a conditional discharge even though he has refused to pay his BBC license fee. Over 100 supporters from as far away as Denmark and Norway cheered in front of the court house as independent media people conducted interviews and photographed the crowd. Court officials had booked their largest room for the case but were at a loss to find that well over 50 people could not be fitted in.

Tony said: "I am taken a back and hugely grateful for all the support." He is asking for at least one person to take up the campaign by refusing to pay or taking other legal action (see below).

Rooke argued that the BBC's coverage of the 9/11 terror attacks in New York has been so distorted that it amounts to giving aid and comfort to the unidentified terrorists who demolished three World Trade Centre buildings in 2001. Two hijacked planes were flown into the famous Twin Towers and a third tower WTC7 collapsed later in the day. The attacks were used as the pretext for a decade of wars and the introduction of police state measures across the NATO countries. Vast personal fortunes were made by White House and CIA officials who failed to thwart 9/11.

The official 9/11 story was promulgated by the US media within minutes of the first collision, based on anonymous sources in the Bush White House. Despite a mass of new evidence coming to light in the intervening years the story has never changed and holds that the destruction was entirely caused by a band of Muslim fanatics, they succeeded without any help, and were organised by the notorious Osama Bin Laden who it is admitted was once a CIA agent. A man described as Osama Bin Laden was captured, assassinated and deposited in the ocean by US forces in Pakistan two years ago.

Sceptics say that the collapse of WTC7 must have been the result of something more than limited fires and damage from the Twin Towers, hit by the two hijacked planes. Argument has revolved around the speed of the collapse. In the BBC Conspiracy Files series, which endorsed every aspect of the official 9/11 story, it was stated that the building did not collapse at free fall speed, but later US officials were forced by video evidence to admit that it did just that.

A large group of over 1500 architects and engineers known as AE911 say that free fall collapse implies that the building had all its supports removed at the same instant which can only happen with a controlled demolition. Tony Rooke's legal argument is that in failing to correct their free fall misinformation and many other misstatements of fact, the BBC are a party to covering up the terrorists who organised the controlled demolition of WTC7.

The BBC has also failed to publicise the finding of Richard Clarke, head of counter terrorism at the White House in 2001. Two years ago Clarke made a bombshell announcement: in the weeks before 9/11 a secret "decision" must have been taken at the CIA to over rule FBI officers who wanted to arrest some of the people who according to the official story went on to commit the attacks. Clarke says that if this decision had not been made the 9/11 attacks would not have happened. Before Clarke went public the BBC programme makers were adamant this was a "conspiracy theory". Afterwards they failed to give it any prominence and failed to reinterview any of the officials who, if Clarke is right, must have lied to them.

Back in Horsham Magistrates Court campaigners have been planning future tactics. Tony Rook's victory, helped by lawyer Mahtab Aziz, implies that the BBC has a case to answer, but expert witnesses including Danish associate professor Niels Harrit were not called due to legal technicalities. However the District Judge would have read their statements before the hearing and taken them into account.

Conditional discharges are often used in political cases to indicate that the accused, though technically guilty, occupies the moral high ground. In addition the case provides a yardstick that can be raised by future campaigners. On the other hand because he has not been convicted, Tony cannot appeal and force the courts to scrutinise the highly questionable activities of the BBC as a conduit for CIA propaganda.

It's now essential for Tony's campaign that at least one person should take up the baton, refuse to pay their licence fee and appeal any conviction. Anyone interested should contact him at

http://www.reinvestigate911.org/content/court-victory-protestor

Saturday 23 February

Tony Rooke has persuaded the courts that the BBC must answer the allegation that, in covering up information on the 9/11 attacks, they are colluding with terrorism.

Many truth activists are planning to attend the three hour hearing in front of a judge at Horsham magistrates court this Monday 25 February at 9.00am. There are only 30 seats available in the court room and they will be on a first come first serve basis. Some activists will be flying long distance.

The hearing will be at The Law Courts, Hurst Road, Horsham West Sussex England RH12 2ET.

At least one mainstream media crew will be present but Tony is asking activists not to talk to them and not to hold up placards which do not represent his views. Please go to bottom to see his message in full.

The message to the mainstream media is that Tony will be making a statement after the hearing and they should wait for that.

Campaigners are concerned that the media will seek out and interview whoever they can find pedalling a radical 9/11 theory and use them to attempt to discredit months of hard work. This has been a common tactic, for instance from the BBC in their Conspiracy Files programmes. To prevent this happening, organisers intend to physically obstruct interviews with mainstream media outside the court if necessary.

Activists attending the hearing are asked to make sure any signs represent the message of this campaign: that the BBC has covered up the truth on 9/11. Those with signs saying anything that would appear speculative to a general audience (eg 9/11 was an inside job) will be seen as undermining the court case and Tony's campaign.

On the factual side Tony is most concerned to highlight the symmetrical collapse of WTC Building 7, a large portion of which fell at free fall speed and which was announced by the BBC some half hour before it happened.

He says the Jimmy Saville scandal shows that the BBC were unable to investigate a child molester in their midst, so it is hardly surprising that they do not have the courage to impartially investigate the crime of the century.

'Despite recent offers from mainstream sources, Tony Rooke and his defence team feel that this has come all too late and is not consistent with far too many years of indifference towards the scientific facts that incontrovertibly disprove the official account of 9/11. Illegal wars have come and continue to be fought under the pretext of that day. Civil liberties have been erased along with the countless lives of troops, civilians and children abroad. These overtures of 'friendly' interest are not to be trusted. This court case has happened only BECAUSE of mainstream media's indifference, antipathy and often ridicule towards those who have researched and found the truth of 9/11, in tandem with a conspicuous silence in the face of such overwhelming evidence that disproves the official version. The mainstream press are to be treated with the contempt they deserve. This case is being fought by those whose ONLY interest is in seeing the science of the 9/11 event analysed by a court, a scrutiny of FACTS that SHOULD have been undertaken by the commercial press and the BBC a long time ago.

Any individual who engages in conversation with a demonstrably deceptive mainstream media at Horsham, does NOT speak for myself or the defence team and we disassociate ourselves from those who cannot resist such insincere overtures. Win, lose or draw, we hope that this court case prompts all those who mistrust our media, to engage in similar, peaceful action, until such numbers become impossible to ignore. The time for 'research' is long over. The obvious suspects, complicit in the orchestration and cover-up of 9/11, now need to be questioned by uncorrupted police officers. This will NOT be achieved sat in front of your PC.

Ignore ITN, ignore ANY mainstream journalist. They have earned your suspicion.'

Thank you to all who have supported this stand for progress.

Tony Rooke

[NeonLX]

Two years ago Clarke made a bombshell announcement: in the weeks before 9/11 a secret "decision" must have been taken at the CIA to over rule FBI officers who wanted to arrest some of the people who according to the official story went on to commit the attacks. Clarke says that if this decision had not been made the 9/11 attacks would not have happened.

Wasn't one of those FBI officers John O'Neil, and didn't he become chief of Security at the WTC right before 9/11?

[MacCruiskeen]

Mac,

As usual, your tenacity is a model for lovers of honesty everywhere. Raising a virtual Guinness to you at the moment

You alluded upthread to Rudin's and Boaden's responses to your query as "routinely but hideously evasive, and instructively so. It was a real lesson in how the BBC works, especially under pressure, and in how Britain's "special relationship" with the USA functions."

Can you share anything about the particulars? Did they email you within that week's window? If you're comfortable posting emails from them, I'd love to see them.

Thx.

Thanks, bks, you're very kind.

Pardon me for posting and running here, I'm extremely pushed for time right now, I'll try to get back to you properly at the weekend. Anyway, here's the reply I got from La Boaden on 26. Sep 2008 (I had forgotten I never got a reply from Rudin):

Dear Mr xxxxx

This is the reply that Mike Rudin asked to be sent to you in July and we do apologize that it seems not to have been sent:

-----

"The Conspiracy Files: 9/11 - The Third Tower" was a 59 minute programme and dealt with the main allegations that there was a conspiracy to demolish a third tower at the World Trade Centre - Building 7. Inevitably the duration means interviews have to be edited and we cannot include all the information we find during the course of our investigation.

However, I can assure you that the programme was carefully researched and we did not make comments without factual support.

We edited the interview with Barry Jennings both fairly and accurately. We also included Dylan Avery playing an interview he had conducted with Barry Jennings to talk about different interpretations of Barry's own words.

You will find more information on our website www.bbc.co.uk/conspiracyfiles and I have also an extensive blog on the Editors' Blog. We are also planning to update the programme once the NIST report is published."

-----

Mike Rudin also informs me that we have interviewed Michael Hess for an update programme to be transmitted on 12 October.

Again, I do apologize for your not receiving the earlier response.

Yours sincerely

pp Helen Boaden

Director, BBC News


From: xxxxx
Sent: 14 September 2008 22:37
To: zzHelen Boaden Complaints
Subject: Formal Complaint (Michael D. Hess & "The Third Tower")
Importance: High

Dear Helen Boaden,

Having had no reply to my reply to my email of July 15th 2008 (reprinted below), I hereby re-submit it as a formal complaint.

I would greatly appreciate, and indeed now expect, serious answers to the serious questions raised.

Yours sincerely,

[MacCruiskeen]

-----

Dear Ms. Boaden,


Your recent ‘Conspiracy Files’ programme, “The Third Tower” appears to merit an urgent formal complaint. (I have been unable to find email addresses for Mike Rudin or Guy Smith.)

Before submitting such a formal complaint, I respectfully request answers from them, or from you, to the following questions:


1. Why did you not once mention the name of Michael D. Hess, who accompanied Barry Jennings throughout his ordeal in World Trade Centre 7? Mr. Hess is a lawyer, and indeed a very prominent one. He is a key witness to the events of that day. His testimony would, therefore, be of enormous interest and great public importance. As you no doubt know, he is also a good friend of Rudolph Giuliani, who was Mayor of New York at the time of the attacks.

2. Did you ever, at any time, attempt to contact Michael D. Hess for an interview? If so, what was his response? If not, why not?

As is well known, Mr. Hess is already on the record with a very brief interview given to an American TV station shortly after he and Mr. Jennings were rescued together:

http://www.911blogger.com/node/10425


3. Why did you edit your interview with Barry Jennings (whom you describe as “the key witness”) so that – bizarrely, and without any explanation – he is suddenly heard speaking in the first person plural? Was this because he had mentioned Michael Hess? If so, why is Mr. Hess so entirely unmentionable, even if this results in grammatical absurdities being forced upon Mr. Barry Jennings, whom the BBC describes as “the key witness”?

4. Why did you falsify Mr. Jennings’ testimony by cross-cutting reconstructed scenes of his hurried departure down 17 flights of stairs at WTC7 with lengthy and disturbing documentary film sequences showing the collapse of the TwinTowers at 9:59 am and 10:28 am respectively? In his interview with the Loose Change people, Mr. Jennings clearly states: a) that he arrived in the OEM on the 23rd floor very shortly after 9:00 am; b) that he and Mr. Hess began to leave Building 7 as quickly as possible only minutes after getting there; and c) that the explosion which trapped him and Michael Hess on the 8th floor of Building 7 took place *before* either of the Twin Towers had collapsed:

http://www.911blogger.com/node/16573?page=1

5. Were you aware that Mr. Jennings says he has received threats at his place of work? If so, did you investigate this claim in any way?

I have some further questions, but I would appreciate hearing your response to these before I proceed any further. I should also advise you that I am furthering this email to a lawyer.

Yours sincerely,

[MacCruiskeen]

[AhabsOtherLeg]

Mac, sorry to ask old chap, but other than harassing the fragrant Helen Boaden and attempting to undermine the integrity of the world's (if not the universe's) most respected broadcasting institution, what are ye up tae these days?

[FourthBase]

Is the Jennings angle part of Rooke's suit against the BBC?
Would it be worthwhile to add it to Rooke's case, if it's not?
Would it be better to just file a separate Jennings-centric suit?