American Nostalgic Sentiment For The BBC And Misplaced
Trust.

Introduction.

The BBC (British Broadcasting Corporation), has a unique relationship to and
place in history concerning modern world media. It is an entity which it has reported,
documented, educated and dramatised though it's various media the very world in
which it exists.  It is a national and international broadcasting
corporation established by a royal charter.  The organisation, although
having undergone significant changes due to the new-media technological
revolution, remains a behemoth.  The BBC has adapted continuously
over the decades to remain a leading world news and media source.  It has
diversified into foreign markets aggressively using it's impressive heritage, as
a powerful marketing tool.  Regardless of it's market friendly appearances
abroad, the BBC is still a state owned, state funded media conglomerate. 
The phrase media conglomerate is important, as the BBC exists in radio,
television, internet, and print publications.  The BBC importantly is a
state owned corporation belonging to the worlds 5th largest economy. 
Despite being publicly funded this corporation exists in the free market too,
and raises money across the world, through the sale of it's broadcasts and other
media related materials.  A giant of the media age, disguised often as the
honest broker of world affairs; the BBC is funded by an annual tax of $230 USD,
paid by every household in the UK, and still the corporation is able to sell
broadcasts across the world for even more money!  In 2005 the BBC has the
largest budget of any UK broadcaster with an operating expenditure of £4
billion/$7 billion USD (that's $7000,000,000 US).

Sentimentality and Nostalgia.

Americans in particular are sentimental towards the BBC, possibly because the
BBC makes Americans feel good about themselves.  Numerous examples of why
this maybe the case can be postulated, two summary examples are given here:

• Firstly The BBC avoids producing glossy, glitzy dramas full of beautiful
  people, which is the very the stuff of the US networks such as Buffy the
  Vampire Slayer, Beverly Hills 90210, Sex in the City & Baywatch.  The BBC
  produces a more earthy, rugged hero in it's dramas to which the common man can
  relate to or laugh along with.  This is not unlike the Soviet style 'hero
  of the people', and in fact that is exactly what the BBC is attempting to do,
  in a more subtle and not so blatant way.  So as we identify with the very
  normal looking 'Dr. Who' and his companions who are hapless common folk, or
  the disaster prone Mrs. Bucket of "Keeping Up Appearances". We share the
  roller-coaster of the ordinary life, with the people of a run down housing
  estate somewhere in the north of England. With the people who struggle to deal
  with everyday problems, we see ourselves in the drama. As the real-life hero,
  we share the emotions, the person we can laugh with, cry with etc.  
  Most Americans realise that they will not be a Vampire slayer, or live in
  Beverly Hills 90210, or own a vast collection of expensive shoes while
  simultaneously having sexual liaisons by the dozen.  So we develop a
  subconscious trust for an organisation that can appeal to and understand our
  very inner most emotions & our way of life. We bond with the BBC and it's
  masterful identification of and portrayal of 'We the
  people'.   We can relate to the bygone age, when people
  lived together and were happy living for the simple things in life such as in
  'Last of the Summer Wine', or the real life struggles of 'Rumpole of the
  Bailey' against the corrupt and pompous establishment.
• Secondly the BBC has it's own brand of news reporting, spoken in
  authoritarian, pontificating BBC English.  When the BBC reports news
  "It's a statement of fact", why? Because you heard it on the BBC and it was
  said in that self proclaiming and stern British accent.  This is no small
  matter in fact, the BBC have identified this, and there is an accent in the UK
  called 'BBC English', except that no one talks in 'BBC English', except the
  BBC.  It's the accent of authority, honestly, decency, tradition and fair
  play.  Can we ever say the same for 'CNN English' or 'Bill O'Riley
  English'.  Americans subconsciously conjure up black and white images of
  WWII, of the hardy Brits, being bombed by the dastardly Germans, and dying in
  their thousands as soon as they hear this 'BBC English' accent it seems. 
  We remember all that is right about 'old England' , the people who brought you
  'Keeping Up Appearances' & 'Antiques Road Show' wouldn't lie to you, would
  they?

September 11th 2001 and July 7th 2005.

Since 9/11 and 7/7 the BBC's has been in the vanguard of
complicity in perpetuating the official myths, denying
the existence of questions, doubts
or any honest query of the "facts"
given in the official myths.  The BBC, although not
alone, has openly attacked through ridicule anyone in the public eye
who has held views which are divergent from the official government/secret
service line (Michael Meacher and David Shayler for example). 
There has been a general consensus of media exclusion in reporting of skeptical
views, but the BBC in particular has played an important role in this
censorship.  The BBC's own investigative and science documentary series for
decades ahead of their time, have been totally absent of either investigation or
science when it comes to 9/11 and 7/7.  During the recent fiasco over the
'shampoo and lipstick' bomb plot many BBC journalists were at the forefront of
parroting pathetic MI5/MI6 spin and hearsay.  This fear-mongering,
reporting of fiction spread across the globe, just as night follows day, as the
BBC has journalists embedded in the news media across the globe.

    As described by Webster G. Tarpley in
9/11 Synthetic Terror Made in the USA, it goes without saying that the effective
political exploitation of a large-scale terrorist operation, like 9/11 or the
so-called 'foiled liquid explosive plot', requires an extraordinary degree of
complicity and compliance of the controlled corporate media.  There is no
doubt that there is a wholesale infiltration of the
BBC by security service moles. It
would not be surprising to find that in a global media conglomerate such as the
BBC, the number of MI5 moles exceed the number of actual 'employees' when it
comes to journalism, reporting, editing etc.  In fact the cover
provided by the globally respected BBC, is a fantastic way to move agents around
the world to handle spies and collect information on five continents. 
Even though "shampoo plot" was scientifically debunked and ridiculed,
at this stage the British have released two individuals without charge and have
required the suspension of civil liberties &
habeas corpus to charge those they have charged; the BBC remains silent.

    During the shampoo fiasco, while the ridicule was
unfolding, wild quotes made by US/UK politicians were broadcast around the world by the BBC.
Who can forget 'This is the greatest threat we've faced since WWII' comment by
the UK homeland security chief?  No comment was made by the BBC, or the
other main stream media, as to the lunacy around confiscating potentially
explosive liquid/gel materials from the travelling public only to throw it
together, in one place,  into a vast plastic garbage collector at the
airport.  However this didn't stop BBC journalist Gordon Carrera reporting
in the L.A. Times that "This was a very serious and imminent threat” and that
"“weren’t just talking about it, but they had the capability and the material to
carry this out”. Oh really sir, why have two of the jihadists
been since released, and why is the evidence largely circumstantial? Why is it
that in a case where evidence was supposedly overwhelming and compelling do you require
applications to courts to extend custody of subjects with suspension of their
rights in order to continue holding them without charge? No further mention of the
torture chambers in Pakistan where information regarding this plot originated, or probably
where this plot was hatched has been since mentioned. So much for the imminent threat, where most of those arrested didn't even hold passports! Carrera was no doubt directly reading from a security service brief, and anyone who has followed this pathetic and sorry provocateured plot from the start must now realise that this is the case.  The BBC was also widely and hysterically reporting "all the main
players involved in this plot have been arrested" but they now give little
importance to the fact that two have been released & others have been charged on either
potentially manufactured/circumstantial evidence or using evidence obtained from
a torture chamber in Pakistan!!! 

The technical impossibility of constructing a liquid explosive which has been
highlighted on numerous occasions on 9-11 truth sites has never once been
mentioned by the BBC! Despite the overtly prejudicial government and police
prejudgement of pending trials for some of the members of the case, via the very
grandiose fanciful statments made by the government and police, the BBC has remained silent.

Not only silent but acquiescently complicit in the silence requested by the government in
reporting the case, despite the government itself band-standing at the
slightest opportunity!

MI5/MI6/CIA assets in the field agents of disinformation,
interrogation, investigation, distortion.

On Sunday 27th August, Alex Jones reported that for the past two days the BBC
had been embedded with him in Texas. This included a BBC presence at the 9-11 truth event
held in Dallas hosted by AJ and fellow 9-11 truth'er Jim Marrs.  During the
Sunday KLBJ radio show hosted by Alex a caller from England informed AJ, that
the BBC was simply there to write an attack piece, and that it has openly
ridiculed and ignored  AJ's friends in the UK truth movement such as
Michael Meacher and David Shayler. AJ said the BBC had "sneaked around" for two
days "recording everything", but he honestly thought that the piece would be
middle of the road at that time.

    The next day on AJ's syndicated radio show it was a
slightly different view held by AJ as to the BBC's motivation and intentions. 
AJ referred to the further interview the BBC had requested, after the KLBJ radio show on
Sunday; even after they had interviewed him continuously for two days. During
which time the BBC had continuously denied and ignored large chunks of AJ's (and
the truth movements) claims of proof regarding 9-11. They don't need to torture you
to get a measure of a man. They can interview and interrogate while you
laugh and joke and share a meal at your local Chinese restaurant. 
The truth is even the astute Alex Jones wasn't aware of what
was going on. He himself stated that after the interview with the BBC he felt
"exhausted" and "like the soul has been sucked out of me."  Yes, that's
what interrogation does to a man, even if it comes with a smile and fortune
cookie!  AJ went on to say on the radio show on Monday 29th August that he
knew that they probably would air a hit-piece about the 9-11 truth movement. 

    What's even more interesting is that during this embedded
interview with the BBC in Texas, the popular UK rock band 'MUSE' a headline act
at the UK's largest summer music festival (Reading, England) had taken to the
stage.  With a crowd of 80,000 in attendance and many more millions viewing
around the world,  the lead singer of the band wore a T-Shirt with the
words 'TerrorStorm' emblazoned across the front!  The
BBC reported this, however ignored the meaning of the words and omitted any
mention or  reference to Alex Jone's documentary Terrorstorm in the
article they published.  Despite one of their crack commando
journalistic reporting teams being embedded with Alex Jones in Texas, selective
reporting and selective omission was the order of the day in that particular BBC
article.  They weren't in Texas to report to the public about Alex Jones
and the 9-11 Truth movement, they were in Texas to gather a first hand
psychological report to then pass on to the security services, journalism is a
secondary operation.

Conclusion.

No corporate media entity can be trusted when dealing with 9/11 truth or
state sponsored terror, that is the one of the lessons learnt by the 9/11
truth movement.  This includes sources considered open and independent such as
Wikipedia or the BBC.  The BBC deserves special attention simply because of it's 'close
personal friend nature'. The secret services and the BBC are
organs of the state, they are hand in glove. This hand in glove seeks to
uphold the current myth and status-quo with regards the lies surrounding 9/11, 7/7 and the
synthetic war on terror above all else,  this protects and perpetuates the Anglo-American
empire at this critical juncture in history.