Request for correction to BBC NEWS
To: the editor of BBC NEWS Magazine online.
CC: various 9/11 Truth organizations, websites
This letter is a request for correction regarding mistakes found in article “9/11 conspiracy theories" published at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-14665953 on august 29, 2011.
1. On point 1, quote: “the transponder, which provides the exact location of the plane, was turned off or changed”
Airplane transponder is a machine that provides ground control with some data originating from the plane, such as the altitude of the plane, its name, its bearing and other data. It doesn’t provide horizontal (map) location of the plane, which can be read by primary radar data, which originates from ground radar installations and will continue to function whatever happens to the plane transponder.
Your assertion is wrong, so you’re requested to correct and clarify it
2. On point 2, quote: “Controlled demolition is always carried out from the bottom floors up”
As you can see in the destruction of 12-14 rue parant – glacis – Belfort on February 21, 2008 (link) controlled demolition can start from the middle floors downward.
Your assertion is wrong, so you’re requested to substitute the word “always” with “usually”
3. Also on point 2, quote: “No evidence has ever been found of explosive charges despite the extensive hand searches”
As clearly stated by NIST in their official website FAQ (point 12), quote: [Question] “Did the NIST investigation look for evidence of the WTC towers being brought down by controlled demolition? Was the steel tested for explosives or thermite residues? The combination of thermite and sulfur (called thermate) "slices through steel like a hot knife through butter."
[Answer] “NIST did not test for the residue of these compounds in the steel.”
Your assertion is false and misleading, so you’re requested to inform the reader that NIST admits it never looked for explosives/incendiaries residues during their official investigation (US congress H.R. 4687 gives mandate to NIST and NIST alone to investigate the collapse and provide an official explanation on the collapses causes and dynamics)
4. On point 4, quote: “the military never gave orders to the air force to shoot the commercial airliner down.”
As clearly stated in 9/11 Commission Report page 40-41 in che chapter titled “United 93 and the shootdown order”, quote: “The Vice President authorized fighter aircraft to engage the inbound plane. He told us he based this authorization on his earlier conversation with the President”
You may remind that in the United States the President is also the commander in chief of the military
Also, in the same page we have, quote: “At approximately 10:30, the shelter started receiving reports of another hijacked plane, this time only 5 to 10 miles out. Believing they had only a minute or two, the Vice President again communicated the authorization to ‘engage’ or ‘take out’ the aircraft.”
Your assertion is two times false, so you’re requested to correct and clarify it.
5. Point 5, quote: “Some scientists, who are sceptical of the official account, have examined four dust samples from Ground Zero and claim to have found thermitic material which reacts violently when heated up”
The scientific study you refer to is “Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe”, published by The Open Chemical Physics Journal. It is a peer-reviewed paper, which to date (august 29, 2011) has never been challenged by another peer-reviewed study or publication, as such the information within is considered scienfically correct until such a confutation appear.
So it’s not a mere claim by some sceptical scientist, but science position on the issue.
Your assertion is misleading, so you’re requested to provide credit to the study as a peer-reviewed scientific study
6. Also on point 5, quote: “Furthermore, there is an alternative explanation for the "thermitic material" the sceptical scientists found in the dust - it is just a type of primer paint”
The study itself poses the same question and scientifically refutes it – you may look in the document itself, point 7 “Could the Red Chip Material be Ordinary Paint?” to learn the reasons why the material cannot be any type of primer paint.
Your assertion is refuted by a unchallenged, peer-reviewed scientific study, and as such you must inform the readers your opinion is not scientifically based.
I hope to see the corrections soon, in a much needed confirmation that journalism has no master but truth.
Sincerely
Riccardo Pizzirani - Sertes
- Sertes's blog
- Login to post comments
They should also point out..
...that NIST came to these conclusions despite:
1. Stopping their investigation at the "point of collapse"
2, Experiments conducted by NIST did not agree with their conclusions.
3. NIST catalogs only 236 pieces of steel (.3% of the total steel) and actually tested far less of it.
4. NIST refuses to release thousands of files, photos, and inputs they claim support their conclusions.
5. Providing no experiment to support the claim that the molten substance coming out of WTC2 was aluminum.
6. Ignoring all contradictory eye witness accounts.
Also on point 5: WTC 7 Did not fall at "near free-fall" for 2.25 seconds NIST writes: ..the north falls AT gravitational acceleration.. and adds " ..this free fall drop continued for approximately 8 stories... [my emphasis]
Of course, one can go on forever regarding the WTC7 report. as911truth.org also has an outstanding article just recently published by Andrea Dreger entitled How NIST Avoided a Real Analysis of the Physical Evidence of WTC Steel
How can anyone take these reports seriously is beyond me.
Good luck with your correction requests, I'd be interested in their reply.
peace..
dtg
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
"To be persuasive we must be believable; to be believable we must be credible; to be credible we must be truthful." -- Edward R. Murrow
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Fourth point
I submitted a post at Blogger (http://911blogger.com/news/2008-09-19/did-air-force-scramble-jets-shoot-down-flight-93-two-views) that provides another authoritative source claiming that jets were scrambled and given a command to shoot down Flight 93.
About BBC's complaints process
I earlier sent an email to BBC's Editorial Standards Committee (BBC Trust) at
trust.enquiries@bbc.co.uk.
However, I was answered that the role of the BBC Trust, as set out in the BBC’s Royal Charter, is distinct from that of the BBC’s management and that the responsibility for the BBC’s editorial content, within the guidelines set by the BBC Trust, rests ultimately with the Director-General, as Editor-in-Chief.
I was further informed that there is a complaints process to deal with instances where audiences feel that there has been a breach of these guidelines, requiring that complaints are dealt with in the first instance by the BBC Executive. My email was forwarded to BBC Audience Services. I haven't yet received a response from them.
The BBC's complaints website is this:
www.bbc.co.uk/complaints
NIST did release a huge number of photos and videos...
... in response to a lawsuit-backed FOIA request supported by one of 911Blogger's owners.
I agree with and appreciate all of dtg86's other points.
BBC ANSWER!
Dear Mr Pizzirani
Thank you for taking the time to write to us.
Below is a response from Mike Rudin, the author of the piece.
Yours sincerely
BBC News website Magazine
1. transponder
The transponder was turned off according to Colin Scoggins, who was at Boston FAA Control on 9/11. The transponder does provide information about the location of the plane as you point out yourself the "transponder is a machine that provides ground control with some data originating from the plane, such as the altitude of the plane, its name, its bearing and other data". The transponder gets interrogated by the primary radar and that provides the location.
I have changed the sentence to "the transponder, which identifies the plane, was turned off or changed"
2. "Controlled demolition is always carried out from the bottom floors up"
I had not seen the video before. I have changed the text to say "nearly always"
3. "No evidence has ever been found of explosive charges despite the extensive hand searches"
There was a huge hand search operation led by FEMA.. Every inch of the site was picked over by hundreds of people. No one reported any signs of explosives.
Dr Gene Corley, Structural Engineer, was the lead investigator for the first inquiry by the Federal Emergency Management Agency. He told the Conspiracy Files in a previous programme:
"We looked at everything. Controlled demolition was ruled out because there was no evidence of controlled demolition, Interviewer. Question: And you looked for evidence of it?
A: We, we looked for it, yes, and we found no evidence of controlled demolition."
4. "the military never gave orders to the air force to shoot the commercial airliner down."
On Page 43 of the 9/11 Commission Report, you refer to, it makes clear Vice President's shoot down order was not passed on: "In short, while leaders in Washington believed that the fighters above them had been
instructed to "take out" hostile aircraft, the only orders actually conveyed to the pilots were to "ID type and tail"."
5. "Some scientists, who are sceptical of the official account, have examined four dust samples from Ground Zero and claim to have found thermitic material which reacts violently when heated up"
Indeed we interviewed Professor Niels Harrit, one of the joint authors of the paper for the programme. We also interviewed two leading scientists from the Carnegie Mellon University who challenged the claims
that it was thermitic material.
And on 6. Professors Fruehan and Pistorius suggest there could be a simpler explanation. The programme sets out more detail.