9/11 Truth Campaign (Britain & Ireland)
A Report Originally Compiled
Rt. Hon. Michael Meacher, MP
and any other
October 28th 2006
More examples of correspondence are contained in Appendix A.
9.1.1 With Liz Blackman (Erewash)
A sample of Correspondence is included in the Appendix.
9.1.2 Simon Ralli/Robinson’s MP
He has encouraged people to correspond with their MPs. He documents his meeting, on Friday 7th January 2005, here:
9.1.3 With Francis Maude
This was posted by Martin Dean, Green Party Candidate from Hull:
Posted: Wed Sep 27, 2006 9:31 pm Post subject: Targeting selected MPs in larger numbers.
I have just recieved a letter from my MP Francis Maude, (he always replies to my letters).
I sent him a quite detailed e-mail about 9/11 covering the collapse of building 7 and the way that the twin towers fell, freefall speed, melting point of steel, etc.
His reply was this: "Thank you for your e-mail with your interesting theory about the events surrounding 9/11. I have no reason to disbelieve the official version of events."
It is a common occurrence that words similar to “your interesting theory” are used in responses to our letters. Readers do not seem to realise that 300 Scholars are saying the same thing. Readers also do not realise that the action of Gravity is governed by a Law – this law has been established in Science for over 300 years and is not subject to debate. (The theory of how a gravitational force is produced is subject to debate – the fact that it works and affects things in a certain way is not open to debate.)
Tim Gray, another campaigner, wrote to his MP (David Crausby) regarding the destruction of WTC 7. He received this response from Ian Pearson, Foreign Minister (PTO).
He then wrote back thus:
Dear David Crausby,
Thank you again for the contact you have made with me in response to my letters.
I am, however, disappointed that I haven’t received a second reply from Ian Pearson MP regarding World Trade Centre building 7. In his last letter he wrote that:
"..the WTC building 7 was not attacked. A number of WTC and other buildings (around the perimeter of the twin towers) were subsequently pulled down in the aftermath of the attacks, but this was because of structural dangers of the site…"
I take this to mean that he is saying WTC was demolished in a controlled demolition, in the same manner as the other buildings which were demolished some weeks later. This is also my opinion on WTC 7’s collapse. Mr Pearson may be interested to know that this opinion is currently not one shared by the official 9/11 commission.
Mr Pearson‘s letter also tells me he is "the minister responsible for our relations with the United States". If this government is in disagreement with the 9/11 commission and The National Institute for Science and Technologies on the collapse of WTC building 7, shouldn’t it be examining the rest of the commission report?
I look forward to hearing from you again.
He received this response (PTO):
There seemed to be a concerted effort to have a dialogue with several campaigners in mid-late August 2006. When a number of Campaigners e-mailed him regarding 9/11 Truth Issues (such as the destruction of the WTC), they received responses.
"tell you what, I will compromise. I cant do the physics, but will consult people who can understand it. But reflecting on our exchange yesterday, I can only add meanwhile that however flawed the physics involved in the official version of 9/11 the version of the politics you invite me to consider ie yr version, are preposterous. Not knowing much about history, so i suspect, you do not seem to realise what a large elephant trap you are almost certainly in, nor what nasty beasties lurk there !! best wishes"
Another reply was:
"thanks for the note, I will take advice on the contents which are above the level of chemistry which I abandoned at Bodmin Grammar School in 1961. Meanwhile, I would repeat that I am in favour of scepticism, but not of cynicism. Far from taking what the authorities say on trust, I see the media as being awash with scepticism, not to mention cynicism, a fine lack of discrimination usually evident. That’s what troubles me: do we really think the people we elect are fools and liars ? best wishes"
Another Campaigner’s exchange:
MW: I think what Lennie Henry probably meant was ”scratch a communist and you will often find a fascist inside,” after all they did vote for Hitler’s Enabling Law which only the fuddy duddy liberal Social Dems opposed. My difficulty with yr tone is the rock hard assumption that ST is a lackey of the multinational dollar ( remind me again, which multinational corporation owns the Guardian?) who is wrong whenever he disagrees with yr own jaundiced view: no harm in the MSM being bashed by MediaLens or by you, we hand it out so we must take it. But exchanges between the likes of you and ST are meant to be a conversation, not a fatwah.
Not sure why you feel so jaundiced anyway, you are lucky enough to live in cirumstances of peace and plenty with little risk that the secret police
will knock on your door. But as I get older I feel increasingly that people’s world view is more a reflection of their own experience/psychology/ circumstance/ in some cases even public school flogging of yesteryear/ than of what we laughingly call objective reality.
Campaigner Mark Gobell also wrote:
Dear Mr White
I have been debating the merits of contacting the mainstream media in this country to present evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.
Some feel strongly that there is a point with some possible tangible outcome from their efforts while others counter with "you are wasting your time".
I am curious to know what you think about this debate.
Michael White’s reply:
Re: Your Opinion Please
It’s always wise and proper to seek to stimulate debate on what you may
feel are neglected areas of public debate. There are many such.
I read some of the conspiracy theory stuff on 9/11 which people like you send me.
Recently I onpassed a sample of it to a scientifically competetent friend
for his verdict on the physics.
Meanwhile I say to people who suggest it was a US plot not an Islamicist plot ” I don’t know enough physics to judge yr claims about the twin towers, I do know enough politics to know that the politics which prompt yr claims are pretty wild.
The people you accuse are neither wicked enough nor clever enough to do plot what you suggest.”
BUT do keep going, conspiracy theory is occasionally right !
Similarly, another campaigner received this response:
thanks for the note, in yr honour I read the BYU professor’s lengthy paper. I do not understand the physics, of course, that’s way out of my reach, but I do understand the politics. what yr man is hinting, but not saying, is that a controlled explosion, within the technical capability of very few experts, brought the buildings down. He does not say who would have been in a position to do this thing, or why ? Nor why it would not have emerged by now in the world’s leakiest – ie most open – society. Stripped of the physics that still reads like conspiracy theory to me, all good clean fun, as I said earlier, but actually not. So I return to the core question: if you are right, who did it and why ? If I am right, the buildings collapsed in this unprecedented way because they had just been whacked in an unprecedented way. ”High concept, low tech,” like the man said. They hit the WTC with a large pair of petrol bombs…
Another Campaigner, David Griffin, also wrote several times and received several responses, for example:
David, it is ok to be sceptical, but not to push water up hill. All the cases you cite have their flaws, as you suggest, but to believe for instance that the WTT attacks did not occur as the MSM narrative suggests – in broad terms, not every detail, that`s life – is just silly and not helpful to the cause you seek to promote. It also puts you in some very unflattering company down the centuries. Conspiracy theory cab be fun, but like other bad fun habits it makes you go blind eventually. best wishes.
These sorts of comments from an Assistant Editor of a National Broadsheet Newspaper are, in the author’s view, extremely peculiar, even when the general incredulity of 9/11 Truth Issues are taken into account.
In May 2006, several campaigners had e-mail exchanges with a BBC reporter called Paul Reynolds, following publication of the story about the new Pentagon video tapes.
Strangely, this story had a clickable e-mail link at the end. Few, if any, other BBC stories have such a link.
Below are some e-mail exchanges with Paul Reynolds.
From: Andrew Johnson [mailto:ad.johnson@ntlworld….]
Sent: 17 May 2006 23:21
To: Paul Reynolds-INTERNET
Cc: Justin Walker; zzHelen Boaden Complaints
Subject: Latest Pentagon Video Release
Dear Mr Reynolds,
I am sure you have received a large volume of e-mail pointing out the problems with the article at:
My guess would be that none of the dissent and disagreement with the factual content of your article, will be reported on the BBC website. And if a "send us your thoughts" link is added, comments will be censored. And of course isn’t it correct that these "Conspiracy Theorists" (a euphemism for "brainless idiots" really, let’s be honest) are somehow genetically different from everyone else?
I would, as a member of Scholars For 9/11 Truth (www.st911.org), like to mention that it seems strange to suggest that perhaps 10 new grainy frames of video showing perhaps a total of say 500 – 1000 pixels of supposed aeroplane nose-cone will crush or derail the burgeoning 9/11 Truth Movement.
So let’s be honest here. The mainstream media, as regards the 9/11 Truth issue, is now behaving like a bunch of beleaguered politicians – they are saying "Everything is fine – nothing to see here. We are telling you it like it is. Really we are" when actually, there is whole swathe of news they are not reporting and they are in deep denial. They grow more and more out of touch with reality and the people express disillusionment and indulge in an increasing amount of derision of what was once seen as a "credible entity".
With the marginalisation by the mainstream media of the expertise, science, and data presented by many unsalaried and independent researchers, as well as slightly more coherent groups like ST911 and SPINE (www.physics911.net/s…) how long can the BBC and other media organisations remain "aloof" and arrogant about the truth? They must soon acknowledge the tremendously serious situation we are all in. However, what you do will not stop the 100’s of people have taken it upon themselves to instantiate "new media networks" and share the information using their own time and resources – this is what I and many of my fellow "truthers" are doing and will continue to do so for as long as we are able.
And as regards the pentagon, why don’t they release the other 84 tapes as well – that would surely settle the matter (if this latest release is legitimate, then why is there a problem with the other 84 tapes – which MUST surely show the same thing?)
So what’s more important then – your soul or your job?
I made my choice quite some time ago.
British 9/11 Truth Campaign (www.nineeleven.co.uk)
Scholars for 9/11 Truth (www.st911.org)
From: Paul Reynolds-INTERNET [mailto:Paul.Reynolds-INTERN…]
Sent: 20 May 2006 12:13
Subject: RE: Latest Pentagon Video Release
Perhaps you could give me your response to the findings of the Armed Forces Medical Examiner that the remains of passengers from AA77 were found at the Pentagon?
From: Andrew Johnson [mailto:ad.johnson@ntlworld….]
Sent: 20 May 2006 23:16
To: Paul Reynolds-INTERNET
Subject: RE: Latest Pentagon Video Release
Thanks for your message. Yes – I have seen the pictures of those remains. They could have been the remains of people who were in the Pentagon when the object hit. How can we know?
I am surprised that you responded with a question. As you should know if you study the evidence, the Pentagon incident has many aspects which are less clear cut – but there are too many anomalies to accept the official story.
The thrust of my arguments are based on the physics of the collapses of WTC 1, 2 & 7. I won’t repeat them, but rather refer to a "rats’ nest" of data which has been posted as a result of a "challenge" I placed on a physics board.
Take it or leave it.
It is provable beyond doubt that the BBC is in breach of its charter for not reporting the formation of our Scholars’ Group (www.st911.org) – whatever happened at the Pentagon or not – none of your reporters have reported the formation of this group. I think you will be reporting it at some point.
I am also puzzled why your article included an e-mail link at the bottom when the vast majority of others didn’t – it’s like you were putting some bait at the end of your article – or maybe it’s just me being too cynical. No matter. It’s a minor detail.
Another Campaigner Wrote
In your final e-mail in our previous exchange, regarding the 757 which allegedly passed through the outer wall of the Pentagon, you wrote: "Of course it could because it did!"
So I hope you are big enough to read the article which I have copied below, because the person who wrote it, an aeronautical engineer and qualified pilot, takes the opposite view, which could be summed up: Of course it didn’t because it couldn’t have even hit the building in the way it was alleged to have done!
I found the post while looking for some information on "ground effect", the phenomenon which prevents an aircraft with a low wing-loading, such as a commercial jet, from flying close to the ground at high speeds. If you haven’t the inclination to read the entire article, allow me to bring a single paragraph to your attention.
"At any rate, why is such ultra-low-level flight aerodynamically impossible? Because the reactive force of the hugely powerful downwash sheet, coupled with the compressibility effects of the tip vortices, simply will not allow the aircraft to get any lower to the ground than approximately one half the distance of its wingspan—until speed is drastically reduced, which, of course, is what happens during normal landings."
The wing span of a Boeing 757 is 124 feet, which means that such an aircraft could not have sustained low-level flight, below 60 feet at 530 mph, in order to knock down or damage some light poles, which were some distance from the building, then impact the Pentagon at ground floor level.
Perhaps you could contact the BBC’s aeronautical correspondent, or some engineers at Farnborough or writers at Janes to verify, or otherwise, the above claims.
From: Paul Reynolds-INTERNET
Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 3:44 PM
Subject: RE: The disappearing 757
I have noticed that a feature of conspiracy theorists is often that such and such an event "could not have happened."
You should look at it the other way round — the event happened and how do we explain it.
And I’ve noticed that the those who earn their living writing for the mainstream media are not about to put their livelihoods in jeopardy by looking at alternative views on events which, to anyone with an enquiring mind, seem to carry more than a hint of the impossible: A plane which could not possibly fly below 60 feet at 530 mph making a hole in the ground floor of a building through which it could not possibly have passed, yet leaving nothing of itself outside the building, for example.
Believe the "videos", "eye-witness" accounts and the 9/11 Commission, Paul, your paycheck will be safe.
I guess you didn’t take the time to read the article.
Additional Exchanges with BBC Information are included in Appendix A.
One campaigner wrote to the BBC referring to the Simon mayo radio show, where Simon Mayo made the erroneous comment that Iran had nuclear weapons. Below is the reply.
“In the Simon Mayo show Thursday, 11 may 06 @ approx 1hr 07 mins and 50 seconds into the interview with Paddy Ashdown, Mr Mayo broadcasts the erroneous comment Quote "one country that *definitely* does have WMD is of course Iran". There is no proof of this and I believe that Mr Mayo should be reprimanded for his fallacious commentary.”
Thank you for your e-mail regarding Simon Mayo’s Radio Five Live
Programme broadcast on 11 May. Please accept our apologies for the delay in our response, we hope that you have not been too inconvenienced.
I understand that you were annoyed by a statement made by Simon Regarding Iran having weapons of mass destruction. What Simon meant was Iran’s nuclear programme which is the cause of so much controversy at the present time. I appreciate that you feel his statement was factually inaccurate, however, in response to his comment his guest Paddy Ashdown said:
"In my own view, Iran has been developing this capacity for so long that it wasn’t just the result of what happened in Iraq what I’m very clear about is that if we had not made it clear over Iran, it won’t be the first time in history we do the right thing for the wrong reasons by the way, but if we had not made it clear in Iraq that we took weapons of mass destruction seriously then I don’t think we would have any leverage over Iran at all."
Our ‘Inside Iran’ webpages take an in depth look into the current
Crisis and our Middle East pages also contain various stories looking at Iran’s enrichment programme:
Once again I appreciate that you feel Simon’s remark was inaccurate and I can assure you Mr Cooke that your comments have been fully registered and have been made available to the production team and senior BBC management.
Thank you again for taking the time to contact the BBC.
Prof. David Ray Griffin has suggested that a European Panel be formed to further the cause of 9/11 Truth. It could involve people like Andreas Von Beulow, Thierry Meyssan and others. This panel would be responsible for pressing for new investigations and hearings. However, it would be presented with many problems – such as having a legal foundation on which witnesses could be subpoenaed, and it would need powers to obtain evidence which has been concealed.
The Universities have not been heavily campaigned with up to now – only a handful of Campaigners seem to have connections with Universities. It is seemingly Calum Douglas who is spearheading attempts to wake more people up at Oxford Brookes University.
It was hoped that with the formation of Scholars for 9/11 Truth, more Universities would “come on board”. However, it currently seems to be the case that President Dwight Eisenhower was correct: “…the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity.”
The problems of and reasons for denial probably run deeper than this, however. Nevertheless, it seems likely that Universities could be an area where large numbers of campaigners become mobilised.
Andrew Johnson’s request to the [Contact Me Ref-1] to present evidence based on Prof Steve Jones work was refused in February 2006 (See Appendix A).
10.3.1 Church of England
As mentioned in the report in section 7.2, the Archbishop of York has been approached. Additionally, Belinda McKenzie has written to the Archbishop of Canterbury regarding 9/11 Truth issues. She also has some acquaintance with several Bishops and is therefore passing on information to them.
Several Campaigners seem to be members of Church Communities and 1 or 2 have apparently managed to discuss the issue within their own small communities.
10.3.2 Muslim Communities
Moeen Yasseen has been active in certain Muslim Communities, partly through an initiative called Global Vision 2000 (See www.gv2000.com/). However, despite several talks being attended by Muslim Community members (the author was present at one in Leeds and one in Derby where he spoke to some members of the community), there is little visible interest from them in standing against the propaganda which has blamed them for something they bear little or no responsibility for. It seems that they are afraid to speak up for themselves – but this is probably for the same reason as many others have a fear of speaking out – the one of ridicule.
An architect from Kent, Abdulwahid Hamid, was commissioned by the Muslim Council of Britain to investigate the 9/11 attacks. He visited the States and wrote a report concluding that Islamists were not behind the 9/11 attacks but elements of the US government were. The MCB published his report but ignored its conclusions.
Dr Mohammad Naseem, Imam of the Birmingham Central Mosque, has made public statements supporting us and as a result has faced a campaign by Blairite Muslims in Birmingham to unseat him from his post. He appealed to his congregation and reportedly received their unanimous backing. He also maintains that an apparent terrorist cell was discovered by a member of his congregation and reported to the West Midlands police. They enthusiastically started investigating the case, but were suddenly and mysteriously called off it by other police who later appeared. No explanation as to why the case was dropped was forthcoming from the West Midlands police. A report of this incident has reportedly appeared in a British Urdu language newspaper.
A Muslim academic at the University of Sussex, Nafeez Mossadeq Ahmed, has had published two books on 9/11, The War on Freedom and later The War on Truth. Both conclude that there is a massive cover up going on. This year he has had published a third book, The London Bombings – an Independent Inquiry, which argues that the UK government’s narrative of what happened that day does not accord with the evidence.
To understand why differences in opinion have developed in the Scholars for 9/11 Truth group, it is necessary to understand that the revelation of the truth is seemingly a layered process. There is a large volume of evidence to work through and for example, the evidence of Controlled Demolition of WTC Buildings 1,2 and 7 is overwhelming (despite what all of the official reports say).
Even so, there seem to be some unusual aspects to be considered in the destruction of WTC 1 & 2. Whilst Prof Steve Jones paper explores the use of Thermite and Thermate as agents used for cutting of steel girders, his paper does not explore the incredible pulverisation of building and other materials which is extremely obvious in the physical evidence. To give one example: many of the images show much of the Aluminium cladding of the WTC towers and thousands of sheets of paper strewn around the debris site of the towers. However, the filing cabinets and draws which contained these papers are nowhere to be seen. Neither burning jet fuel nor thermite/thermate would leave such office papers intact & strewn throughout neighbouring blocks.
Several Scholars – including Prof Morgan Reynolds, Prof Judy Wood and Materials Science Graduate Rick Rajter have therefore noted that Steve Jones has ignored or overlooked this evidence. They have published their own articles highlighting the highly anomalous nature of certain items of physical evidence. (For example, see www.nomoregames.net/… ) One example of possible significance is that Prof. Jones does not have a clear "chain of custody" for his test samples that tested positive for thermite-type substances. What this means is that the test samples may or may not have come from "ground zero."
Steve Jones has published some rebuttals to certain aspects of these criticisms, but in the opinion of a number of people (this author included) from a Scientific Standpoint, some of the rebuttals seem less than satisfactory.
There are now accusations of each being counter-intelligence operatives and the like. Several Scholars, the afore-mentioned 3 included, are also questioning other aspects of evidence – such as the true nature of what impacted WTC 1 & 2. Again, this has split the truth movement – with each side accusing the other of “bad science”.
This author’s view is that the methods used to attack the anomalous evidence, mentioned above, are little different to those used by people, not familiar with 9/11 Truth evidence, to attack the Truth movement as a whole. Encouraging such in-fighting would be a standard divide-and-conquer, psychological operations tactic of the 9/11 cover-up group.
In this author’s view, the true perpetrators are managing the release of 9/11 Truth information to achieve the best possible outcome for themselves. Whoever committed the true crimes on 9/11 had a lot of power and a lot of money. It therefore follows that their influence in global affairs and corporations is very strong indeed (and it is this which has allowed the media complicity and cover up to continue for so long).
In recent months, a number of the Scholars for 9/11 Truth have appeared on the USA’s most popular news channel, Fox News – appearances by Prof Jim Fetzer, Prof Kevin Barrett, Prof Morgan Reynolds and Dr Robert Bowman (see clips on www.911blogger.com) as well as coverage of the statements of Charlie Sheen on CNN seem to indicate that there is an active policy of revelation in operation in the USA.
In the UK, none of these issues have been covered – at all – on ANY of terrestrial or digital TV channels. The closest comparison to this what has been seen is Prof David Ray Griffin’s appearance on The Heaven and Earth Show – safely out of the way of most UK viewers.
So, the evidence of the management and complicity of the UK media by some group or other seems (to this author) hard to deny. After 2 years of Campaigning, the BBC ignores all the evidence and refuses to engage with Campaigners in anything but a superficial manner.
With the advent of a new service on the internet – Google Video – most of the 9/11 Truth Films of the last few years are easily accessible for unlimited free viewing. The viral spreading of films like Loose Change – 2nd Edition (LC2E) and Alex Jones’ film Terrorstorm is significant – they have been watched / downloaded 100’s of thousands and even millions of times.
11.4.1 Venezuela and Malaysia
In Venezuela and Malaysia, many more government officials are questioning the OCT – indeed, Hugo Chavez made an offer to host an international enquiry.
11.4.2 Loose Change Shown in 40 countries
Tim Sparke, Director of Mercury Media, promoted the showing of Loose Change 2 in 40 countries around the world, around the time of the 5th Anniversary.
11.4.3 Japan 9/11 Truth Conference 7th October 2006 (Tokyo)
A day-long event was held, with talks and 9/11 Truth films being shown throughout the day (see 911.globalpeace.jp/9…)
In Switzerland Der Blick published an article on Sept 15th 2006 in which 2 Professors question the OCT. (See here for an English translation: www.thetruthseeker.c… )