October 22, 2008
An open letter to Mike Rudin
Mike Rudin, producer of the BBC 9/11 Hit-piece 'The Third Tower', recently posted an article called 'Caught up in a conspiracy theory', in response to a video I put out - WeAreChange Debunks the BBC at Ground Zero 9/11/08. In the article, he does not deny (or even attempt to explain, in some instances), the glaring misrepresentations, distortions, and omissions that we called him out on at Ground Zero. He does not apologize (as many have called for) for repeatedly exhibiting poor journalistic ethics while covering the most controversial and important issue of our time. Instead he continues to dishonor the victims of 9/11 and insult the intelligence of the BBC audience by digging a deeper hole. Very well Mike Rudin, so be it.
Rudin writes "As I tried to explain to them at the time, we recorded a long interview with Barry Jennings. We also carefully considered other information and came to our own view based on all of that."
No. What you actually did was cut and splice and alter the story the way you wanted it. The issue at hand is- why did the BBC imply that the explosion Barry felt on the 6th floor was the North Tower collapsing, when he clearly states beyond any doubt in his Loose Change interview (done months before the BBC film) that the explosion happened before either tower had collapsed? Mike Rudin does not ask him to specify on camera whether the towers were still standing when he felt the explosion. A rather important question to miss.
This begs the question - did Mike Rudin watch the Loose Change interview (hereby refered to as LC)? If he had he would have surely noticed that Jennings makes perfectly clear multiple times that the towers came down after the explosion in Bldg. 7. Here are some quotes from the LC interview which the BBC viewers were not afforded the privilege of hearing:
"When we reached the sixth floor... there was an explosion and the landing gave way. I was left there hanging and I had to climb back up and I had to walk back up to the 8th floor... it was dark and very very hot. I asked Mr. Hess to test the phones as I took a fire extinguisher and broke out the windows. Once I broke out the windows I could see outside below me. I saw police cars on fire, buses on fire. I looked one way, the building was there, I looked the other, the building was gone. I was trapped in there for several hours. I was trapped in there when both buildings came down. The firefighters came. I was going to come down on the fire hose, because I didn't
want to stay there because it was too hot; they came to the window and started yelling 'do not do that, it won't hold you'. And then they ran away. I didn't know what was going on. That's when the first tower fell. When they started running, the first tower started coming down. I had no way of knowing that. And then I saw them come back with more concern on their faces. And then they ran away again. The second tower fell."
Dylan Avery: "So it's safe to say that that explosion on the 6th floor happened before either tower fell?"
Barry Jennings: "It definitely happened before either tower fell and I'll tell you why..." (Chopper
D.A.: "Barry, I'm sorry, could you just wait for that chopper? 'Cause this is vital. Because the whole official story, the whole reason that Bldg. 7 collapsed, allegedly, is because the North Tower fell onto it and caused damage, and what people are gonna say is, they're gonna say, well, Barry was hit by debris from the North Tower."
Prophetic words from Dylan Avery!
B.J.: "No. What happened was, when we made it back to the 8th floor, as I told you earlier - both buildings were still standing. Because I looked two... I looked one way and looked the other way, now, there's nothing there. When I got to the 6th floor before all this happened... there was an explosion. That's what forced us back to the 8th floor. Both buildings were still standing. Keep in mind, I told you the Fire Dept. came and ran. They came twice. Why? Because Bldg Tower 1 fell, and then Tower 2 fell."
Watch the full Loose Change interview here:
So Jennings specifies twice that both towers were standing when he felt the explosion, yet the BBC chose not to ask him to specify on tape, but instead speaks for him with a smug voice-over: "early reports of explosions were just debris from a falling skyscraper." This is the extent of the BBC's treatment of this critical issue. One line. How do we even know if you asked him this question, Mike Rudin? You surely didn't include it in your film. Are we supposed to take your word on it? Not only does Rudin fail to resolve these discrepancies, but he does not even let
the viewer know they exist. What "other information" factored into your decision to misrepresent Jennings' timeline (besides Michael Hess, as I will cover shortly)?
Rudin also poses the question "If our timeline is wrong then why didn't Barry Jennings and Michael Hess see and hear the moment of impact when Tower 1 fell. It must have been very loud."
This is a strawman argument. Who says that Barry Jennings' didn't hear the moment of impact? He never implies such. Just because he wasn't asked about it specifically and didn't describe it in detail does not mean he didn't hear the North Tower hitting the building. He does make clear, however, that both towers were still standing, as already demonstrated.
Also kept from the BBC audience is the fact that Jennings made clear in his LC interview that he was not convinced by the official explanation of the WTC7 collapse, but more importantly, that he coincidentally died a few days prior to the release of the NIST report, which couldn't be confirmed until approximately 1 month later.
Small wonder Hess reversed his position then, don’t you think Mr Rudin? (as Steve Watson put it).
This is a call for Mike Rudin and the BBC to release their entire, unedited interview with Barry Jennings to the public. If you have nothing to hide then put it out for all to see. Readers of this article should contact Mike Rudin and the BBC and demand it's immediate release.
The BBC skews Larry Silverstein's "pull it" statement, cutting "and then we watched the bldg. collapse" out of the following quote:
"I remember getting a call from the fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse."
You do not deny skewing the quote nor do you give an explanation for the omission. Instead you explain why "pull it" does not necessarily mean demolish the building, which may be true, but
that is not the issue. Why didn't the BBC present the entire quote in it's full context and let the viewer decide? Why the omission? Another "cock-up"? Or was this on purpose? Your insinuation that this omission does not distort the context of the quote is not only ludicrous, but it is downright offensive. On this point alone, you owe the BBC viewers and the 9/11 family
members a public apology. Simply including the full quote in future hit-pieces will not suffice. This issue is too important for these types of unwarranted omissions (or dirty tricks).
You mention Fire Chief Daniel Nigro but fail to mention that, according to some sources, Nigro denied having that conversation with Silverstein. Nigro's 'Third Tower' interview raises more questions then provides answers. He says "we don't need to ask permission from the owner, no. When we're in charge of the bldg. we're in charge, and that decision would be the fire cheif's and his alone." Then why does Silverstein claim to have been a part of that decision and who exactly was he speaking to? Why didn't the BBC ask Nigro weather it was he who had the "pull it" conversation with Larry? More stellar investigative journalism by the BBC!
OMITTED VIDEO TESTIMONY
Not only do you misrepresent key eyewitness testimony and skew quotes, but you also lie by omission. I find it very telling that you did not address the videos of First Responders on the day of 9/11 walking back from WTC7, using such language as "the building is about to blow up" and "seven's exploding". This can be found in our video at 5:48 in. Maybe it's because you know that regardless of the language being used, foreknowledge of the collapse in itself is entirely inconsistent with a "new phenomenon" (NIST's thermal expansion theory). Maybe it's because you know that the BBC reporting the collapse of WTC7 26 minutes in advance is especially inconsistent with a "new phenomenon". I ask the reader - does this pass the smell test?
Again, how about presenting all the evidence and let the viewer decide? Will you at least include these videos in your future films?
Despite the many shortcomings in your track record as an investigative journalist thus far, we are given yet a new eyewitness who has changed his mind about the explosion he heard and now confirms the timeline you contrived. You mention that Hess used to work as Giuliani's chief
lawyer. You fail to mention, however, that he has since been awarded a lucrative position as Vice Chairman of Giuliani Partners, a company notorious for banking in on the 9/11 tragedy. Not to mention that Rudy Giuliani has quite a few 9/11-related questions to answer himself, and is widely despised by Firemen and First Responders alike.
Also, Michael Hess' UPN9 interview from the day of 9/11 contradicts your contrived timeline.
Will you include this in your upcoming hit-piece?
Mike Rudin, representing the BBC, does not deny misrepresenting Barry Jennings' timeline, nor has he adequately explained why they did this. Nor does he deny skewing Larry Silverstein's quote, nor does he even attempt to explain this omission, and further implies that this omission does not distort the context of the quote. Rudin also ommits key video testimony, and then ignores it when addressed to him. These are only a few of many dirty tricks demonstrated by the BBC in both of their 9/11 Hit-pieces.
QUESTIONS FOR MIKE RUDIN:
Did you ask Barry Jennings to clarify whether the towers were standing when he felt the explosion?
If so, what exactly did he say, and why wasn't that critical segment of the interview included in your film? Why did you speak for him?
Why didn't you address these discrepancies to the BBC audience rather then omitting them?
What "other information" besides Michael Hess lead you to misrepresent Jennings' timeline?
Why did you skew Larry Silverstein's statement? Was this more "cock-up, not conspiracy"?
Will the BBC publicly apologize for this?
CALL TO ACTION
Readers should contact Mike Rudin and the BBC and demand the immediate release of the full, uncut Barry Jennings interview, as well as a public apology for the other distortions and omissions.
For a full debunking of the 'Third Tower' Hit-piece, read this great article