September 11th attacks - 19 years ago

Fortunately platforms other than YouTube exist, have found the BBC Choice programme elsewhere

Also, John Nicholson’s Guardian article is an interesting read.

Another interesting listen. Simon Mayo - Remembering 9/11

I know what you mean. Makes me feel ancient talking to adults who can't remember 9/11 at the time even though I wasn't even a teen at the time. Funny old life.

Indeed, there's a very silly conspiracy theory that's been doing the rounds for years involving BBC World reporting the collapse of Building 7 before it happened - I was watching at the time and remember there were quite a large number of reports about the danger of that building imminently collapsing over several hours so it was no surprise that someone jumped the gun.

It was the same on 7/7, reports flying around everywhere, sometimes it was one bombing thought to be two because of passengers coming out of different stations, sometimes it was just erroneous reports in the heat of the moment, but they've been taken by some to be proof of a cover-up.

I've argued with so many truthers over the years that it's unreal, and they still make me angry. There was a period on DS where a new "truther" would pop up every few months since the same old tired arguments, links to the same websites, videos, calling us all "sheep" for not being able to see the truth etc. You can't even win an argument because everything you use to debunk their claims is just "what they want you to believe" and "part of the conspiracy".

There's not even any sense in the arguments, even if it was a conspiracy, why would they make it so complex to set up bombs in the towers, disguise missiles, "do away" with the passengers that were on the planes they wanted us to believe had crashed etc. to make it look like a planes have crashed into the towers and the Pentagon when you could just, you know, actually crash planes into the buildings? Not that they can come up with a logical reason why they'd want to fake it anyway.

I remember the BBC themselves actually addressed the premature WTC7 announcement with a blog post on their website, of course the comments rapidly filled up with truthers accusing them of being in on the cover up.

The fact they call themselves "truthers" irks me too, as they aren't after the truth, they just want to prove their version of events is correct. If they were truly after the truth they'd be prepared to accept their version of events could be wong.

The 9/11 conspiracy bandwagon has passed on now, although lots still believe it, it's been replaced by other much more serious conspiracies - stuff like Qanon.


The aspect of the WTC7 BBC part of the conspiracy is the assertion that the reporter must have known it was still there as it was behind them in the shot. As if the building was a well known landmark that was easily recognisable by a foreign reporter.

My take on 9/11 and what happened is probably close to what many others think. This may make me a truther or not - don't really care either way.

I would nuance Inspector Sands's statement that "lots still believe" conspiracy theories about 9/11. There are dozens of theories ranging from those which sound plausible on a surface level to those which are ridiculous (holographic planes, etc). Some theories have more believers than others but there seems to be no theory to which the majority of skeptical observers subscribe.

However, I would say that "lots still believe" that there are elements to the official narrative worthy of doubt - I have no desire in getting into a debate about it because it's so 2005 now.

I have no idea (and never will) what actually happened and, not be a reporter or a government investigator, it's not my job to propose an alternative narrative/conspiracy theory (delete as applicable). The same is true, I suspect, for others who doubt that the given narrative is 100% accurate.

Tin-foil hats gratefully received.

Damn, this was a really interesting thread until conspiracy theories were brought up.

True. My apologies for falling for the bait.

On a pres note, I hated and still hate the News 24 pres of that era - biege and purple captions, that pokey studio with the small monitors, etc.

Would have preferred the 93-99 era look for something that important and world changing.

Absolutely - aston wise BBC News wasn't great in that period and although the purple looks better than the cream it didn't fit in with any other element.

ITV seemed to use fairly generic breaking news straps which arguably had more in common with the last ITN look than the ITV News branding of the time.

Am I right in thinking the ITN News Channel did their own coverage that day and struggled to an extent, which kind of started the ball rolling to it becoming the ITV News Channel?

Correct. Leyla Daybelge anchored the ITN News Channel for hours on end. It does seem a strange decision that they went their own way and not simulcast.

In the CNBC clip, moments after the first tower collapse they're speaking to an eyewitness on the ground who mentions a 737 flying into the tower, and this is conflated by the hosts as to meaning that it's another plane that caused the collapse. I've not watched far enough through to see how they correct themselves. You can see how it happens but it also shows the importance of waiting for a second source or caveating what you don't know to be 100% true.