Mike Rubin, BBC’s Mr “Curveball”
The other day I watched the raw footage of BBC producer Mike Rubin interviewing Dr Niels Harrit, Professor Emeritus at the University of Copenhagen. I had watched Rubin’s disgraceful, “Conspiracy Files”, and so was fascinated to hear him trying to question Dr Harrit (below). A short excerpt can be found here.
The Harrit interview reminds me of my conversation with Professor Jonathan Barnett where I concluded after an hour and a half that the engineer’s mind had somehow been manipulated to absolutely not question the official narrative.
And so it is with Rubin. He seems “trapped” by the official story, and tries every which way to not see the logic in logical explanations.
I wondered what else BBC’ Rubin has been doing. He produced “The Spies Who Fooled The World”. I could not stomach watching the whole program, but jumping to the end, the documentary creates a story that blames the Iraq war on the Iraqi “Spy” – Rafed al Jahabi – known as “Curveball”.
The documentary (reference here) ends on “Curveball” with the narration… “we went to war (in Iraq) on a lie – it was your lie“. Rubin absolves Western governments and concludes by blaming the war on an Iraqi defector.
It is shameful.
I recall Rubin’s ‘conspiracy files that det with 911 In about three programs in about 2008.
From recollection, one BS report resulted in about 2,000 comments and though he was asked many questions, he did not respond to any requests over three programs. The other programs attracted just as many comments.
Something about our ABC and Faine and their BBC and Rubin. Wonder what it is?
Dee is right and Ned is right. There is something preventing these interviewers from listening. Please start the tape at 48 minutes. You will be embarrassed for Rubin. Niels behaves perfectly, even tolerantly with the “patient.”
I am commenting on Ned’s experience with Faine, Dee’s experience with Barrett, and Niels’ experience with Rubin.
There really is something going on. And poor Rubin had to keep it going for 2 hours, never letting his guard down.
By the way, I noticed when Dr Jeff Bradstreet died recently, the write-up mentioned he had been “investigated” by the late Steven Barrett. From my research into the politics of cancer I can say that Barrett was not an investigator, he was a dedicated smearer. He did not even mention in his reports the successes that many of the “offending” doctors had with cancer.
Same here with Rubin — he simply cannot entertain the possibility of a controlled demolition. Wow. Can’t even rehearse it to find fault with it.
Although I used to think that Steven Barrett acted in bad faith re the cancer doctors (such as Virginia Livingston, MD), I now feel he acted in good faith, like Rubin. They are True Believers. Come on, tune in at 48 or 50 mins, you will be amazed.
I am surprised Niels was not able to get some points out of this interview considering he had his camera and mike in play.
I wonder if he could have filmed Rubin?
I remain cautious of Niels narrow argument on thermite and am puzzled that he did not prepare to take the discussion into proven “false flag” evidence and FBI “terror” plots, just to name a couple of subjects.
Dee identified the “Curveball” documentary which could have been open for interpretation challenge.
Why was he not able to articulate the broader Geo-political energy and currency issues along with the framing of Russia as “aggressive” and “expansionist” when the Maidan coup has US fingerprints.
What about Wesley Clarks multiple invasion memo account?
He could have had a selection of film ready to evidence.
Bush in the classroom. Bin Laden’s Fortress, Powell UN speech, Gladio, Liberty etc etc etc.
No doubt Rubin is a smart operator and would have others in his ear during the interview but Niels could have put a team of minds together to plan a best dynamic result strategy.
These things puzzle me.
When I see great opportunities plundered I must ask the question why?
Oh no, Christopher. I disagree. The BBC guy would not have allowed an aring of the real story. Niels did a briliant job just by saying “Is there some reason why we can’t look into this crime?”
He sure showed Rubin up as unreasonable.
I have never even read the thermite theory but Niels has so won my respect by staying cool for the 2 hr slam session that I will now look into it.
Not that I care what chemicals were used. I care about the brazen murdering.
Anyway, though, I appreciate your being hesitant.
(Just think, if Neils had not insisted on taping it, BBC could have gone to air with edited clips.) i wonder in what year this-all “happened” to Rubin. Bet he did not think like that 20 yrs ago.
Mary, I think Niels had achieved an opportunity to corner and expose some issues that he would have on the record.
He has expended a great deal of effort to get to this point and I judge the result as disappointing.
Rubin invited him to expound on the wider political realities that justify his suspicions and he backed out of the opportunity on several occasions.
Your assessment is interesting and I would be keen to hear what other readers thought about the interview result.
Niels didn’t even unravel the elements behind the 911 Commission process by challenging Rubin to explain when torture and secret “show trial” hearings and “confessions” obtained with water boarding became acceptable.
I guess my strong point is he had a relevant player in an environment where proceedings were on the record and Rubin escaped.
It is possible Niels language issues were impacting on his ability to steer the discussion beyond where he was very familiar.
“Rubin invited him to expound”? surely not.
Rubin tried to trap Niels into saying something that could be sound-bited as conspiratorial, and Niels had the good sense to not go there.
That in fact is the beauty of this whole 2-hour exercise. One man shows that it is possible to insist on a simple theme: crime.
I agree with both of you.
Mary, I think Niels did a good job at not getting trapped for a BBC sound bite.
And I also agree with Christopher. There was an opportunity to discuss the covering of facts by government, and by the mainstream media – and now the journalist. And go on the ATTACK
Questions that Niels could have come back and asked Rubin are:
e.g. You spoke to an FBI investigator at the Pentagon – Did you ask why they have not released the surveillance video tapes? Do you think it is legal or honourable to withhold evidence from the public?
And you Mr Rubin – if you do not discuss and expose all the facts in the documentary – you are becoming an accessory to the deception…… etc
Dee, Niels did just what you want at 1.22.
Recall my review of Kevin Ryan’s “Another Nineteen: An Investigation of Legitimate 9-11 Suspects” (2013)? at http://gumshoenews.com/2015/01/29/a-whole-new-look-at-the-domestic-culprits-of-9-11
In reviewing Ryan’s book for Amazon, David Chandler mentioned this about thermite:
“Did you know that L. Paul Bremer’s parent company occupied the exact floors where the North Tower was struck by Flight 11, or that another company Bremer directed patented a thermite demolition device? This book provides extensive background on many key individuals and connects the dots. A common objection to the idea of insider participation in 9/11 is that people cannot imagine Americans who would actually do such a thing. This book makes insider participation much more understandable and believable. The result is not to close the book on who did 9/11; it rather opens the book, exposes the players, and calls for a real investigation. It is a masterpiece of deep reporting.”
I have to remind everyone of this interview. Paul Bremer was “there” ready to be interviewed that morning. He immediately directs this a few suspects (bin laden) – but he DOES NOT MENTION that his office was hit – nor does he express concern for his fellow associates. Call in the psychiatrist.
At the very end Niels says he has 6 grandchildren, and “There’s no way our children can expect a future like ours unless we face the unresolved questions of 9-11.” I couldn’t agree more. The future planned for them is dire.
Gahd, how irresponsible can we be?
[…] only have to listen to BBC’s Mike Rubin interviewing Niels Harrit to realise that Rubin’s mind has been “locked” into a belief, and it seems no […]