BBC 9/11: The Conspiracy Files

[MarkyX]

The documentary failed to cover things like the ISI connection, Able Danger etc. On the Alex Jones show today, the producer of the film could only reply that the ISI link was "interesting" and he may do other documentaries which cover such material.

There is no ISI connection. It was from an India newspaper quoting an anonymous "intelligence" source.

 

[Aphelion]

That doesn't necessarily make it untrue. Your fellow debunker, and esteemed BBC journalist, thinks it is worth making a documentary about.

 

[CHF]

That doesn't necessarily make it untrue. Your fellow debunker, and esteemed BBC journalist, thinks it is worth making a documentary about.

What what will you say when he finds that the whole story is based on a no-name source in an Indian newspaper?

 

[busherie]

While we discuss 9/11, women and children are being murdered in the Middl-east, in Afg, in Iraq. US, UK and other soliders, most of them very young, are butchered.

5 years after 9/11, what Bush has done now appears in its full atrocity. Yes, the Taliban and the Saddam regimes were monstruous regimes. But one has to face the harsh reality: all of this has been a total failure.

My opinion has always been a LIHOP: the occasion was too beautiful to try to seize quickly dwindling energy ressources by installing friendly regimes, which after all counldn't be worse than the previous ones.

What was a very small group (Al Qaida) has become a huge uprising throughout the muslim world against both traditionnal regimes and the West.

I know I'm being sentimental here, but I've just watched a great documentary (nov 06) about what's happening in Iraq right now, and it makes me bitter.

Question: do you debunkers realize that you are objectively supporting the declining neo-cons?

Let us bring them down, start anew! We owe it to those who died on 9/11, to those who died since, and to those dying and living in fear as we speak.

 

[Firestone]

Question: do you debunkers realize that you are objectively supporting the declining neo-cons?

Never mind my political beliefs, how would you feel if I asked you:

"Do you realize that you are objectively supporting the declining terrorist network Al Qaeda?"

And for the record, I am not asking this question.

 

[JAStewart]

Question: do you debunkers realize that you are objectively supporting the declining neo-cons?

Do you conspiracy theorists realize that you're sympathizing with terrorists?

We're not here to say whether or not we agree with the war, I personally do not and infact chair the University of Aberdeen stop the war committee. We're here to stop the spread of LIES.

 

[Aphelion]

What what will you say when he finds that the whole story is based on a no-name source in an Indian newspaper?

911myths.com don't seem to think it's that simple.

This is a lengthy, complicated claim, perhaps the most involved we’ve ever covered on this site. And so if you’re expecting simple answers, then it’s best to move on: you won’t find them here.

911myths.com/html/pakistan_s_isi_link_to_9_11_fu.html


Notice how the reader is told to move on. Nothing to see here.

 

[twinstead]

Question: do you debunkers realize that you are objectively supporting the declining neo-cons?

Dude. That has to be one of the most insulting things I have ever read on this forum.

Do YOU realize that you are objectively supporting a culture born of the internet and YouTube and MySpace that irresponsibly and lazily accuses people of the most heinous crimes with the most tenuous of evidence?

It's the fight against people like that we are supporting. Unlike most conspiracy theorists, for us it has little or nothing to do with politics; we just don't ever want folks like that on a jury if we were ever on trial for a crime.

You would be hard pressed to find any 'neocons' on this forum.

 

[JAStewart]

Notice how the reader is told to move on. Nothing to see here.

They say that because the average CTer won't stick around to read debunking information, and infact call it "disinfo" or some sort of Government website.

Why don't you read it?

 

[Aphelion]

There is no ISI connection.

Very sure of yourself.

We’re no more able to definitively say what really happened here than anyone else

911myths.com

Not so sure of themselves.

 

[gumboot]

Omissions:

To be fair to Truthy, I'm going to address each and every single one of the things he felt the BBC ommitted.

no eyewitness reports of explosions.

Eye witness reports of explosions? Don't you mean earwitness reports? I don't recall anyone SEEING explosions (other than the collapses and aircraft hits).

People hear explosions during fires, earthquakes, storms, etc all the time. That's partly because:

A) People often describe loud noises as "explosions" even when they aren't
B) Fires, earthquakes, storms etc often do cause actual explosions

There are no earwitness reports of explosions that support a CD theory of collapse. Furthermore, if it can be demonstrated in other ways that CD was not the cause of collapse, the testimony of explosions can be dismissed as not evidence of CD.

No FDNY testimonies.

You will not find a FDNY testimony that supports any 9/11 Conspiracy Theories.

No quotes from anchors.

Again, you won't find any quotes from news anchors that support any 9/11 conspiracy theories.

No mention of FAA records being destroyed.

Okay, this is the first time I've actually heard this one. Given that tapes from the ATCs exist, as well as transcripts, which records, exactly, were destroyed?

No sustained shots of the WTC1 & 2 'collapses' showing explosive force .

Only photographs of the collapse are helpful to CTers. Any sort of video clearly shows debris falling down, thus refuting "outward exploding force" claims.

No mention of debris hurled 400 feet sideways.

There was actually. They talked about WTC7 being hit by debris from WTC1's collapse.

No molten metal. No Thermite. No Steven Jones.

These are all really interlinked so I put them together. I believe Steven Jones was invited to appear on the show but refused.

No David Ray Griffin.

A professor of religion and philosophy. He cannot offer anything useful. I've seen his list of the major myths of 9/11:

1) The admin/military wouldn't do it
2) The admin/military have no motive to do it
3) With such a big conspiracy involving so many people, someone would have come forward.
4) The 9/11 Commission,which endorsed the official account, is impartial.
5) The Bush administration provided proof that Al Qaeda did it
6) The 9/11 attacks came as a surprise to the Bush Administration
7) US officials have explained why the flights weren't hijacked
8) Official reports have explained why WTC1, 2 and 7 collapsed.
9) There is no doubt that AA77 (piloted by Hanjour) hit the Pentagon.

I've seen his presentation of these myths, and his efforts at "Debunking" each of them. He regurgitates the same old boring facts as the other people who appeared on the BBC documentary. He offers nothing at all new.

No mention of 4,000,000 views of Loose Change.

The first teaser trailer to "The Fellowship of the Ring" was downloaded 1.7 million times in the first 24 hrs of its release.

No 85 confiscated videos at Pentagon.

They did, actually. They didn't cite a number, but they did talk about the FBI's refusal to release "many" videos of the Pentagon strike. It's one aspect of the doco the BBC did pretty poorly, actually.

No Minetta testimony.

The Mineta testimony doesn't actually help the truth movement. And you do realise that on 9/11 Mineta was only a month from turning 70, right?

No skeptic eyewitnesses at pentagon or Shanksville.

There aren't any, that's why. CTers only make it look like there is by misquoting them. The documentary DID talk to those people who were misquoted, and set the record straight.

No no-planes.

Are you serious?

No DEWs.

I had to look that one up. As per above. Are you serious?

No free-fall speed.

It was mentioned. I thought the BBC should have addressed this, if only because it's such a simple claim to prove wrong.

No clear clip of WTC7.

Actually the doco showed a number of excellent shots of WTC7 that I'd never seen before - including a couple that showed just how non-symetrical the collapse actually was.

No toxic dust. No dying responders.

This doesn't help the truth movement at all. We know there was dust. No one says otherwise. Breathing in lots of dust of ANY sort will cause death. GZ dust causing death is not a 9/11 Conspiracy Theory, which, in case you missed it, is what the program was about.

No big-names ( Bowman, Paul Craig Roberts, Von Buelow, Meacher, Sheen, Lynch etc etc).

Maybe they should have interviewed the Dixie Chicks and Greenday too.

No polls.

The programme is about science, not popularity.

No BBC report that 5 of hijackers still alive.

Again this is a mistake by the BBC. Given it was their story, and they later retracted it, and have all of the inside knowledge regarding the story, they could have crushed this little claim in a matter of moments.

No UBL denial .

He said he did it, and he said he didn't. So he's lying in one. So we know he's a liar. Which one?

No insider dealing .

Easily refuted. Put options were direct response to financial advice from trading agencies, in response to a falling air transport industry. Put option levels on same stocks had previously far exceeded the levels reached just prior to 9/11.

No Giuliani

You'll have to expand on this one because I don't know what you're talking about.

No Silverstein

The BBC had to teach Dylan Avery what a similie is. Should they have to teach him basic comprehension as well? What is this, the language channel?

No Marvin Bush.

If you disprove the CD theory, any little tid bits like bush Admin connections to security are meaningless. All that could *possibly* prove is it was possible for government agents to plant explosives. That doesn't mean they did.

No 'Pull it'

See above re: Silverstein.

No Danny Jowenko.

All his opinion demonstrates is that WTC7's collapse looked the same as a CD. That doesn't mean it WAS a CD. (Never mind the specifics of HOW these statements from Jowenko were captured).

No Bush at Booker.

Again, this is a pretty weak link. If hijackers from Al Qaeda got the planes to their targets, and the buildings collapsed as per NIST, it's actually irrelevant what Bush was doing.

No CIA funding of Al-Qaeda.

Yes. The CIA never funded Al Qaeda. You're correct.

No Northwoods.

Rejection of a plan to pretend to kill Americans is proof of approval of a plan to actually kill Americans?

I'm glad you're not a judge!

No power-downs at WTC.

Half power down of one building. Unsupported claim.

No sniffer dogs.

Additional protection initiated in response to specific threats. Removed when threats were ceased.

No Willy Rodriguez.

Mr Rodriguez witnessed the ignition of jet fuel which spilled down the elevator shafts.

No Rick Siegel.

Rick Siegel's video shows nothing of a CD. The explosion noises are doctored, and as a filmmaker myself, that's very obvious. Footage much closer to the towers do not capture the same explosions, thus utterly demolishing any claim of their authenticity.

Siegel is also vehemently critical of the 911 truth movement, as you'd know if you read his blog.

No 911truth.org.

The documentary is about the theories. No need to list every single website or individual who believes any of those theories.

Distortions: WTC7 shown four times in weakest shot (the one used for Berger CNN interview where 7 is half hidden).

You only show weakest because it doesn't look as much like a CD.

Impression of scientists v. isolated fanatical individuals.

Yup. Pretty much.

Alex Jones as cult-leader at quasi- evangelical 'rally'.

Sounds about right.

Fetzer in close-up moving his head around a lot .

In filmic language, tighter framing is used to bring the audience more into the subjects world and evoke stronger empathy.

Only Dylan held his cool and in one classic scene when interviewed about Wally Miller he exuded seething if controlled anger.

Actually, in case you forgot, he was being taught what a similie is. He looked like he was about to throw up.

Strawmen like '4,000 Jews' used to discredit whole range of 911 skepticism.

It's not a strawman. It's a fairly widespread 9/11 CT. YOU might not believe it, but that doesn't mean others don't.

Presented 'evidence' of UA93 crash as Bandana and Passport, then said , "In the face of ALL THIS,some still believe it was a conspiracy."

There was a lot more to it than that. They were pointing out that there's a mountain of evidence refuting the CTs, yet people still cling to them.

Lies: "WTC 7 was a raging inferno".

I take it you've talked to the firemen and other witnesses who were there on the day, and they've admitted that their other testimonies were forced out of them by the CIA and the evil JREF Unter-Kommando Gravy?

"Flight 11 took off that morning".

Are you saying AA11 did not take off that morning?

OGCT presented as fact.

Because it is.

X-files writer-"To think that the US government contains mass-murderers is preposterous".

That's not what he said, but never mind. They had video of the guy ACTUALLY saying the things he said. How can that be distortion?

Popular Mechanics given credibility as ordinary down to-earth magazine.

As opposed to AFP, Hustler, and infowars?

Ended by trying to boil down the whole movement to FBI's admission of failure to act on intelligence supplied to CIA. ''The American people were failed" .

I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to say here.

Concluding words of V/O: "The other conspiracy theories are just that - theories.
The evidence doesn't support them.
We were never shown that evidence.

You have been. In truck loads. The fact that you ignore it is your problem.

-Gumboot

 

[JAStewart]

Gumboot...... respect mon.

 

[Aphelion]

Not one first-responder, scientist, or family member that supported the CT was shown, yet 10 minutes were given to a guy who produced a sci-fi show which hasn't aired for 5 years. How does that work?

 

[jhunter1163]

@ Gumboot:

Nominated for sheer dogged perseverance in the face of stupidity.

 

[CHF]

Question: do you debunkers realize that you are objectively supporting the declining neo-cons?

I hate the neocons. Which is why I can't stand people like you who distract attention from the real issues, such as their manipulation of 9/11 in order to wage war in Iraq.

Why you clowns waste time with the demolition/missile/thermite BS is beyond me.

 

[JAStewart]

Not one first-responder, scientist, or family member that supported the CT was shown, yet 10 minutes were given to a guy who produced a sci-fi show which hasn't aired for 5 years. How does that work?

He obviously understands the psychology of a conspiracy theorist because it is what his show was based on!

Infact, he's probably responsible for a lot of conspiracy theorists.

 

[eddyk]

Anyone read prison planets take on the show?

http://prisonplanet.com/articles/february2007/190207tissueoflies.htm

It's just as stupid as Truthseeker1234 comments.

6) Why was Dylan Avery filmed listening to the interviewer's question about the coroner's statements while looking nervous? This was a blatant attempt to portray Avery as dishonest and was not mirrored during any of the interviews with the debunkers.

Tis Dylans fault, nobody elses.

8) Why were the 9/11 skeptics filmed and portrayed in an unflattering light whereas the debunkers were lent credence and authority as a result of the style and location of their filming? For example, debunkers were filmed at ground zero, Washington DC and inside military fighters, whereas 9/11 skeptics were filmed in untidy offices and, in the case of Alex Jones, a conference hall that was portrayed as an evangelic religious cult gathering.

I LOL though.


No mention of the Pentagon and the BBCs debunking bit I notice...

 

[gumboot]

He obviously understands the psychology of a conspiracy theorist because it is what his show was based on!

Infact, he's probably responsible for a lot of conspiracy theorists.

Not to mention he also created "The Lone Gunman" which is specifically cited in 9/11 CT circles. As his interviews show, he has clearly looked into the 9/11 CTs. And as JAStewart points out, he spent many years working closely with the CT mindset.

So yes, he has a LOT to offer.

-Gumboot

 

[gumboot]

Anyone read prison planets take on the show?

It's just as stupid as Truthseeker1234 comments.

Tis Dylans fault, nobody elses.

I LOL though.

WTF. Fetzer was so proud of himself I thought he was about to give us a frikken tour of his house!

And DA showed just how weak his self-confidence is by mocking and disparaging the efforts of his fellow truthers on camera. What a [rule8]. Forget truth. Forget 9/11. If my friend did that to me on the frikken BBC I'd smack him one.

-Gumboot

 

[JAStewart]

Did you guys see Avery's wall-tv screen? niceee.