BBC 9/11: The Conspiracy Files

Yes, I think he has more to offer than Craig Bartmer.

-Gumboot


I can imagine the production meeting:

Producer 1: We have 10 minutes to fill, should we have The Lone Gunman director talking about his opinion of conspiracy theories, or should we put in some first responders or members of the family steering committee, who were actually affected by the events of 9/11?

Producer 2: Use the sci-fi guy.
 
Every single conversion I've seen, and I mean EVERY ONE, has been from Twoofer to debunker. No one that I've known or spoken to or read on a forum has gone the other way.

This is because we debunkers deal in facts, whether or not we like what the facts tell us. There's no interpretation, no bias, no opinion, no intuition, no common sense.

If your facts suppport a particular CT, we'll listen to you. If they don't, or if you've distorted/cherrypicked/quotemined/fabricated/exaggerated in ANY way, you're going to get called on it and your argument will be shredded. Not only that, but anything you say in the future will be filtered through the lens of experience and is going to be suspect from the get-go.

Sorry if you don't like that, but that's the way it is on a skeptical forum. Most of us, myself included, have learned that if you talk out of your [rule8] here, it will be immediately spotted and criticized severely.

The BBC was hard on the Twoofers, but it could have been much worse. If they'd had two hours to devote to it Dylan probably wouldn't have been able to show his face in public again.
 
Last edited:
He ran from building 7 when it collapsed. He's now dying.
By his own testimony, Craig Bartmer heard no "explosions" until after the building was coming down. Is anyone surprised that a 47 story building undergoing a complete collapse would go "boom boom boom boom"?
 
Every single conversion I've seen, and I mean EVERY ONE, has been from Twoofer to debunker. No one that I've known or spoken to or read on a forum has gone the other way.


Every truther I know started off believing the official story. Some believed it for years. Your statement above is ridiculous.
 
I can imagine the production meeting:

Producer 1: We have 10 minutes to fill, should we have The Lone Gunman director talking about his opinion of conspiracy theories, or should we put in some first responders or members of the family steering committee, who were actually affected by the events of 9/11?

Producer 2: Use the sci-fi guy.



I don't see how first responders or family members could offer much insight into the conspiracy theorist mindset. You do realise that's why Frank Spotnitz was interviewed, right? (By the way, he didn't direct "The Lone Gunmen" he wrote it and executive produced it.)

-Gumboot
 
Do you wonder why skeptics are called sheep?

that's the problem with CTs. They are so quick to declare debunkers as sheep, when usually they are the ones who are quick to take the word of somebody unqualified to make judgments about something no questions asked simply because they agree with his conclusion.

To us, you are the sheep. We question EVERYTHING, even things that don't conform to our world view. When we aren't qualified to judge something, we defer to experts, real experts, in much the same way that one doesn't consult with his plumber about health issues.

To us, you are the blind ideologues. You are the ones who let your political views fog your vision and prevent you from looking objectively at facts.
 
No i'm talking about the beginning and end of the show where they mentioned the families and the conspiracy theories hurting them. They failed to mention the family members who don't believe the government account.

If you were once a truther I would be very interested to hear how your mind was changed on every aspect of the CT you believed.

The families talking about how conspiracies hurt them is not an argument from emotion, it's a fact which is emotional. The difference being: they aren't saying you're wrong because you're hurting the memories of those who were killed, they're saying you're wrong AND you're hurting the memories of those who were killed.

Learn the difference.
 
I don't see how first responders or family members could offer much insight into the conspiracy theorist mindset. You do realise that's why Frank Spotnitz was interviewed, right? (By the way, he didn't direct "The Lone Gunmen" he wrote it and executive produced it.)

-Gumboot

The program was not about the conspiracy mindset. It's a 4 part series covering different conspiracies. The first episode on Diana didn't mention the mindset.

If they are going to repeatedly claim that truthers are hurting the families then they should have interviewed a representative of the families that believe the CT.

The inclusion of an interview by a sci-fi writer is utterly ridiculous. He isn't a psychiatrist, and no genuine truther really believes the Lone Gunman is related to the conspiracy.
 
The families talking about how conspiracies hurt them is not an argument from emotion, it's a fact which is emotional. The difference being: they aren't saying you're wrong because you're hurting the memories of those who were killed, they're saying you're wrong AND you're hurting the memories of those who were killed.

Learn the difference.

Wrong. The narrator said that truthers will continue to ask questions, even though this hurts the families.
 
The program was not about the conspiracy mindset. It's a 4 part series covering different conspiracies. The first episode on Diana didn't mention the mindset.


The segment with Spotnitz was about the Conspiracy Theorist mindset. That was pretty obvious.


If they are going to repeatedly claim that truthers are hurting the families then they should have interviewed a representative of the families that believe the CT.


They didn't repeatedly claim that truthers are hurting the families. The program was about 9/11 conspiracy theories, not victims.



The inclusion of an interview by a sci-fi writer is utterly ridiculous.


His name is Frank Spotnitz. S. P. O. T. N. I. T. Z.

I agree it would have been better to interview a psychologist (I don't believe a psychiatrist would be much help here, by the way, we're talking about trends in population groups, not the mental illness of an individual), however Spotnitz had the advantage of addressing multiple areas at once, not to mention he represents a key area of the 9/11 CTs - that being how much they are influenced by popular media.

-Gumboot
 
Do you wonder why skeptics are called sheep?
lol... Because they can recognize someone with superior knowledge and experience in a particular field and defer to them for complex answers to complex questions, rather than pick an answer out of their navel?

Well, *baa-a-a-a*
 
Last edited:
Wrong. The narrator said that truthers will continue to ask questions, even though this hurts the families.

Which is still not an argument from emotion- it's a stated fact.

The narrator is... what's the word for it... oh yeah, a narrator, and is not presenting the argument- but is instead simply stating the facts.

If you're concerned about how the victims feel about you- then you should DOUBLE CHECK YOUR FACTS.
 
The segment with Spotnitz was about the Conspiracy Theorist mindset. That was pretty obvious.





They didn't repeatedly claim that truthers are hurting the families. The program was about 9/11 conspiracy theories, not victims.






His name is Frank Spotnitz. S. P. O. T. N. I. T. Z.

I agree it would have been better to interview a psychologist (I don't believe a psychiatrist would be much help here, by the way, we're talking about trends in population groups, not the mental illness of an individual), however Spotnitz had the advantage of addressing multiple areas at once, not to mention he represents a key area of the 9/11 CTs - that being how much they are influenced by popular media.

-Gumboot

I suggest you watch the documentary. It opens and closes with the narrator saying that the truthers are hurting the families.

I thought you would approve of psychiatrist, given the number of times truthers are called mentally ill on this forum.

I must dash, i'm currently editing my own balanced 9/11 documentary. I have the entire writing team of Battlestar Galactica to fit in. I wanted to use some debunkers but decided against it.
 
There was only one thing about the doco which disappointed me. I was hoping to find out how you pronounce "Oneonta". "Upstate NY" is such a cop-out.
 
I suggest you watch the documentary. It opens and closes with the narrator saying that the truthers are hurting the families.

I thought you would approve of psychiatrist, given the number of times truthers are called mentally ill on this forum.

This is a fact, but not the argument. The argument is everything in between the pieces you have hand-picked. It's not fallacious to state "your position on this issue hurt me- and hurts the memory of my murdered family members".

Your version of the events- nay, your abandoning of the very faculties of the mind, offend me- but that's not my argument. It's merely a fact- a consequence- of your silly theory.

Not an argument from emotion- an argument that has emotion. Big difference.
 
I suggest you watch the documentary. It opens and closes with the narrator saying that the truthers are hurting the families.


I've seen it. So they make a factual statement, twice.

That's hardly what you claimed. You ignore the fact that between these bookend statements that demonstrate that the Truthers are also full of [rule8].


I thought you would approve of psychiatrist, given the number of times truthers are called mentally ill on this forum.

Maybe you should stop assuming you know what anyone else would or wouldn't approve of. You're probably not very good at it.



I must dash, i'm currently editing my own balanced 9/11 documentary. I have the entire writing team of Battlestar Galactica to fit in. I wanted to use some debunkers but decided against it.

Cute.

What you are desperately trying to ignore is that all of the people they didn't interview - the Jersey Girls, the NYPD officer, etc. had NOTHING to offer. They simply parrot the same garbage that the people they DID interview offered. None of them has any expertise, any useful insight, or any knowledge of the matters at hand.

What does an NYPD officer know about structural engineering? What does the wife of a businessman know about NORAD intercept proceedures?

The answer is nothing.

-Gumboot
 
What you are desperately trying to ignore is that all of the people they didn't interview - the Jersey Girls, the NYPD officer, etc. had NOTHING to offer. They simply parrot the same garbage that the people they DID interview offered. None of them has any expertise, any useful insight, or any knowledge of the matters at hand.

What does an NYPD officer know about structural engineering? What does the wife of a businessman know about NORAD intercept proceedures?

The answer is nothing.

-Gumboot

The Jersey Girls sat through the 9/11 commission and had dealings with members of the commission. Bartmer was an eyewitness, a trained eyewitness.

You are desperately trying to pretend this was a balanced documentary and you look more foolish with each post.
 

Back
Top Bottom