BBC 9/11: The Conspiracy Files

CptColumbo said:
Well if there is nothing factually wrong with the show, what's the problem?
Click to expand...



If I made a documentary presenting facts about adolf hitler that were all true, but failed to mention that he carried out the holocaust, would you find a problem with that?
 
Aphelion said:
Please demonstrate it's bias.
Click to expand...

Why dont you answer the questions of what was wrong with the BBC show first? You know, something you haven't answered since it has been put to you more than ten times now.

I'll answer your question on why the CBC video is biased, once you can show the errors and bias that was presented in the BBC video. I'll rewatch the CBC video once you've answered it.
 
Aphelion said:
If I made a documentary presenting facts about adolf hitler that were all true, but failed to mention that he carried out the holocaust, would you find a problem with that?
Click to expand...

Nope, because facts are facts, holocaust or not.

"Hitler was German"

does one need to mention the holocaust?

"Hitler committed suicide on April 30th, 1945".

does one need to mention the holocaust?

"Hitler was a dictator"

does one need to mention the holocaust?
 
Aphelion said:
If I made a documentary presenting facts about adolf hitler that were all true, but failed to mention that he carried out the holocaust, would you find a problem with that?
Click to expand...

nope.
it depends on the scope of the documentary. The holocaust doesn't need to be addressed if its about Hitlers' boyhood/childhood.
 
Aphelion said:
If I made a documentary presenting facts about adolf hitler that were all true, but failed to mention that he carried out the holocaust, would you find a problem with that?
Click to expand...

That's probably the worst analogy you could draw. There are mountains of evidence that the Holocaust happened, there is slim to none that the ISI link happened.
 
JAStewart said:
Nope, because facts are facts, holocaust or not.

"Hitler was German"

does one need to mention the holocaust?

"Hitler committed suicide on April 30th, 1945".

does one need to mention the holocaust?

"Hitler was a dictator"

does one need to mention the holocaust?
Click to expand...

If I presented the documentary as a "case closed" type treatment of his life, you would have a problem/
 
Aphelion said:
So Ahmed meeting Tenet and other officials on 9/11 in washington, after ordering the wiring of 100000 dollars to the lead hijacker is not indicative of an inside job?
Click to expand...


No. Why would it be?

-Gumboot
 
CptColumbo said:
That's probably the worst analogy you could draw. There are mountains of evidence that the Holocaust happened, there is slim to none that the ISI link happened.
Click to expand...

Do you have comprehension problems? I'm not saying the holocaust didn't happen.

It was not an analogy, it was an example of how a documentary could be factual but mislead by omission.

Columbo is my favourite cop show, he would be ashamed of these reasoning skills.
 
Aphelion said:
If I made a documentary presenting facts about adolf hitler that were all true, but failed to mention that he carried out the holocaust, would you find a problem with that?
Click to expand...


Wow. You're not very good at this, are you?

-Gumboot
 
Aphelion said:
If I presented the documentary as a "case closed" type treatment of his life, you would have a problem/
Click to expand...

Again, for the reading impaired.
IT depends on the scope of the documentary.
CASE closed that he had a childhood? sure. it doesn't need to address the holocaust
case closed that he committed? sure. it doesn't need to address the holocaust.
 
Aphelion said:
If I presented the documentary as a "case closed" type treatment of his life, you would have a problem/
Click to expand...

I don't think you understand your own suggestion.

The Holocaust was a massive issue with Hitler.

ISI connection is the last thing a CTer learns- or cares about.

Comparing the two is ludicrous.
 
Aphelion said:
Do you have comprehension problems? I'm not saying the holocaust didn't happen.
Click to expand...

that is not what he is saying. YOU seem to have comprehension problems.

It was not an analogy, it was an example of how a documentary could be factual but mislead by omission.
Click to expand...

what is it omitting? AGAIN it depends on the scope of the documentary. If the documentary is only addressing one aspect of Hitler's life, it doesn't necessarily have to address the holocaust. Its not Misleading by omission (and again, a term you do not understand)
 
gumboot said:
Wow. You're not very good at this, are you?

-Gumboot
Click to expand...

I'm not the one that did a 180 degree u-turn on the BBC.

If i'm so bad at it, why don't you go argue with some people who are better? Or is "not very good" the only level you feel comfortable at?
 
Aphelion said:
I'm not the one that did a 180 degree u-turn on the BBC.

If i'm so bad at it, why don't you go argue with some people who are better? Or is "not very good" the only level you feel comfortable at?
Click to expand...

Because you persist.

Without answering his questions.
 
Aphelion said:
Do you have comprehension problems? I'm not saying the holocaust didn't happen.

It was not an analogy, it was an example of how a documentary could be factual but mislead by omission.

Columbo is my favourite cop show, he would be ashamed of these reasoning skills.
Click to expand...

I wasn't saying that you thought the holocaust didn't happen. Do you have comprehension problems? I was saying that not including the Holocaust, an event that has evidence to support it's existence, in a documentary about Hitler is not the same as not including information about ISI, an event that has little to no evidence supporting it, in a documentary about 9/11.
 
Arus808 said:
that is not what he is saying. YOU seem to have comprehension problems.



what is it omitting? AGAIN it depends on the scope of the documentary. If the documentary is only addressing one aspect of Hitler's life, it doesn't necessarily have to address the holocaust. Its not Misleading by omission (and again, a term you do not understand)
Click to expand...

The scope of the BBC piece was ALL CTs regarding 911. It happily claimed case closed at the end. Please explain how it could do that when it didnt address all the theories, and actually chose to debunk the lone gunmen thing rather than serious concerns like ISI and able danger.

It lied by omission.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom