BBC 9/11: The Conspiracy Files

I got the medium level score too. I wonder how they arrive at that when you answer negatively to the Kennedy, Diana, and alliens conspiracy questions.

Did I just hear Vine say his phone was broken and so no phone in? Ha! I think he just doesn't want to field a barrage of calls from nutjobs.
 
On the Belgium forum I frequent all the regulars of the CT-discussions took that test, and almost all got the medium level score.

From people like me who don't even believe the JFK-conspiracy to a guy who believes Icke's stuff.
 
Last edited:
I'm "medium level" too! Looks like the test isn't quite as useful as they thought.
 
MikeW said:
I'm "medium level" too! Looks like the test isn't quite as useful as they thought.
Click to expand...
And here.

It would appear that a skeptics answers provide the mid-way score, which kinda makes sense on such a basic test.
Skeptics, after all, are naturally reluctant to take everything at face value and are therefore less trusting than a "model citizen". Yes?
 
"Tiny microns of dust shot out of the building" David Shayler.

Of course, he can tell that from looking at the grainy, highly compressed video footage.

Crackpot.
 
It appeared that Shayler got the lion's share of airtime AND was allowed to get away with shouting down the chap representing the other side of the argument.

Vine usually does better, disappointing.

This broadcast will be available for 7 days via Listen Again
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio2/shows/vine/
Scroll 30 minutes into today's programme.
 
i got:
Your responses suggest you have a low level of belief in conspiracy theories. You may well tend to be trusting of your close friends, partners, those you work with and others. You may also feel that you contribute to political decisions and have a voice that is heard in wider society, albeit a small one.

although i found it incredibly obvious which answer to give to score me as low :)
 
That was just Shayler getting the WTC collapse times wrong, talking about the Pentagon antiaircraft missile system, and wondering how anyone could explain thermal images of hotspots at Ground Zero. He really hasn't got anything, has he?
 
MikeW said:
That was just Shayler getting the WTC collapse times wrong, talking about the Pentagon antiaircraft missile system, and wondering how anyone could explain thermal images of hotspots at Ground Zero. He really hasn't got anything, has he?
Click to expand...

We know that, but the millions of listeners were not presented with sufficient coverage of the opposing viewpoint.

The public callers they've had on were again not challenged sufficiently with opposing evidence and only one comment I've heard so far has been against the Deniers (although I may have missed some).
 
Two nutjobs got on and were good comedy value. The second one cannot fly commercial jets on his MS Flight Simulator and therefore 9/11 was an inside job.:D
 
brettDbass said:
We know that, but the millions of listeners were not presented with sufficient coverage of the opposing viewpoint.

The public callers they've had on were again not challenged sufficiently with opposing evidence and only one comment I've heard so far has been against the Deniers (although I may have missed some).
Click to expand...
I know. But were you surprised? Vine perhaps looked at a few sites for an hour or two in preparation, and that's it. And the New Statesman guy wasn't much better. There's no way this kind of show will ever be ready to properly counter anything they might run into: it would take just too long. Sundays programme is where the decent analysis should appear (hopefully!)
 
MikeW said:
I read some additional comments today that suggests it'll offer some fragments of hope to the CTers: looks like they asked if they could film the wreckage from Flight 77 or 93, but were refused. So you can expect that to generate more "what have they got to hide" comments, even if the BBC don't draw that conclusion.

I think that overall, though, it'll follow the pattern of the first programme, which investigated the "Princess Diana was murdered" claims. That covered more ground than I'd expected, but ultimately shot down most of the pointers to conspiracy, and I'd be surprised if Sunday proves any different.
Click to expand...

Just a question. Suppose you're fed up with CTs and you wanna put a definitive end to this "madness". Let's be logical here:
Why not show the wreckage of F77 and F93?
Why not show all the videos about F77 hitting the pentagon?
WHy not allow everybody to hear the final minutes of F93?

I mean, what's their point, if they have nothing to hide?

Can anybody answer this simple question?
 
I got also the medium level score, probably everyone. Will this increase my level ? The BBC says:

The US State Department has launched a website to debunk conspiracy theories the US State Department has launched a website to debunk conspiracy theories

Which site is that ?
 
MikeW said:
I know. But were you surprised? Vine perhaps looked at a few sites for an hour or two in preparation, and that's it. And the New Statesman guy wasn't much better. There's no way this kind of show will ever be ready to properly counter anything they might run into: it would take just too long. Sundays programme is where the decent analysis should appear (hopefully!)
Click to expand...

Surprised? Only slightly.
Disappointed? Yes, hugely.

The show often goes into great depth over complex issues but they paid lip service to this issue, laughing their way through it as they went. As has been shown in this forum so often, this is not a laughing matter at all.
There is a team of researchers employed on this show and they should have prepared Vine better with more facts and better guests.
Also, the shows producer has the job of making sure there is a balance of viewpoints. They made a damn mess of this.

My main reason for being greatly disappointed in the whole affair is that there will be much higher listener figures for this programme than the BBC2 show will generate. Millions of people will go away thinking there's probably something to it after all - "I mean, Jeremy Vine didn't say anything against it and he presents Panorama!"
 
busherie said:
Just a question. Suppose you're fed up with CTs and you wanna put a definitive end to this "madness". Let's be logical here:
Why not show the wreckage of F77 and F93?
Click to expand...
I don't know why they don't show it.
Maybe because a layperson will not recognize what they have as wreckage of a Boeing 757? And then we would get a new generation of KT's looking for all kind of "anomalies" in the shown wreckage.
busherie said:
Why not show all the videos about F77 hitting the pentagon?
Click to expand...
Are you sure there are videos showing flight 77 hitting the Pentagon? Anyway, FOIA is your friend here, provided the videos are not someone's private property. In that case, I'm sure the owner will make them public when he can, maybe for $$$.
busherie said:
WHy not allow everybody to hear the final minutes of F93?
Click to expand...
Because some families objected to the tapes being played publicly.

busherie said:
I mean, what's their point, if they have nothing to hide?

Can anybody answer this simple question?
Click to expand...
The true answer, however, is that it won't matter a lot.

The evidence that the four planes ended where the standard theory claims is overwhelming.
Nevertheless we still have no-planers, even for flight 175 that thousands (if not more) saw with their own eyes crash into WTC 2.

I also feel (notice the word feel) that the US authorities are not always as forthcoming with information as I would like. However, that is only a small element explaining the CT's. The paranaoia and the sick desire to blame certain groups are the main driving force behind most CT's, and no amount of information will remedy that.

imho of course :)
 
Last edited:
brettDbass said:
The show often goes into great depth over complex issues but they paid lip service to this issue, laughing their way through it as they went. As has been shown in this forum so often, this is not a laughing matter at all.
Click to expand...
True enough. One problem here is the media think these issues are easy to dismiss: they don't take them seriously, like you said. This lets the CTs off the hook, because they're able (legitimately) to say "the show only concentrated on extreme issues like 'no planes'".

But then, because they don't examine them properly, they also miss the genuine fictions & distortions. I generally think debates achieve little, but to be honest I'd have loved to respond to Shayler there. He talks such total and utter rubbish, and it needs to be exposed... And it could have been, easily.

Still, perhaps Sunday's programme will deliver. I'm still optimistic.
 
MikeW said:
True enough. One problem here is the media think these issues are easy to dismiss: they don't take them seriously, like you said. This lets the CTs off the hook, because they're able (legitimately) to say "the show only concentrated on extreme issues like 'no planes'".

But then, because they don't examine them properly, they also miss the genuine fictions & distortions. I generally think debates achieve little, but to be honest I'd have loved to respond to Shayler there. He talks such total and utter rubbish, and it needs to be exposed... And it could have been, easily.

Still, perhaps Sunday's programme will deliver. I'm still optimistic.
Click to expand...
Completely agreed.

I also remain hopeful that the TV show will be of a much higher standard.
 
The timeline still talks of the upcoming "FEMA report on World Trade Center building 7" and still only mentions 9/11 Commission report and the first FEMA report...

SLOB
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom