BBC 9/11: The Conspiracy Files

[JimBenArm]

Dylan never went to film school. He is not a dropout by any definition of the word.

Hey, dude! Yeah, you!
This is the biggest error you can find? This is worth all the effort?
Nobody cares if he is or is not a dropout. BFD.
He IS an idiot. Hence, people would think he's a dropout.
Other than this, and the absurd "8 mile" claim you harped on, what else is wrong? Anything substantial, or just minutia?

 

[Arus808]

It was deliberately misleading.

how?

The producer said on Alex Jones show that he found the ISI link "interesting".

Watching people try to cow tip is interesting, but doesn't mean anything more than that.

Does that mean that ISI link has anything to do with 9/11? no. Just that it was 'interesting' to the producer. What he does with it, we dont know ,and its wrong of you or anyone to speculate more than that.

He even said he may make a future documentary on it.

operative word: may . doesn't mean he is going to. nothing absolute. speculation here , but he may research into it, find that it was a commment made by an unanmed source in a pakistan online news site and abandon it . or he MAY find out that an ISI link has nothing to do with 911 but do a documentary on what it is and why it exists. etc etc. YOU DONT KNOW.

So why would he not put something so interesting in this film?

Because it may have not been brought up during the filming of the 911 special? because who really gives a damn

 

[Arus808]

Watch the CBC documentary and see how an unbiased program on 9/11 is done.

Link?

edit: eghad, just searching on CBC brings up a whole bunch of WOOnes.. i doubt that video is unbiased at all.
and there is an artcile about the CBC video being very biased and pushing radical and debunked theories anyway.

So no, that is not an unbiased program.

And please look up the word bias and how its not applied in this case to the BBC special. You do not understand what it means.

 

[Aphelion]

Link?

And please look up the word bias and how its not applied in this case to the BBC special. You do not understand what it means.

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-3411726306994493269&q=cbc+911

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

When did he say that?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2276991&postcount=100

 

[Aphelion]

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2276991&postcount=100

Yes a target, not a claim.

 

[Arus808]

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-3411726306994493269&q=cbc+911

ahha. that's unbiased???

you really do not understand the meaning of the word.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Yes a target, not a claim.

So, when it shows in 2 local theaters, you won't think Dylan was engaging in severe hyperbole?

 

[CptColumbo]

ahha. that's unbiased???

you really do not understand the meaning of the word.

You see from his/her POV when a show uses facts to debunk the "troofers" it's biased. When it doesn't do fact checking it isn't.

What's that called? Oh yeah, BIASED!

 

[Aphelion]

ahha. that's unbiased???

you really do not understand the meaning of the word.

How did you watch a 31 minute documentary in 9 minutes?

 

[CptColumbo]

How did you watch a 31 minute documentary in 9 minutes?

Maybe he saw it before, and only needed to watch a little to be reminded of it.

Getting back to the BBC doc. What facts do you think they got wrong, that involved 9/11?

 

[Aphelion]

Maybe he saw it before, and only needed to watch a little to be reminded of it.

Getting back to the BBC doc. What facts do you think they got wrong, that involved 9/11?

When did I claim they got facts wrong?

Edit: Will you please point out the bias in the documentary I just posted?

 

[maccy]

Here's an interesting article about the BBC:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/...xml&sSheet=/opinion/2006/10/27/ixopinion.html

The Telegraph is a right-wing pro-establishment newspaper, it has long been campaigning against the BBC and the license fee. This is partly because the BBC is increasingly in competition with all media outlets as they move towards web content (and paper newspaper circulations fall); partly because the Telegraph considers the BBC to have a left-wing/liberal bias (not a surprising stance for a right-wing newspaper to take); and partly because they are politically inclined to support a market based system over a compulsory license fee.

None of this has a bearing on Conspiracy Theories, and the The Telegraph has never given any credence to 9/11 Conspiracy Theories. In general the Telegraph supports the general thrust of US Foreign and Domestic policy and tends to align itself with the Republicans in the US and the Conservatives in the UK. The are also extremely pro-Israel.

This is what they thought of the documentary:

James Walton in the Daily Telegraph:

"The Conspiracy Files listened to the theories with admirable patience. It did a fine job of tracing rumours to their source - usually an inaccurate news report from the day of the attack. It did its best to understand why people might want to blame the American government. yet, in the end, it demolished the conspiracy arguments with such ease that you wondered why it had given the so much airtime in the first place.​

"As a rule, all that was needed was a simple injection of fact. If the US Air Force didn't shoot down United 93, why was the debris strewn across an eight-mile area? (Answer: It wasn't.) Why was the hole in the Pentagon wall so small? (Answer: Because that's the size of hole a Boeing 757 would make.) Meanwhile, of course, there was the depressing feeling that the only people who really needed to be watching the programme wouldn't believe a word of it."​

via: http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/organgrinder/2007/02/first_night_911_the_conspiracy.html

Regardless of whether the Telegraph's accusations of bias against the BBC are valid or are just an expression of the Telegraph's bias, they have no bearing on the matter of 9/11.

Your other complaints against the BBC documentary are equally trivial. If the documentary is wrong to describe Dylan as a dropout, it doesn't undermine any of the other points it makes.
​

 

[JAStewart]

He still has yet to prove the BBC docu wrong on anything regarding 911.

 

[gumboot]

It was deliberately misleading.

The producer said on Alex Jones show that he found the ISI link "interesting". He even said he may make a future documentary on it. So why would he not put something so interesting in this film? Before he claimed case closed.

The BBC documentary was addressing claims raised by the CTers.

The ISI link is probably the absolute weakest link. Perhaps you will be the man to finally explain to me how it has any connection to an inside job whatsoever.

-Gumboot

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Maybe he saw it before. . .

Psst! Arus is a she...

He still has yet to prove the BBC docu wrong on anything regarding 911.

Apparently that's because he feels there was nothing factually wrong with it:

When did I claim they got facts wrong?

 

[Arus808]

Maybe he saw it before, and only needed to watch a little to be reminded of it.

HE? ...uhum...not equipped to be a "he".

Yes I saw that video a while back. Just had to see the first 5 minutes to be reminded of it.

yes, its not unbiased.

 

[CptColumbo]

Psst! Arus is a she...


Apparently that's because he feels there was nothing factually wrong with it:

DAMMIT the time I don't do the "he/she" thing and I got it [rule8]ing wrong!

 

[Aphelion]

The BBC documentary was addressing claims raised by the CTers.

The ISI link is probably the absolute weakest link. Perhaps you will be the man to finally explain to me how it has any connection to an inside job whatsoever.

-Gumboot

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?

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

When did I claim they got facts wrong?

The BBC show claimed the debris field was not 8 miles. This is contradicted by mainstream press reports. The BBC also called Dylan a dropout, another lie.

Oh, snap!