The scope of the BBC piece was ALL CTs regarding 911.
The scope of the bbc piece was to address the claims by conspiracy theories. Not all of them; just to address the claims of conspiracy theories.
That's what they did. They interviewed the three most "vocal" Conspiracy theorists and got their claims, then they went out to see why those claims are being made.
So,:
1) they presented a claim being made by a "truther"
2) they followed up that claim with an interview of people who says that claim is unfounded (ie Fetzer saying
no plane hit the pentagon, followed by an interview with a Structural ENGINEER who was there on that day, who was apart of the clean-up/investigation team who said on camera what he saw; evidence of a plane / Fetzer saying that the c130 pilot
remote piloted a plane into the pentagon , followed up by an interview with that c130 pilot. Notice the glaring and obvious error made by FETZER in just these two segments of the SAME freaking show?)
3) The viewer is then left to judge what is the "truth".
So, again, what was wrong with the BBC piece?
It happily claimed case closed at the end.
I didn't hear that at the end. In fact they stressed that it would probably remain open for a VERY long time, no matter how distressing its for the family members and victims of that day.
Not only you can't read and comprehend, YOU can't even HEAR and comprehend.
Please explain how it could do that when it didnt address all the theories
Well, in an hour show, it hit the most widely claimed theories. If the BBC had 16 hours, and money needed to bring all the theorists and eyewitnesses, it would just be a rehash of hte 9/11 comission reports/NIST report and FEMA reports. Why bother?
No where in the show that it said it would address ALL the theories.
and actually chose to debunk the lone gunmen thing rather than serious concerns like ISI and able danger.
The LONE gunmen thing was more pushed in recent years so that's why they focused on it. ISI "Claim" was only made know to the producer on the ALEX JONES show , and that's why the producer made that claim (that he may do a show..doesn't mean he will). If the producer didn't know of an ISI claim, then it wasn't a claim that was widely known (and many people still dont know about it).
Why are you so stuck on a claim that isn't even supported by much of the truth movement anyway?
and no, it was not misleading by omission (PLEASE Look up the definition of this term, since yOU Do not understand it).
Again, please point out what the errors were in the 911 bbc video.
