BBC 9/11: The Conspiracy Files

Arus808 said:
hmm. and i made that point quite a whiles back.

again, showing that Aphelion doesn't have reading comprehension and also doesn't have hearing comprehension.
Click to expand...

At least I watch the things I claim to watch.

At the end of the BBC film, she states that the case is closed but CTs will continue to ask questions and cause pain to the families.
 
Aphelion said:
So when you claimed earlier it was biased you were just guessing?
Click to expand...

Nope. AS I stated earlier. I watched that particular video a long time ago, and remembered what it was about. I wanted to rewatch it so that i could point out where the bias was.

It did loads of research. It interviewed the chief editor of the popular mechanics piece, it interviewed the chairman of the 911 commission. It offered the counter claims to every claim made by the CTs.
Click to expand...

aGain, I have to rewatch it, and right NOW I technically can't. So unless the video is elsewhere as a download, Im unable to comment further on it.

Aphelion, you've demonstrated that you can't read properly; cant hear properly, so dont delve into making assumptions that are founded on nothing.
 
Aphelion said:
At least I watch the things I claim to watch.

At the end of the BBC film, she states that the case is closed but CTs will continue to ask questions and cause pain to the families.
Click to expand...

No that is not what she said. REad gumboots exact word for word post of what she said at the end. You are making an assumption of what is being said, and taking away more from it than what is really being said.

again, you show that you lack reading and hearing comprehension.
 
Thanks for the link and I will watch it on my own time, provided my computer can play wmv files (its pretty finicky with them)

however, why haven't you addressed Gumboot's opinons? Why must you wait on mines?

and when are you going to answer the questions put forth to you. Since its obvious you lied in your reply to me about stating that the BBC piece had no errors. Because you're still harping on it; that means you still think it had errors.


ah forget it... i dont have time to waste on this. gumboot offered his opinon and you ignored it, so if you plan on ignoring people when they've answer your question just to single out someone, you are just a troll. I have 4 costumes to make by April and two armoring projects to work on.





tell you what, Im just going to agree with what Gumboot stated and watch the video when i want to and go with what my original feelings on it was back when i first watched (it was biased and presented too much on the CT claims without doing too much to present rebuttal testimony). So, if you dont like this answer. too bad. Im not going to waste my time trying to please a nutter.
 
Last edited:
Arus you clearly said you would watch it and give YOUR opinion. Are you backing out of that now?

Gumboot is lying about the documentary. He hasn't given a specific instance in the program you will notice.

Take your time, I'll keep bumping the thread to make sure you dont forget.
 
Aphelion said:
Arus you clearly said you would watch it and give YOUR opinion. Are you backing out of that now?
Click to expand...

Im going to throw in the towel and say you're not worth the extra time to debate. I have better things to do with my time than to force myself to watch more 9/11 drivel with repeated claims that have been debunked over a million times. Any video that presents only one side or barely goes into rebuttal testimony as much time as it gives to debunked CT claims, is biased.

As gumboot stated, aLL documentaries are biased...and that's why the CBC video is not unbiased (on that point).

So for now, go JAQ off to someone who really gives a damn. I dont.
 
Aphelion said:
I dont think the BBC piece had any errors.

Now it is your turn.
Click to expand...

that's a lie, because you harped about it throughout this thread.

so, im not going to argue with a shown to be liar as well.

IF someone else wants to watch that CBC video and show where its biased, let them and take their word. I'll just echo what they say.
 
ah forget it... i dont have time to waste on this. gumboot offered his opinon and you ignored it, so if you plan on ignoring people when they've answer your question just to single out someone, you are just a troll. I have 4 costumes to make by April and two armoring projects to work on.





tell you what, Im just going to agree with what Gumboot stated and watch the video when i want to and go with what my original feelings on it was back when i first watched (it was biased and presented too much on the CT claims without doing too much to present rebuttal testimony). So, if you dont like this answer. too bad. Im not going to waste my time trying to please a nutter.
Click to expand...


I wonder if the next issue of the oxford engish dictionary will accept the above as a definition to put under cowardice. LOL

Arus you have no integrity, no intellectual honesty, and you conceded defeat pages back with your ad-hominem attacks.

Next time you make a claim make sure you can back it up.
 
Aph,

The subject matter of the thread is the BBC Conspiracy Files piece.

What does it matter what anyone thinks of the wholly unrelated CBC piece? You could start a new thread about that if it is of interest to you, you know.
 
Aphelion said:
At least I watch the things I claim to watch.

At the end of the BBC film, she states that the case is closed but CTs will continue to ask questions and cause pain to the families.
Click to expand...

NARRATOR:
The evidence points to a conspiracy after 9/11, not before. The other 9/11 conspiracy theories are just that, theories. The evidence doesn’t support them. Case closed?

ALEX JONES:
I’m never gonna stop fighting, and all the hit pieces in the world, all the propaganda, all the threats I’ve received aren’t gonna stop us, and the truth is coming out, there are gonna be more whistle blowers, more people exposing 9/11 fraud, we’re gonna expose the lies one by one, we’re never gonna stop and we will prevail, we will win, we will never surrender.

FRANK SPOTNITZ:
I think when you debunk conspiracy theories, it’s ultimately disappointing, because you’re taking people’s security blankets away from them and you’re not giving them anything in its place. It’s like “Well, okay, you’re telling me I have to live with the fact this handful of lunatics killed all those people? That’s such a painful, horrible reality, I don’t find the truth comforting.” And so I think people will watch your programme and hear these answers and their rational brains will realize you’re probably telling the truth, but their emotional beings will be disappointed and left wanting something more.

NARRATOR:
The 9/11 conspiracy file is certain to remain open for a very long time to come, however painful and distressing that will be for the family of those who died that day.

-Gumboot
 
gumboot said:

NARRATOR:
The evidence points to a conspiracy after 9/11, not before. The other 9/11 conspiracy theories are just that, theories. The evidence doesn’t support them. Case closed?

ALEX JONES:
I’m never gonna stop fighting, and all the hit pieces in the world, all the propaganda, all the threats I’ve received aren’t gonna stop us, and the truth is coming out, there are gonna be more whistle blowers, more people exposing 9/11 fraud, we’re gonna expose the lies one by one, we’re never gonna stop and we will prevail, we will win, we will never surrender.

FRANK SPOTNITZ:
I think when you debunk conspiracy theories, it’s ultimately disappointing, because you’re taking people’s security blankets away from them and you’re not giving them anything in its place. It’s like “Well, okay, you’re telling me I have to live with the fact this handful of lunatics killed all those people? That’s such a painful, horrible reality, I don’t find the truth comforting.” And so I think people will watch your programme and hear these answers and their rational brains will realize you’re probably telling the truth, but their emotional beings will be disappointed and left wanting something more.

NARRATOR:
The 9/11 conspiracy file is certain to remain open for a very long time to come, however painful and distressing that will be for the family of those who died that day.

-Gumboot
Click to expand...

Gumboot i'm still waiting for you to back up your claim that the CBC film was biased. Please be specific. Name a CT claim that it leaves uncountered.
 
Aphelion said:
Gumboot is lying about the documentary. He hasn't given a specific instance in the program you will notice.
Click to expand...


I can't give a specific instance. I criticised them for NOT doing things. How can I cite a specific instance of something NOT happening?

In the ENTIRE programme, they investigate ONE CT claim. They test the cellphone theory by trying to make a phonecall over Washington DC and fail.

Other than this one example (and it's a stretch to call that investigation) please cite a single instance where the makers of the programme investigate a claim made by CTers.

-Gumboot
 
Aphelion said:
I wonder if the next issue of the oxford engish dictionary will accept the above as a definition to put under cowardice. LOL
Click to expand...

then your dictionary would be wrong and discredited
it isn't "cowardice" to know when to throw in the towel against someone who is shown to be intellectually unprepared against the members of this forum. I chose to step aside and let the more seasoned members to address the bias of the CBC video. AGain, I choose not to engage in the debate because
1) its going to waste my time
2) it'll probably wont play and you'll look at it as an excuse from me.

Sorry, technicalities aside, I dont have the best computer in the world. its 5 years old, very finicky and its crashed on me 3 times in the last year and it runs at a snails pace.

As stated, gumboot did a fine job of showing the CBC's bias even though it was a rough summary , but you chose to ignore it. Im not going to placate your delusions.

Arus you have no integrity,
Click to expand...
Integrity is to show that you know when to quit when you're up against someone who cotton in their ears and blind to the world.

Something you dont have.

no intellectual honesty
Click to expand...
And you haven't? Pot kettle black mister.

, and you conceded defeat pages back with your ad-hominem attacks.
Click to expand...
Ad hom attacks? Please...i haven't even started with the ad hom...
 
Aphelion said:
Gumboot i'm still waiting for you to back up your claim that the CBC film was biased. Please be specific. Name a CT claim that it leaves uncountered.
Click to expand...


I'm still waiting for you to conceed that you were wrong about standard hijacking proceedure on 9/11.

-Gumboot
 
gumboot said:
I can't give a specific instance. I criticised them for NOT doing things. How can I cite a specific instance of something NOT happening?

In the ENTIRE programme, they investigate ONE CT claim. They test the cellphone theory by trying to make a phonecall over Washington DC and fail.

Other than this one example (and it's a stretch to call that investigation) please cite a single instance where the makers of the programme investigate a claim made by CTers.

-Gumboot
Click to expand...

They counter all the claims with either Popular Machanics or the chairman of the 911 commission talking on camera. Please present a claim that they promote, or dont counter.
 
Aphelion said:
They counter all the claims with either Popular Machanics or the chairman of the 911 commission talking on camera. Please present a claim that they promote, or dont counter.
Click to expand...


That's not an investigation. That's a "he says, she says" piece. 9/11 is not an opinion piece. It is a FACTUAL EVENT. Opinions mean nothing. Only facts count. The CBC story made no attempt whatsoever to present ANY facts.

In contrast the BBC series sought facts regarding every single claim raised, and found every single claim to be wrong.

-Gumboot
 
Aphelion said:
Arus you have no integrity, no intellectual honesty, and you conceded defeat pages back with your ad-hominem attacks.
Click to expand...

Hey, easy there, champ. You're making some pretty egregious claims there with nothing to back them up. You should apologize forthwith and hope that Arus is a big enough person to accept your abject apologies.
 
How about I present for you some things the CBC programme gets wrong?

They, in fact, get their very first fact wrong.

They show a man who believes "100%" that the US Government murdered his son and orchestrated 9/11. They then state he is not alone, citing a 40% statistic in a poll.

The poll does not indicate that people believe the US Government carried out 9/11. It says they concealed or refused to investigate evidence. That's not even remotely the same thing.

-Gumboot
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom