BBC 9/11: The Conspiracy Files

Firestone said:
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.
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 $$$.
Because some families objected to the tapes being played publicly.

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 :)
Click to expand...

Exactly! First the video-footage is made by cameras definately not spec'ed to catch an incoming airplane at low altitude. CT's seem to think that surveillance camera are made like the all-purpose cameras people use, and TV-networks use but there is a significant difference: Surveillance cameras are highly specialised used to monitor a very defined area. In short, they dont do well with for instance different fields of depth, lighting and movement. Some doesn't even "film" per se, they only take a few pictures a second. Secondly they had no use aimed up towards the sky outside the Pentagon. They are surveillance cameras - and they firmly targeted at the object to surveil. I would be surprised if any of them shows a clear image of an airplane. They however wont show a missile either. Third, a lot of them belong to private companies who probably got through a juridical process to be allowed to have a camera - contrary to CT beliefs monitoring civilians is a controversial issue. They risk loosing their permittance if they publicise or make available such material - or even be sued by people who might be on the tapes.

When it comes to airplane wreckage there can be a million and one reasons: its sensitive, remember its sort of the tomb of a lot of innocent people, laymen doesn't know head from tail which will probably spur more CT'ing. But the most important reason: Its not the lack of evidence that makes the case for the "911 Offical story", its the evidence at hand. CT's seem to think that any lack of evidence - by their definition - means you can insert whatever theory you like there: No pic of a plane at Pentagon - means no plane at all - means a missile. No pic of the southside of WTC7 - means no damage at all - means CD. My guess is that should anyone be admitted to see the wreckage we would soon see pictures on CT sites comparing it to wreckage of missiles, UAV's and you would be back to square one.

Just my 2 cents.

SLOB
 
Last edited:
I was musing over this refusal to film the wreckage today. To be honest I don't see it as that huge a deal. Photographs already exist in the public domain of aircraft wreckage from both AA77 and UA93 in situ (the stuff that turned up in the Moussaoui trial evidence) and even of human remains at the Pentagon from AA77. So what difference would it really make filming the same bits at some Government Repository five years after the event? Plus if you're a no-planer you'll just say the wreckage could be from anywhere anyway.

The thing I think is the clincher for saying no though is if the US Government lets (in the case of the BBC) a foreign media outlet see it then all of a sudden every tom, dick and harry will be asking for the same access. Bar the website they set up with the debunking FAQ they (the US Government) aren't really arsed about being drawn into discussions on conspiracy theories.

A similar kind of thing applies regarding the calls from the likes of the 'Loose Change' lot for another enquiry. There is sod all indication of any new evidence that would change the original enquiry's broad findings as to what happened on the day (4 hijackings, 2 planes hit WTC, 1 hits Pentagon, the other crashes). Therefore the conclusions would be broadly similar to the original enquiry and all that'll happen then is the CT lobby will scream its another cover-up and we're back exactly where we all started.
 
cludgie said:
The thing I think is the clincher for saying no though is if the US Government lets (in the case of the BBC) a foreign media outlet see it then all of a sudden every tom, dick and harry will be asking for the same access. Bar the website they set up with the debunking FAQ they (the US Government) aren't really arsed about being drawn into discussions on conspiracy theories.
Click to expand...

Not to mention Judy Wood, the entire LC forum, Jim Fetzer, the crowd at GZ... And they will go ballistic if turned down "WHAT ARE THEY HIDING? The BBC got access, but not us, its the joooooos who own the mainstream media who are ALL IN ON IT".

I've already seen numerous claims in the line of "Why do the NIST "scientists" refute to debate us, what are they hiding?" - the fact that its not a god-given right to have access to anyone positive to the "official story" just because you have a homepage doesnt seem to stoph them, imagine what they would do with this...

Plus, if I were the manager of the site I wouldnt really want to cater some of the more looney CT's out there, look at how they behave on GZ, imagine them going around harassing the poor watchmen working the floor where all the scrap is kept... pushing up cameras in their faces for later quotemining and Youtube publishing.

SLOB
 
Last edited:
Quite. Its "damned if they do, damned if they don't". Take for example the gas station CCTV footage released last year. For ages there were cries of "that'll show something, what are they hiding?". Finally it gets released and funnily enough it shows nothing but shots of the gas station it was installed to survey. Then the cries go up of "its been tampered with, they're still hiding something, this isn't all of it". They can't win, they only could if it was a rational argument.
 
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?
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?
Click to expand...

If you do not see the wreckage of 77 and 93 you are just impaired. You have seen 4 high speed aircraft impact results on 9/11. You do not understand that is what you saw. If you can not see the aircraft parts you are mentally impaired. Nuts. Loony. Just a dolt.

But if you can find photos and evidence that indeed these were high speed impacts and that is what they look like you may have a chance at having intelligence. (do not hold your breath)

You let others tell you what it is. You believe others. You can not make up an original thought, you have to have some truth movement of lies define you and what you think about 9/11. You can not see evidence; you are blinded by some biased thoughts you keep secret and just too lazy to see the aircraft right in front of your face.

I guess you left out 11 and 175 since the whole world saw them impact the WTC.

Are you too impaired to realize flight 93 passengers did what most would have done on 9/11. Are you too much of a coward to open your eyes and learn about physics and other things so you can understand 9/11 after 5 years the way the passengers of flight 93 understood 9/11 in just minutes.

It appears the passengers of flight 93 are much smarter than the entire 9/11 truth movement and you.
 
Firestone said:
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.
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 $$$.
Because some families objected to the tapes being played publicly.

The true answer, however, is that it won't matter a lot.
Click to expand...

I partially agree with you. For sure releasing all this information (wreckage etc...) would spark, at first, initial debate about wether they were forged or not.
But seeing the videos (if they are videos) and the wreckage would be a huge blow to some of the CTs: mainly the F77 noplane theory, which has so much audience.

In the end, there would surely a bit of hardcore, bitter, defenders of these theories, but the official version would benefit.

So I'm wondering, the administration, when LC is going to be shown in the movie theaters, and the pressure mounts, will the administration be forced to show it?

If I were them, I would not wait. (provided they actually have the evidence).
 
 
busherie said:
I partially agree with you. For sure releasing all this information (wreckage etc...) would spark, at first, initial debate about wether they were forged or not.
But seeing the videos (if they are videos) and the wreckage would be a huge blow to some of the CTs: mainly the F77 noplane theory, which has so much audience.

In the end, there would surely a bit of hardcore, bitter, defenders of these theories, but the official version would benefit.

So I'm wondering, the administration, when LC is going to be shown in the movie theaters, and the pressure mounts, will the administration be forced to show it?

If I were them, I would not wait. (provided they actually have the evidence).
Click to expand...
The thing is, Busherie, the U.S. government doesn't need to take action against delusional morons. Delusional morons take care of themselves. That's because they're delusional morons. Dylan Avery, Jason Bermas, and Korey Rowe are delusional morons. I've proved it.

Think different? Present your evidence.

Proceed, Busherie. We're waiting.
 
There's a preview of the programme in the Guardian (heard about it from some truther compatriots):

Mark Twain once said that a lie can travel halfway round the world before the truth can put its socks on. Now, thanks to the internet, a lie can travel round the world, head home, take a dump, watch the entire Lord Of The Rings trilogy on DVD, make supper and die of old age before the truth has opened an eyelid...Chinese whispers spread online faster than any computer virus...

I don't believe 9/11 was an inside job orchestrated by the Bush administration. Which is a pity, because I love a good conspiracy theory, and that's a humdinger.

Thing is, people like me will eventually be in the minority if the Chinese whisperers have their way. I'd like to think tomorrow's excellent documentary 9/11: The Conspiracy Files (Sun, 9pm, BBC2) will redress the balance - but I doubt it, since the story it tells (ie the real one) isn't half as exciting as the other story doing the rounds (ie the ******** cuckooland version).

In cool, measured tones it steadily dismantles the Loose Change conspiracy theory until there's nothing left to see besides a slightly snotty young director and a few unhinged talking heads. No rational person could watch this and come away thinking otherwise.

But whoops: people aren't rational.
Click to expand...
 
Gravy said:
The thing is, Busherie, the U.S. government doesn't need to take action against delusional morons. Delusional morons take care of themselves. That's because they're delusional morons. Dylan Avery, Jason Bermas, and Korey Rowe are delusional morons. I've proved it.

Think different? Present your evidence.

Proceed, Busherie. We're waiting.
Click to expand...

Hey, you may think different, but the Mineta case is still unanswered. I know in advance what you will answer, but it is clear Cheney's actions on that morning was never backed by any concrete evidence. However, even though we disagree, we shall wait until the end of the Libby trial, which may partially unveil the Cheney system (excellent article in this week's The economist).

As for the the WTC I'm not a specialist, and given 1. all the evidence is gone, 2. no one has who may have been involved in planting explosives has never gone public with information, well I don't think anything will ever be proven about this.

I agree you debunkers can say that there are very few evidence (for instance Mineta's testimony) proving a MIHOP, but please, don't pretend this administration is honest and transparent, don't assume this, don't use this as an argument. (I mean, just think about iraq pre-war intelligence, or Plame, or Companies lobbying: i'm sure we could agree on this)

States are always ready to lie and kill (even their own citizens, yes) to protect what they think is "national interest". So first off, you should meditate this. It may give you a more balanced view of the whole 9/11 issue.

Thx for your attention

busherie
 
There is nothing – absolutely nothing – in Norman Mineta's testimony that supports any MIHOP theory.

You don't have a shred of evidence of this conspiracy that you're supposedly hot on the heels of.

What? We need evidence? What kind of country do you people live in?
 
Gravy said:
Proceed, Busherie. We're waiting.
Click to expand...

Oh yeah, while I'm at it.

1. What do you do about the decision to declare the air safe to breath, which has caused an enormous public health for rescuers and new yorkers, whose action you say we insult the memory....

2. What do you do about the grave discrepancies in the FDR data provided by the NTSB (based on FBI data)? (see pilotsfor911truth)? (and if you say they are crazy please provide evidence)

3. And again, about Mineta, well you know my position.

Thx in advance
 
Dave Rogers said:
Whoa. I just took the BBC quiz, and got "Your responses indicate that you have a medium level of belief in conspiracy theories." Interesting - I'm just the sort of person the Twoofers should be targeting, and the result of a few months looking at all the evidence I could find brought me here instead.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/conspiracy_files/6161425.stm

How do all the regulars here get on?

Dave
Click to expand...

Interesting. Same result for me. So why don't I believe the Twoofers and the UFO enthusiasts?
 
busherie said:
Oh yeah, while I'm at it.

1. What do you do about the decision to declare the air safe to breath, which has caused an enormous public health for rescuers and new yorkers, whose action you say we insult the memory....

2. What do you do about the grave discrepancies in the FDR data provided by the NTSB (based on FBI data)? (see pilotsfor911truth)? (and if you say they are crazy please provide evidence)

3. And again, about Mineta, well you know my position.

Thx in advance
Click to expand...

lol, whenever nyou are confronted with serious questions, you never answer.

just like the bush administration, which created so much suspicion by always hiding facts, covering up important issues...

your attitude will never bring down the CTs. however, debunkers have helped refining the CTs arguments.

see you at the end of the year.
 
busherie said:
Oh yeah, while I'm at it.

1. What do you do about the decision to declare the air safe to breath, which has caused an enormous public health for rescuers and new yorkers, whose action you say we insult the memory....

2. What do you do about the grave discrepancies in the FDR data provided by the NTSB (based on FBI data)? (see pilotsfor911truth)? (and if you say they are crazy please provide evidence)

3. And again, about Mineta, well you know my position.

Thx in advance
Click to expand...

busherie said:
lol, whenever nyou are confronted with serious questions, you never answer.

just like the bush administration, which created so much suspicion by always hiding facts, covering up important issues...

your attitude will never bring down the CTs. however, debunkers have helped refining the CTs arguments.

see you at the end of the year.
Click to expand...
:rolleyes:

Let me help you out:

Read this.
Also read this.

And next time, try something like this.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom