BBC 9/11: The Conspiracy Files

NickUK said:
They're well pleased with it over at nineeleven.co.uk as well.

Not really :)

My favourite quote from there so far:



Erm...who else are they supposed to interview? Killtown and Judy Wood?
Click to expand...

I guess Steven Jones is the only one left - my guess is he will be the new hero, since he refused to be interviewed.

But its interesting to see how "the movement" distance themselves from their peers. Its tough being a CT, if you do, say or believe the wrong things you are out in the cold. And what is accepted belief can change fast.

SLOB
 
Nick Terry said:
Do-Over really looked like he was struggling not to go 'okay, you win, I misquoted the coroner'. I think he's just about smart enough to know he was caught with his pants down on that one. He may not have fully understood what a simile was but he knew there was a difference betwen someone saying 'looked like' and 'was'.
Click to expand...

That was good. The interviewer had to explain what a simile was, using small simple words. Avery froze.
 
I thought it was a shockingly bad documentary and neither side came out with much to crow about.

The CT representatives were clearly not telegenic being either brash or plain slack in appearance (neither of which is a premise for being wrong btw). Being English the evangelist approach turns me right off.

The debunking was strawman, dull and out of date. The use of Frank Spotnitz was a major shot in the foot and I couldn't take it seriously after that.

Given the opportunity the BBC should expand this away from the stream it's in and maybe do a 4-parter on the subject. There's enough material out there.
 
From BBCs Q&A:
The collapse of WTC has been investigated by FEMA. Their interim report found that when the North Tower collapsed, debris crashed into Building 7.
This was the likely cause of fires which quickly took hold. The sprinkler system did not work effectively because the water main in Vesey Street had been knocked out when the Twin Towers came down.
With the intense fires burning unabated, the steel structure supporting the building was fatally weakened. But the FEMA investigators conceded that this hypothesis had a low probability of occurring.
In their final report, due to be published later in 2007, FEMA is expected to back its original hypothesis substantially - the collapse of WTC7 was accidental, not deliberate.
Click to expand...
I was under the impression that it was NIST coming up with a new WTC7 report. Is FEMA also doing one, or am I missing something here?


/SLOB
 
Last edited:
William Rea said:
Given the opportunity the BBC should expand this away from the stream it's in and maybe do a 4-parter on the subject. There's enough material out there.
Click to expand...

But are there enough interest? My guess is that BBC get the same demands from all the different Conspiracy-groups when airing such a show, everyone thinking their conspiracy need more attention.

Cheers,
SLOB
 
SLOB said:
I was under the impression that it was NIST coming up with a new WTC7 report. Is FEMA also doing one, or am I missing something here?
Click to expand...
No, it's NIST: you're right & the BBC was wrong.
 
SLOB said:
From BBCs Q&A:

I was under the impression that it was NIST coming up with a new WTC7 report. Is FEMA also doing one, or am I missing something here?


/SLOB
Click to expand...


NIST is doing the WTC 7 report. They had a couple of lapses, but otherwise it was a very good piece of work. On my lunch break I watched parts 2-6 of the 7 youtube parts maccy posted in the other thread. I think I saw most of the important stuff of that documentary.

Althought it didn't bring much new info to us, it is a great piece for someone who is less informed of the details. It put the idiocy of the CT claims in perspective. That was done with the great interviews. I enjoyed watching the C-130 pilot, Wally Miller and Indian Lake guys and what they had to say. That compared with the AveryFetzerJones fairy tales. Their credibility just crumbled as the program went on.
 
I think that the show let the CT'ers speak for themselves really.

I'd love to see Jeremy Paxman interview Jones or Avery. That would be comedy.
 
William Rea said:
I thought it was a shockingly bad documentary and neither side came out with much to crow about.

The CT representatives were clearly not telegenic being either brash or plain slack in appearance (neither of which is a premise for being wrong btw). Being English the evangelist approach turns me right off.

The debunking was strawman, dull and out of date. The use of Frank Spotnitz was a major shot in the foot and I couldn't take it seriously after that.

Given the opportunity the BBC should expand this away from the stream it's in and maybe do a 4-parter on the subject. There's enough material out there.
Click to expand...

A four parter? Four hours of programming? You can only hold an audience's attention so long. Within an hour the BBC have already shown the 3 leading figures in the Truth Movement don't know what they're talking about. Should we sit through four hours of programming watching them fail over and over again just in case one of these clowns somehow managed to stumble upon something which is true?

The fact that you complain the debunkings are out of date should tell you something. The truthers had a whole bunch of 'proof' and it got debunked. They got a whole bunch more proof, and it got debunked. The same people are now claiming they've got a whole bunch of new proof. Do you really think they have?

Yes, the topic is huge, and the 'anomalies' are numerous, but they're all being found and pushed by a tiny group of minor celebrities whose investigative skills don't stand up to more than a few minutes' scrutiny. Come back when you've got some credibility.
 
The BBC at its best.

Fetzer, Avery and Jones were given enough rope to hang themselves and they did just that. The lasting impressions are of a bumbling, bombastic
oaf, an anarchic, gullible schoolboy and a rabble-rousing evangelist with a
political agenda.

The debunking was convincing, often clinical, and a joy to watch as each CT lie or distortion was countered by a knock-out reality check of some sort.
Sometimes they used contemporary news clips, animations or stock footage with appropriate commentary, but most often it was a short "from-the-horses-mouth" interview with the likes of the pilot of the C130, a passenger of Flight 89, the oft-misrepresented coroner, the mayor of Indian Lake and so on. A very effective technique.

Yes, there were many areas not covered, and the section on WTC7 could have been better, but this show did an excellent job of exposing the lies and promoting the truth, and might well change a few minds.
 
Brian Pears said:
Fetzer, Avery and Jones were given enough rope to hang themselves and they did just that. The lasting impressions are of a bumbling, bombastic oaf, an anarchic, gullible schoolboy and a rabble-rousing evangelist with a political agenda.
Click to expand...
I'd tend to agree but I don't think they came across quite that well!

JAStewart said:
I'd love to see Jeremy Paxman interview Jones or Avery. That would be comedy.
Click to expand...
That would be must-see TV. With toys thrown out of prams, and storming out of the studio with cries of "nasty man is asking me difficult questions".
 
I see one more tedious reply has popped up on the BBC editors blog (i'd post the link but I haven't enough posts on here to put urls up yet). Apparently we should now all watch yet another google video ('911 and American Empire - Intellectuals Speak Out'). Deary me.
 
JAStewart said:
I think that the show let the CT'ers speak for themselves really.

I'd love to see Jeremy Paxman interview Jones or Avery. That would be comedy.
Click to expand...

The trouble is, when face with complete nuttery Paxman just cant handle it, he has trouble believing that people can be that stupid. Look at this Ann Coulter interview when he just kept asking her "do you really believe that".
 
cludgie said:
I see one more tedious reply has popped up on the BBC editors blog (i'd post the link but I haven't enough posts on here to put urls up yet). Apparently we should now all watch yet another google video ('911 and American Empire - Intellectuals Speak Out'). Deary me.
Click to expand...

That's why there's no point in debating 'em in a normal way. The BBC addressed a number of substantial points and demolished them. It allowed Fetzer, Avery and Jones to make idiots of themselves. (Especially Avery with his aircraft-embedded-in-the-ground-at-45-degrees theory). What won't happen is any of the movement addressing the points substantially. They'll abuse the BBC, but as far as the actual issues, they'll be skimmed over.

This is not, obviously, because of the points raised. The BBC could have dealt with any of the CT theories, and the response would still have been to refer to something else - and don't reply until you've watched this two-hour video.
 
A new blog "debunking" the BBC-documentary nicely proves the comments above.

Whatever claim the BBC-documentary debunked is suddenly a strawman!

One example:

Were Jews forewarned about the attacks?

BBC attempts to link alternative 9/11 theories to anti-Semitism by overplaying a long discredited rumor implying Jewish favoritism. In fact, while many believe there was Israeli involvement in the 9/11 attacks, few 9/11 skeptics still endorse the rumour of the missing 4000 Jewish employees. The BBC chose to associate conspiracies with baseless anti-Semitic terrorist rumors saying: 'news spread around the world' of a 'Jewish plot' to evacuate the WTC.

The BBC engages in emotional manipulation during it's interview with the relative of a WTC2 victim, forcing the viewer subliminally to 'pick sides' - either the victim's side or the 'conspiracy theorists', thereby creating a divide that didn't exist. This relative went on to say that 'people need scapegoats'.

Note that the article does not deny that Israelis were warned of the attacks. A Haaretz article reported that two employees of New York-based company Odigo received messages warning of the attacks: [14]

On September 28, 2001, Odigo confirmed the story, and elaborated that the warnings came from workers based in an Israeli office:

http://www.fromthewilderness.com/timeline/2001/wpost092801.html

Furthermore, BBC's response fails to mention the reports of the five Mossad agents detained on 9/11:

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/fiveisraelis.html
Click to expand...

As if the Odigo-"warning" and the five dancing Israelis nonsense has not also been debunked a thousand times already.

And so it goes on.

We watched the BBC-documentary yesterday with a friend who is not following the 9/11-CT.
I consider him the target audience for such a documentary, and his reaction was very positive.
The 9/11-CT came over as utter nonsense, its proponents (Dylan, Fetzer, Alex Jones) as complete idiots.
The only thing my friend didn't get is why I spend so much time on this rubbish. :blush:
 
Last edited:
The NIST "Article"... "Kevin Ryan of Underwriters Laboratories " Jeez.. yet anohter person thinking "debunk" means "I saw it on the internet".
 
Oh dear, noticed the loons are all over the BBC 'Points of View' forum now yelling that the programme was biased.
 
eddyk said:
They mention that independant non-government funded investigation by those guys of the pentagon.

Now, this is what the CTs want right?


They got it, it doesn't fit with their theory...thus it is ignored.

They can never win.
Click to expand...

The CT mob didn't ignore it. The investigators said they got lots of mail accusing them of prostituting themselves to the Government. This is the problem with CTers. If you produce evidence that shows they're wrong, they just decide you must be part of the conspiracy. This programme will never convince the "Truthseekers" but it has a reasonable chance of convincing the undecided and the rational.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom