BBC 9/11: The Conspiracy Files

Cl1mh4224rd said:
You're really not helping subdue criticism of your observational skills, Aphelion, you know that?
Click to expand...

Many people have demonstrated that he has no reading comprehension.
I demonstrated earlier that he also has no hearing comprehension either.
 
Cl1mh4224rd said:
You're really not helping subdue criticism of your observational skills, Aphelion, you know that?
Click to expand...

It is difficult to keep track when arguing with 10 people simultaneously.

If you would like a thread just for the two of us then I will happily demonstrate my skills.
 
Aphelion said:
It is difficult to keep track when arguing with 10 people simultaneously.
Click to expand...
It's not a verbal conversation. What people "say" here doesn't need to be committed to memory. You could've just gone back one page (now two) and answered your own question.

Perhaps its actually just a matter of general laziness on your part.
 
Aphelion said:
Could you please tell me in what way you think the BBC has generally become more biased?
Click to expand...


I believe the BBC has become increasingly "leftist" and "Anti-American". Certainly this is understandable, however I believe this bias leads to unfair reporting of world events - such as what is happening in Iraq.

The first instance of uncovering this sort of thing occured during the Bosnian War.

At the time, a future work mate of my father was stationed in Bosnia with the British Army, as a United Nations Military Observer.

As you may recall, in the western media the moral opinion was weighted in favour of the local Muslim population, and against the Serbian population.

You may recall a key event in the war, when a Muslim marketplace was shelled by mortar fire. At the time a UN column was at the market, thus it was quickly reported around the world.

My father's future work mate was in that column. The mortar shells from that attack came from the Muslim positions on the hills above them. Both the experience of the soliders at the time, and an analysis of the blast damage after the event confirmed this. Even Muslim UN members with the column agreed without doubt - the Muslim soldiers had shelled their own people as a propaganda piece because they knew the UN were coming through.

A BBC reporter was with the column, and so he gave an accurate account of what happened.

However, when the item was broadcast on the BBC, the reporter's comments were removed. Instead a voice over, added after the piece was sent to the BBC news office, stated that the mortars had been fired by Bosnian Serbs. Not only was this categorically false, but they knew it was false. They intentially altered the reporting of their own correspondant to reflect a pre-established agenda - that being that Muslims were innocent victims and Bosnian Serbs were bad.

-Gumboot
 
I must say I haven't noticed such bias myself. If they are becoming increasingly anti-american then surely they wouldn't be so keen to exonnerate them in the 911 case.

The BBC are influenced by the British Government though. Shows have been pulled after intervention by ministers and top brass had to resign over the David Kelly business.


Do you agree with other people in the thread that the CBC piece is biased? If so, how?
 
Aphelion said:
Yes but you also made it clear that there are levels of bias. The CBC piece is the fairest I have seen.
Click to expand...


Now I'll teach you a bit about reception theory.

As an audience member, you are also biased. There's a whole multitude of factors that inform your reading of a given programme. How you were raised, what sort of teachers you had in school, whether you had breakfast this morning, and so forth.

Anything you are presented with has to get its way through all of those filters before it reaches you. Thus, just because you "think" something is unbiased doesn't mean it is. It more likely just means the programme better reflects your own pre-existing bias.

-Gumboot
 
gumboot said:
Now I'll teach you a bit about reception theory.

As an audience member, you are also biased. There's a whole multitude of factors that inform your reading of a given programme. How you were raised, what sort of teachers you had in school, whether you had breakfast this morning, and so forth.

Anything you are presented with has to get its way through all of those filters before it reaches you. Thus, just because you "think" something is unbiased doesn't mean it is. It more likely just means the programme better reflects your own pre-existing bias.

-Gumboot
Click to expand...

Agreed but this equally applies to the bias of debunkers watching the BBC piece.

To claim there is no absolute scale of bias is ridiculous since you yourself said the BBC had become more biased. Public service broadcasters should try to be as fair as possible. This can be done without considering what the internal bias of the audience might be.
 
Aphelion said:
To claim there is no absolute scale of bias is ridiculous since you yourself said the BBC had become more biased. Public service broadcasters should try to be as fair as possible. This can be done without considering what the internal bias of the audience might be.
Click to expand...

You have not got a clue what you are talking about. The BBC is one of the most respected broadcasters on the planet. They are for ever having a go at the Government. They have won many, many top broadcasting awards for factual documentaries.

They are funded by the public and are proud to be servants of the public. The UK Government does not own the BBC and the BBC have on many occasions exposed wrong doing within the UK government.

They have correspondents all over the world.

They are that open they even allow feedback on their programs; they allow you to email them, call them or even write to them. You could even sue them if you think they have misrepresented you or your movement.

So on you go, sue them, take out a law suit against them. No didn’t think you would.

You are talking about the broadcasters in my country as though you are some sort of media guru. You are simply annoyed because like the rest of the massive broadcasters they don’t pay you the attention you believe you deserve.

Your theories deserve what they got. That is being exposed as the utter drivel they are.

Are you proud? Are you proud to be part of a movement that accuses your fellow countrymen of planning, executing and covering up mass murder of 3000 of your own?
Do you get off on it?

You are not accusing the nasty USG you are accusing normal, law abiding citizens of the most heinous crime possible. So on you go pal, email the BBC, get all upset when normal standards kick in and exposes you and this dreadful movement for what they are. That being pitiful, an excuse to simply jump on the bandwagon exploit and market this dreadful event. Get your DVD’s out, mock and lie about this event.

Me? I choose the BBC over you and this garbage any day.
 
stateofgrace said:
You have not got a clue what you are talking about. The BBC is one of the most respected broadcasters on the planet. They are for ever having a go at the Government. They have won many, many top broadcasting awards for factual documentaries.

They are funded by the public and are proud to be servants of the public. The UK Government does not own the BBC and the BBC have on many occasions exposed wrong doing within the UK government.

They have correspondents all over the world.

They are that open they even allow feedback on their programs; they allow you to email them, call them or even write to them. You could even sue them if you think they have misrepresented you or your movement.

So on you go, sue them, take out a law suit against them. No didn’t think you would.

You are talking about the broadcasters in my country as though you are some sort of media guru. You are simply annoyed because like the rest of the massive broadcasters they don’t pay you the attention you believe you deserve.

Your theories deserve what they got. That is being exposed as the utter drivel they are.

Are you proud? Are you proud to be part of a movement that accuses your fellow countrymen of planning, executing and covering up mass murder of 3000 of your own?
Do you get off on it?

You are not accusing the nasty USG you are accusing normal, law abiding citizens of the most heinous crime possible. So on you go pal, email the BBC, get all upset when normal standards kick in and exposes you and this dreadful movement for what they are. That being pitiful, an excuse to simply jump on the bandwagon exploit and market this dreadful event. Get your DVD’s out, mock and lie about this event.

Me? I choose the BBC over you and this garbage any day.
Click to expand...


I think your anger is misplaced. I am not accusing the BBC of bias, gumboot is.

I said a few posts above that I hadn't noticed any general bias in the BBC. Gumboot called them increasingly leftist and anti-american. You truly are incredible.
 
Aphelion said:
Agreed but this equally applies to the bias of debunkers watching the BBC piece.

To claim there is no absolute scale of bias is ridiculous since you yourself said the BBC had become more biased. Public service broadcasters should try to be as fair as possible. This can be done without considering what the internal bias of the audience might be.
Click to expand...



I wondered if they had become more biased, or if I had just started to notice a bias that had already existed.

-Gumboot
 
Okay so I watched the CBC piece.

First off, they're grossly different pieces, and their objectives are different. The CBC piece was nothing more than a summary of CT claims. They didn't actually make any effort to investigate any of these claims at all.

In contrast, the BBC piece took each of the claims, and then went and sought out sources of information that could demonstrate whether these claims were true or not.

-Gumboot
 
Aphelion said:
I think your anger is misplaced. I am not accusing the BBC of bias, gumboot is.

I said a few posts above that I hadn't noticed any general bias in the BBC. Gumboot called them increasingly leftist and anti-american. You truly are incredible.
Click to expand...

I am not angry, I stating my opinion, is that allowed? Or would you rather it be censored?

Whatever anger I do actually feel is directly solely at you and truth movement and certainly not any other member of this forum , so do yourself a favor stop avoiding the issues and start addressing them. Dancing around and avoiding issues is what you guys do best isn’t it?

Simply asking questions eh?

Incorrect you are not, you are accusing, and you are making false accusations towards anybody that disagrees with your complete nonsense.

So rather than do that, why do you not do something that no other cter has ever done, put up. Tell me what happened on 911. Got the metal to do that or prefer to play the poor victim? The poor sad pathetic victim who nobody listens to and nobody cares about, so come on put up.

What happened on 911?
 
Last edited:
I have not noticed the bias you speak of Gumboot, but the only BBC I get exposed to on a regular basis is the radio BBC Worldservice through PRI (they also carry "As It Happens" from the CBC). Occasionally I see it on BBCAmerica, but I'm not home often enough to catch it regularly. So I can't really give an informed opinion on it, especially when it comes to long term trends.
 
Aphelion said:
Agreed but this equally applies to the bias of debunkers watching the BBC piece.

To claim there is no absolute scale of bias is ridiculous since you yourself said the BBC had become more biased. Public service broadcasters should try to be as fair as possible. This can be done without considering what the internal bias of the audience might be.
Click to expand...

I think the BBC did a good job and presented a clear picture of the nut cases, who are Dylan, Fetzer, and Alex Jones.

I thought the presentation was balanced in repeating the woo woo ideas and presenting good rebuttals. They presented truther ideas and then showed why they are nuts without calling them nuts.

What specific bias was evident and why?
 
stateofgrace said:
Whatever anger I do actually feel is directly solely at you and truth movement and certainly not any other member of this forum , so do yourself a favor stop avoiding the issues and start addressing them. Dancing around and avoiding issues is what you guys do best isn’t it?
...
So rather than do that, why do you not do something that no other cter has ever done, put up. Tell me what happened on 911. Got the metal to do that or prefer to play the poor victim? The poor sad pathetic victim who nobody listens to and nobody cares about, so come on put up.

What happened on 911?
Click to expand...

I think he/she has actually answered more questions than most CTers we have seen lately. It took a few posts, but it finally came out. This exchange hasn't been perfect, but has been more productive than the usual woos (look at christophera for the extreme opposite).
 
beachnut said:
I think the BBC did a good job and presented a clear picture of the nut cases, who are Dylan, Fetzer, and Alex Jones.

I thought the presentation was balanced in repeating the woo woo ideas and presenting good rebuttals. They presented truther ideas and then showed why they are nuts without calling them nuts.

What specific bias was evident and why?
Click to expand...
Bolding mine.

Or did you mean in the BBC piece? :)
 
gumboot said:
Okay so I watched the CBC piece.

First off, they're grossly different pieces, and their objectives are different. The CBC piece was nothing more than a summary of CT claims. They didn't actually make any effort to investigate any of these claims at all.

In contrast, the BBC piece took each of the claims, and then went and sought out sources of information that could demonstrate whether these claims were true or not.

-Gumboot
Click to expand...


What??? The CBC journalists interviewed Thomas Kean and Popular Mechanics, and at the end of the show they said they had interviewed at length scientists on both sides.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom