BBC 9/11: The Conspiracy Files

Aphelion said:
Grunion I think when they received specific information about hijackings and buildings they should have immediately developed a protocol and standard response in NORAD. If it is true that WTC was mentioned specifically it should have been protected.
Click to expand...

I asked:

What specific preparations do you believe "they" should have performed?
Click to expand...

Bolding for emphasis.

What protocols should have been changed? How would these changes be implemented? How would the changes be coordinated? How long would all of this take? How much time would be reasonable to implement these changes? How much time would you consider to be reasonable to digest the intelligence and determine how protocol would be changed?

In 2002 one of my clients (a city) approached me and asked be to develop a scope of work and cost proposal to retrofit a large bridge and attach large guns to it. The purpose of these guns would be to shoot down any planes attempting to take out the bridge by crashing into it. I turned down the assignment. The idea was scrapped (for obvious reasons) shortly afterwards.

What's the relevance of this story?
I explained to my client that securing the skies was dependant upon controlling what entered the airspace, not shooting down the "bad guys" after they have already hijacked the plane.
 
Saw it last night on the Internet.

It was funny when Screw Loose Change Boy tried to impugne Popular Mechanics.

"They should go back to tractors. What do they know? They have no credibility."
 
Toro said:
It was funny when Screw Loose Change Boy tried to impugne Popular Mechanics.

"They should go back to tractors. What do they know? They have no credibility."
Click to expand...

Yeah, its funny. Its coming from the 23 year old college-reject who profits off crapping on the graves of nearly 3000 people who lost their lives that day... by creating a documentary which was incorrect. Not that we need him to tell us it, but he admitted it contained errors.
 
Watson and Jones are at it over on prisonplanet now.

"Because the BBC is funded solely through taxpaying British citizens via their TV license fee, the corporation is obliged to issue retractions and apologies if complaints about a particular broadcast are high."

AKA...send them a bunch of complaints and they might acknowledge that you idiots each sent them 40 emails about this being a hit piece.

I love when those two idiots collaborate on a piece of "writing"
 
TOHMS said:
Watson and Jones are at it over on prisonplanet now.

"Because the BBC is funded solely through taxpaying British citizens via their TV license fee, the corporation is obliged to issue retractions and apologies if complaints about a particular broadcast are high."
Click to expand...



I imagine the BBC earns a chunk of its money through sale of their original material.

-Gumboot
 
TOHMS said:
Watson and Jones are at it over on prisonplanet now.

"Because the BBC is funded solely through taxpaying British citizens via their TV license fee, the corporation is obliged to issue retractions and apologies if complaints about a particular broadcast are high."

AKA...send them a bunch of complaints and they might acknowledge that you idiots each sent them 40 emails about this being a hit piece.

I love when those two idiots collaborate on a piece of "writing"
Click to expand...

Wasn't it privatised a few years ago?
 
Aphelion said:
Quote from alexg the skeptic:



Quote from LashL the skeptic:

"They used an erroneous and long debunked graphic"
Click to expand...


You should have used the entirety of my quote instead of cherrypicking it, and you should have linked to it so that others could read it in its entirety if you were going to try to make hay with it.

It is here in its entirety.

Had you been honest enough to do so, you would have noted that it was "just a quick and dirty mini-review, for what little it's worth, as I have to get some sleep soon, but those are my preliminary observations/reactions to the show.

Your misrepresentation is very telling.

It is obvious that the graphic was misleading and long debunked to the extent that it referred to the cause and initiation of the collapse as initially presented by the BBC when they published it way back when, but it is also obvious that the collapse itself certainly involved pancaking in the sense that floors pancaked upon each other all the way down after the collapse began, so it is not misleading on that point.

Your quote-mining those few words out of my post to try to put it forward as support for your theories was dishonest, and typical troofer behaviour.


Your post #659:

Ask alexg and LashL. I would think presenting a long debunked graphic as the collapse mechanism would count as an error.
Click to expand...

is equally dishonest. I did not say that the graphic was being used in the present BBC program to describe the collapse mechanism at all, and as you know, that is not what it was used for in the current program.
 
Last edited:
Cl1mh4224rd said:
Better go correct Wikipedia, then, Mr. Engineer...


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beam_(structure)

...or retract your statement.
Click to expand...
then wilipedia needs to change every basic statics book, Marks Handbook, reference books, and the minds of us all.
A beam is an element. It can be used horizontaly, verically, or anywhere in between.
A collum is a vertical BEAM. A rafter, joist, or perlon is a horizontal BEAM, or construct of BEAM Elements. A BEAM element at an angle may be a rafter, or part of a truss.
A truss is a construct of numerous BEAM elments designed to carry loads in the plane of the truss.
 
TOHMS said:
Watson and Jones are at it over on prisonplanet now.

"Because the BBC is funded solely through taxpaying British citizens via their TV license fee, the corporation is obliged to issue retractions and apologies if complaints about a particular broadcast are high."

AKA...send them a bunch of complaints and they might acknowledge that you idiots each sent them 40 emails about this being a hit piece.

I love when those two idiots collaborate on a piece of "writing"
Click to expand...
I did some research to answer my own question, and found that AJ is once again wrong.

Regarding the financing of the BBC:
The principal means of funding the BBC is through the television licence, costing £11.37 a month if paid by direct debit (as of February 2007). Such a licence is required to operate a broadcast television receiver within the UK. The cost of a television licence is set by the government and enforced by the criminal law. The revenue is collected privately and is paid into the central government Consolidated fund, a process defined in the Communications Act 2003. Funds are then allocated by the DCMS and Treasury and approved by Parliament via the Appropriation Act(s). Additional revenues are paid by the Department for Work and Pensions to compensate for subsidised licences for over-75's. As the state controls BBC's funding, it is sometimes referred as a "state" broadcaster.

Income from commercial enterprises and from overseas sales of its catalogue of programs has substantially increased over recent years. with BBC Worldwide contributing some £145million in cash to the BBC's core public service business.

According to the BBC's 2005-2006 Annual Report, it's income can be broken down as follows:

£3,100.6 m licence fees collected from consumers.

£620.0 m from BBC Commercial Businesses.

£260.2 m from the World Service, of which £239.1 m is from grants (primarily funded by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office), £15.8 m from subscriptions, and £5.3 m from other sources.

£24.2 m from other income, such as providing content to overseas broadcasters and concert ticket sales.
Click to expand...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/foi/docs/annua...rt_and_accounts/BBC_Annual_Report_2005_06.pdf

While the majority of their income is from license fees, it is far from the sole income.
 
Last edited:
Watson and Jones' little "article" is nothing more than a call for the "truthers" to flood the BBC with ******** in order to MAYBE get soem sort of response from the Beeb.
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:September_17_2001.jpg


Just a quick question. I was browsing the web and this picture was kind of an intrigue.

How do you explain that the building on the left has small holes and impacts from WTC (as far as we can see) when WTC 7 is said to have been heavily damage?

As far as I can see the two buildings (WTC7 and the grey one on the left) are equally far from WTC.

Why the difference?

Busherie
 
TOHMS said:
Watson and Jones are at it over on prisonplanet now.

"Because the BBC is funded solely through taxpaying British citizens via their TV license fee, the corporation is obliged to issue retractions and apologies if complaints about a particular broadcast are high."

AKA...send them a bunch of complaints and they might acknowledge that you idiots each sent them 40 emails about this being a hit piece.
Click to expand...

They are wrong on both counts. The volume of mails or complaints the BBC receive have nothing to do with it. It is whether or not their complaints are correct. And that is judged by independent arbitrators. The BBC have their own internal complaints board and complaints are judged against the BBC's own editorial guidelines. I haven't read them extensively but I will bet anyone a tenner that there is no "don't tell the truth and make sure you let every ill-qualified doofus on to pout crap" clause in it. There is also OFCOM who are the regulators of TV in the UK. The BBC also have to fit in with their guidelines. But the license fee status of the BBC has nothing to do with it. If they are expecting an apology simply if they deluge the BBC with complaints then they will have a long wait. And are even dumber than I thought possible. And if they think the BBC is a tool of the UK Government then they REALLY are living in a fantasy world!!
 
Last edited:
busherie said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:September_17_2001.jpg


Just a quick question. I was browsing the web and this picture was kind of an intrigue.

How do you explain that the building on the left has small holes and impacts from WTC (as far as we can see) when WTC 7 is said to have been heavily damage?

As far as I can see the two buildings (WTC7 and the grey one on the left) are equally far from WTC.

Why the difference?

Busherie
Click to expand...



Because lots of debris hit WTC7 and not very much hit the Verizon Building.

-Gumboot
 
That sounds like something actionable. Jones is "punishing" the BBC by getting his wackos to e-bomb them. But he would have signed releases in order to appear in the documentary, and if it did turn out to be a problem, the BBC would probably be able to sue him.

Re: BBC funding. There has never been another organisation in the history of the world that more consistently had to "smarten up" and get its **** together every ten years, so that it could kindly receive the money it gets from the government-collected licence fee, and then proceeded to eviscerate the hand that fed it. Watch this week's Conspiracy Files, I've no doubt they're really going to let the government have it over Kelly and the Hutton report.
 
I find it very comical that the "truth" movement will cite BBC stories when they see fit, such as the hi-jackers being alive, US plans to invade Iran, etc., etc., but at the same time the BBC just dropped a huge hit piece on them. Whatever fits their agenda I guess. Just like they will cite the 9/11 commission report or NIST report if it corroborates something they have put forth in their theories..however if you bring it up in an argument with them they will instantly tell you it's a huge cover up.
 
TOHMS said:
I find it very comical that the "truth" movement will cite BBC stories when they see fit, such as the hi-jackers being alive, US plans to invade Iran, etc., etc., but at the same time the BBC just dropped a huge hit piece on them. Whatever fits their agenda I guess. Just like they will cite the 9/11 commission report or NIST report if it corroborates something they have put forth in their theories..however if you bring it up in an argument with them they will instantly tell you it's a huge cover up.
Click to expand...

+1

Just as they want mainstream media coverage until it bites them in the ass.
 
TOHMS said:
I find it very comical that the "truth" movement will cite BBC stories when they see fit, such as the hi-jackers being alive...
Click to expand...

notice though that they never cited the editorial that admitted the 'hijackers alive' story was in error.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom