funk de fino
Dreaming of unicorns
I guess you are not american?
BBC2 Conspiracy Files 9/11
- Thread starter Oliver
- Start date
-
- Tags
- 911 conspiracy theory bbc
I guess you are not american?
fullflavormenthol
Master Poster
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2008
- Messages
- 2,415
Huh?
Huh? Okay well 9-11 rolls off the tongue because you have heard it thousands of times. Play with the phrase 2-11, 3-11, 4-11, 5-11. Basically any single digit followed by eleven rolls of the tongue, a conspiracy though that doesn't make.
Well that I will give to you. 33rd of October doesn't roll off the tongue, mainly because there is no 33rd of October or any month for that matter. Of course try out ten-o'-eight. You're playing on the familiarity to the phrase 9-11 to make your point.
Yeah, that is what terrorism and terrorist groups like Al Qaeda are known for.
Huh? Okay well 9-11 rolls off the tongue because you have heard it thousands of times. Play with the phrase 2-11, 3-11, 4-11, 5-11. Basically any single digit followed by eleven rolls of the tongue, a conspiracy though that doesn't make.
Well that I will give to you. 33rd of October doesn't roll off the tongue, mainly because there is no 33rd of October or any month for that matter. Of course try out ten-o'-eight. You're playing on the familiarity to the phrase 9-11 to make your point.
Yeah, that is what terrorism and terrorist groups like Al Qaeda are known for.
Last edited:
1. You are assuming, unless you have talked to the author, that these were subliminal messages. You may be right, but your analysis is speculation.
2. Many of the truther leaders are insensitive to the Family Victims. The public face of the "movement" such as Dylan Avery and others have mocked the victims on board the flights, and have made accusations of victim family members.
3. 9/11 CT movement DOES FESTER ON THE INTERNET. Without the internet, the 9/11 truth movement would be NOTHING.
4. Dylan, Jason, Alex, and Fetzer DESERVE to be filmed in Dark Light. They promote unsubstantiated lies.
5. As for the rest of your interpretation of the film's imagery, subjective malarky.
6. So you wanna start analyzing any of Alex Jone's Documentaries like this.
7. Anyone else, besides the BBC filmmakers, you wanna add to the list of evil doers?
TAM
In another documentary, "911 conspiracy theories, fact or fiction" the same
strategy is used. First we get the "conspiracy claim" and the the "experts" get the
last word, let alone that the guys from PM has pointed out that they are NOT experts,
in this case they did not kick and scream when the producers ascribed this title
to them, or maybe they just did not have a saying, oh well, i feel for them....
strategy is used. First we get the "conspiracy claim" and the the "experts" get the
last word, let alone that the guys from PM has pointed out that they are NOT experts,
in this case they did not kick and scream when the producers ascribed this title
to them, or maybe they just did not have a saying, oh well, i feel for them....
8den
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Oct 10, 2006
- Messages
- 1,293
As I recall both Alex Jones and Dylan Avery are allowed hang themselves with their own rope. Alex's asinine attempt to compare himself to Copernicus, and Dylan's misquoting of the coroner are both laid out in black and white. They expose Alex as a egotistical blow hard with a dubious grasp of history, and Dylan as a lying manipulative SOB who has no comeback when confronted by professional filmmakers.
You certainly don´t need to be a "truther" to see that the film is heavily biased.
Im not saying "BBC made a biased documentary, therefore Bush made 911"
It only takes a minimal understanding of how images are used to convey emotion
and messages to realise how manipulative this film is, even without the way
it manipulates the facts ( this was the only part of my review that i have translated from swedish to english so far )
Are Alex Jones films biased? Totally! and they do not claim to be anything else.
Do the producer and director of this film claim to be objective?
Absolutely, he has made this statement over and over again in an interview.
Im not saying "BBC made a biased documentary, therefore Bush made 911"
It only takes a minimal understanding of how images are used to convey emotion
and messages to realise how manipulative this film is, even without the way
it manipulates the facts ( this was the only part of my review that i have translated from swedish to english so far )
Are Alex Jones films biased? Totally! and they do not claim to be anything else.
Do the producer and director of this film claim to be objective?
Absolutely, he has made this statement over and over again in an interview.
Last edited:
tsig
a carbon based life-form
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2005
- Messages
- 39,049
deleted
Last edited:
There is no film made, outside of perhaps 1970s animal documentaries, that are completely without bias, or a view point. Michael Moore's films - Bias, Alex Jones Films - bias. Press for Truth - Bias. Loose Change - Bias.
TAM
I thought he had no comeback when someone pointed out his poor grasp of the English language?
RedIbis
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2007
- Messages
- 6,899
1. You are assuming, unless you have talked to the author, that these were subliminal messages. You may be right, but your analysis is speculation.
2. Many of the truther leaders are insensitive to the Family Victims. The public face of the "movement" such as Dylan Avery and others have mocked the victims on board the flights, and have made accusations of victim family members.
3. 9/11 CT movement DOES FESTER ON THE INTERNET. Without the internet, the 9/11 truth movement would be NOTHING.
4. Dylan, Jason, Alex, and Fetzer DESERVE to be filmed in Dark Light. They promote unsubstantiated lies.
5. As for the rest of your interpretation of the film's imagery, subjective malarky.
6. So you wanna start analyzing any of Alex Jone's Documentaries like this.
7. Anyone else, besides the BBC filmmakers, you wanna add to the list of evil doers?
TAM
TAM, I've always been partial to your numbering system, very efficient.
1) This is bizarre logic to say the least. a) What makes you think talking to the author is going to give you the truth about how the doc was made? b) How do we critically analyze a film in which the director/writer is dead? Is all analysis invalid then?
2) Hard as you might try to convince people, there is no such thing as truther leadership. If there ever were, it certainly wouldn't be led by someone such as Dylan Avery, and that's no slight against him, it just happens to be true. Your tactic here is to convict by guilt by association. You have to disavow yourself of this transparent attack.
3) Only because it exists today. Daytrading festers on the internet, web based education is the fastest segment of that industry and festers on the internet. We could go on and on.
4) If you were really so sure of this, you wouldn't need to bathe them in dark light. The most persuasive journalism is objective, and doesn't need these cheap tricks. Period.
5) Actually, his/her analysis is quite consistent with the discussion you would find in nearly any college film class, of which I took a few.
6) This isn't about Jones' docs, it's not about Penn & Teller's shows, Niclas is analyzing this doc.
7) You don't have to be part of some vast conspiracy to be inaccurate and impose bias.
Niclas, well done. You'll find out soon enough, the more specific you are, the more virulent the attacks will become.
ETA: Please don't take my use of the second person, personally,TAM. I do mean it, obviously, in the general sense.
Last edited:
A W Smith
Philosopher
I have not watched the documentary. What is it exactly they get wrong?
be specific
be specific
8den
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Oct 10, 2006
- Messages
- 1,293
Now now, according to Dylan he "is perfectly aware of what a simile is". Apparently the coroner's comments "were still completely valid", even removed from the actual context of what he said.
Brainster
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- May 26, 2006
- Messages
- 21,957
I agree that the program revealed a bias. The problem is that the Truthers are so nutty that it's extremely difficult to be unbiased. It's like if you had one person saying that the Moon is made of green cheese, could you analyze that claim in an unbiased manner?
boloboffin
Unregistered
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2006
- Messages
- 4,986
Would anyone be required to attempt an unbiased manner?
I'd sooner try to make to the Moon of my own volition.
Last edited:
1. You are assuming, unless you have talked to the author, that these were subliminal messages. You may be right, but your analysis is speculation.
2. Many of the truther leaders are insensitive to the Family Victims. The public face of the "movement" such as Dylan Avery and others have mocked the victims on board the flights, and have made accusations of victim family members.
3. 9/11 CT movement DOES FESTER ON THE INTERNET. Without the internet, the 9/11 truth movement would be NOTHING.
4. Dylan, Jason, Alex, and Fetzer DESERVE to be filmed in Dark Light. They promote unsubstantiated lies.
5. As for the rest of your interpretation of the film's imagery, subjective malarky.
6. So you wanna start analyzing any of Alex Jone's Documentaries like this.
7. Anyone else, besides the BBC filmmakers, you wanna add to the list of evil doers?
TAM
A habit from med school (The numerical listing).
1. I am not saying we can't analyze, but to present it as anything but speculation or opinion is incorrect. It is like reading subtext in a film...you may be right, maybe not. You can speculate, but unless you ask the filmmaker, you cannot know if that is what he meant.
2. Ok, I will restate it as "Public Face of the Truth Movement". However, that said, you are kidding yourself if you think that Dylan Avery, Alex Jones, Richard Gage, and others, are not looked up to, looked to for guidance and advice, by many in the truth movement, therefore, in many ways they are "leadership".
3. I will disavow nothing. I was merely commenting on why I think Dylan and others deserve to be "lit in Black". Snake Oil Salesmen can fool many a person if not exposed. If "black lighting" helps, great.
4. I have not said that he was inaccurate in anything, nor accurate. My comments were not directed at his analysis of possible imagery and other tricks of persuasion (I have a little background in film making myself). My comments were more or less in response to his own prejudices. I personally do not care if he thinks the doc was a metaphor for Icke's Aliens. One exception would be my "subjective malarky" response.
5. given he has not been specific about any aspect of 9/11, I doubt we will get to see if you are correct. I always welcome specifics...the trouble is no one from the TM is able to provide any.
TAM
Cut by me to this piece of presumably unintended outrageous hilarity.
Red I. never gets specific. He (could be she) just throws up a bunch of stuff and runs away when the errors and fallacies are pointed out.
Red I., you comical scamp!!
Tomblvd
Muse
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2007
- Messages
- 821
What possible reason could you have to resurrect a year old thread, not to point out some factual problems, but to allege perceived bias?
Par
Master Poster
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2007
- Messages
- 2,768
I notice you’re persisting with your narcissistic yet well-rehearsed grievance pantomime. Very well. I don’t suppose you can make it as far as the nearest bus-stop without being mortally wronged in some sense or another. Can there be no justice?
I started to watch films like "loose change" and "911 mysteries" about a
year ago, i was not aware of the debate going on overseas
(i live in sweden ) I just accepted the official story and did not give it much
thought, but i ASSUMED that bringing the towers down completely was part
of the terrorists plan, somehow they KNEW or made sure that the towers
would collapse, because i could see the tremendous importance of the
apocalyptic images off the collapse and of people being chased down the
streets of New York by an enormous dust cloud.
Lets imagine, that the planes flew into the towers and the towers withstood
the impact, the trauma might not be as great and people would go back to
living their lives as before when the initiall shock has settled.
You have to push people to certain limit, where the trauma is IRREPARAPLE
and there is no going back, and then we have a "pre 911" world
and a "post 911" world.
However, watching these films i learned that it was just a "lucky strike"
from the terrorists perspective, that the towers were brought down!
The intention of the first bombing 93 was to bring the building down
i believe? Why would the asspirations of attempt number 2 be any less?
Sorry, im drifting away from the topic....
Anyway, i watched these films and was not convinced because i know how
easy it it to become duped when you are presented with a lot of claims
that are difficult to verify. "Loose change" makes the mistake of flooding the viewer
with data, eagerly trying to convince us.
So i started to look for alternative explanations refuting these claims.
They turned out to be difficult to find and always dissapointing
( had an e-mail correspondance with the guy behind "dubunking 911"
that led absolutely nowhere )
people turning to documentarys like conspiracy files and 911 conspiracies
for answers will feel betrayed if they are not content with being given a
security blanket to suckle on.
They might just be digging their own grave with this kind of journalism.
At the end of the film we get the impression that they have done a
thourough investigative work by critisising FBI and CIA
But there is already a broad consensus pointing to neglect on the part of
these agencies, you can also read it in the 911 commission report.
year ago, i was not aware of the debate going on overseas
(i live in sweden ) I just accepted the official story and did not give it much
thought, but i ASSUMED that bringing the towers down completely was part
of the terrorists plan, somehow they KNEW or made sure that the towers
would collapse, because i could see the tremendous importance of the
apocalyptic images off the collapse and of people being chased down the
streets of New York by an enormous dust cloud.
Lets imagine, that the planes flew into the towers and the towers withstood
the impact, the trauma might not be as great and people would go back to
living their lives as before when the initiall shock has settled.
You have to push people to certain limit, where the trauma is IRREPARAPLE
and there is no going back, and then we have a "pre 911" world
and a "post 911" world.
However, watching these films i learned that it was just a "lucky strike"
from the terrorists perspective, that the towers were brought down!
The intention of the first bombing 93 was to bring the building down
i believe? Why would the asspirations of attempt number 2 be any less?
Sorry, im drifting away from the topic....
Anyway, i watched these films and was not convinced because i know how
easy it it to become duped when you are presented with a lot of claims
that are difficult to verify. "Loose change" makes the mistake of flooding the viewer
with data, eagerly trying to convince us.
So i started to look for alternative explanations refuting these claims.
They turned out to be difficult to find and always dissapointing
( had an e-mail correspondance with the guy behind "dubunking 911"
that led absolutely nowhere )
people turning to documentarys like conspiracy files and 911 conspiracies
for answers will feel betrayed if they are not content with being given a
security blanket to suckle on.
They might just be digging their own grave with this kind of journalism.
At the end of the film we get the impression that they have done a
thourough investigative work by critisising FBI and CIA
But there is already a broad consensus pointing to neglect on the part of
these agencies, you can also read it in the 911 commission report.
Last edited: