BBC2 Conspiracy Files 9/11

[Niclas]

Whether conspiracy theories "fester" on the internet....well i guess it depends on your perpective.


I belive that this is the internet right? And JREF is an internet site?

And this is a place where people both debate and share ideas and
information with like minded people.

You might have found some really good "debunking" stuff and can´t wait
to tell your friends on JREF and there will be lots of readers as well.

So maybe from a "truthers" perpective the official conspiracy theories
are "festering" on the JREF forum, they are also sharing ideas
with each other and from their perpective, it´s the truth.

So just because you find some information on the internet does not mean
that it is untrue or true, you have to be critcal of EVERYTHING you are
being told, whether its the reporter, the web site or your mother telling it.

So when the BBC makes a documentary for tv, its journalism, while people
on the internet are gossiping and spreading romours?
The idea that what we see on television IS REAL is deeply ingrained
in us, and i belive that BBC conspiray files exploits this.

 

[Apollo20]

Niclas:

Please be aware that you are casting pearls before ..............

(Well you know Matthew 7, v 6)

 

[Niclas]

little Miss Quotation

Lets say im a movie reviewer for the NY times, i go to see a film that turns out to be a disaster.

I will write in my review: " i laughed for all the wrong reasons, cried to see good actors acting way beond their ability, and shivered
when i realised that there was still an hour left of the movie"

The next day i will see this quote from my review in a movie theatre advertising: " I LAUGHED.......I CRIED......I SHIVERED" NY times "

Do i have the right to claim that i am misquoated? I would say yes. Although these are my words they are taken out of context.

The coroner has made at least two apperances in documentaries claiming that he has been
misquoted by Dylan Avery.

Is this true i thought? I had to check it out for myself, let´s see what he has to say:

"He was stunned at how small the smoking crater looked, he says, "like someone took a scrap truck, dug a 10-foot ditch and dumped all this trash into it." Once he was able to absorb the scene, Miller says, "I stopped being coroner after about 20 minutes, because there were no bodies there. It became like a giant funeral service."

Help me out here, where is he misqoted? Is something taken out of context here?

Oh you mean the " it became more like a funeral service" part?

This is Wally contemplating the sad scene and the fate of the passengers. How does that help us understand what happened?

Off course he assumes that the passengers are dead! Has anybody claimed that Wally came to the crash site and said:
" Nope, no bodies here! And someone has obviously faked a
plane crash site, must be the deed of that bad Bush! Let´s call it a day guys , what´s for dinner?"
.

What is important here is that Wally is a witness.
what did he percieve with his senses?.
A witness interpretations are of less importance i would say, unless perhaps, he/she is also an expert.

Can we expect to see bodies, or even bodieparts at a plane crash site? ( or a bandana? )
Is this what a crash site is "supposed" to look like?

I don´t know, and most of the viewers of LC probably don´t either. But Wally does indeed claim to have found tissue belonging to the victims. From the article:


"They were essentially cremated together upon impact. Hundreds of searchers who climbed the hemlocks and combed the woods for weeks were able to find about 1,500 mostly scorched samples of human tissue totaling less than 600 pounds, or about 8 percent of the total."



Is Dylan giving us the full account of this event in Loose change?

Providing us with information that will both support and refute the claim that plane 93 crashed there?


No he does not. Is he misquoting anybody? I can not see that he is, i might say that its cherrypicking,
but Guy Smith is also cherrypicking his way through the documentary he has directed and produced..
The difference is that Guy pretends to be objective, and there is a vast difference between failing to
be objective and being manipulative.



No wonder Dylan looks confused, when the interviewer is merely stating the obvious:
That wally is saying all this as a similie.

BUT I THINK THE " IT LOOKED AS IF" PART WOULD BE SUFFICIENT TO SORT THAT OUT.

And Dylan does get that part right!

So, no misquoting there either im afraid.

 

[Shrinker]

...

No wonder Dylan looks confused, when the interviewer is merely stating the obvious:
That wally is saying all this as a similie.

BUT I THINK THE " IT LOOKED AS IF" PART WOULD BE SUFFICIENT TO SORT THAT OUT.

And Dylan does get that part right!

So, no misquoting there either im afraid.

Perhaps if you had researched the common usage of 'misquote' you could have saved yourself this lengthy excercise in pedantry.

From Collins Essential Thesaurus 2nd Edition 2006 © HarperCollins Publishers 2005, 2006...

misquote
verb: misrepresent, twist, distort, pervert, muddle, mangle, falsify, garble, misreport, misstate, quote or take out of context

 

[Dave Rogers]

Niclas,

Apart from the clear implication you are making that Dylan Avery neither is nor pretends to be objective - an implication most regulars here would agree with wholeheartedly - can you not see that your analysis proves the exact opposite of what you claim it proves, that by your own definition Dylan Avery misquoted Wally Miller? Specifically, you admit that Avery is cherrypicking, yet when you say,

Do i have the right to claim that i am misquoated? I would say yes. Although these are my words they are taken out of context.

you are clearly identifying cherrypicking as a form of misquoting. Can't you even follow your own analysis?

Dave

 

[Niclas]

The story of Delta 89, as being told by one of the passengers in the BBC
film, seems to be fairly consistent with the story Dylan gives us in LC,
exept that his take is a lot more dramatic.

But through clever editing, this is omitted and we are made to believe
that Dylan does not mention Delta 89, but he does, see for youself.

" This woman must be telling the truth, that she was on the plane that
had to land, and it was not plane 93, why would she lie?
So Dylan must be lying then!"

This is what the viewer is supposed to be thinking.

 

[Niclas]

I convinve us, it is important to include both "experts" that appeals to our faith
in authority, and "common people" that the we can identify with.

They are probably all being asked why they think that "conspiracy theories"
florish, becuause they all provide answers for this.

Again, we are being "helped" to come to a conclusion.

 

[Niclas]

To convince us, it is important to include both "experts" that appeals to our faith
in authority, and "common people" that the we can identify with and who
provides the "common sense".

They are probably all being asked why they think that "conspiracy theories"
florish, becuause they all provide answers for this.

Again, we are being "helped" to come to a conclusion.

 

[CptColumbo]

IIRC, and it's been a while since I watched the BBC doc, each person was filmed in their home and/or place of business. If their home and/or place of business (basement or trailer) has poor lighting it is not the fault of the filmmakers. They will probably suggest a change of location, but if the person being interviewed is more comfortable where they are, they will do their best to light them. If you want better lighting, and the producers have the resources, try to be in front of a large window. The crew then is forced to put more light on you from the front (usually reflected) so you are not lost in shadow.

I've found that softer lighting makes for a more pleasing image than stark lighting.

If I wanted to make a person seem inferior, I would manipulate the level of the camera. The cameras height relative to the person's eyes can manipulate a viewers perception of the superiority or inferiority of a subject more than lighting.

 

[fullflavormenthol]

"He was stunned at how small the smoking crater looked, he says, "like someone took a scrap truck, dug a 10-foot ditch and dumped all this trash into it."

Like...doesn't imply that some DID just dump trash into a hole. I have seen the devastation from a tornado and I have described it on similar terms. For your researching pleasure I present you this link about the term simile.

Once he was able to absorb the scene, Miller says, "I stopped being coroner after about 20 minutes, because there were no bodies there. It became like a giant funeral service."

Now what he was saying is really simple if you understand the job of a coroner. Once it had been established what had killed these people (plane crash), the only thing left to do was identify the bodies; which to be very blunt were in pieces. It took advanced techniques to identify the remains, that go beyond the scope of the average coroner. Nevertheless there is plenty of documentation from Wallace Miller clarifying his statements.

 

[SDC]

Look. Here we are, paying attention to someone whose English is obviously poor, yet who is claiming to be able to clarify the significance of the statements of a number of native speakers of American English, who have varying degrees of education and articulateness themselves.

Sheesh. That's downright plain ridiculous. Walk away, walk away. Too silly for words.

 

[Brainster]

Help me out here, where is he misqoted? Is something taken out of context here?

The point is that Dylan's using Miller's quotes to reinforce his claim that Flight 93 did not crash in Shanksville. But when you look at the full quotes it is quite clear that Miller 100% believes that Flight 93 did crash there.

This is misleading anybody who watches Loose Change I or II into believing that Wally Miller agrees with the Troofers. But in fact, as you saw in the BBC documentary, Miller does not agree with them.

 

[chillzero]

let´s see what he has to say:

"He was stunned at how small the smoking crater looked, he says, "like someone took a scrap truck, dug a 10-foot ditch and dumped all this trash into it." Once he was able to absorb the scene, Miller says, "I stopped being coroner after about 20 minutes, because there were no bodies there. It became like a giant funeral service."

Help me out here, where is he misqoted? Is something taken out of context here?

You've had a few responses on this already, but the way I have seen this taken out of context involved the words I bolded. This phrase has been used as evidence that there were no people on the plane; or even no plane in the first place. When the following sentence is left in, it becomes clear that this is not the claim. He clearly acknowledges that people died at this scene - but their bodies were irrecoverable. When that sentence is taken out, it is twisted to imply that he claimed there were no deaths or casualties at that location.