• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

The twoofers complain to the BBC!

The Silver Shadow

Graduate Poster
The Silver Shadow
Joined
Jan 13, 2007
Messages
1,060
The twoofers at LCF are filing a complaint to the BBC and whose website are they using to disprove the BBC, KILLTARD!!!!! I feel ashamed and dirty whenever I realize that I was once a twoofer...


orwel @ LCF said:
Dear Sirs/Madam,
I wish to make a formal complaint about the appalling coverage of the 911 Truth Movement from beginning to end in the recent Conspiracy Files series on 911. I myself am an agnostic as concerns 911 being an inside job and from a detailed analysis of the evidence from both sides over a long period of time, I am deeply suspicious of anyone who is either certain 911 was an inside job or certain that it was not. The 911 Truth Movement has produced an enormous amount of unchallenged highly credible and very damning evidence. It has also produced many spurious claims, fringe theories, and debunked ideas. However, these lie on the periphery and not at the heart of the claims.
Why then, in the hour this program devoted to the issue, does it
a) Make false or misleading statements
B) Unjustifiably introduce bias
c) Give a disproportionate amount of airtime and credibility to "debunkers" than to people in the 911 Truth Movement
d) Focus on the fringe theories and spurious claims at the expense of glaring omissions of the most damning evidence.
I will go through each in turn and for the sake of brevity mention the main flaws (a more detailed analysis would be voluminous).
a) False or misleading statements
1)The practice drills taking place on that day by NORAD were characterised by the documentary as 'routine'. Drills were conducted on a routine basis but never on that scale (5 drills happening on the same day). A scale large enough to spur Congresswoman Cynthia Mckinney to ask a question about who ordered the drills directly to Donald Rumsfeld and General Myers. http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/march...inneygrills.htm
2) The documentary claimed that NORAD was unprepared to deal with the hijackings because the last occurrences over America happened in 1974. This is a ridiculous claim when seen in the context of the numerous drills conducted in the run up to 9/11/01 http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timelin...litaryExercises . Also ludicrous in light of the case of Payne Stewart http://www.prisonplanet.com/compare_to_payne_stewart.htm
3) In the explanation of the falling of the twin towers, a long ago debunked computer model was used. This model (through usage of the pancaking model) would necessitate the towers to have fallen in well over freefall speed (not at or very close to it as it actually fell)
4) The documentary attributed the claim of an 8 mile debris field of Flight 93 to the 911 Truth Movement when it was initially put forward by the FBI and the NTSB http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/s_12967.html . Although it is conceded that this fact should have been checked thoroughly.

b)Introduction of Bias - Throughout the program the wording, tone of voice, editing and imagery was clearly designed to sway viewers away from the viewpoints of those skeptical of the official story of 911. Examples are too numerous to mention, so I will focus on one issue of wording;
Wording - The documentary's "Loose Change claims that there was no evidence that the hole was caused by a plane" is clearly a quite different statement in tone from for example "Loose Change claims that the evidence available is incompatible with a hole caused by a plane". Clearly there was evidence that the Pentagon was hit by a plane, (scattered very small pieces of fusilage and one engine) and this is accepted by Loose Change. However, their argument is that considering a number of factors including, the size of the hole, the untouched lawn (unmentioned in the documentary) and the near impossibility of the maneuver even for experienced pilots which they were most certainly not. One can reference the professional opinions supplied by Pilots for 911 Truth.

c)Disproportionate airtime,
The inclusion of only 3 members of the 911 truth movement, Dylan Avery, Alex Jones and Jim Fetzer but about 12 people who argued against the claims (including the narrator). Scientists were included from the 'debunker' side, why not then Steven Jones or Kevin Ryan? Where was the testimony of the 911 heroes like William Rodriguez (the last man out of the building) who heard bombs in the basement of the WTC? Where was Richard Andrew Grove, Webster Tarpley, Bob Bowman (Economist in Reagan administration), Michael Meacher, Andreas Von Bulow, David Shayler? Are these all fantasists too? No its much easier to characterise the young and the passionate. Both Alex Jones and Jim Fetzer are animated people (which was exploited to good effect by the producers of this documentary) however, if one stops to actually examine their analysis, it is predominantly cogent, well-argued and unbiased. Furthermore both Alex Jones and Jim Fetzer have repeatedly stated that the Flight 93 and Pentagon crash conspiracies are distractions from the main evidence (none of which actually put forward in the documentary). Which brings me on to the last point,

d)Focus on the more tenuous claims of the movement.
All the issues examined (aside from the wargames and controlled demolitions which were both inadequately covered) were issues that most in the 911 truth movement believe to be at best periphery and at worst a distraction from the important evidence.
Here is just a small selection of the uncontested evidence that was omitted conveniently from the documentary:
The numerous warnings before the attacks (Not just Jews as the documentary tries to imply the 911 Truth movement believes but many different companies as reported in many respectable news outlets http://www.prisonplanet.com/911.html#eve)
Insider Trading before the event implying foreknowledge of attacks http://www.prisonplanet.com/911.html#trading
A serious analysis of the demolition hypothesis including, Firemen testimony, freefall collapse speeds and Silverstein's admission - watch 911 mysteries - demolitions on google video
A history of State Sponsored and False Flag terror by the US and the UK evidenced by declassified documents, e.g. Gladio, 1953 Overthrow of Mosaddeq in Iran, The Gulf of Tonkin, Pearl Harbour, The sinking of the Lusitania, and of course the glaring omission of Operation Northwoods
Mention of the Neocon document Rebuilding America's Defenses issued by the Project For The New American Century
The various whistleblowers including the still gagged Sibel Edmonds
The suspicious death of FBI agent John O Neill
The extensive analysis of both Michel Chossudovsky and Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed into US and UK relations with global terror networks
The fact that Osama Bin Laden is not currently on any FBI wanted list
The fact that the supposedly devout Muslims reportedly went drinking and womanising the night before the attacks
The reports of how bad they were as pilots
Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta's damning testimony on the standdown
The Background of all the members of the 911 commission panel and how each and everyone stood to gain personally and collectively from the aftermath
The glaring omissions, distortions and blatant error of the official report

The list can go on and on. Visit http://killtown.911review.org/911smokingguns.html just for starters.

I am not a journalist, merely a concerned citizen. Let me reiterate, I am not convinced yet either way on this issue, I am just aware that there is still a lot of very damning evidence. It is with this in mind that the blatant use of every kind of trick of bias, omission and manipulation in this documentary troubles me. I thought that the BBC was supposed to be the world standard in balanced news broadcasting. This programme was demonstrably biased and clearly made with some kind of agenda. The only other alternative is extreme incompetence which I find problematic due to the large amount of time, money and effort invested in making this documentary. Alex Jones reports that the film makers spent a week following him alone. If I can find these glaring holes and distortions in the making of this programme just from a brief amateur study, what does that say for the quality of journalism in the BBC. What is the justification for this and how will it be rectified?
Click to expand...
 
Looks like another case of:

Dawnpic1.jpg
 
On top of this, just imagine the threats and hate mail the BBC is getting.

Criticize a Truther...get threats and hate mail. This alone proves how bogus the whole thing is.
 
PerryLogan said:
On top of this, just imagine the threats and hate mail the BBC is getting.

Criticize a Truther...get threats and hate mail. This alone proves how bogus the whole thing is.
Click to expand...

Typical twoofer question: "Why won't mainstream media cover us!!!?!1on1one1!?"

Hmm. I wonder.
 
haha. someone wants to pen an email stating how great the show was?
 
I wish to make a formal complaint about the appalling coverage of the 911 Truth Movement from beginning to end in the recent Conspiracy Files series on 911. I myself am an agnostic as concerns 911 being an inside job1 and from a detailed analysis of the evidence from both sides over a long period of time2, I am deeply suspicious of anyone who is either certain 911 was an inside job or certain that it was not. The 911 Truth Movement has produced an enormous amount of unchallenged3 highly credible4 and very damning5 evidence. It has also produced many spurious claims, fringe theories, and debunked ideas. However, these lie on the periphery and not at the heart of the claims.6
Click to expand...

Wow, in the first paragraph, I've found six things wrong.
 
Last edited:
Dear Dylan Avery - Director of "Loose Change"

On behalf of the general public, and in particular the members of the skeptic community, I would like to protest the content of your film "Loose Change".

I wish to make a formal complaint about the appalling coverage of the official story wrt 9/11, from beginning to end in your movie. I myself am an agnostic as concerns 911 being an inside job and from a detailed analysis of the evidence from both sides over a long period of time, I am deeply suspicious of anyone who is either certain 911 was an inside job or certain that it was not. The governemnt, NIST, FEMA, ASCE, FBI, CIA, have produced an enormous amount of unchallenged highly credible and very damning evidence. It has not produced many spurious claims, fringe theories, and debunked ideas.

Why then, in the 2 hours this program devoted to the issue, does it
a) Make false or misleading statements
B) Unjustifiably introduce bias
c) Give a disproportionate amount of airtime and credibility to "truthers" than to people actually involved in the 9/11 investigations.
d) Focus on speculation, hearsay, non-expert opinion, as opposed to the damning evidence provided by panels of scientists and engineers.

I will go through each in turn and for the sake of brevity mention the main flaws (a more detailed analysis would be voluminous).

a) False or misleading statements
1) The twin towers were brought down using Explosives. To date there is no solid evidence, no expert opinion that backs this up or supports this claim, yet you have it in your movie.
2) Pentagon hit by a missile. Once again, no proof a missile hit the pentagon, but there are hundreds of witnesses that saw a jet airliner hit it on 9/11.
3) Hijackers are still alive. Not one interview with any of the alleged "still alive" hijackers despite ample time (5 years) to obtain interviews from them.
4) Cellphone calls were faked. Despite the evidence from the Mousaui trial that the calls, with all but an occasional exception, were made from the planes airfones, you continue to promote the lies.

b)Introduction of Bias - Throughout the program the wording, tone of voice, editing and imagery was clearly designed to sway viewers away from the viewpoints of those in agreement with the official story of 911. Examples are too numerous to mention, so I will focus on one issue of "evidence";

Evidence - The documentary "Loose Change" despite numerous claims, provides not one single piece of solid physical evidence to back any of its claims, yet in promotes said ideas as the "truth".

c)Disproportionate airtime,
The inclusion of people such as Kevin Ryan, Yourself, Steven Jones, and other "truther" so called experts, while providing almost no time or interviews with real experts such as the scientists and engineers of NIST, the FBI agents, the CIA, or others leaves a clear feeling of whose side you fall on.

d)Focus on unfounded accusations and hearsay on the events of 9/11. Despite overwhelming evidence that the attacks were carried out by arab hijackers in the name of Al-Qaeda, using commercial jet airliners to crash into the WTCs and the Pentagon, you instead have chosen to focus on silly speculation such as "a missile hit the pentagon", "Controlled Demolition", "Remote Controlled Planes", "Thermite", and other speculative topics.


I am not a journalist, merely a concerned citizen. Let me reiterate, I am not convinced yet either way on this issue, I am just aware that there is still a lot of very damning evidence against Al-Qaeda and OBL. It is with this in mind that the blatant use of every kind of trick of bias, omission and manipulation in this documentary troubles me. I thought that American Citizens such as yourself were supposed to be fair and balanced when making a DOCUMENTARY. This programme was demonstrably biased and clearly made with some kind of agenda. The only other alternative is extreme incompetence which I find problematic due to the large amount of time, and effort invested in making this documentary.

Please explain yourselfs.

TAM - JREFer
 
You Can't Handle the Trooth! said:
c)Disproportionate airtime,
The inclusion of only 3 members of the 911 truth movement, Dylan Avery, Alex Jones and Jim Fetzer but about 12 people who argued against the claims (including the narrator). Scientists were included from the 'debunker' side, why not then Steven Jones or Kevin Ryan? Where was the testimony of the 911 heroes like William Rodriguez (the last man out of the building) who heard bombs in the basement of the WTC? Where was Richard Andrew Grove, Webster Tarpley, Bob Bowman (Economist in Reagan administration), Michael Meacher, Andreas Von Bulow, David Shayler? Are these all fantasists too?
Click to expand...

You've got to love it. These are the guys in the fight of their lives, just an 84% handful of them against the New World Order. And yet, they expect equal time in all television broadcasts.

As though they were somehow entitled to it, like an opposition political party.

On a television programme... in Britain.

That's some serious oppression, that is. Who needs tanks and Blue Meanies anymore? Who needs COINTELPRO, tear gas, and concertina wire? All we need to do these days to keep them in check is to tease them in foreign television programming.

Pathetic.
 
Lots of things drive me insane when I read this garbage - like claims that are years old and well and truely demolished.

I find it amazing that they claim there were 5 NORAD exercises going on, and then immediately afterwards link to a transcript from an interview where the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staffs says there were only two going on (and those two are ALWAYS held together).

It's simply unfathomable.

But then there's some interesting little new claims they're making that I haven't heard before:
911 heroes like William Rodriguez (the last man out of the building)
Click to expand...

Hmm. Interesting. And there I was, ignorant as always, thinking there were about a thousand people trapped in each of the buildings when they collapsed. I feel much better knowing now that everyone actually got out.

The other thing that astounds me is how often CTers claim things were omitted that weren't. Often I wonder if they actually watch these things at all.

They talk about not covering the warnings in advance, and yet there's an entire section of the documentary where they look at intelligence prior to 9/11, and interview members of both the CIA and FBI who were thoroughly critical of the US Government's performance.

Seriously. Did these people even watch the documentary?

-Gumboot
 
I love it when Truthers whine. Its part of why debunking them is so entertaining.
 
The 911 Truth Movement has produced an enormous amount of unchallenged highly credible and very damning evidence
Click to expand...

Really? I guess they must be keeping this a secret because I am yet to see it.

I don’t get these guys all at. They scream and scream `Take notice of me, listen to me, blah, blah, blah`Yet when somebody does they scream and jump up and down that those who have even bothered to listen to them have got it all wrong.

I just for the life of me cannot understand what these guys want from everybody. Do they honestly believe that everybody is going to watch LC and suddenly see it their way? That everybody is going to simply accept the complete and under drivel that this movie proposes.

The BBC is highly respected, they are not going to broadcast totally unfounded, unsubstantiated BS just to satisfy a few brain dead Cters.And it be quite frank the BBC are probably not even concerned about the junk emails they are getting from these people. The guys in the production team and editing rooms are probably falling over laughing at them. They will probably have a poll going to see which one is the nuttiest.

CTERs, nobody cares what you think, nobody gives a toss. Al Qaeda attacked the US on 911; it was one of many outrageous terrorist attacks these people have carried out. The nasty NWO is a figment of your over active imagination, you are being conned by LC.

Right now the BBC are probably more concerned about whether or not to produce another series of Doctor Who than you guys, you are low priority, irrelevant, nobodies who believe irrelevant nonsense.
 
Where was Richard Andrew Grove, Webster Tarpley, Bob Bowman (Economist in Reagan administration), Michael Meacher, Andreas Von Bulow, David Shayler? Are these all fantasists too?
Click to expand...

Shayler and Meacher, yep. I don't know about the rest. But I think the BBC has probably had enough of Shayler.
 
JamesB said:
Where do these idiots come up with these things?
Click to expand...

James, they do have a point however that the FBI listing has nothing to do with 9/11, so the phrase should probably read:
(Continued) The fact that Osama Bin Laden is not currently on any FBI wanted list where he is accused of having anything to do with 9/11.

Here's the crime he's accused of:
USAMA BIN LADEN IS WANTED IN CONNECTION WITH THE AUGUST 7, 1998, BOMBINGS OF THE UNITED STATES EMBASSIES IN DAR ES SALAAM, TANZANIA, AND NAIROBI, KENYA. THESE ATTACKS KILLED OVER 200 PEOPLE. IN ADDITION, BIN LADEN IS A SUSPECT IN OTHER TERRORIST ATTACKS THROUGHOUT THE WORLD.
Click to expand...

So, we should at least give them that they are right. Why does the FBI listing not say:

USAMA BIN LADEN IS WANTED IN CONNECTION WITH THE SEPTEMBER 11, 2001, ATTACK ON WORLD TRADE CENTER, PENTAGON, AND THE HIJACKING OF 4 COMMERCIAL AIRPLANES. THESE ATTACKS KILLED OVER 3000 PEOPLE. IN ADDITION, BIN LADEN IS A SUSPECT IN OTHER TERRORIST ATTACKS THROUGHOUT THE WORLD.
Click to expand...

Then again, "other terrorist attacks throughout the world" might include 9/11, but they definitely should put that as a main reason for looking for him, not the 1998 bombing. Qualifying Sept 11th of "other terrorist attack" is like saying HIV is "just another disease".
 
T.A.M. said:
Dear Dylan Avery - Director of "Loose Change"

On behalf of the general public, and in particular the members of the skeptic community, I would like to protest the content of your film "Loose Change".

I wish to make a formal complaint about the appalling coverage of the official story wrt 9/11, from beginning to end in your movie. I myself am an agnostic as concerns 911 being an inside job and from a detailed analysis of the evidence from both sides over a long period of time, I am deeply suspicious of anyone who is either certain 911 was an inside job or certain that it was not. The governemnt, NIST, FEMA, ASCE, FBI, CIA, have produced an enormous amount of unchallenged highly credible and very damning evidence. It has not produced many spurious claims, fringe theories, and debunked ideas.

Why then, in the 2 hours this program devoted to the issue, does it
a) Make false or misleading statements
B) Unjustifiably introduce bias
c) Give a disproportionate amount of airtime and credibility to "truthers" than to people actually involved in the 9/11 investigations.
d) Focus on speculation, hearsay, non-expert opinion, as opposed to the damning evidence provided by panels of scientists and engineers.

I will go through each in turn and for the sake of brevity mention the main flaws (a more detailed analysis would be voluminous).

a) False or misleading statements
1) The twin towers were brought down using Explosives. To date there is no solid evidence, no expert opinion that backs this up or supports this claim, yet you have it in your movie.
2) Pentagon hit by a missile. Once again, no proof a missile hit the pentagon, but there are hundreds of witnesses that saw a jet airliner hit it on 9/11.
3) Hijackers are still alive. Not one interview with any of the alleged "still alive" hijackers despite ample time (5 years) to obtain interviews from them.
4) Cellphone calls were faked. Despite the evidence from the Mousaui trial that the calls, with all but an occasional exception, were made from the planes airfones, you continue to promote the lies.

b)Introduction of Bias - Throughout the program the wording, tone of voice, editing and imagery was clearly designed to sway viewers away from the viewpoints of those in agreement with the official story of 911. Examples are too numerous to mention, so I will focus on one issue of "evidence";

Evidence - The documentary "Loose Change" despite numerous claims, provides not one single piece of solid physical evidence to back any of its claims, yet in promotes said ideas as the "truth".

c)Disproportionate airtime,
The inclusion of people such as Kevin Ryan, Yourself, Steven Jones, and other "truther" so called experts, while providing almost no time or interviews with real experts such as the scientists and engineers of NIST, the FBI agents, the CIA, or others leaves a clear feeling of whose side you fall on.

d)Focus on unfounded accusations and hearsay on the events of 9/11. Despite overwhelming evidence that the attacks were carried out by arab hijackers in the name of Al-Qaeda, using commercial jet airliners to crash into the WTCs and the Pentagon, you instead have chosen to focus on silly speculation such as "a missile hit the pentagon", "Controlled Demolition", "Remote Controlled Planes", "Thermite", and other speculative topics.


I am not a journalist, merely a concerned citizen. Let me reiterate, I am not convinced yet either way on this issue, I am just aware that there is still a lot of very damning evidence against Al-Qaeda and OBL. It is with this in mind that the blatant use of every kind of trick of bias, omission and manipulation in this documentary troubles me. I thought that American Citizens such as yourself were supposed to be fair and balanced when making a DOCUMENTARY. This programme was demonstrably biased and clearly made with some kind of agenda. The only other alternative is extreme incompetence which I find problematic due to the large amount of time, and effort invested in making this documentary.

Please explain yourselfs.

TAM - JREFer
Click to expand...

B A N N E D
 
Lucas said:
Then again, "other terrorist attacks throughout the world" might include 9/11, but they definitely should put that as a main reason for looking for him, not the 1998 bombing. Qualifying Sept 11th of "other terrorist attack" is like saying HIV is "just another disease".
Click to expand...


He has been indicted on the embassy bombings. He hasn't been indicted for 9/11.

It's also common in law enforcement to get warrants for arrest based on relatively minor crimes, only charging them with more serious crimes once you catch them. In a recent example here a former convict broke parole and went and murdered a bunch of people. A warrant was issed based on minor charges - breach of parole, assault, theft, etc... he wasn't charged with murder until after they caught him.

-Gumboot
 
I think I hear their complaints now.
"What's the idea of using actual quotes in correct context? That's not how we do things! Not fair! And actually doing research without using YouTube? You call that research?"
"Nothing but a hit piece! I'll bet Gravy's behind this!"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom