BBC "Conspiracy Files" on 911 was clearly biased

[taffboy gwyrdd]

http://video.google.com/videopopup?...sting+Conspiracy+-+Google+Video+-+Full+Screen

Gods teeth! what a huge link! Sorry for that. Very good documentary. The documentary was not only bias but in clear contravention of their charter.

 

[MikeMcc]

I really don't believe that I wasted 10 minutes of my life to see where this was going. Utter garbage, it's Shayler saying that the documentary should have been a few hours long to be able to have gone through more detail. It's full of 'many experts' say so and so without naming any of them. Making pointless statements like that there is not a legal case aginst OBL (therefore the FBI rightly don't put that as an attributable crime against him). That doesn't mean that he was definitely not involved.

If groups are going to make cases against the 'official story' then the first ten minutes need to be the bullet points of the case, 'we will show that...', not a dreary waffle not making a serious point.

If there is a serious point in there please highlight it for me because I'm not going to waste more time ranging it against the eye-witness statements that were used by the BBC. Please don't use Rodrigueuz's claims about a bomb, they only surfaced some time later following his 'interview' with the neo-nazi AFP.

 

[editor]

Who made the documentary? Has it been mentioned here before?

I'll be fucked if I'm going to sit through it if you can't even be arsed to explain what it's about.

*edit after seeing MikeMcc's posts: ah, it's the same old shit. Again.

 

[taffboy gwyrdd]

The original BBC documentary described the official story as "unequivocal".

This is a partial position and contrary to the BBC charter.

(edited to add: This is all made clear very early on in the documentary)

Shaylers documentary cites many many instances of that partiality.

Shayler is clearly partial too, but he is not the BBC and not beholden to the same standards.

 

[Pete the Greek]

Who made the documentary? Has it been mentioned here before?

I'll be fucked if I'm going to sit through it if you can't even be arsed to explain what it's about.

*edit after seeing MikeMcc's posts: ah, it's the same old shit. Again.

so intolerant and rude.

No need really, is there. Give the bloke a fair go...he's allowed to talk about this stuff, no?

 

[taffboy gwyrdd]

so intolerant and rude.

No need really, is there. Give the bloke a fair go...he's allowed to talk about this stuff, no?

Its a sacred tradition of U75 to slam discussion of 911. I know it bores a lot of people rigid with the repetition, though the story is a constantly evolving one.

If all repetitious subjects were slammed, flamed or banned there probably wouldnt be much to talk about.

 

[butchersapron]

The original BBC documentary described the official story as "unequivocal".

This is a partial position and contrary to the BBC charter.

No it's not you prat - it's essential for investigative reporting.

'This week Panorama investigates the sale of stolen Russian nuclear material - or not - we can't take up a sposition you see, i don't know, make your own midn up or something

 

[fela fan]

Its a sacred tradition of U75 to slam discussion of 911.

 

[editor]

Its a sacred tradition of U75 to slam discussion of 911. I know it bores a lot of people rigid with the repetition, though the story is a constantly evolving one.

Yeah, because with, like, with tens of thousands of 9/11 posts - most of them repeating the same thing from the same clueless sources - u75 is like, well oppressive, yes?

Thank goodness for your latest 'no proper caption needed' contribution - and from such a fantastic source too, covering spanking new topics never ever seen or discussed here before!

Well, in the last week, at least.

Way to go!

 

[taffboy gwyrdd]

Yeah, because with, like, with tens of thousands of 9/11 posts - most of them repeating the same thing from the same clueless sources - u75 is like, well oppressive, yes?

Thank goodness for your latest 'no proper caption needed' contribution - and from such a fantastic source too, covering spanking new topics never ever seen or discussed here before!

Well, in the last week, at least.

Way to go!

1) Urban75 is fantastic. I didnt say it was oppressive. I've posted here for many years and always big it up to my chums.

2) Mods do seem to have a habit of piling in to 911 threads to rant and rave about what a waste of time they are.

3) The same habit doesnt seem to occur nearly so much with other threads
"covering spanking new topics never ever seen or discussed here before"
on such themes as "The SWP are twats"; "Bush is a twat"; "Israel are twats"; "Labour are twats"; "Working class struggle pt 947" etc. ad nauseum

Discussion on these boards is more dynamic and relevant than any other board I can think of. But still, as I said, if you were to take the non reptetitious stuff out they would be substantially thinner.

911 is one of the most significant historical events in our lifetimes, discussion around it is inevitable. The way the case is being seen in the US is changing dramatically. For example, Michael Moore always avoided conspiracy questions like the plague but that has changed recently. People in the public eye like Charlie Sheen and Rosie O Donnell are raising more questions and becomming victims of Neo-Maccarthyism as a result.

This is not a thread about 911 conspiracy per se. Certainly it hasnt started out like that. It is a thread about BBC bias with a link to something many people would be interested in seeing. It is a legit right of reply to the BBC. If I had started a thread called "BBC are biased" it would be no more original but much less flamed I suspect.

 

[tarannau]

Charlie Sheen and Rosie O Donnell? My gosh, the finest minds academia has come up with, the sharpest tools in the box and - in the case of ODonnell - not a shameless career-sliding blabbermouth in search of controversy at all.

Some inspired straw-clutching and desperation there fella. We must pay attention: O Donnell makes it all plausible, despite all the wild speculation and lack of anything approaching decent evidence.

 

[editor]

2) Mods do seem to have a habit of piling in to 911 threads to rant and rave about what a waste of time they are.

Ever stopped to consider why that might be?

 

[taffboy gwyrdd]

Charlie Sheen and Rosie O Donnell? My gosh, the finest minds academia has come up with, the sharpest tools in the box and - in the case of ODonnell - not a shameless career-sliding blabbermouth in search of controversy at all.

Some inspired straw-clutching and desperation there fella. We must pay attention: O Donnell makes it all plausible, despite all the wild speculation and lack of anything approaching decent evidence.

There are plenty of academics who question the official version, as there are members of the emergency services, victims and relatives. They generally dont count as much as celebs in this ever weireder society. It aint me or you that creates condidtions which deign that celebs count more than experts, but there you are.

 

[Andy the Don]

I always find it very amusing that those who claim TV/print/radio media is biased when that media refutes their claims of a conspiracy. Should it support their claims of a conspiracy its claimed to be gods own truth.

 

[taffboy gwyrdd]

Ever stopped to consider why that might be?

Yes. It is because they find it frustratingly dull and repetitive. Some people dont.

I've also stopped to consider why (cuts and pastes) The same habit doesnt seem to occur nearly so much with other threads "covering spanking new topics never ever seen or discussed here before" on such themes as "The SWP are twats"; "Bush is a twat"; "Israel are twats"; "Labour are twats"; "Working class struggle pt 947" etc. ad nauseum.

 

[tarannau]

And there are plenty more academics, witnesses, engineers and architects who support the 'official' version. Many of those 'experts' latched on to be the 9-11 'truth movement' (self appointed numpties) have been exposed as fradulent, laughable or flat out misrepresented. As yet, there's been little authoratative peer-reviewed evidence that contradicts the central aspect of the atrocity: terrorists flew planes into the WTC buildings.

When people are latching onto past-it contraversialists such as Rosie O Donnell and Charlie 'nutter' Sheen as representative of the mainstream, then you can sense the desperation. It's like citing Jeremy Kyle as a respectable relationship advisor.

 

[editor]

Yes. It is because they find it frustratingly dull and repetitive. Some people dont.

It's also because the mods have no more appetitive for dealing with the slew of fucking braindead fruitcakes spewing the same shit that inevitably followed in the wake of popular 9/11 threads.

 

[taffboy gwyrdd]

http://uk.youtube.com/profile_videos?user=leninology

And what of Michael Moore? Some people may not dig him, but he has made some of the most influential documentaries of his generation. He has spent 5 years refusing to question the official story much beyond the points he made in F911. Now he has talked about the amount of emergency workers who have spoken to him and his suspicions regarding the lack of CCTV coverage at the Pentagon.

To assume all people with questions are desperate bullshitters would be as erroneous as it would be patronising.

 

[taffboy gwyrdd]

It's also because the mods have no more appetitive for dealing with the slew of fucking braindead fruitcakes spewing the same shit that inevitably followed in the wake of popular 9/11 threads.

Some of them are braindead fruitcakes, useful idiots perhaps. Sorry about that, they dont help anybodies case. Still, swings and roundabouts - you dont have to put up with the avalanche of "Lets endlessly slag off Muslims" threads that some mods will.

 

[Barking_Mad]

It's also because the mods have no more appetitive for dealing with the slew of fucking braindead fruitcakes spewing the same shit that inevitably followed in the wake of popular 9/11 threads.

Yet you do..........

 

[editor]

To assume all people with questions are desperate bullshitters would be as erroneous as it would be patronising.

Where have I assumed that? People have been freely given the opportunity to produce their 'evidence' in tens of thousands of uncensored posts here.

Mind you, anyone who bases their case on the mindless drivel posted up on Prison Planet and those other idiotic, lunatic sites deserves all the ridicule they get.

 

[editor]

Yet you do..........

Not really. There's way, way, waaaaay less 9/11 conspiracy threads than say a year ago, and we ban returning one-track conspiraloon fruitcakes much quicker now.

 

[Backatcha Bandit]

I'll be fucked if I'm going to sit through it if you can't even be arsed to explain what it's about.

Irony.

 

[editor]

Irony.

You've lost me here. I didn't make my mind up about that film until I watched it, so what's your point?

I've also wasted precious hours of my life trawling the moronic 9/11 conspiracy movies that have been posted up here over the years to know that anything involving Prison Planet is going to be a sack of truth twisting shit.

But if you're expecting me to blindly sit through massive unexplained fullscreen movies just because a poster tells me to, then sorry, I can't be fucking arsed any more, just like I've no interest in reading toytown websites authored by idiots and fantasists.

 

[taffboy gwyrdd]

Where have I assumed that?

Where did I say you did? The comment was aimed at another poster but isnt even accusing them of doing so.

 

[detective-boy]

It's like citing Jeremy Kyle as a respectable relationship advisor.

He isn't?!!??!

Bugger ....

 

[editor]

Where did I say you did? The comment was aimed at another poster but isnt even accusing them of doing so.

Well, if you can't be arsed to quote the post you're responding to, how am I to know who you're talking to?

 

[Backatcha Bandit]

You've lost me here.

Evidently.

My 'point', since you insist on appearing to miss it, is merely to highlight the utter hypocrisy of criticising others for 'firmly making up their mind about' documentaries 'without troubling themselves to even watch it' whilst doing so oneself.

What's this got to do with 'Prison Planet', BTW?

-

Re: This documentary:

Besides my reservations regarding Shayler, one thing that struck me was that he discusses 'thermi(a)te' (@28 mins) with regard to the collapse of the towers - yet doesn't include this piece of footage:



OK, so a video of moulten 'something' (that appears remarkably similar to the moulten metal produced by a ) running out of a corner of a WTC tower moments before it's collapse might not raise any questions in some minds.

Sure, some here have suggested that the colour in the video might be off - quite possibly - yet this still doesn't explain what it is you're seeing.

If it is indeed the case that the above footage has been discussed before and a reasonable conclusion as to what it depicts has been offered, please do point me towards it and excuse my failure to find it myself.

Besides that point, this documentary clearly highlights some of the tricks and methods used by the BBC in the making of 'The Conspiracy Files' programme which are universal to the art of 'documentary making' - for that fact alone, it is worth watching, whatever your views on 9/11.

Like it or not, we're subjected daily to a bewildering array of propaganda and 'psychological operation', designed to 'inform our opinions' and invite us to internalise all sorts of 'untruth' as 'fact'.

Anything that might increase our ability to differentiate between 'truth' and propagandic lies and distortion is useful, particularly in the context of the 'information war' we find ourselves embroiled in today.

 

[detective-boy]

Anything that might increase our ability to differentiate between 'truth' and propagandic lies and distortion is useful, particularly in the context of the 'information war' we find ourselves embroiled in today.

Anything which might increase the ability of some to distinguish between "facts" and "theories"; between "evidence" and "rumours"; between "reliable" and "unreliable" would also be pretty useful ...

 

[MikeMcc]

Evidently.

My 'point', since you insist on appearing to miss it, is merely to highlight the utter hypocrisy of criticising others for 'firmly making up their mind about' documentaries 'without troubling themselves to even watch it' whilst doing so oneself.

What's this got to do with 'Prison Planet', BTW?

-

Re: This documentary:

Besides my reservations regarding Shayler, one thing that struck me was that he discusses 'thermi(a)te' (@28 mins) with regard to the collapse of the towers - yet doesn't include this piece of footage:



OK, so a video of moulten 'something' (that appears remarkably similar to the moulten metal produced by a ) running out of a corner of a WTC tower moments before it's collapse might not raise any questions in some minds.

Sure, some here have suggested that the colour in the video might be off - quite possibly - yet this still doesn't explain what it is you're seeing.

If it is indeed the case that the above footage has been discussed before and a reasonable conclusion as to what it depicts has been offered, please do point me towards it and excuse my failure to find it myself.

Besides that point, this documentary clearly highlights some of the tricks and methods used by the BBC in the making of 'The Conspiracy Files' programme which are universal to the art of 'documentary making' - for that fact alone, it is worth watching, whatever your views on 9/11.

Like it or not, we're subjected daily to a bewildering array of propaganda and 'psychological operation', designed to 'inform our opinions' and invite us to internalise all sorts of 'untruth' as 'fact'.

Anything that might increase our ability to differentiate between 'truth' and propagandic lies and distortion is useful, particularly in the context of the 'information war' we find ourselves embroiled in today.

It doesn't matter how many times Thermite(/ate) gets mentioned, it still couldn't have been used because you would needs tonnes of the stuff (sneaked in past all of the workers) and somehow hold it against the metalwork so that it would act horizontally rather than vertically without it destroying the assembly holding it against the girders.