The conspiracy files on BBC2 now about 7/7

[Awesome Wells]

i gave up after the first 30 mins of flimsy circumstantial evidence, including a shot from the cctv of all 4 bombers which supposedly was doctored because the guy in front of the railings looks like he's behind them and the railings pass in front of him.

Only it didn't look like that at all.

I hope I missed the inevitable appearance of the loud Alex Jones and his british cohort.

 

[CNT36]

i gave up after the first 30 mins of flimsy circumstantial evidence, including a shot from the cctv of all 4 bombers which supposedly was doctored because the guy in front of the railings looks like he's behind them and the railings pass in front of him.

Only it didn't look like that at all.

I hope I missed the inevitable appearance of the loud Alex Jones and his british cohort.

I remember that picture being posted on here years ago and a good explanation being given for why it looked like that. Something to do with compression I believe.

 

[Awesome Wells]

i didn't think it looked like a man standing behind a rail anyway, which isn't entirely implausible given that he could have been photographed standing behind a rail.

Though i did find it amusing that the voiceover didn't register that Muadib comes from scifi.

 

[kyser_soze]

Muad'Dib and his fellow conspiracists attempt to mount the worm of truth

 

[camouflage]

I demand to know why you are making light of The Sacred Film!

 

[kyser_soze]

Don't be getting into a 'Who loves Lynch's Dune more' war with me, Harkonnen scum!

 

[DownwardDog]

Did I nod off while they explained why Blair blamed it on Islamic terrorists before the police knew who did it? That seems to be the only bit of conspiraloonery that the programme has failed to dismantle.

To be fair to Blair, muslims are/were the leaders in the clubhouse when it comes to this type of blowing shit up so it was a pretty safe bet.

 

[DexterTCN]

i gave up after the first 30 mins of ...

Did better than me, mate.

I saw that old fart walking up the hill and hit the remote.

Dune was on 5 at the weekend, btw.

 

[kyser_soze]

Yeah, shit original cut telly version without the heart plug being removed scene tho.

 

[DexterTCN]

'Shit' would be in comparison to what was on the other stations.

 

[invisibleplanet]

A thorough and much needed exposé of the unfounded nonsense that ensued in the aftermath of the tragic 7/7 bombings.

Watch, and link to wherever you see conspiraloon nonsense!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00lkp01/The_Conspiracy_Files_Series_2_30_06_2009/

 

[Jazzz]

I just happened to catch this programme and watched it. Of course we know the 'conspiracy files' style of hatchet-job. It purports to be 'fair and balanced' but of course the idea is to ridicule anything other than believing the official version.

The attack is 'straw man' - pick out the weak points and arguments, and attack those. This is pretty obvious given that they chose 'ripple effect' to dismantle, rather than ludicrous diversion say.

I agreed with many of the points made on the programme. I don't think there's a bar in front of the man's face; the Kingstar Van I've always though mere coincidence; etc. But this hardly makes me accept the official version especially as there seems to be no CCTV footage of any of the men once they left King's Cross Thameslink.

Much of programme centred around the 'Ripple Effect' documentary, and discredited it. However it failed to mention that had already been done by the J7 Truth Campaign, who dismissed it as a 'totally evidence-free and fanciful hypothesis'

7/7 Ripple Effect - a rebuttal and rejection

A video was released on 5th November 2007 entitled '7/7 Ripple Effect' which appeared via a website called JforJustice. Both the video and website are authored by Muad'Dib (the name of a fictional character from Frank Herbert's Dune) who believes he is the Sheffield-born messiah and demands 'that he be acknowledged as the Rightful British-Israel King.' He also appears to hold rather offensive, anti-Muslim views:

rest of article

J7 refused to appear on the programme and I think that decision was quite understandable.

 

[elbows]

The attack is 'straw man' - pick out the weak points and arguments, and attack those.

Thats not exactly what straw man means, but anyway they certainly dont have a lack of choice when looking for weak point and arguments to pick on.

If you often managed to highlight evidence that wasnt weak then you wouldnt get ridiculed here so much. You can be interested in a lack of CCTV if you want to, but that stuff is widely considered to be very weak as well.

Possible motives for various conspiracies seem to be the only things that are consistently not weak, and of course this leads people to make up their minds and then try to find evidence to fit their view of events. And the evidence is usually laughable.

 

[8den]

So Doctor Jazzz

Aside from the difficultly of spotting the individual bombers in the middest of packed rush hour summer london underground tube platforms, what other issues do you have with the "offical story"?

 

[Jazzz]

Thats not exactly what straw man means, but anyway they certainly dont have a lack of choice when looking for weak point and arguments to pick on.

It is certainly a 'straw man' to simply attack weak arguments and positions and present it as a complete job done. The question is 'has the official account been proved?' - the answer is no, we are having to accept the government's word for it. Perhaps this evidence does exist and will come into the public domain - if so great.

You can be interested in a lack of CCTV if you want to, but that stuff is widely considered to be very weak as well.

"The bombers are all certain to have been caught on many cameras during their journey… we will end up with very good pictures that identify them." - Andy Hayman, Assistant Commissioner

 

[Jazzz]

Aside from the difficultly of spotting the individual bombers in the middest of packed rush hour summer london underground tube platforms, what other issues do you have with the "offical story"?

The issue I have with the official story is that it is just that - a story, however apparently plausible. We are taking people's word for it. It is not yet proved by evidence in the public domain. This is what a public enquiry is necessary to provide.

 

[EddyBlack]

The issue I have with the official story is that it is just that - a story, however apparently plausible. We are taking people's word for it. It is not yet proved by evidence in the public domain. This is what a public enquiry is necessary to provide.

Yeah but only a loony would like that. 911, Iraq etc.

I didn't watch it but I haven't seen anything to suggest 7/7 was allowed or participated in by the authorities. I gather the flailing political establishment used this vehicle to shoot some easy questions and stoke the dying embers of the war.

 

[Jazzz]

Yeah but only a loony would like that. 911, Iraq etc.

Iraq is a very good case in point. Tony Blair was adamant that the intelligence showed Saddam was loaded up with WMDs. 'If you had seen what I've seen..." he kept saying. And yet it was bullshit! Governments are not to be trusted - certainly not ours.

 

[Roadkill]

The attack is 'straw man' - pick out the weak points and arguments, and attack those.

Coming from someone whose modus operandi is to pick out supposed gaps in the 'official version' and spin vast and improbable conspiracy theories around them - or, more accurately, harvest those conspiracy theories from those with fertile imaginations and serious mental health problems - that is really very rich indeed.

 

[EddyBlack]

Iraq is a very good case in point. Tony Blair was adamant that the intelligence showed Saddam was loaded up with WMDs. 'If you had seen what I've seen..." he kept saying. And yet it was bullshit! Governments are not to be trusted - certainly not ours.

Do you think there was a conspiracy on 7/7?

 

[Awesome Wells]

Iraq is a very good case in point. Tony Blair was adamant that the intelligence showed Saddam was loaded up with WMDs. 'If you had seen what I've seen..." he kept saying. And yet it was bullshit! Governments are not to be trusted - certainly not ours.

the classic problem with the conspiracy theorists, in the wake of the recent terrorist era, is that they can't accept that governments get things wrong, fuck things up and make mistakes. Instead governments must be engaged in plots and schemes. Sadly governments are full of people who are just as fucked up as the rest of us. They aren't allowing things to happen by deign of nefarious NWO design, but through incompetence.

 

[foo]

Loved it when they tracked Muad div down to his hideaway in Ireland and it turned out to be a Terry Pratchett lookylikey who thought he was Jesus. Typical deluded nutjob like most of these troofers. The troubling bit was the one in four muslims who want to believe all this bullshit. Daft buggers.

i was so glad they showed him, and that he was a fruitloop. sorry if that makes me a wrong un.

that point the woman (Rachel somebody?) made about the government should take on the conspiracy theorists publically and prove them wrong, rather than dismiss them out of hand - was a really good one i thought, because a lot of people believe the crap the conspiracy loons chuck out on the internet, and the govt, or whoever, wants to realise it, and tackle it. imo.

 

[8den]

The issue I have with the official story is that it is just that - a story, however apparently plausible. We are taking people's word for it. It is not yet proved by evidence in the public domain. This is what a public enquiry is necessary to provide.

Yeah it's not like we've had confessional videos from the bombers and criminal trials of those who helped them.

Out of curiosity Jazzz what evidence could be presented at this public enquiry that would satisfy you? Who should chair it? Who should be called to present evidence to it?

 

[8den]

i was so glad they showed him, and that he was a fruitloop. sorry if that makes me a wrong un.

that point the woman (Rachel somebody?) .

That'd be our own Badger Kitten.

 

[kyser_soze]

The issue I have with the official story is that it is just that - a story, however apparently plausible. We are taking people's word for it. It is not yet proved by evidence in the public domain. This is what a public enquiry is necessary to provide.

But at the end of the day jazz, if such a committee, report or whatever came to the same conclusions, you'd dismiss it's findings and call for another one.

There is nothing that could be done to convince you that 9/11, 7/7 etc weren't put-up jobs.

 

[Roadkill]

the classic problem with the conspiracy theorists, in the wake of the recent terrorist era, is that they can't accept that governments get things wrong, fuck things up and make mistakes. Instead governments must be engaged in plots and schemes. Sadly governments are full of people who are just as fucked up as the rest of us. They aren't allowing things to happen by deign of nefarious NWO design, but through incompetence.

Governments do do a great deal of very shady things they'd prefer we didn't know about, up to and including supporting/encouraging terrorism on occasion.

However, the evidence for 7/7 and 9/11 being put-up jobs (as kyser puts it) is precisely zero.

 

[Flashman]

Governments are not to be trusted - certainly not ours.

I agree. And you're probably preaching to the converted on urban, with that statement.

However, just because I don't trust politicians doesn't mean I should throw my hat in with any old conspiracy.

 

[Pingu]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/8124687.stm



Anyway Ive forgotten to watch this show, hope its on iplayer, although anti-conspiracy BBC stuff is usually a bit weak for my tastes. I havent yet recovered from Gavin Esler fronted show that was using computer graphics to dispel Kennedy assassination theories.

had his real name been paul artedies i would have been reasonably impressed tbf

 

[foo]

I agree. And you're probably preaching to the converted on urban, with that statement.

However, just because I don't trust politicians doesn't mean I should throw my hat in with any old conspiracy.

this, totally. just because i think most conspiracy theories & theorists are completely nuts, and some bloody dangerous, doesn't mean i trust or rate this government.

8den, i didn't know that! i'm probably the only one on this site who doesn't though right?

BK - i was very impressed with your bits, and what you had to say. hats off to ya gal.

 

[Awesome Wells]

Governments do do a great deal of very shady things they'd prefer we didn't know about, up to and including supporting/encouraging terrorism on occasion.

However, the evidence for 7/7 and 9/11 being put-up jobs (as kyser puts it) is precisely zero.

indeed they do, but they are also filled with people with ambitions and divided and compartmentalised into bureaucracies so ineffable the right hand doesn't know what the left hand is doing. The simplistic nature of these theories is laughable by comparison.