The conspiracy files on BBC2 now about 7/7

[elbows]

It is certainly a 'straw man' to simply attack weak arguments and positions and present it as a complete job done.

Straw man is when you misrepresent the other sides arguments, and then pick apart a position that they dont actually hold.

If they have ignored a lot of the conspiracy theories and only attacked the weak ones then you have some sort of point, but the onus is really on you to show what these stronger theories and evidence are that the program did not address.

Anyway Ive watched half the program now - it was better than I expected, the BBC are learning something about how to do this stuff properly.

Governments really need to be more careful about making stupid mistakes such as getting the train wrong in the official narrative, as it looks bad.

 

[8den]

yeah I'd love to hear the "stronger" arguments.

Nick "Holohoax" Kolstrom's biggest point is the train timetable.

Mind the Gap fixates on the video and the t/c stamp on the cameras.

The Peter Powers training exercise crap is just that, crap.

What are the stronger arguments?

 

[Flashman]

I figured Kollerstrom for a dick well before that holodenial stuff at the end.

Nice hat though.

 

[London Eye]

A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[1] To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting a superficially similar proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.

The Ripple Effect video is the straw man because the programme uses it to undermine the argument that the official narrative of the 7/7 bombings might not be accurate. In setting up the Ripple Effect as the main source for government/secret service involvement in 7/7 bombings, and then demolishing the credibility of the video, implies that suspicions of the government narrative are unfounded.

That is a straw man. Doesn't mean the official narrative isn't correct, just that the argument used to support it cannot be taken as fact.

 

[elbows]

Oh well yeah if they used Ripple Effect to prove the government narrative correct, rather than just tearing apart Ripple Effect and associated theories, then that is a bit wrong. If they are just trying to refute specific conspiracy allegations then I dont think its straw man.

 

[Badger Kitten]

The programme was about looking at the various 7/7 conspiracy theories and seeing if there was anything in them. That was the focus of the documentary: obviously they couldn't cover everything so they went for the most common ones and Ripple effect was used because it has had most hits and generated the most controversy - it's the 'Loose Change' of the 7/7 Truthers. It also posits a counter-explanation for what happened, which is at least more honest that the other filsm and sites where little is advanced to explain why the 'Official Explanation' is wrong, it 'just is' (then you dig a little deeper and it's usually that the 'Official explanation' 'just is' wrong, because of some personal political belief such as 'The Government seeks to control the proleteriat with manufactured State terror' or 'The Jews/Zionists/New World Order Bilderbergers are hell-bent on controlling the world' or 'I feel paranoid and want an explanation for why I feel this way' or' I always knew I was special and could understand esoteric things others can't - that's why I am persecuted and never fit in)

There are other CT films doing the rounds - Ludicrous Diversion and Mind the Gap are two - they ask questions rather than posit theories, which is to say that they take the rather weak, slippery and cowardly position of pulling apart tiny holes/anomalies and focusing on them whilst ignoring everything else that adds weight to the police investigation findings - but haven't the guts to put up any kind of credible explanation. Any fool can ask questions, and then demand that every negative is disproved but it looks pretty weak if rather than listening to the answers, the response is just to start up with yet another set of questions.

Asking endless questions then going la la shill when you get answers you don't like is not 'research' and finding small details and taking them out of context is not 'evidence' - just as coming at something with a barely-concealed agenda to posit a 'Government dun it' theory is not 'truth seeking'.

 

[foo]

after seeing you on the programme last night, i'm a bit of a fan of yours now BKitten.

i won't stalk you or anything though.

seriously, you did good, i was impressed with you and the stuff you had to say. good on you.

 

[Badger Kitten]

Thanks Foo

 

[Awesome Wells]

I'd happily listen to a conspiracy theory that wasn't based on the merest and least credible form of evidence imaginable. But crap cctv scans and incorrect timetables (like those aren't common) are hardly the tools of a nefarious new world order.

fnord.

 

[goldenecitrone]

after seeing you on the programme last night, i'm a bit of a fan of yours now BKitten.

i won't stalk you or anything though.

seriously, you did good, i was impressed with you and the stuff you had to say. good on you.

I agree. A voice of reason amongst a sea of nutters. Is there one single troofer who isn't suffering from mental health problems? I seriously doubt it.

 

[_pH_]

Just watched this on iplayer.

BK, you came across brilliantly as always Your comments about 'well you've seen the conspiracy theorists' side of the story....here's ours' were spot on.

Some of the supposed evidence of a conspiracy was just laughable, e.g., the fact that the controlled demolition company who were touted as having been involved in some way with the explosions turn out not to use explosives at all

Best bit for me was Kollerstrom watching the CCTV and being made to look the total arse that he is

 

[London Eye]

If this programme was supposed to be a narrative about the misgivings many have about the official narrative, why no mention of the J7 campaign?

The J7 campaign totally distance themselves from The Ripple Effect and other wild conspiracy theories. Maybe they were just too rational and reasonable to fit in with the Conspiracy Files narrative that all scepticism about the government narrative amounts to fruitloop conspiracy theories.

I have no problem with the BBC shooting down wild conspiracy theories. But presenting a programme on the 7/7 bombings in such a way as to imply it covered all misgivings about the official narrative is misleading to say the least, and glaringly duplicitous at worst.

So why was no one at J7 invited to speak and give rational reasons why we need an open independent inquiry and factual evidence released that can prove that the bombers were who the government say they were? Because without that we are simply being asked to take the government and police at their word. And with their history that is something I am not prepared to do, and I believe many people feel the same way, with good reason I would add.

 

[Bob_the_lost]

So why was no one at J7 invited to speak and give rational reasons why we need an open independent inquiry and factual evidence released that can prove that the bombers were who the government say they were? Because without that we are simply being asked to take the government and police at their word. And with their history that is something I am not prepared to do, and I believe many people feel the same way, with good reason I would add.

http://www.julyseventh.co.uk/j7-refuse-bbc-conspiracy-files-offer.html

Upon learning that our assistance was being requested in connection with the production of an episode of the formulaic Conspiracy Files rather than a serious, honest, open-minded and in-depth documentary

...

J7 issued a response to the BBC declining to participate in the programme and outlining our reasons for reaching this decision.

Update 1: The independent film-making team behind Ludicrous Diversion have also refused to participate in the BBC Conspiracy Files and once again call into question the integrity, honesty and remit of the BBC. Read their response here.

That was a pretty big and pretty stupid assumption to make LE.

Either you didn't check your facts or you're really really crap at doing it as I found that on google in seconds. Work out which occurred and bear it in mind in future to prevent making more bad assumptions/conclusions.

 

[Bob_the_lost]

I'm watching it now on iplayer btw. It's not going to satisfy anyone really, it's a taster and shows some of the theories to be bollocks as well as some of the real controversies.

 

[London Eye]

I didn't check my facts. Apologies. But I believe the main part of my assumption still holds, since they refused to go on to what they assumed was going to be a slanted documentary and the programme made no reference to them as far as I can remember, though the BBC referenced the fact that the government refused to go on the programme. And I would still maintain that that was the case ie a slanted documentary, more a polemic than real journalism. But then, since I can't even check basic facts, why should anyone listen to what I have to say?

 

[Badger Kitten]

If this programme was supposed to be a narrative about the misgivings many have about the official narrative, why no mention of the J7 campaign?

Oh, J7 were invited. They were invited before anyone else. They refused to participate. They like to big it up on the internet but won't speak out in public. probably because if they were out in public they would have to move from their comfort zone of asking endless questions online and actually posit something as an alt. explanation or provide evidence as to why the police investigation into the murders isn't good enough for them.

The J7 campaign totally distance themselves from The Ripple Effect...

...yes, they distanced themselves from the Ripple Effect, but they certainly are not distanced from wild conspiracy theories. They are pro- 'Ludicrous Diversion' and 'Mind The Gap'. They are savvy enough to try to pass themselves off as 'just asking questions' but they are conspiracy theorists and when under pressure here, one of them, known as 'Prole' on this forum said 'It's a traversty of justice, those men [the bombers] didn't do it.' So there you go, they have an agenda - they just hide it rather better than Kollerstrom, Gosling et al.

Maybe they were just too rational and reasonable to fit in with the Conspiracy Files narrative that all scepticism about the government narrative amounts to fruitloop conspiracy theories.

Hardly.

Prole aka Bridget Dunne first claims that everything J7 does is public, and was promptly caught out lying about the fact that J7 have secret forums - no doubt where they are able to air their prejudices rather more frankly than their public forum. When under pressure, she says the 7/7 men are innocent. Like all CT-ers, the J7 people demand more and more 'evidence' - yet when CCTV is released, they dismiss or disregard it.

But the most telling point of all is that Kollerstrom's book - widely derided as crap even by the J7 people - is cut and pasted from the J7 website!

How embarassing! How infuriating for J7!

And it was Kollerstrom who first found out about the train not running, Kollerstrom who worked hand in glove with J7 until late 2006. Kollerstrom who was happy to identify himself as a member of J7 for over a year after the site was set up, and they were happy to have him on board too.

Since then they seem to have been amusing themselves by pasting every media article ever published on 7/7 onto their site, making lists of 'questions' that they don't want to know the answers to, and annoying police and emergency services by writing FOI letters.

I have no problem with the BBC shooting down wild conspiracy theories. But presenting a programme on the 7/7 bombings in such a way as to imply it covered all misgivings about the official narrative is misleading to say the least, and glaringly duplicitous at worst.

But it didn't. It just looked at the most popular conspiracy theories and investigated them, in an hour's programme

So why was no one at J7 invited to speak

they were , they even explain all this on their site

and give rational reasons why we need an open independent inquiry

But they don't seem willing or able to give rational reasons, apart from demanding their every question, suspicion, hypothesis and intuition is explained in a way that meets their exacting demands according to their world view which presupposes Islamist innocence - this is not being open minded, this is being hugely and wilfully biased.

and factual evidence released that can prove that the bombers were who the government say they were?
Because without that we are simply being asked to take the government and police at their word.

Well, yeah, like when any murder happens, people do usually manage to take the police 'at their word' that it was done by the murderer and not by a nefarious secretive crew of top secret agents with black helicopters.

And with their history that is something I am not prepared to do, and I believe many people feel the same way, with good reason I would add.

there is a great big yawning difference between thinking the Govt are a bunch of shits who lied about WMD etc, and thinking they organised the murder of 50+ people to prove ...to do...to achieve...what, exactly? How?

It's normal to be suspicious of the Govt but that doesn't mean you should believe any old totally irrational tripe about patsies, Mossad, actors, stuntmen, coverups, and all the rest of it.

 

[Bob_the_lost]

I didn't check my facts. Apologies. But I believe the main part of my assumption still holds, since they refused to go on to what they assumed was going to be a slanted documentary and the programme made no reference to them as far as I can remember, though the BBC referenced the fact that the government refused to go on the programme. And I would still maintain that that was the case ie a slanted documentary, more a polemic than real journalism. But then, since I can't even check basic facts, why should anyone listen to what I have to say?

Scope: It's not the bbc's fault that the slightly less lunatic arm of the lunatic brigade refused to contribute. To say it covers all the points is flawed however I didn't hear them say that, it did cover, briefly, almost all the major ones. You don't watch an hour long beeb documentary to learn everything nor would it be possible.

Slant: It was not as slanted as you can get, no mention of kollerstrom's holocaust theories or the supposed saviour status of the desert mouse thingy. Nope, sorry, utterly wrong. Hadn't watched it all the way through and that was at 51 mins Kollerstrom's holocaust theories is mentioned and Jon Hill gets a mention at 54 min

This isn't' an independent enquiry and pretending it should follow the same format is a straw man.

 

[Badger Kitten]

They had a lot of stuff on Kollerstrom that they held back and didn't use. Including him taking flowers to the family of one of the bombers and trying to doorstop them, to say how he knew their son was innocent. They didn't mention all Gosling's mad Bilderberg stuff, they didn't have Gosling's blatant tolerance of antisemitism on his website, they didn't have Mu'ad Dib's website saying Islam was corrupt and sick.

They could have gone in a lot harder. This was not a hatchet job - I think they tried really hard to give them a fair hearing and to investigate all their claims seriously.

 

[Jazzz]

They had a lot of stuff on Kollerstrom that they held back and didn't use. Including him taking flowers to the family of one of the bombers and trying to doorstop them, to say how he knew their son was innocent. They didn't mention all Gosling's mad Bilderberg stuff, they didn't have Gosling's blatant tolerance of antisemitism on his website, they didn't have Mu'ad Dib's website saying Islam was corrupt and sick.

They could have gone in a lot harder. This was not a hatchet job - I think they tried really hard to give them a fair hearing and to investigate all their claims seriously.

That just says it thankfully didn't indulge in full-scale character assassination that you might expect on urban75, doesn't mean it wasn't a hatchet job as far as examining the official theory was concerned. You hardly need to if you are going to pick out Muad'Dib. Focusing on 'Ripple Effect' for criticism without mentioning the fact that the more intelligent (as you say) arm of the Truth Campaign utterly rejects it - this is hardly balanced.

The most risible part was when the programme endorsed the fairytale about the 9-11 hijacker's passport surviving (to be found by an FBI agent).

But anyway I'm sure we can go on for ages as we have done here already many times. I expect you felt somewhat satisfied with the pound of flesh badger kitten, but as for your cause, the public enquiry, it's shooting yourself in the foot. A programme that says we can trust the government is not going to get people demanding any truth. There is simply a whole range of doubts about the workings of governments and their failings or deception which people hold to different degrees as is their right, and attempting to draw a line over which are acceptable and which are not will get us nowhere.

perhaps part of you might begin to realise this.

 

[_pH_]

But anyway I'm sure we can go on for ages as we have done here already many times. I expect you felt somewhat satisfied with the pound of flesh badger kitten, but as for your cause, the public enquiry, it's shooting yourself in the foot. A programme that says we can trust the government is not going to get people demanding any truth. There is simply a whole range of doubts about the workings of governments and their failings or deception which people hold to different degrees as is their right, and attempting to draw a line over which are acceptable and which are not will get us nowhere.

the point <---------------------------------------------------------> jazzz

 

[Badger Kitten]

That just says it thankfully didn't indulge in full-scale character assassination that you might expect on urban75, doesn't mean it wasn't a hatchet job as far as examining the official theory was concerned. You hardly need to if you are going to pick out Muad'Dib. Focusing on 'Ripple Effect' for criticism without mentioning the fact that the more intelligent (as you say) arm of the Truth Campaign utterly rejects it - this is hardly balanced.

The most risible part was when the programme endorsed the fairytale about the 9-11 hijacker's passport surviving (to be found by an FBI agent).

But anyway I'm sure we can go on for ages as we have done here already many times. I expect you felt somewhat satisfied with the pound of flesh badger kitten, but as for your cause, the public enquiry, it's shooting yourself in the foot. A programme that says we can trust the government is not going to get people demanding any truth. There is simply a whole range of doubts about the workings of governments and their failings or deception which people hold to different degrees as is their right, and attempting to draw a line over which are acceptable and which are not will get us nowhere.

perhaps part of you might begin to realise this.

Christ, you really don't get it, do you?

The stupid, ignorant, paranoid conspiracy theories bandied about by the agenda-lade or credulous make it harder to get an inquiry. Makes it easy to dismiss the campaign as being something to do with the tinfoil brigade.

That, not a desire to tie up the harassing idiots who have plagued me for years was why I went on the programme.

Muad Dib's inane, libellous and poisonous film is the most popular 7/7 CT one out there; that was why it was picked. It was the one endorsed by the Birmingham imam, the one with most hits. J7 and Ludicrous Diversion cravenly refused to stand up and say what they think in public - though they seem only too happy to point the finger at anyone else campaigning in public. The BBC had no idea who Muad Dib was when they started all this. The programme set out to look at conspiracy theories, not the official story - it was called 'the Conspiracy Files' not 'let's reexamine the ISC reports and narrative'.

It duly went through the main CTs and there we are. If you don't like it, perhaops you should have encouraged J7 to go on, or been on yourself. They can only work with people who agree to talk, can't they?

 

[_pH_]

It was the one endorsed by the Birmingham imam, the one with most hits.

I couldn't help thinking that the Imam in the Birmingham Mosque was really, really gullible. For a 'doctor' (doctor of what?) he seemed very very ready to accept the Ripple Effect as entirely truthful without even questioning any of its validity.

 

[nick h.]

BK, what do you think of the way the programme dealt with the "Blair said they were Muslims before the police knew" issue?

 

[Badger Kitten]

The statement was made 8 hours after the bombings; by then forensic teams had secured the scene, and the PM and key COBRA asttendees had been informed about what had been found; namely, the remains of suicide bombers.

They weren't ID-d by name then - but you find suicide bomber remains and you do tend to go with jihadis - what other explanation is there?Tamils Unlikely. The police and security service had been at full stretch throughout 2004 busting elements of the UK jihadi network.

 

[_pH_]

The statement was made 8 hours after the bombings; by then forensic teams had secured the scene, and the PM and key COBRA asttendees had been informed about what had been found; namely, the remains of suicide bombers.

They weren't ID-d by name then - but you find suicide bomber remains and you do tend to go with jihadis - what other explanation is there?Tamils Unlikely. The police and security service had been at full stretch throughout 2004 busting elements of the UK jihadi network.

Good point. In terms of current terrorist tactics, suicide bombing tends to be almost always carried out by jihadis, doesn't it?

 

[goldenecitrone]

I couldn't help thinking that the Imam in the Birmingham Mosque was really, really gullible. For a 'doctor' (doctor of what?) he seemed very very ready to accept the Ripple Effect as entirely truthful without even questioning any of its validity.

It's disturbing to think that someone like that is in a position of influence. Most of these troofers are impotent nobodies who try and big themselves up with their access to 'the truth', but this idiot is actually doing damage to community relations. He should be reprimanded and then sacked.

 

[Badger Kitten]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4659953.stm

Blair's statement 5.30pm 7/7/05

 

[_pH_]

It's disturbing to think that someone like that is in a position of influence. Most of these troofers are impotent nobodies who try and big themselves up with their access to 'the truth', but this idiot is actually doing damage to community relations. He should be reprimanded and then sacked.

Quite. His attitude seemed to be that there is no way that the bombers could have allied themselves with Islam. OK, fair enough, it can hard to accept that someone who claims to be of the same religion as you is willing to murder in the name of that religion, but the evidence suggests that is the case.

I thought the young lad in the mosque was really sucked in by it all. He said something along the lines of 'the makers of Ripple Effect have managed to find the truth with no resources, yet the Gov't with all its resources can't do the same'. He'd been suckered in totally, scarily.

 

[nick h.]

The statement was made 8 hours after the bombings; by then forensic teams had secured the scene, and the PM and key COBRA asttendees had been informed about what had been found; namely, the remains of suicide bombers.

They weren't ID-d by name then - but you find suicide bomber remains and you do tend to go with jihadis - what other explanation is there?Tamils Unlikely. The police and security service had been at full stretch throughout 2004 busting elements of the UK jihadi network.

That seems very reasonable. Can't understand why the programme didn't explain it that way. Their use of the Paddick quote just made the issue murkier. Bit of an own goal.

 

[8den]

That just says it thankfully didn't indulge in full-scale character assassination that you might expect on urban75, doesn't mean it wasn't a hatchet job as far as examining the official theory was concerned. You hardly need to if you are going to pick out Muad'Dib. Focusing on 'Ripple Effect' for criticism without mentioning the fact that the more intelligent (as you say) arm of the Truth Campaign utterly rejects it - this is hardly balanced.

The most risible part was when the programme endorsed the fairytale about the 9-11 hijacker's passport surviving (to be found by an FBI agent).

Because the passport wasn't the only personal effect from any passenger recovered from the WTC. And it's not like chairs and identifiable parts of the palnes turned up, you complete arsehole.