So, you just watched the BBC 9/11 doc?

[Patrick Brown]

[telecasterisation]

I agree with Patrick, were we expecting a reworking of 'Loose Change' for the masses?

Last night's programme was one of a series of observational pieces on aspects of conspiracy theories, not an expose of who really did it.

'Our' exponents came across really quite poorly, whilst Pop Mechanics seemed far more rational and believable - I don't consider this was clever editing or quotes out of context.

It is difficult to remain objective when our perspective is essentially polarised - BBC researchers are not truthers, nor are the producers of such programmes, so to expect anything other than what was portrayed is highly assumptive. I can't see anyone compromising their career even if they believed it was a setup.

Can anyone who is disappointed state why they expected anything more than what they got?

[kbo234]

[James C]

[Patrick Brown]

I did think the WTC7 footage was pretty damming. The speed of collapse must have looked odd to many viewers. Unfortunately they started to mention something about the reason for collapse being to do with the way it was constructed but then never followed it up. So I'm sure some people will investigate as there are holes in the documentary.

I forgot to rewind the video tape so haven't got the last 15min although I did watch it all. So does anybody know when it will be repeated?

[Bongo]

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=7621076970651593769&q=conspi racy+files+911

... the entire documentary Patrick!

[Patrick Brown]

Wow that was quick.

Cheers

[conspiracy analyst]

[Ravenmoon]

I think that this is going to be an excellent opportunity to show people how wrong the BBC can get it, because i know now the weak arguements people will use against me & the arsenal of much better counter evidence i have acquired over the years

[alwun]

Sorry - had enough


don't please feed these two s**tbags PB and TC..

cheers Al..

[Mark Gobell]

[andrewwatson]

[paul wright]

Well you list 4 people who unfortunately we would be better seeing the back of
Not for what they actually say but for their essential gloom casting and cynical influence
There are a few more, but anyway without these the flowers might actually bloom and the sunlight begin to pour in, and we need to present a more positive unsplit line to imbue ourselves with confidence, don't we?

[Mark Gobell]

Understandable thoughts Andrew.

The demoralising effect is the desired outcome.

The patterns become clear after some time and during that time many of us can be taken in, in various ways, as most fair minded folk are not quick to judge, especially without evidence.

Recognising a consistent, demoralising influence is the key.

Once you have done that you can ignore it and hope it goes away.

The method will only succeed if we as individuals let it wear us down.

Don't.

On the up side, it is proof positive that our message is a threat and that gives me comfort.

[telecasterisation]

Having posted my thoughts I am asked to come up with a 'counter' to what the BBC broadcast. I clearly stated that we have no real weapons to respond with, the chips are stacked against us, this is not me being cynical, it is merely a statement of fact.

I cannot change what has happened, the programme went out in the form it was structured, yes it left out many aspects of 9/11, I was not party to its content nor had any say in who was interviewed or the way it was edited. People are then so incensed and compromised by their depressive internal states that I am then called a s**tbag for asking what possible response can we have?

The BBC put out a programme where the content was somewhat less than supportive of our beliefs and people here are looking for someone to blame and have a rant. I care passionately about truth, have no 'derailing' agenda and have said nothing whatsoever in support of what was broadcast.

Just be thankful that NPT wasn't mentioned and cloaked missiles were discussed - it really would all be over then.

[andrewwatson]

[THETRUTHWILLSETU3]

[Mark Gobell]

[rodin]

There's more than one T-C...

All this spring cleaning could work to our advantage if people start to take more responsibility for their own thoughts. The Truth Movement (argh) was much more easily manipulated before this apparent internecine warfare broke out. Whether this in/out fighting was pre-determined or spontaneous (I favour the former, though I think 'they' have lost control of their own controlled demolitions) if it has the effect of more people actually investigating rather than parroting 'truths' so much the better. There are probably straw men still out there we haven't tumbled to. We need to get them burnt asap.

It's all about SOURCED EVIDENCE. Analysis without properly sourced evidence is conjecture.

[planetfrog]

Maybe its just me, but I'd never seen some of these shots before of bent over steel.....



anyone else seen these before?

[landless peasant]

look at the pentagon animation, they show no outer wall. just the plane plowing into the concrete columns

[telecasterisation]

[Leiff]

Chin up peeps! It took a behemoth like the Beeb 6 months to put that weak effort together. Think how many people have realized the truth in that period with the aid of Google Video, YouTube, a zillion web sites and a mountain of DVDs...

We can succeed if we keep it up.

[paul wright]

[Fred Jones II]

and Auntie is giving us a hand. keep an eye on the programming this week.
sunday:top gear (HUGE AUDIENCE)followed by shabby doc
monday:dodgy phone ins and overwhelming responses that seem "unexpected". (plus a ludicrous moonbat rant)
Tuesday: (classic car sci fi drama) life on mars (trust me, watch it)
whats coming tommorrow?

[telecasterisation]

[numeral]

Tele C,

God, you're a miserable old sod (no offense meant). Cheer up! All publicity is good publicity. The Venerable Beeb was forced to respond. It is movement. Start worrying when nothing happens.

[Linda]

Producer Struggles to Defend Flaws & Bias of BBC Hit Piece

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/february2007/200207producerstrugg les.htm


Producer Struggles to Defend Flaws & Bias of BBC Hit Piece
Guy Smith says 'we can debate these issues all day' without being able to debate any of them


The producer of the BBC Conspiracy Files documentary, a poorly researched and bias hit piece against the 9/11 truth movement, appeared on the Alex Jones Show yesterday and struggled to defend charges that the program was laden with glaring flaws and crass emotional manipulation throughout.

Judge for yourself by listening to the MP3 audio.

Smith began by claiming that he conducted the investigation in an "objective and balanced way" and yet there were as many as thirteen individuals representing the official story or a whitewash version of it versus just three individuals representing 9/11 skepticism. How can a more than four to one ratio be judged as balanced? In addition, the debunkers were allowed to talk at length while the skeptics were tightly edited and had extremely little on screen time.

Smith is completely dishonest in claiming the evidence alone led the nature of the documentary because the way in which it is filmed and edited clearly betrays an overwhelming bias and a zeal to discredit the skeptics by means of editorial deceit and cinematic manipulation of the audience.

Smith was forced to state "no I'm not denying that" when he was questioned on the imbalance of having four times the amount of debunkers compared to skeptics.

Dylan Avery's first question for Guy Smith was to ask, "How can I drop out of something I never attended." In the hit piece, the narrator calls Avery a "self-confessed dropout," a clear smear attempt to undermine his trustworthiness, when in reality Avery never even attended college.

Smith bizarrely tried to wriggle out of this basic factual error by claiming that in England the term "dropout" doesn't mean to drop out of college or University, but merely to go a different route. Being British, I immediately confirmed that dropout, in the overwhelming majority of its usage and certainly in this context, means to have attended University or school and dropped out. It means the same thing in England that it does in America and a simple search of the BBC News website shows that the term 'dropout' is almost always used in this context. In claiming otherwise, Smith is dishonestly trying to hide from the fact that the term was deliberately used to undermine and smear Avery in the documentary.

Trying to change the meaning of words in the context they are used is a crass attempt to deflect accusations of bias and Smith needs to take a long and serious look at himself in the mirror.

When asked about the deliberate implosion of the twin towers, Smith responded, "We looked into that and we came to the conclusion that the evidence just doesn't support the conspiracy theory."

Unfortunately for Mr. Smith, the evidence the BBC was using to illustrate its ridiculous "pancake theory" collapse scenario, which was so implausible that even official NIST investigators had to back away from it, was a graphic animation that shows just ten floors collapsing every six seconds, meaning the BBC is telling us that the twin towers took around 66 seconds to collapse when in reality they fell in just fourteen.

When challenged on this flaw, all Mr. Smith could say was "it's not misleading," despite the fact that anyone with two brain cells to rub together can look at it and see that it is. Guy Smith will probably recoil in embarrassment at the You Tube explanation above when he realizes he has used a completely flawed animation as the central supporting evidence for his advocacy of the official conspiracy theory that two modern 110 story steel buildings were demolished into small pieces and dust in under sixteen seconds without the use of incendiary devices.

When challenged why Smith failed to include the words of just one of the dozens and dozens of first responders, police and firefighters who heard and saw explosions, and namely Craig Bartmer, the former NYPD official who heard bombs tear down Building 7 as he ran away from it, Smith at first claimed ignorance to who Bartmer was, even though he had met and interviewed him at Dylan Avery's home.

---------------------------------------------------------------------- -----------------------------------------
The Internet leader in activist media - Prison Planet.tv. Thousands of special reports, videos, MP3's, interviews, conferences, speeches, events, documentary films, books and more - all for just 15 cents a day! Click here to subscribe!
---------------------------------------------------------------------- -----------------------------------------

Smith says that he tried to "go back to primary sources, to eyewitnesses" when in reality the show gave 10 minutes to a Hollywood sci-fi producer of a show that went off the air five years ago, and there was no coverage whatsoever of the primary eyewitnesses who reported bombs and explosions, just one selective clip of a fireman talking about damage to Building 7's sprinkler system.

When challenged with why he didn't even mention firefighters who reported bombs, never mind use any of the literally dozens of video clips and audio segments from the official NYFD tapes, Smith had no answer and began talking about people who had complained that he gave too much air time to "conspiracy theorists," implying that a ratio of four to one in favor of the debunkers was not enough.

Smith began to sound like a broken record at this point, repeating the line 'we could debate this all day' and variations of it without ever actually being able to debate or defend the numerous flaws and bias throughout his hit piece.

The producer had the gall to claim he had looked at the evidence in an "objective and dispassionate" way when the documentary was laden from beginning to middle to end with emotional manipulation about how asking questions about 9/11 was insulting and hurtful to the victims, a ludicrous and cynical attempt to discredit the 9/11 truth movement. In reality, Bill Doyle, who lost his son in the attack, and represents the largest group of 9/11 victim's family members, says that over half of his members are asking the same questions, not to mention the Jersey Girls and numerous polls of New Yorkers that consistently show the majority believe there is a government cover-up surrounding 9/11.

When challenged on the notion that Smith had already come to a conclusion before filming for the show had even finished and therefore betraying an implicit bias, in addition to Alex Jones' claim that Smith laughed off 9/11 "conspiracy theories" in a restaurant meeting months before the show was aired, Smith stuttered before claiming he went into the project with an "open mind."

I would suggest Mr. Smith’s blatant and offensive bias in producing this sham documentary comes as a result of his zeal to maintain his perch in the media establishment peanut gallery and on the BBC gravy train. Maybe it’s Mr. Smith’s fear that because of journalistic cowardice in tackling the weapons of mass destruction farce, he realizes his role in the media is under threat – because people don’t trust the mainstream any more and are increasingly turning to the alternative press in search of truth.

The Conspiracy Files charade will ultimately only fan the flames of 9/11 truth even more, being that its flawed evidence, inherent bias and manipulative smear tactics will be obvious to those who still maintain the ability to think for themselves.

Comments (58) | Trackback

Email

Print Friendly Page
Yahoo! MyWeb
Digg this
Del.icio.us Social bookmark this page

[Integritas]

After viewing this farcical cover up I sent the bbc this message. "On sunday night from 9-10pm bbc2 your crederbility crashed headlong into your hypocracy & disintergrated into a monumental pile of dishonesty,deception & indignity,that collapsed neatly into its own footprint. Now the mere mention of the bbc brings on the curdled cringe of anger & mistrust. You dishonour,the public,the country,yourselves,all bbc employees,but critically & most importantly the TRUTH. You have crossed the rubicon of decency & reason.Your fate is sealed. Your reputation now resides in the gutter."

[andrewwatson]

Ecelent summary of how I feel. To my parent's generation, even more my grandparents', the stentorian Scots tones of Lord Reith (founder of the BBC) still rang through the polished corridors of Broadcasting House, making sure that the news you heard was the one news you knew you could be sure of being true. It was , and still is, lke that for many World Service listeners.

Of course it was an illusion. News was subject to rigid government approval and spin. Even King George V's death was re-arranged slightly to hit the morning papers before the evening news. Many scandals were covered up. But at bottom there was trust.


If that level of trust in the BBC's impartiatlity was ever justified, it has been replaced by near total cycnicism from many under, say, 50 for anything they are told. A good rule is to assume the opposite is as likely , or more to be true as the official line. This means that "investigative journalism "...just how much do we know..." variety should and is seen just as entertainment.

Yo get your news off the internet, the indepenent indy media, or your friends.