BBC 2's 9/11 Conspiracy Series 18/2/07

[A Sharp Major]

Although generally regarded as a critic, I posted this neutral, I thought, critique of last night's 9/11 Conspiracy programme, BBC2 in the mainstream section of the site.

http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=7030&start=120

A point for the core membership who are complaining that Alex Jones was portrayed as an evangelist, Avery a remedial English student (didn't know what a similie is ) and Fetzer slightly mad in order to discredit them. This is all a bit rich coming from the movement that hammered Judy Wood (on this very forum two weeks ago) and made her look very mad indeed.

Oh and wasn't there lot of Twin Tower steel left over in that warehouse. Not in a smelter in China then?

[telecasterisation]

[A Sharp Major]

Is that it?. No comment on my other observations, just arguing the toss over when 'some' becomes 'a lot'?

The point is, representative samples of the steel are still around, contrary to what truth seekers would have you believe.

Edited to correct grammar.

[flamesong]

I don't know why I'm responding to a post in this section but as an occasional filmmaker I paid a lot of attention to technique and observed that whereas the backers of the official story all seemed to be shot in well composed frames, Alex Jones and Jim Fetzer were framed in close up with a wide angle which had the effect of distorting their faces.

Dylan Avery, whether by choice or direction sat on a reversed chair with his arms crossed on its back. Anybody with a smidgeon of body language will confirm that that is an extremely defensive posture.

[A Sharp Major]

[flamesong]

Incidentally, I don't think that members of this forum needed to make Judy Woods look mad. To paraphrase the old pantomime line, nature beat us to it.

[flamesong]

[A Sharp Major]

Judy Wood was the engineer star of the 9/11 movement, PhD and all. I and others have criticised her 'work' for a long time. Now we've been proved right. Judy Wood went a 'ray gun too far'.

[A Sharp Major]

[telecasterisation]

[rodin]

Mr Major. I understand you are pretty sharp. I like your location BTW!

Anyway, some rather poor quality opposition has crossed swords with me on my path to enlightenment recently. I learned very little and got quite bored. I am not sure if any of them could even spell.

Care to join me in a little debate over on the Israeli thread sometime? I am interested in shedding light on 911 topics subjects studiously ignored by certain 911 truth sites.

[marky 54]

[A Sharp Major]

Happy to have you answer my question telecasterisation, just hoped for a bit more from one of the mainstream's more discriminating members.

Telecasterisation said

[marky 54]

to answer your question about how much steel do you think should of been kept, i'd say all of it untill all reports and investigastions were done.
this was not the case however.

also more should of been stored IMO in case of new evidence however this isnt the case so it's to late. it does leave the question though why ship any of it untill a full investigastion was carried out and all the research into it was satisfactory. your talking about the worse terror attack and building failure as a result, knowing exactly what happened by examining beams is essential to know how this can be avoided in the future just incase. we are now left with no offical explaination that adequetly explains the collapse of the building after the point of collapse without assumpstions or guess work. maybe that was the purpose.

not that i think any of the offical explainations explain what we see going of but thats another story for anyother time.

[A Sharp Major]

[marky 54]

[marky 54]

so let me get this straight. if a sharp major puts a question in his post and you answer it, he then uses the fact you answered it as a point of attack.

he then uses an example of doctors only needing a sample of blood as oppose to all of it when blood is not a structure but only part of a working structure. he then asks me for qualifications

so police only check a tiny piece of car to work out how it crashed? a tiny piece of train to work out how the train crashed? and ship the rest of to china before they finish investigating.

to work out what went wrong with a human body requires many tests of which blood samples can give an indication, however if the blood sample does not show anything wrong what then? so we just need blood to diagnois everything? buildings can fail or go wrong at lots of points and a picture can be gathered of what happened to the building by pieceing together each bit of evidence, just like they do with a airliner crash in a hanger when they pieces together each part of the aircraft.

only examining a fraction of the building means other evidence to give clues as to what happened could of been missed. however we will never know this because they got rid of the rest. which is why i suggested keeping it all untill all investigastion were done like they do with anyother disaster.

[A Sharp Major]

My example was a poor choice.

Marky wrote

[Ignatz]

The CT mindset requires huge amounts of steel to have been retained for forensic investigation. It requires photos and film from E of WTC7, to show the fires+smoke+damage. It requires video evidence of Flt 77 about to hit The Pentagon. It requires serial numbers of Flt 93's engines photographed in the crater at Shanksville. It requires CCTV of every hijacker at the airport on 9/11 .... and so on ... and so on ....

Why? To "prove" that the 9/11 OT is true.

Even if every piece of that evidence were seemingly available, the CTists would claim "fake".

CTists therefore have a job for life. The "evidence" they demand, in many cases, simply doesn't exist because, as has been pointed out by A Sharp Major, it was not a concern at the time. Only the CTist is paranoid enough to want to get a closeup of the Flt 93 engine's serial number or venture into the smoke plume from WTC7 to get a telling photo for 5 years later.

Have a nice life, CT folks.

[marky 54]

[KP50]

[telecasterisation]

[A Sharp Major]

telecasterisation said

[telecasterisation]

[A Sharp Major]

[Ignatz]

[rodin]

Tele is intelligent and a genuine sceptic. I do not think your approach of trying to browbeat him with claims of intellectual authority will persuade him of your arguments, which are based on the premise that the governments of US, UK and everywhere else are telling the truth about what happened on 911.

Now, ordinarily, the idea that the entire governing structure of the world operates to a secret agenda would seem utterly ludicrous. But because there are multiple incontrovertible points of proof that 911 was a false flag, and because no-where in the world is this being officially acknowledged, for the Sherlock's among us the game is up. Once we have the time, words and energy to reveal this to a critical mass of people we will be able to effect a sea-change in the way the world is run.

I want to help try to stop this Kaballah-isation of the world before it is too late. Hence my 'obsession'. Nothing else is as urgent.

I am sure me and mine are not included in the 500 million survivors. Too much trouble we would be.

Who controls the media?

[telecasterisation]

[marky 54]

[telecasterisation]

marky 54

As purely an aside, I have watched you grow in intellect and delivery on an almost weekly basis. From a somewhat stumbling start, your posts have become increasingly concise, obviously researched and readable.

The use of paragraphs was a major turning point, and with the odd capital letter at the commencement of a sentence you'll be up there with the best of them big guy.

Good on you.