TV - Skythree Now 9-11 Conspiracy

[kookomula]

9.00pm

[gypsum]

I don't have Sky 3

Can you let us know how it went?

[kookomula]

Well, they covered more than I expected of them.

- Bush's reaction when told of attacks
- explosives in the towers (freefall speed)
- Pentagon - size of hole, spoke of witnesses (2 police officers who followed the jet in and a woman who's car had been damaged by the jet)
- delay in scrambling jets - sent in opposite direction
- stock market put options
- flight 93, the possibility that it was shot down - scattered debris
- Operation Northwoods
- hijackers - passenger lists - stolen identities - lifestyles
- Building 7 insurance claims

It was rounded off by saying that the secretative nature of the US government provides a fertile breeding ground for conspiracy theories to flourish.

I don't think it will have them taking to the streets.

[freddie]

Interesting that the show would cover so much. I'm interested to know its tone - was it dismissive of these elements or was it open to the ideas?

Also, you mentioned that they discussed both the size of the hole in the pentagon and witnesses of a plane - This seems to be two conflicting ideas, one plane and one no-plane (the hole). Did they say the hole was way too small; 18ft etc, or were they saying it was large enough for a plane?

[catfish]

I saw this and the tone of the show was that the conspiracy theorists were a bit cooky and would believe anything. The show rounded off with an annoying little speech about how asking questions raised more questions so people needn't bother.
They DIDN'T mention WTC7, they said the insurance fraud was an unsubstanciated claim and didn't mention Larry Silverstein's name at all (this is Rupert Murdoch TV after all).
They didn't talk about NORAD standing down or the recent shift in shoot down orders from generals to government.
When talking about Operation Northwoods they didn't mention the drone plane flown by remote control to be detonated over Cuban airspace.
Also when interviewing Alex Jones the caption read Texas Radio Host and declined to mention prisonplant or infowars despite most of the theories they presented being directly from loose change. This film was pure comfort zone television with a patronising tone.
Incidentally i don't have sky but was round at a mate's house when this came on, initially i was quite excited because it looked like an expose, but with no mention of scholars for truth and the playing down of the 911 truth movement to 5 people holding a banner! It was a whitewash of the highest order.

[flamesong]

Programmes in this series are usually repeated on Sunday evenings - I intended to watch/record it then - but oddly, this one is not.

Generally speaking I think that the programmes do cover issues in as 'balanced' way as you might expect, given that this is being transmitted by Sky TV. Compare this series to the Channel Four 'documentary' about 9/11 'conspiracy theories' (which wheeled out a few of the weekest arguments and pummelled them) and, worse still, the Channel Five out and out piss take.

I met (and, in a small way, assisted) the producers of the Channel Five programme, 'The 10 Greatest Conspiracies' (or whatever it was called) when they were filming at the Nexus Conference in Amsterdam. I mentioned that there was a 9/11 conference in Toronto that same weekend. I was told that 9/11 was to hot a topic to discuss.

When the programme was aired, their method of deducing which conspiracies constituted the top 10 was revealed. It was based on the number of pages which Google returned as hits. I put this to the test and found that 9/11 returned five times more hits than their number one, mind control.

And if you think that Danny Wallace's was sneering, you should have heard the derision, coupled with visual gags, with which the Channel Five 'documentary' was constructed.

I would argue that rather than attack this production for attempting to be balanced (I haven't seen it, remember), why not approach Danny Wallace - who for the most part has been open minded at least to look at the issue - and bend his ear.

[catfish]

I guarantee Danny Wallace and whoever made this film have seen loose change 2, remade it and left the best bits out (like the mobile phone calls). The trouble is that anyone seeing this will be fairly clued on a lot of the facts, but the program rubbished them as they were made. This means it will be harder to convince people of the facts when they already feel the majority of what you're telling them is conjecture. The fact is that most of the worlds media in Europe, America and much of the rest of the world is owned by five companies all designed to sway the people to a certain way of thinking. Aware that lots more people are waking up to the facts of 9/11 a control valve is needed to try and ebb curiosity.
Personally I feel that it will not work, people are waking up in droves, the lie that human beings are a pest on the land will not be listened to anymore.
I don't want to repeat myself so here's a link
http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=1563

[flamesong]

Yes, thanks, catfish, I am aware of the state of media ownership.

Even the so called liberal Guardian's editor, Alan Rusbridger is a regular dining companion to Tony Blair, The Independent is a multiplex of hypocrisy and most of the 'progressive' left etc. is very probably flypaper and under some kind of control, so perhaps what I am saying is don't expect too much of the media.

In the case of Danny Wallace, I think that unless he is in deep (not unlikely - MI5 did announce plans to recruit 1000 new staff in February 2004), I think he appears to be interested in the issues he covers. He doesn't appear to be simply ploughing through his material.

My guess is that he suffers from the perenial problem of plain old incredulity which seems to prevent most people from opening their eyes. But he is not like David Aronowitz, who - whilst in mid transfer from The Guardian to The Times - attended the 9/11 Conference in London, only to be seen (by me) to be fiddling about and paying absolutely no attention whatsoever when crucial evidence was being presented.

[catfish]

I think I must concede that after the editors have cut what they must and the caption writers have added their twopenneth, Danny Wallace's true take may have been lost in translation.

[kbo234]

Last christmas my daughter, knowing my current distraction re 911, bought me "The Rough Guide to Conspiracy Theories" by James McConnachie and Robin Trudge (publisher 'Penguin').

Pages 360-369 cover 9/11. Most allegations made by 'Loose Change 2', Dave Von Kleist, Jimmy Walters, etc are mentioned in these pages.

The treatment varies from respectful acknowledgement of the undeniable to gentle mocking of more outrageous suggestions..
"Innumerable pundits, few with any expertise, claimed that the burning aviation fuel was not hot enough to to melt the WTC's steel support structures......Better informed commentators painstakingly demonstrated how the fires caused the angle clips supporting the floors to fail.."

You get the idea.

One thing is really worth noticing about this publication however. There is NOT ONE WORD here about WTC 7. World trade Centre 7 is the great 'smoking gun'. This is the killer evidence that 'they' desperately want kept out of the public domain. This is almost all that we need to remember.
For myself, last October seeing WTC7 come down was IT. That seven seconds of film told me all I needed to know. The nature of the crime was obvious. The shock set in. The rest was just trying to find out the how and the why.

[flamesong]

A Torrent for this is available via Conspiracy Central:

http://conspiracycentral.net:6969/torrents/c15d6c6eda17c7b37670c2bc89d 25ad9267d1e9a.torrent

It might be necessary to have an account and log in to download this but it is simple enough to do if you can create an account here.