| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Mark Gobell
On Gardening Leave
Joined: 24 Jul 2006
Posts: 4529
|
 Posted: Tue Jun 17, 2008 8:59 am Post subject: RINF: A Cynic’s Guide To 9/11 Conspiracy Theories |
 |
|
A Cynic’s Guide To 9/11 Conspiracy Theories
Friday, June 13th, 2008
The Wolverhampton Radiophonic Institute has just broadcast a seventeen minute documentary which examines the British Truth Movement. The show includes Paul Stott of 9/11 CultWatch and John White of the 9/11 Truth Movement.
The show highlights some of the uglier sides to the British Truth movement - which must not be ignored, including abundant racism, a cult like mentality and the refusal to objectively look at hard facts.
Update: Be sure to bookmark the Wolverhampton Radiophonic Institute web site as they plan to investigate other myths and theories, which can be heard via their site.
More here
If anyone can locate an audio of the show that doesn't sound like pinky & perky, I'd be obliged.
_________________
The Medium is the Massage - Marshall McLuhan. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
ian neal
Angel - now passed away
Joined: 26 Jul 2005
Posts: 3140
Location: UK
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TonyGosling
Editor
Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 18335
Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chrisc
Validated Poster
Joined: 31 Oct 2007
Posts: 154
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 17, 2008 12:36 pm Post subject: Did I catch that right? |
|
|
I found it very confusing trying to work out who said what, for example, who said "I'm a socialist" -- it can't have been Paul "Class War" Stott can it?
Overall I also though it was a really poor show...
BTW is Mick Meaney still a moderator here, because it seems clear that it was his decision to feature this article on his site -- RINF "is currently and always has been managed by one person"...
_________________
http://truthaction.org/
http://truthmove.org/
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/topics/terror/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TonyGosling
Editor
Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 18335
Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John White
Site Admin
Joined: 27 Mar 2006
Posts: 3187
Location: Here to help!
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 18, 2008 6:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Well gang I did the interview with a collegue in the booth with me so I have a witness to the conversation.
Basically I talked for an hour 15 and in the course of that time its fair to say wiped the floor with Neil Calloway the interviewer: tellingly he totally censored all the Jersey Girl/Paul Thompson sourced info I put out
I'm heavily edited and Neil had to create a flimsy rebuff argument regarding the Madrid Windsor fire becuase he really had no comeback to my comments during the interview
I'm up for doing more, with people worth talking to 
_________________
Free your Self and Free the World |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ian neal
Angel - now passed away
Joined: 26 Jul 2005
Posts: 3140
Location: UK
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 19, 2008 12:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Having listened to it, John did well but his replies seemed heavily truncated.
Most telling was the sceptic's reliance on the Official Report's as if they explained everything about 911.
Only by being completely unaware of what was omitted to achieve NIST's and the Commission's illusion could anybody find that a satisfactory stance.
As such it was a far from truthful statement of the positions.
_________________
Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
It's them or us. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John White
Site Admin
Joined: 27 Mar 2006
Posts: 3187
Location: Here to help!
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 19, 2008 1:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Having listened to it, John did well but his replies seemed heavily truncated |
Oh they are Neil Calloway had to work VERY hard to stop my comments blowing the cynics case away:
In the editing room: he had no-where to go during the interview itself
_________________
Free your Self and Free the World |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TonyGosling
Editor
Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 18335
Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Neil
New Poster
Joined: 21 May 2008
Posts: 6
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 30, 2008 3:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Only just seen this! Nice to know people listened.
| John White wrote: | Well gang I did the interview with a collegue in the booth with me so I have a witness to the conversation.
Basically I talked for an hour 15 and in the course of that time its fair to say wiped the floor with Neil Calloway the interviewer |
The interview lasted an hour. I find it odd that you talk about "wiping the floor" with me: It was an interview, not a debate.
| Quote: | | I'm heavily edited and Neil had to create a flimsy rebuff argument regarding the Madrid Windsor fire becuase he really had no comeback to my comments during the interview |
You are edited - I had two hours of interview that had to fit into a fifteen minute slot (I went over in the end). There was some fascinating stuff from Paul Stott that I would have loved to have used but it just didn't fit into the documentary.
Why call it a flimsy rebuff about Madrid Windsor? - I actually allowed one of your mistakes to slip through - you said it burned for over 24 hours. It didn't, the fire lasted 18. Why should I have a comeback in the interview?
All interviews like this are edited. Recently Channel 4 News did an interview with Simon Mann (now there's an intriguing story!), but despite a legal battle to get it shown, they did not broadcast the whole thing.
John, you were aware that your interview would edited into a documentary. I would go so far as to say you were far more aware of what we were doing than the other participants, given that we spoke for some time about the documentary in a phonecall beforehand.
| ian neal wrote: | | Neil and Paul are having a complete lovefest over on Paul's blog. |
If it wasn't for the plug Paul gave us, I doubt you guys would be talking about it now, so I'm grateful to him. I'm also grateful to John White for his contribution.
I wouldn't exactly call it a lovefest between 9/11 Cultwatch and myself, though - note the comment by Heidi Svenson where she questions my take on Al Qaeda/CIA connections. Though I'd probably disagree with him about lots of thing, I can get on with Paul Stott (though it should be noted I've spent far longer actually speaking to John White).
| John White wrote: | | Neil Calloway had to work VERY hard to stop my comments blowing the cynics case away |
No, I didn't, John. I had to work hard to make your comments comprehensible. I'm still not sure what you actually believe; one minute it's LIHOP, the next it's MIHOP with controlled demolition. In fact, the only thing I would say for certain is that you don't believe the "official story". You haven't got a coherent argument for what happened, have you?
| TonyGosling wrote: | This show and the BBC TV 9/11 Conspiracy Files 'factual' programmes are good adverts for doing as much live television and radio as possible.
Then there's no chance to edit it. And it's much much cheaper. |
One of the things we'd like to do with the show is live, public debates from a location outside the studio. We'd love to do one about 9/11. John, Tony, you'd be more than welcome to join the panel.
| Quote: | | Both were made by media prossies who will be forgotten by history. |
For making this documentary - something that was meant to fill quarter of an hour on a community radio station in Wolverhampton, I've been called a cretin, an "MI5/MI6 bitch" and now a media prossie. I can't say it doesn't bring a smile to my face. It also gives a lot of credence to some of what Paul Stott said in the documentary.
None of you guys are going to appear on our 7/7 documentary, are you?
TTFN. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
acrobat74
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Joined: 03 Jun 2007
Posts: 836
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 30, 2008 6:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hugo Bachmann, PhD
Professor Emeritus and former Chairman of the Department of Structural Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology.
"In my opinion the building WTC 7 was, with great probability, professionally demolished" says Hugo Bachmann, Emeritus ETH [Swiss Federal Institute of Technology] - Professor of Structural Analysis and Construction.
And also Jörg Schneider, likewise emeritus ETH - Professor of Structural Analysis and Construction, interprets the few available video recordings as evidence that "the building WTC 7 was with great probability demolished."
English translation: http://www.danieleganser.ch
http://patriotsquestion911.com/professors.html
James Quintiere, Ph.D.
Former Chief of the Fire Science Division of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)
“I think the official conclusion that NIST arrived at is questionable. Let's look at real alternatives that might have been the cause of the collapse of the World Trade Towers and how that relates to the official cause and what's the significance of one cause versus another.”
http://www.opednews.com/articles/genera_alan_mil_071211_seven_senior_f ederal.htm
Paul who again?
_________________
Summary of 9/11 scepticism: http://tinyurl.com/27ngaw6 and www.911summary.com
Off the TV: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M4szU19bQVE
Those who do not think that employment is systemic slavery are either blind or employed. (Nassim Taleb)
www.moneyasdebt.net
http://www.positivemoney.org.uk/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dogsmilk
Mighty Poster
Joined: 06 Oct 2006
Posts: 1616
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 30, 2008 6:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Neil.
To be honest, I thought it degenerated into a 'man in the pub' type of discussion full of meaningless generalisations. For example, citing "they have their own language" as evidence of a "cult" basically implies that teenagers, academics and any other 'subculture' on the internet are all cults. Particularly computer geeks as no-one understands what they're saying. People invent terminology in any kind of area. It provides abbreviation to concepts the group is familiar with. Pretty obvious really.
Frankly I resent being told because I'm interested in this stuff that means I decided in advance that my as yet less than concrete opinions were formed in advance. Well thanks for letting me know though.
And since when was there a "unified theory" of Holocaust denial? That totally passed me by in all my time arguing with the c*nts and following their 'scene' over the last year or so.
Basically - for a big chunk - it was just a couple of people going on with themselves - to call it a "documentary" means I can hang round my local and see a whole host of "documentaries" any day of the week. Well at least I can throw away my telly. Poor old John was reduced to a few soundbites (if you spent the most time with him, how come he got the least say?) with the bulk being devoted to a load of prattle, with the obligatory "let's have a laugh at David Shayler going mad" thrown in.
Sorry - but there's my review. If I'd never heard of truthers I'd have come away knowing even less.
Nice to see Nick "ex minor civil servant, now apparently been doing a 'security role'" Pope reinventing himself as an expert on Al Qeada though. Good on him. Particularly in the context of comments about how some bloke now distrusts UFO stuff (bad luck, Nick. One book sale lost there) and self proclaimed experts commenting on things. Oh the irony.
| Quote: | | I've been called a cretin, an "MI5/MI6 bitch" and now a media prossie. I can't say it doesn't bring a smile to my face. It also gives a lot of credence to some of what Paul Stott said in the documentary. |
Perhaps a good idea for a future programme would be looking at how many people over the years Paul's boss Larry "911 cultwatch" O'Hara has denounced as 'agents' over the years. Here's some typical O'Hara ranting.
| Quote: | ) Perhaps, indeed, Shayler's mission has been to subvert & destroy/divert free-thinking radicals both when he was in MI5 & subsequently. Rather like yourself.
2) Perhaps the Machon-Shayler strategy is only half completed--I await your exit strategy with interest Ms Machon--might have looked suspicious even to the devotees of this forum if you'd both left at the same time....
3) Before you return to the Bailliwick, perhaps Ms Machon, you'd care to give us examples (even one would do) of where you/Shayler have 'blown the whistle' on MI5 murdering people. I'm not saying they haven't, merely that in ten years you & your charmless colleague have never divulged any details...
...Or is it that the 'Official Secrets Act' prevents you from naming names re MI5, but not re MI6? Hardly plausible, is it? But there again, the idea you or Shayler have a civil libertarian bone in your body is implausible too...
You may well, for as long as you deem it prudent, pull the wool over the eyes of 9/11 cultists Ms Machon, but as you know there are some people, myself included, who you have never fooled for an instant. Nor will you.
|
http://www.911forum.org.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=10926&highlight=shayl er
Strange Paul omitted to mention his crazed conspiracy theorist master.
Pot. Kettle. Black. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Neil
New Poster
Joined: 21 May 2008
Posts: 6
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 01, 2008 9:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Dogsmilk wrote: | Neil.
To be honest, I thought it degenerated into a 'man in the pub' type of discussion full of meaningless generalisations. |
I myself was not entirely happy with the live debate that followed the pre-recorded stuff. It was the third hour of a fraught first show, I wish we had more time for it, as well as, to be honest, a better calibre of guest for the discussion afterwards.
| Quote: | | to call it a "documentary" means I can hang round my local and see a whole host of "documentaries" any day of the week. |
It's a documentary because I can't think of what else to call it. You local doesn't do documentaries because, as far as I'm aware, they aren't broadcast.
| Quote: | | Poor old John was reduced to a few soundbites (if you spent the most time with him, how come he got the least say?) with the bulk being devoted to a load of prattle, with the obligatory "let's have a laugh at David Shayler going mad" thrown in. |
A lot of what John said wasn't really usable. He was very keen when we intially spoke on the phone. He even drove up to the studio when a phone interview would have been fine. I think, when he realised that the interview would not be a platform for his views (whatever they may be) he didn't have much to offer. He kept saying "what I want to do today..." and going on about the Jersey Girls, Paul Thompson and David Ray Griffin. To be honest, he didn't actualy say much about any of them, didn't explain where they fit into 9/11 "Truth" (apart from the fact that the Jersey Girls were important in getting a 9/11 Commission up and running in the first place, which, frankly, has nothing to do with the "Truth" Movement). It would have been good, however, if I managed to fit in John's line about more money being spent on investigating what Bill Clinton "did with his bits" than on the 9/11 Commission, which amused me.
Also, I would not have mentioned Shayler's coming out as the reincarnation of Jesus etc had Matthew, my co-presenter not brought it up first. I don't think he's representative of the whole movement.
| Quote: | | Nice to see Nick "ex minor civil servant, now apparently been doing a 'security role'" Pope reinventing himself as an expert on Al Qeada though. Good on him. |
Nick Pope has left the MoD - he said in the interview that his last job with them was in a security role. Is he an expert in Al Qaeda? I don't know, but I imagine if he did say "9/11 was an inside job" you guys would be trumpeting his 21 year career with the MoD.
| Quote: | | Perhaps a good idea for a future programme would be looking at how many people over the years Paul's boss Larry "911 cultwatch" O'Hara has denounced as 'agents' over the years. |
In a comment over at the 9/11 Cultwatch blog about Shayler, I disagreed with Larry. I have little time for his theory that Shayler still works for the security services. I've often wondered if he believes it himself and isn't just saying it to undermine you guys.
As I said earlier, Paul Stott and I would disagree about many things, just as John White and I would agree about some stuff.
At the end of the day, this was made because it was something Matthew and myself were interested in. It went out on a community radio station ("Like hospital radio but for the community?" a woman from Radio One once said when she was interviewing people in the same pub we were doing something in) with a transmitter that sends the signal a whopping 5km.
If I can do a bit of schoolboy psychology, it says a lot about your insecurities that it has been attacked so much (not just here, but elsewhere).
Keep Watching The Skies! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ian neal
Angel - now passed away
Joined: 26 Jul 2005
Posts: 3140
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 01, 2008 10:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Neil wrote: | .......... He kept saying "what I want to do today..." and going on about the Jersey Girls, Paul Thompson and David Ray Griffin. To be honest, he didn't actualy say much about any of them, didn't explain where they fit into 9/11 "Truth" ..............
(apart from the fact that the Jersey Girls were important in getting a 9/11 Commission up and running in the first place, which, frankly, has nothing to do with the "Truth" Movement |
Neil, the fact that you believe they (the Jersey Girls et al) have nothing to do with 'the Truth movement' says it all really. You are of course welcome to hold this opinion, but don't expect anyone to take your wider understanding of the 'truth movement' seriously if this is what you believe. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dogsmilk
Mighty Poster
Joined: 06 Oct 2006
Posts: 1616
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 01, 2008 12:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | myself was not entirely happy with the live debate that followed the pre-recorded stuff. It was the third hour of a fraught first show, I wish we had more time for it, as well as, to be honest, a better calibre of guest for the discussion afterwards.
|
Fair enough. There was very little time, and I think I was quite scathing because from listening to it it seemed the time wasn't used that well. I do realise it's easy for me to be an armchair critic of community radio but hey! I'm the 'consumer' and I reserve the right to my right to reply critique!
| Quote: | t's a documentary because I can't think of what else to call it. You local doesn't do documentaries because, as far as I'm aware, they aren't broadcast.
|
Well I think I'm primarily referring to the way the last - 'debate' - section was just some rather meandering comments from one side which I personally felt - and I've given some illustrations - were rather dubious in nature. It felt to me like a pub conversation. Not necessarily a bad thing , but it didn't feel very informative.
| Quote: | A lot of what John said wasn't really usable. He was very keen when we intially spoke on the phone. He even drove up to the studio when a phone interview would have been fine. I think, when he realised that the interview would not be a platform for his views (whatever they may be) he didn't have much to offer. He kept saying "what I want to do today..." and going on about the Jersey Girls, Paul Thompson and David Ray Griffin. To be honest, he didn't actualy say much about any of them, didn't explain where they fit into 9/11 "Truth" (apart from the fact that the Jersey Girls were important in getting a 9/11 Commission up and running in the first place, which, frankly, has nothing to do with the "Truth" Movement). It would have been good, however, if I managed to fit in John's line about more money being spent on investigating what Bill Clinton "did with his bits" than on the 9/11 Commission, which amused me.
|
I can't really comment on what John said as so litle was broadcast, but I suspect he may have been trying to convey the broad range of thought on the matter. Some of which may indeed be contradictory, and people do argue about different aspects.
Like Ian notes, I think it's weird that the Jersey girls are seen as irrelevant. In fact, if you do a search on JREF, you'll actually find one or two threads being highly critical of them and basically classifying them as 'conspiracy theorists'. As it is, if you ask the average man in the street, I'll wager they'll have little awareness how they had to fight for the commission in the first place, the questions they feel weren't addressed, the initial appointment of Kissinger etc. I cannot see how they are totally divorced from the TM.
Indeed - from what I gather - the NTB crowd aren't 100% happy with everything in the 'official account' of 911, albeit they are far 'milder' than many truthers. I have a sneaking suspicion that if the TM had ritually executed Shayler/Machon and made Larry O'Hara its king, things might have played out slightly differently.
| Quote: | Nick Pope has left the MoD - he said in the interview that his last job with them was in a security role. Is he an expert in Al Qaeda? I don't know, but I imagine if he did say "9/11 was an inside job" you guys would be trumpeting his 21 year career with the MoD.
|
Well I personally wouldn't be trumpeting anything. I just find it entertaining how he's obviously trying to transmogrify from 'Britain's Fox Mulder'  to some kind of authority on 911/Al Qaeda because he's read the Commission report. I don't know what his 'security role' was, but I somehow doubt it involved being in a big underground bunker with a glowing computerised map issuing top secret orders to the SAS to take down fanatical terrorists and save us all. He's made himself a nice little career on the basis he's worked for the MOD as a functionary, which I guess is fair enough if you've bills to pay. I realise you're limited on community radio, it was just ironic how you had comments about unqualified truthers making bold claims while you had an unqualified critic making bold claims because he's read one document on the assumption that truthers tend not to bother. And I'm sure some haven't read it. And I'm pretty certain some critics haven't. And many truthers and critics have read a whole lot more besides. Like anything, it'll vary and some people will be more clued up than others.
| Quote: | In a comment over at the 9/11 Cultwatch blog about Shayler, I disagreed with Larry. I have little time for his theory that Shayler still works for the security services. I've often wondered if he believes it himself and isn't just saying it to undermine you guys.
|
I wouldn't be surprised. He does have a strange pathological hatred for them which - it has been commented on before - is perhaps the only reason he got interested in the TM in the first place. If he doesn't really believe it though, I think that arguably says something worse about the way his mind works. For someone who thinks it's an irrelevance, he spends an awful lot of time going on about it. I would guess a study of his divisive, ego-fuelled antics in 'radical' circles over the years would make fascinating reading.
I have a particular bugbear about the way Larry has somehow managed to weave Shayler becoming 'unwell' into somehow being a confirmation of his previous 'warnings' about Shayler (as opposed to demonstrating them to be paranoid fantasies) and the way his current mental state has been used to mock him and attack the TM. I find that to be anything but "progressive politics".
| Quote: | At the end of the day, this was made because it was something Matthew and myself were interested in. It went out on a community radio station ("Like hospital radio but for the community?" a woman from Radio One once said when she was interviewing people in the same pub we were doing something in) with a transmitter that sends the signal a whopping 5km.
|
Yet instant underground fame by the power of the internet! Maybe net neutrality should be your next talking point.
| Quote: | If I can do a bit of schoolboy psychology, it says a lot about your insecurities that it has been attacked so much (not just here, but elsewhere).
|
Well I'd say that's down to individual attacks and their motivation and content. Though conversely, if your editorial line had been to quote snippets of Paul followed by you and John going on about how wrong the critics were, you'd likely have been labelled seven shades of tinfoil hatter by now, doubtless with some particular venom from the cultwatch blog.
| Quote: | | Keep Watching The Skies! |
What for? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Neil
New Poster
Joined: 21 May 2008
Posts: 6
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 01, 2008 5:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Dogsmilk wrote: |
I do realise it's easy for me to be an armchair critic of community radio but hey! I'm the 'consumer' and I reserve the right to my right to reply critique! |
That's perfectly fine; the next time we do a Cynic's Guide I want to have a longer, better discussion, with better calibre guests (sorry James and Darren, if you ever read this!)
| Quote: | | - 'debate' - section was just some rather meandering comments from one side which I personally felt - and I've given some illustrations - were rather dubious in nature. It felt to me like a pub conversation. Not necessarily a bad thing , but it didn't feel very informative. |
Having just had a (nice) pop at them, I feel James and Darren represent the "man in the street" when it comes to 9/11 conspiracy theories. They've seen stuff like Loose Change, know a bit about the arguments from the Truth Movement, but, despite all that, don't believe it was an inside job. That's where their contribution was coming from.
| Quote: | | I think it's weird that the Jersey girls are seen as irrelevant. In fact, if you do a search on JREF, you'll actually find one or two threads being highly critical of them and basically classifying them as 'conspiracy theorists'. As it is, if you ask the average man in the street, I'll wager they'll have little awareness how they had to fight for the commission in the first place, the questions they feel weren't addressed, the initial appointment of Kissinger etc. I cannot see how they are totally divorced from the TM. |
I'd be interested to hear more about how they fit in with the TM. I know what they think about the Commission Report, and the struggles there, but as far as I'm aware they believe in c*** up rather than cabal. I'd be interested to hear anything different.
With regard to JREF, I've only visited it two or three times, have never posted on there, and wouldn't know what credence to give the people that post there.
To be honest, whatever The Jersey Girls say they'll be more or less OK with me: Anyone who pisses Anne Coulter off can't be all bad, can they?
| Quote: | | from what I gather - the NTB crowd aren't 100% happy with everything in the 'official account' of 911, albeit they are far 'milder' than many truthers. I have a sneaking suspicion that if the TM had ritually executed Shayler/Machon and made Larry O'Hara its king, things might have played out slightly differently. |
From what little I know about them, I think Larry O'Hara is doing his own investigations into 9/11 - it'll certainly be interesting to see what he comes out with.
| Quote: | | I just find it entertaining how he's obviously trying to transmogrify from 'Britain's Fox Mulder' to some kind of authority on 911/Al Qaeda because he's read the Commission report. |
The Nick Pope stuff came at the end of a longer interview we did with him about UFOs, for a future Cynic's Guide. The only reason we spoke to him about 9/11 was because the morning of the interview (which, bizarrely, happened because of promotional work he was doing for Doritos of all companies - the things people do when they leave the MoD!), Matthew, who I do the show with mentioned that Nick had come up against Truthers in the past, so we spoke to him about that for a bit at the end of the main interview.
| Quote: | | I don't know what his 'security role' was, but I somehow doubt it involved being in a big underground bunker with a glowing computerised map issuing top secret orders to the SAS to take down fanatical terrorists and save us all. |
Please, don't spoil my fantasy!
| Quote: | | Though conversely, if your editorial line had been to quote snippets of Paul followed by you and John going on about how wrong the critics were, you'd likely have been labelled seven shades of tinfoil hatter by now, doubtless with some particular venom from the cultwatch blog. |
It'd be interesting to do interviews with two contradictory people, and then give them to two others and say "make a fifteen minute piece for radio out of this" and see what they come up with.
| Quote: |
| Quote: | | Keep Watching The Skies! |
What for? |
It was just a lighthearted sign off - I said TTFN first time, and couldn't think of anything similar this time. There does seem to be an increase in UFO reports lately though, doesn't there? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dogsmilk
Mighty Poster
Joined: 06 Oct 2006
Posts: 1616
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 01, 2008 11:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | Having just had a (nice) pop at them, I feel James and Darren represent the "man in the street" when it comes to 9/11 conspiracy theories. They've seen stuff like Loose Change, know a bit about the arguments from the Truth Movement, but, despite all that, don't believe it was an inside job. That's where their contribution was coming from.
|
I think a lot of people in the TM would say that Loose change 1 & 2 get a lot of stuff wrong, though final cut was better. Though LC is kind of iconic, it is not the TM.
| Quote: | I'd be interested to hear more about how they fit in with the TM. I know what they think about the Commission Report, and the struggles there, but as far as I'm aware they believe in c*** up rather than cabal. I'd be interested to hear anything different.
With regard to JREF, I've only visited it two or three times, have never posted on there, and wouldn't know what credence to give the people that post there. |
This article is a bit dated but gives some kind of overview of their various concerns. They mention stuff like wtc7 which is kinda 'conspiracy theory' territory as the general perception goes.
http://www.muckrakerreport.com/id358.html
To be honest though, even though I would say the TM (or people within it) has been guilty of elements of 'inside job or nothing' I can't personally see how c***-up theory doesn't fit in with the TM in a broad sense. After all, if you hypothesise that the 'official narrative' is broadly true but there was a set of serious f*ck ups that failed to prevent it or respond adequately, then I think that's in itself pretty important but isn't something that has got a great deal of attention and is something that would certainly be covered up. Now being a social worker by trade, if (God forbid) one person dies on my watch that means case notes being seized and a full investigation I would have zero influence over. Yet 3000 people dying leads to a dodgy and highly partisan investigation that has to be fought for. Now if that investigation failed to answer queries raised by those fighting for this investigation and was less than full and frank, it raises the issue of why in the public mind the entire episode is considered 'closed' except for two highly destructive wars fought on the back of it. There's a continuum from 'everything is fine, matter settled' through c***-up, dodgy side-switching and intelligence agency shenannigans with fundamentalists, LIHOP, MIHOP, NPT, space beams in orbit to teh jooos dunnit cuz they rule teh world and I guess various other theories kicking around. Now - to a greater or lesser extent - a lot of people are inevitably wrong here, but only if the first is correct is the TM totally irrelevant and totally wrong on all fronts.
The second element which may get somewhat lost is the 'myth of 911'. I'd personally argue that 911 was a kind of 'inside job' irrespective of what physically happened insofar as it has been ruthlessly exploited as an instrument of propaganda. This kind of thinking isn't preserve of the TM, but is where it dovetails with other people cynical about the 'war on terror'. I think sometimes both sides tend to forget this potential common concern.
In the meantime, the wackiest or weirdest sounding stuff will get attention because it's zany and zany is interesting.
The TM - as a broad church - covers an immense amount of bases both in terms of theories and in terns of the politics and worldviews of participants. This causes conflict within it - just look at the amount of argument round here, some of which I'm very much a part of - but at a very basic level there is some kind acknowledgment that there is something rather rum. It's easy to knock the TM for the contradictions, internal conflict and bickering, but if you look at what's gone down in 'radical' political circles, other special interest groups and right up to the House of Commons I'd say you're seeing nothing unique. Unfortunately, everyone gets lumped in with everyone else. But when, say, you see NPT and think it's crazy, lots of truthers thing exactly the same, though some of those NPTers think you - and other truthers - are a sheeple because of it. Ultimately, it gets boiled down to truthers vs the world, but I tend to think it's more subtle and complex. I know loads of people who would in no way define themselves as truthers and aren't particularly preoccupied with the matter, but come out with surprisingly strong opinions when it crops up in conversation.
| Quote: | | To be honest, whatever The Jersey Girls say they'll be more or less OK with me: Anyone who pisses Anne Coulter off can't be all bad, can they? |
Deserving of an award I'd say.
| Quote: | From what little I know about them, I think Larry O'Hara is doing his own investigations into 9/11 - it'll certainly be interesting to see what he comes out with.
|
I hear he believes David Shayler did it so he could create the truth movement to undermine his ascent to king of radical politics.
No, but I think it will be interesting to see what they come out with. I may be rude about them and dislike Larry's enormous self-importance and lack of a sense of humour, but they do come out with some interesting stuff sometimes. I have urged Paul to bring his thoughts here several times, but he hasn't. Like it or not, they are probably kind of truthers because I suspect they will not totally endorse the 'official theory' and raise questions from their own perspective.
| Quote: | | It'd be interesting to do interviews with two contradictory people, and then give them to two others and say "make a fifteen minute piece for radio out of this" and see what they come up with. |
That is an interesting idea.
| Quote: | | t was just a lighthearted sign off - I said TTFN first time, and couldn't think of anything similar this time. There does seem to be an increase in UFO reports lately though, doesn't there? |
So I hear. Has anyone checked to see if these UFOs have been dropping promotional packets of Doritos? You should perhaps have pressed Mr Pope further while you had the chance. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Neil
New Poster
Joined: 21 May 2008
Posts: 6
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 02, 2008 11:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Dogsmilk wrote: |
This article is a bit dated but gives some kind of overview of their various concerns. They mention stuff like wtc7 which is kinda 'conspiracy theory' territory as the general perception goes.
http://www.muckrakerreport.com/id358.html |
Thanks - had never seen them go that far in what they say.
| Quote: | | To be honest though, even though I would say the TM (or people within it) has been guilty of elements of 'inside job or nothing' I can't personally see how c***-up theory doesn't fit in with the TM in a broad sense. After all, if you hypothesise that the 'official narrative' is broadly true but there was a set of serious f*ck ups that failed to prevent it or respond adequately, then I think that's in itself pretty important but isn't something that has got a great deal of attention and is something that would certainly be covered up. |
There is a difference between saying the 9/11 Commission was a bit of a whitewash, didn't cover everything and people lied/covered things up when they spoke it (Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton have said as much) and what are broadly recognised as TM theories - LIHOP, MIHOP. John Kerry, I believe, signed something saying he supported a new investigation, but he isn't a Truther (he may have just been looking for votes back in 2004, though). It is, in the purest sense 9/11 "truth", but it isn't 9/11 truth in the popular imagination.
| Quote: | | teh jooos dunnit cuz they rule teh world |
The Juwes Are The Men That Will Not Be Blamed For Nothing (http://clublet.com/why?TheJuwesAreTheMenThatWillNotBeBlamedForNothing )
| Quote: | | The second element which may get somewhat lost is the 'myth of 911'. I'd personally argue that 911 was a kind of 'inside job' irrespective of what physically happened insofar as it has been ruthlessly exploited as an instrument of propaganda. This kind of thinking isn't preserve of the TM, but is where it dovetails with other people cynical about the 'war on terror'. I think sometimes both sides tend to forget this potential common concern. |
I read "Imperial Life in the Emerald City" by Rajiv Chandrasekaran last year and a couple of times he mentions murals/posters in the Green Zone depicted the World Trade Center. Not put there by officials, but it gives you something of the mindset that was created after 9/11.
Incidentally, and I tried to bring this up in the discussion and didn't do it well, I think the failures in Iraq (no WMDs, no Iraq connection to the attacks, generally having no post-war plan) highlight a weakness in the TM case - the US Government just aren't that good at getting things right. Chandrasekaran's book (to be made into a film by Paul Greengrass) details people getting jobs in the CPA because they overheard someone talking in a bar in Washington about looking for people to go over, someone given a position there because they (or their wife) happens to be on board of a school along with either Dick Cheney or Donald Rumsfeld (or their wives). It's scary stuff.
One of the things I spoke to John White about was how, often, the TM spoil good arguments for most people by saying "9/11 was an inside job!". John, at the end of the interview, talked about how he doesn't like police with automatic weapons on the street. I totally agree. I imagine he'd be against ID cards and 42 day detention, too. Again, sign me up. I get put off, however, by the "9/11 was an inside job" stuff and the tactics of people like We Are Change. I make a short thing for my radio show and get called an agent of the security services. You shouldn't tar everyone with the same brush, but the loudest people are the ones who get heard, and they put a lot of people off who might be sympathetic to a lot of what you guys say. Mark Steel, for instance, wrote a piece in The Independent a while back about being confronted by Truthers. (http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/mark-steel/mark-ste el-the-madder-the-theory-the-more-people-believe-it-394889.html) Steel, I imagine, would have sympathy (enthusiasm, even) for the idea that Bush and Blair are war criminals, but repeatedly asking him, in an agressive manner, how many buildings collapsed on September 11th 2001, isn't going to win him over, is it?
| Quote: | | In the meantime, the wackiest or weirdest sounding stuff will get attention because it's zany and zany is interesting. |
We were probably a little guilty of that, but, as you say, talking about an ex-MI5 officer who thinks that missles surrounded by holograms hit the WTC and now think's he's Jesus is far more fun to talk about than a stiff politician wanting a new investigation.
| Quote: | | Has anyone checked to see if these UFOs have been dropping promotional packets of Doritos? You should perhaps have pressed Mr Pope further while you had the chance. |
Doritos were beaming an advert at a star that may have been orbited by planets that could sustain life, or something. Sadly, all we got was an hour of Mr Pope's time, and no free Doritos. One of the highlights of doing a radio show was once getting some free Nando's.
I've just realised how pathetic that looks. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
