Lovenotfear Posted February 19, 2007 Share Posted February 19, 2007 Cheers Alb, will give that a watching! http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/febru...broughtdown.htm very good programme it was too. The guy from loose change was just made to look foolish Very good? That was the biggest load of rubbish the bbc has turned out to date! Its worth mentioning that they spent a week filming with Alex Jones, and in reality he was on for about 5mins...if that! The pentagon...one camera haha.....there are more in bloody strand street!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted February 19, 2007 Share Posted February 19, 2007 Very good? That was the biggest load of rubbish the bbc has turned out to date! I thought it was dissapointing. Nothing new - especially about WTC-7. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lost Login Posted February 20, 2007 Share Posted February 20, 2007 For what it was meant to be I thought it fairly good. It was only an hour programme as are the rest in the series so it was never going to be an examination of all the claims of the conspiracy theorists, that would take days, or a major new investigation into the any one particular aspect. It was by its nature designed to be an overview of some of the major claims and a review of how they stood up to scutiny. The answer was not particularly well. I thought it did its job on that remit basically very well. I also thought it highlighted well at the end the failings of the USA agencies and government prior to the attacks in responding to intelligence. Also it brought out the attempted "coverups" afterwards in respect of this failure. For me this is my biggest complaint about the conspiracy theorists. They are putting so much energy into an area that in all honesty is fairly self explanatory and in which there is nothing to find. Several planes hit several buildings result chaos and carnage. If they put half as much effort into uncovering the failures in preventing the attacks and covering up these failures afterwards they would probably have brought to the attention of the public much that those responsible need to be made accountable for. Instead this area, where there may be many people responsible and at a senior level, is generally ignored in favour of some crackpot theory. It could make you wonder who is leading and directing the conspiracy theorists as it almost looks as if it a classic diversionary tactic. Lets get everybody chasing a total red herring so that other so that other potentially more embarrisng matters are ignored. Finally in respect of Alberts question on WTC -7 maybe there was nothing in the programme new on it is because there is nothing new to be said! I think the theorists view on WTC-7 is based on some coversations which can be interpreted in one of several ways and their belief that it looked like a controlled demolition as there is no way the building would have collapsed in its own "footprint" unless it was a controlled demolition. These are purely theories without no factual back up i.e ideas which have not been proved. Generally they are just bald statements with a challenge to others to disprove. From my readings I believe others have disproved but that is not enough for the theorists who have still to come forward with any concrete evidence and proof to the contrary. I am still waiting to hear from the theorists how in the timescale after the attack they had rigged the explosives or if it was done in the days prior who come nobody noticed. Finally if you had gone to all the planning that the thorists believe surely if they were going to knock it down they would have done so in a way that would would not make it "look" like a controlled demolition. The same argument goes for the Towers themselves and in fact if WTC-7 was to be destroyed as part of this master plan surely you would have just collapsed one of the towers on it! Very good? That was the biggest load of rubbish the bbc has turned out to date! I thought it was dissapointing. Nothing new - especially about WTC-7. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted February 20, 2007 Share Posted February 20, 2007 For what it was meant to be I thought it fairly good... How so? A man from 'Popular Mechanics' talking about the physics involved in the collapse of the Twin Towers and a producer from the 'X-files' - how does this represent serious investigative journalism? The program was pointless, and nothing more than an attempt to make people believe that anyone asking questions around 9/11 is a conspiracy nutcase. The program did not look at any of the facts of those areas that still concern me, and grossly oversimplified things - very specific fundamental questions remained untouched and unanswered. Yes there are nutcases out there - but there are still some senior figures asking for certain answers which they are not getting. The emphasis of the programme was that some people find it more comforting and easier to believe - that it was an inside job rather than a result of terrorist activity. However, the programme left me with the impression that the opposite is also true - because more people blindly accept the official version of these events. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Sausages Posted February 20, 2007 Share Posted February 20, 2007 The producer from the X files featured because one of the conspiracy theories is that he personally knew about 9/11 before the event, which he dismissed. Can't really complain about that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ans Posted February 20, 2007 Share Posted February 20, 2007 Very good? That was the biggest load of rubbish the bbc has turned out to date! IRONY OVERLOAD DETECTED Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted February 20, 2007 Share Posted February 20, 2007 The producer from the X files featured because one of the conspiracy theories is that he personally knew about 9/11 before the event, which he dismissed. Can't really complain about that. Maybe not - but the programme took time to look at most of the silly ideas - at the expense of not investigating several key and important issues that still require to be answered. The programme itself is not worth debating - because it added nothing to the debate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ans Posted February 20, 2007 Share Posted February 20, 2007 Maybe not - but the programme took time to look at most of the silly ideas Perhaps that's because that's all that there was. In the 5 1/2 years (crikey) since the incident, not one single irrefuteable piece of evidence has been offered. Every 'theory' revolves around someobody interpreting some event in their own personal way. There will always be conspiracy theorists, and for that I am thankful, because without their quizzical nature (no matter how ridiculous they appear), people and organisations would be able to get away with more than they do. However, there has to come a point where you've exhausted all the avenues, you've not uncovered any real evidence and you simply have to give up and move on to the next conspiracy. I heard Britney Spears' head was shaved by secret Government agents in an effort to popularise Buddhism amongst the young. Discuss. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted February 20, 2007 Share Posted February 20, 2007 Maybe not - but the programme took time to look at most of the silly ideas Perhaps that's because that's all that there was. In the 5 1/2 years (crikey) since the incident, not one single irrefuteable piece of evidence has been offered. Every 'theory' revolves around someobody interpreting some event in their own personal way. That is not true. If people don't even know what half of the questions are - how can they be so sure they know all of the answers? People can argue till they are 'blue in the face' over this. But the fact is there is too little official information to argue about - and so the discussion is currently limited to whether people accept the official version or not. A little more research on some of the evidence that is available on the internet, from such a heavily filmed event, shows people that there are many questions that remain unanswered - in some cases questions that are only discussed on the internet - and not on channels including the BBC, and completely missed by this documentary. Only a thorough and independent enquiry will remove many issues from the 'conspiracy' theory, and eventually get down to answering the important issues that are not being addressed and are being hidden in the debate - by emphasising the 'nutcase theories' including: the plane wreckage example and the theory that the Jewish community were warned in advance. Some of the issues requiring investigation are highlighted here. I don't hold with all of these views, but I am now convinced (objectively) that there is far more to this than meets the eye - and the answer to many of these questions, are in the main IMO, to be found by fully investigating WTC 7 - including everything and everyone within it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ans Posted February 20, 2007 Share Posted February 20, 2007 That is not true. I'm glad you backed that up with an example of this evidence.... oh wait... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lost Login Posted February 20, 2007 Share Posted February 20, 2007 It was not investigative journalism, well not what I call investigative journalism. It was a review and as such it was looking a some claims by a bunch of theorists who deny any reasearch that disagrees what they say and lie, misreprsent facts and make astounding leaps of logic. The X-files guy was there as some of the theorists said he knew about the event before hand. He denied it first hand but presumably you would have prefereed it if somebody else had commeneted on his hehalf? The guy from PM was commenting on the research that PM had done. That was done by physiscists, engineers etc etc. In a one hour programme you expect to here from all these guys individually? The programme did interview the scientist who had led the seperate and independent research into the pentagon collapse, whole in the wall etc. The only "independent" research into this and the response of the theorists. They do not accept the results. Why probably because it does back up what they believe. Fine but if you do not agree go and get some research done, Do they do they squat! In an hour the program reviewed several well documented theories and generally disproved them. Its emphasis of the programme was not that some people find it more comforting and easier to believe. That was a final segment trying to understand why theories get such a hold. It was not the remit of the programme. You are free not to believe which seems to be on a basis that the more that accept the less you believe. Not one shred of hard evidence in five years has come out to back up up these theories. I just believe that when there are so many other things that governments do that needs reviewing and holding companies to account then it is such a shame that so much effort is spent in respect of a fairly daft theory. However if it keeps a radio talk show host, a theology professor and assorted teenagers hamlessly occupied then it can not be all harm Finally I would like to leave a quote "you cannot win an argument with a moron they simply drag the conversation down to their level and beat you with experience" I really feel at times that is the case in respect of many of the advocates of the conspiracy theories and that no how much evidence is put forward to the contrary they will always argue to that contrary. After all it is very easy to proove something does exist but very hard to proove something dos not. You could proove Nessie does exist by capturing him, but how do you proove he does not. The only way would be to seal the surrounding area, drain and empty the lake, clear all vegitation etc etc. This is totally impractable. All the available evidence leads me to the fact that that he is not real but that is not the same as prooving he does not exist For what it was meant to be I thought it fairly good... How so? A man from 'Popular Mechanics' talking about the physics involved in the collapse of the Twin Towers and a producer from the 'X-files' - how does this represent serious investigative journalism? The program was pointless, and nothing more than an attempt to make people believe that anyone asking questions around 9/11 is a conspiracy nutcase. The program did not look at any of the facts of those areas that still concern me, and grossly oversimplified things - very specific fundamental questions remained untouched and unanswered. Yes there are nutcases out there - but there are still some senior figures asking for certain answers which they are not getting. The emphasis of the programme was that some people find it more comforting and easier to believe - that it was an inside job rather than a result of terrorist activity. However, the programme left me with the impression that the opposite is also true - because more people blindly accept the official version of these events. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted February 20, 2007 Share Posted February 20, 2007 Finally I would like to leave a quote "you cannot win an argument with a moron they simply drag the conversation down to their level and beat you with experience" I really feel at times that is the case in respect of many of the advocates of the conspiracy theories and that no how much evidence is put forward to the contrary they will always argue to that contrary. After all it is very easy to proove something does exist but very hard to proove something dos not. You could proove Nessie does exist by capturing him, but how do you proove he does not. The only way would be to seal the surrounding area, drain and empty the lake, clear all vegitation etc etc. This is totally impractable. All the available evidence leads me to the fact that that he is not real but that is not the same as prooving he does not exist I am talking about the specifics of one event and the issues surrounding it. For you to associate it with the Loch Ness monster, Kennedy assassinations and some 'willingness to believe' is meaningless - a common diversionary association tactic, and, frankly, a cheap shot - it is nothing more than an opinion. The whole point is that there is insufficient evidence to draw a conclusion and many more questions have been raised since the initial 'enquiry'. You yourself only know what you have read. In this case 'the lake could be drained' - and quite easily - by a thorough investigation into 9/11, as well as all of the proceeding events (intelligence gathering etc.) and subsequent events (Iraq war) etc. That could find the same result as the first 'enquiry' - at least this time the right questions could be asked and answered in detail - and we would have a better chance of knowing the full truth. If, for example, you had a son who had died in Iraq, wouldn't you want to know the full truth of all of the events in this chain of events? A chain of events likely to lead to you having to eventually go to a police station to have your eyes scanned and your fingerprints taken. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lost Login Posted February 20, 2007 Share Posted February 20, 2007 What is this one event? All the available evidence I have seen points to Sept 11 being caused by aircraft being hijacked by terrorists and crashed into buildings. No one shred of concrete evidence has as far as I have seen shown anything to the contrary. The Loch Ness analogy is I believe fair as the only way many theorists will believe what they see with their own eyes is if they build a 100% replica of the buildings, crash planes into them etc and see what the results are. Even if identicle the theorists would argue that the builinds were built with floors in etc etc. In simple it is not an event that you can perform a proof on. As far as I am concerned if all currently available evidence points to factor A and none to factor B I tend to go with factor A. That may be an extreme view but hey I like to take a gamble! As far as to your last point yes I might want to know all the available facts. But to extend you analogy if I knew how my son had diedand this was backed up by all available evidence etc etc as I believe that currently the facts behind Sept 11 are then I would not go and try and and think up an alternative chain of events. Especially if there were no facts to support an alternative theory. If though the reason and facts for the death were known but it had been potentially avoidable except for lack of proper preparation, planning or whatever then I would hastle for that to be looked at. That roughly is the case as far as I believe in respect of Sept 11. I believe the facts of the event are basically as stated but there was a complete failure in intelligence to stop it and a huge cover up in respect of these failings afterwards. All of the theorists are are distracting attention from these failings and investigating them. If there is a smoking gun Sept 11 was a government plot but there was a complete failure in intelligence to prevent, this failure has been covered up and it has subsequently been used as a subtext for certain other actions when it is known that they are not linked. Do the theorists want to investigate that, The majority no as it is not "sexy. They might almost find something and what would they have to do. Basically they are much happier pissing from the side lines. ]I am talking about the specifics of one event and the issues surrounding it. The whole point is that there is insufficient evidence to draw a conclusion and many more questions have been raised since the initial 'enquiry'. You yourself only know what you have read. In this case 'the lake could be drained' - and quite easily - by a thorough investigation into 9/11, as well as all of the proceeding events (intelligence gathering etc.) and subsequent events (Iraq war) etc. That could find the same result as the first 'enquiry' - at least this time the right questions could be asked and answered in detail - and we would have a better chance of knowing the full truth. If, for example, you had a son who had died in Iraq, wouldn't you want to know the full truth of all of the events in this chain of events? A chain of events likely to lead to you having to eventually go to a police station to have your eyes scanned and your fingerprints taken. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nitro Posted February 20, 2007 Share Posted February 20, 2007 I suppose its totally unrelated, But i've now seen a few films featuring the twin towers and i never realised just how massive they looked, One film just focused the camera to look up at the towers as if it was the person and it was just amazing! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tameelf Posted February 20, 2007 Share Posted February 20, 2007 i turned tv over after 15 min knowing no serious investicative journalisim was going to be shown. it fell way short of askin why wt7 colapsed in its own footprints from a non perfect spred fire we have a perfect colapse . it never shown silverstien the owner saying he pulled the building. and in the 7 hours from the first tower colapse wtc7 could not have been primed to a controled demo unless it was primed in advance . its been 5 years since i payed cash 4 a jewspaper i will never pay for false info. bbc is a goverment tv station that tryed to back up the usa goverments take on 911 and failed in my opinion blairs first words as to 77 was there will be no inquiry why? if theres nowt to hide i guess all the peoples storys and the days timeline would tell a difrent story Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.