9/11 - BBC Conspiracy Files documentary

slasher13 · Post by **slasher13** » 20 Feb 2007, 16:15

Did anyone check this out:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/6160775.stm

It had interviews of Dylan Avery from Loose Change and Alex Jones, but it was a bit one sided. Alex Jones interviewed the producer after that saying they had some flaws. Check out:
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/fe ... uggles.htm

There is an mp3 file which you can listen to.

degeneration · Post by **degeneration** » 20 Feb 2007, 18:04

Didn't see it, but was interested.

I personally believe that the plane that crashed in the field after teh passengers fought back, was actually shot down. Think this is more likely. Am a little dubious about the pentagon plane, but what happened to that plane if it didn't hit the pentagon?

Anyway, conspiracy theories like this are fun and intriguing, but either we'll never know the truth or it is the truth we know but we don't like it so want something else to believe!

Markgway · Post by **Markgway** » 21 Feb 2007, 02:31

The problem with conspiracy theories is that they usually deflect attention away from a truth no one wants to believe.

thelostdragon · Post by **thelostdragon** » 21 Feb 2007, 03:06

Markgway wrote:The problem with conspiracy theories is that they usually deflect attention away from a truth no one wants to believe.

The problem with such statements is that they are usually made by persons before they actually read/watched the respective theory, resulting in a completely prejudiced comment.

Mark, have you yet watched "9/11 Loose Change"?

Kurgan · Post by **Kurgan** » 21 Feb 2007, 03:23

I've not seen Loose Change (don't really intend to, either) but I did see this programme. I did believe (and still do for some of it) some of what was said (like the eye-witness accounts of the crash site investigators), but I should've known better than to fall for it all, as the article above points out falsehoods that were put forward by the documentary makers.
I say I should've known better as I'm sure that the programme makers did a doc on the JFK assassination, and created a computer model to prove that the bullets were fired from Oswald's location. The only thing they neglected to point out was that a computer model only describes the values that are put into it. So, if you use flawed numbers (which is what the conspiracy theorists are saying in the first place), you get a model that only illustrates the flaws; it doesn't shed any light or debunk anything.

I suppose the only thing that can be said with clarity is that, regardless of who is responsible for the plane crashes, it was clearly used as a launchpad to start an illegal set of wars...

Markgway · Post by **Markgway** » 21 Feb 2007, 05:36

I don't have any interest in one-sided pseudo-documentaries that purport to blame everything on the Americans. Ultimately people will believe what they want to regardless of the evidence.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0831315/usercomments

Yi-Long · Post by **Yi-Long** » 21 Feb 2007, 14:22

Biggest question for me is still why building 7 was brought down (WTC), and why tehe main buildings looked like it was done by controlled demolition.
Also, too many things just arent right. Like the passports of the highjackers being found, while everything else is a complete burned mess...

The whole thing smells, and people HAD to know before it happened. (which explains the insurance, and the stockmarket, etc etc)

I think in the least worst case, the USA goverment ALLOWED it to happen, and in the worst case, PLANNED for it to happen.

What I personally still dont get, is why this isnt being treated like a crime. A normal crime.
We see lots of innocent deaths, and we see people benefitting from the results of this action. Why isnt there being researched if the people who GAINED from this (9/11 and the resulting wars), had ANY relationship to the happenings on 9/11.

Just look at who's benefitting from Iraq and Afghanistand. Halliburton and lots of other companies and businessmen who are closely associated with Bush, Cheney, Rummsfeld and all those other neo-conservative new world order groups...

So it looks like there is a case of conflicted interests regarding the decision to go to war, and personally I feel the reason to go to war was money, oil and power... and not the given reasons.

I wish we knew. I wish the real bad guys would get punished. But I think this will be our generation's JFK, where we are being fed a bunch of BS by our goverments.

thelostdragon · Post by **thelostdragon** » 21 Feb 2007, 15:15

Mark, as with any movie ever made, you won't be able to judge it based on what other people say about it.

Markgway · Post by **Markgway** » 21 Feb 2007, 16:04

True, but what's the point if - according to IMDB posters - most of the big revelations have been shown up as false? It's not that I trust the IMDB above all else, but there seems to be a consensus that the 'evidence' in the doc is bogus. And the posters who are in favour of the doc don't seem to have any answers for this. I agree that some things about 9/11 don't add up and that there's much the US government isn't telling, but that doesn't make them guilty as much as the left wingers would love to believe. Show me a proper professional doc with unbiased, accurate evidence and I'll listen.

Kurgan · Post by **Kurgan** » 21 Feb 2007, 16:25

Well, the programme that was on Sunday night was definitely not it

slasher13 · Post by **slasher13** » 21 Feb 2007, 17:02

Markgway wrote:It's not that I trust the IMDB above all else, but there seems to be a consensus that the 'evidence' in the doc is bogus. And the posters who are in favour of the doc don't seem to have any answers for this.

Some of the IMDB really don't make sense, but both Alex Jones and the creator of Loose Change has debunked what the BBC was saying. If you listen to the mp3 of the interview, Alex Jones actually provides clips from CNN that day reporting the police staying "Get back the building (referring to WTC 7) is coming down, they blowing it up". Both police and firefighter reported this that day. Approx timeline - 37.52 you will hear it.

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 22 Feb 2007, 23:03

Conspiracy theories are only there for people with -

A: Too much time on their hands
B: People who think far to much
C: People who live in constant fear and anger of the world
D: All the above.

Pah old news moving on. I've heard a few of them and they all bore the pants off me. Until I see proof without a doubt I'll continue to believe it was Al Quada who killed thousands of innocents.

Frankly I'd rather being thinking about the innocent people than this gumf.

Yi-Long · Post by **Yi-Long** » 22 Feb 2007, 23:59

Innocent people that got killed and which could have been prevented by the lying goverment...

You rather believe a goverment that has lied to it's people more then once!?

If anything, these conspiracy-theories raise interesting question, of which many have still remained unanswered.

I guess you also still believe Harvey Lee Oswald was a lone gunman who killed the president?

thelostdragon · Post by **thelostdragon** » 23 Feb 2007, 01:31

bradavon wrote:Until I see proof without a doubt I'll continue to believe it was Al Quada who killed thousands of innocents.

If you need proof for that, how come you don't need proof to believe that it was a sole Al-Qaida (not Al Quada btw.) operation? Because it is easier to just believe the media?

Frankly I'd rather being thinking about the innocent people than this gumf.

And what does thinking about death people change? I'd rather think about supporting the quest for the truth which might help to save the lifes of even more innocents instead.

slasher13 · Post by **slasher13** » 23 Feb 2007, 08:29

Yeah agreed with LD and Yi, How can someone need proof to debunk the Conspiracy theory, yet happily believe what the official report says which frankly some parts doesn't make sense. I would think for the innocent people who died and their family, that every avenue should be investigated, so people could put their mind at rest.

slasher13 · Post by **slasher13** » 28 Feb 2007, 09:57

Lets resurrect this now again for more discussion

Check out this news report which has a video from a BBC news report about WTC-7. Now the crux of this is that BBC reporter says that WTC-7 is coming down, even though it is clearly in the background

Salomon Brother building is another name for WTC-7

The BBC has said the following in their blog

2. In the chaos and confusion of the day, I'm quite sure we said things which turned out to be untrue or inaccurate - but at the time were based on the best information we had. We did what we always did - sourced our reports, used qualifying words like "apparently" or "it's reported" or "we're hearing" and constantly tried to check and double check the information we were receiving.

3. Our reporter Jane Standley was in New York on the day of the attacks, and like everyone who was there, has the events seared on her mind. I've spoken to her today and unsurprisingly, she doesn't remember minute-by-minute what she said or did - like everybody else that day she was trying to make sense of what she was seeing; what she was being told; and what was being told to her by colleagues in London who were monitoring feeds and wires services.

4. We no longer have the original tapes of our 9/11 coverage (for reasons of cock-up, not conspiracy). So if someone has got a recording of our output, I'd love to get hold of it. We do have the tapes for our sister channel News 24, but they don't help clear up the issue one way or another.

Errr okay they lost the tape

Another interesting point in this endless debate, but still more questions that need to be asked

Shen · Post by **Shen** » 28 Feb 2007, 10:20

bradavon wrote: B: People who think far to much

hehe say that to Plato, or Socrates, or Aristotle or Kant, or Descartes, or Neitzche or any of the other notable influences in todays society

im sure thinking too much is a faaar better trait than thinking too little (which seems to be a norm just latley)

i just love how people say "i need proof" until then i'll just belive the news, who are fully known to report inncorrect facts and events. yes ok, its on the news. those people in suits are reporting it ... it must be true...fantastic ideology.

offcom made me laugh, ITV were in breach of the offcom legislation becuase they reported something "not based in fact" which apparently all news stations shouldnt do, no they cant report half-truths or lies or reports based in no concrete evidence ... i nearly fell of the chair laughing, in this case offcom should have pulled every single news station in the world infront of a tribunal. (no itv werent in a tribunal)

slasher13 · Post by **slasher13** » 22 Mar 2007, 17:04

Lets bring this up again..

, check out this article:

Former CIA official supports Professor's claim that official 9/11 Islamist conspiracy theory are lies

David Ray Griffin is widely recognized as one of the leading spokespersons of the 9/11 truth movement. This is by virtue of his previous four books on the subject. Professor Griffin and a growing list of scholars, other researchers as well as diverse experts and activists, reject the official Islamist mastermind conspiracy theory about 9/11 advanced by Establishment interests.

Although the 9/11 truth movement was long ignored by the U.S. government and the mainstream media, recent polls have shown that (as Time magazine has acknowledged) the rejection of the official theory has become "a mainstream political phenomenon."

It is not surprising, therefore, that the U.S. government and the Big Business controlled media have shifted tactics. No longer ignoring the 9/11 truth movement, they have released a flurry of stories and reports aimed at debunking it.

In David Ray Griffin's new book entitled Debunking 9/11, shows that these attempts can themselves be easily debunked.

"Debunking 9/11 is a superb compendium of the strong body of evidence showing the official U.S. Government story of what happened on September 11, 2001 to be almost certainly a monstrous series of lies. Tragically, the entire course of U.S. foreign and domestic policies since that date has grown out of these almost certain falsehoods," says Bill Christison, former senior official of the CIA.

Mr. Christison further indicates that, "This single book could (and should) provide the basis for the United Nations International Court of Justice, or some specially constituted global body (independent of the U.S.) to investigate with highest priority, and publicly report its findings about, the charge that unknown elements within the U.S. Government, and possibly some individuals elsewhere closely allied to the U.S., caused or contributed to causing the events of September 11 to happen.”

Besides demonstrating the pitiful failure of "Debunking 9/11 Myths" (published by Popular Mechanics and endorsed by Senator John McCain), Professor Griffin critically challenges recent reports and stories put out by the US Department of State, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, the New York Times, Vanity Fair, and Time magazine.

Professor Griffin also responds to criticisms of these efforts by left-leaning and Christian publications -- which one might have expected to be supportive.

Throughout these critiques, Griffin shows that the charge that is regularly levelled against critics of the official theory -- that they employ irrational and unscientific methods to defend conclusions based on faith -- actually applies more fully to those who defend the official theory.

“Considering how the 9/11 tragedy has been used by the Bush administration to propel us into immoral wars again and again, I believe that David Ray Griffin's provocative questions about 9/11 deserve to be investigated and addressed,” says Howard Zinn, author of A People’s History of the United States.

"Professor Griffin is the nemesis of the 9/11 cover-up. This new book destroys the credibility of the NIST and Popular Mechanics reports and annihilates his critics," says Paul Craig Roberts, Assistant Secretary of the U.S. Treasury during the Reagan administration.

“David Ray Griffin hits another one out of the park by taking on the left gatekeepers and the mass media for the lies and cover-up called ‘the official story of 9/11/01,’ which is the greatest conspiracy theory ever perpetrated on the American public. I highly recommend this book for all thinking Americans,” further indicates Meria Heller, Producer Host of the Meria Heller Show (www.meria.net).

This book, by debunking the most prevalent attempts to refute the evidence cited by the 9/11 truth movement, shows that this movement's central claim -- that 9/11 was an inside job -- remains the only explanation that fits the facts.

Source: The Canadian National Newspaper