Will this Sunday's BBC documentary whitewash 9/11?

[Banish]

Deliberately boring, the usual plethora of tricks. Badger the opposition, Dylan Avery's body languge was unconvincing he scratched and fidgeted as he was repeatedy badgered by the interviewer. Fetzer, Jones and Avery were filmed in badly framed and lit shots. Associate it with Kennedy and Jews and other wacky theroies. Sell the lie with authority then change the subject to something emotional, the victims all accompanied by Berbers Addagio.

bs WHITEWASH!

[Fred Jones II]

did anyone see the 47 steel core columns remain when their animation explained the collapse?


stefan if you want a transcription of the programme i could have that for you by tomorrow?

Yep laughed my ass off at that one. I really do belive it was a good thing for "the movement"

Dylan Avery looked like he was lying through his teeth though......

[alfsevic]

could anyone upload to youtube or google, I can´t get bbc from my place, thanks. alfsevic

[Abandoned Ego]

I thought it was quite good.

Sure it was Patrick.

I notice how they did a detailed debunk of ;

Operation Northwoods ( Zero mention)

The Anthrax Attacks ( Zero mention )

Dave Frasca ( Zero mention)

The Phoenix memo ( Zero mention)

The Dead accountants at the Pentagon - investigating the 2.3 trill that went missing ( Zero mention)

The John O Neill murder ( Zero mention)

The financial interests of the 9/11 commissioners ( Zero mention)

The passport in the Rubble (Zero mention)

I could sit here all night.....but why waste my time. There are plenty of others. In fact , did you do the Hutton whitewash test ?

It scored 11 out of 10 for me.

[Stefan]

I hope that was sarcasm Patrick.

What the f*ck WAS that?

They had an hour to "debunk" the evidence of 9/11 and spent most of it talking about minority positions such as Shanksville, loose change's theory of one of the flights landing (which has been one of the many reasons which I don't recommend loose change to people who are curious), "the Jews did it" conspiracy theories and MOST BIZARRE of all- THE X-FILES???!!!!! Was that worth 10 minutes of an hour in which they did not discuss-

Any of the evidence for controlled demolition
Any mention of the sulfidated steel or reports of molten steel, or the molten metal seen pouring out of the twin towers
Any mention of the dozens of reports (including on firfighters radio transmitions) of pre collapse explosions
"Closed the case" on building 7 by showing a popular mechanics "expert" who couldn't shave yet saying "if you understand how the building was buillt then you wouldn't think it was a controlled demolition"

At that point I expected them to try and explain how the building DID collapse... but nope, just a teenager saying "if you understood" and thats enough. MAKE US UNDERSTAND BBC, because I have a diagram of the structural supports of WTC7 and where the debris damage is on my desk top and I'm not seeing it!

No mention of Danny Jowenko on building 7
No analysis of the speed of the building

NOTHING.

At the end they make two points, both of which p|ssed me right off:

1) That we believe 9/11 was an inside job because it's more comfortable than believign terrorists did it.

HOW??? I beleived terrorists did it for 4 years- it was a lot LESS comfortable realising the government did it

2) The evidence doesn't support it

YOU DIDN'T SHOW ANY OF THE EVIDENCE, YOU FART ARSED AROUND CHATTING ABOUT THE X FILES AND THE PAIN OF THE VICTIMS FAMILIES AND FAILED TO BRING A SINGLE FACT, FOR OR AGAINST ANY THEORY WHATSOEVER.

What a waste of our license fee.

[Fred Jones II]

I thought it was quite good.

Sure it was Patrick.

I notice how they did a detailed debunk of ;

Operation Northwoods ( Zero mention)

The Anthrax Attacks ( Zero mention )

Dave Frasca ( Zero mention)

The Phoenix memo ( Zero mention)

The Dead accountants at the Pentagon - investigating the 2.3 trill that went missing ( Zero mention)

The John O Neill murder ( Zero mention)

The financial interests of the 9/11 commissioners ( Zero mention)

The passport in the Rubble (Zero mention)

I could sit here all night.....but why waste my time. There are plenty of others. In fact , did you do the Hutton whitewash test ?

It scored 11 out of 10 for me.

It's true that they didn't mention these things, but they did leave enough suspicion and unanswered questions to get pepole looking into it for themselves.
Sometimes you have to lose the battle to win the war.
Keep your chins up everyone.

[Emmanuel]

Sometimes half truths are more damaging than a whole lie.
It was the usual corporate BBC style newspeak style documentary. Very simplistic and totally lacking in details.
I think though in this context i think at least some questions are raised which some people may consider investigating for themselves.
Generally though it was totally biased. The BBC are a bunch of slaves.
It just reinforced the official story for me.
The Xfiles producer man was dissapointing too. He was gesticulating a lot though and I think he was paid to lie.

On a more hopeful note:
Maybe while the programmes still fresh in peoples consciousness we should decorate our cities with website stickers that they should check out.
Keep on keeping on....

[Stefan]

Gareth,
Cheers a transcript would be great, I want to have something done by the ELUSU meeting on wednesday, that would help.

I spent most of today and last night writing one which deal with the evidential based claims on their website-

but they didn't even include any of them!

They actually spent more time on the XFiles movie than they did on controlled demolition!

[kbo234]

I thought it was quite good.

You would.

[kookomula]

Emphasis on pain caused to grieving families, do you think they asked any of the families steering committee if they would be willing to contribute?

I think the hole in the Pentagon, the pictures and allegations of controlled demolition at the Towers and lack of evidence at Shankville may inspire some to look further.

This programme should inspire dedicated skeptics to 'raise their game'.

[Emmanuel]

Banish, you are right. These sneaky BBC producers dont do media studies for nothing.
Filming alex jones with shadows, Dylan Avery as fidgetty, Jim Fetzer as slightly deranged.
Conveniently though the cold voiced narrator is female, faceless, emotionless and therefore the voice of authority.

[Patrick Brown]

I thought the show was pretty good what do you guys want blood!

[wickywoowoo]

I thought the show was pretty good what do you guys want blood!

He is right, it could have been worse.

In the first 15 or so minutes, they "debunked" the towers by stating the pancake theory, which I believe the official story has moved away from now somewhat, from what I've read anyway and WTC7 was debunked by a paper not even published yet.

If any people were going to be woken up to 911 'Truth', those odd things would probably do it. If people don't believe 'Truth' after those two odd things, they likely never will believe.

[mark_e]

It struck me during this programme, it was said that the C130 Hercules took off on a routine flight. Given the nature of that day, and that all civillian flights were being grounded were routine flights being allowed up?

[/img]

[Fred Jones II]

Yep agreed wickywoowoo.

[truthmonger]

Hi - posted my thoughts on the other forum (Andrew Johnson's). I am suggesting flooding the BBC complaints centre with a list of the major distortions/downright lies (WTC 7 a "raging inferno") and omissions (masses).

There's also the current BBC Trust questionnaire at:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/consult/o ... emits.html#

where you can comment on the Beeb's trustworthiness in news reporting.

Paul

[xmasdale]

It wasn't as bad as I'd expected. The conclusion:

THERE WAS NO GOVERNMENT CONSPIRACY TO ENGINEER OR ALLOW THE ATTACKS, MERELY A CONSPIRACY TO COVER UP THEIR INCOMPETENCE AFTER THE EVENT.

I think plenty of viewers will not find the evidence they presented convinces them of the correctness of that conclusion - but it will allow those who want to believe the OCT to continue doing so.

Plenty of Aunt Sallys knocked down - peripheral theories.

Plenty of smoking guns omitted.

An opportunity to phone in to Radio 5 Live advertised.

The notion that there is a conspiracy to cover up government incompetence doesn't wash for me, because it is the government's argument that the attacks happened because they were incompetent. "Incompetent" people, such as General Myers, were, in fact promoted. Do you reward incompetence that way unless you want incompetence?

I didn't have high expectations so I'm not disappointed with the programme.

Noel

[conspiracy analyst]

Banish, you are right. These sneaky BBC producers dont do media studies for nothing.
Filming alex jones with shadows, Dylan Avery as fidgetty, Jim Fetzer as slightly deranged.
Conveniently though the cold voiced narrator is female, faceless, emotionless and therefore the voice of authority.

The best part of it is if you are selling lies on such a grand scale do you actually believe them?

These type of 'producers' would have no problem selling Mosantos positive role in GM foods as its 'positive' role in Agent orange and the seeds it it forcing down the necks of Iraqi farmers, when they aren't bombing them the rest of the week.

Torn out of context of OIL WARS the BBC propaganda producers lied about the war, lied about its causes, lied about its pretext, lie about the 'war on terror' and take 5 years to attack questions which people have raised regarding 9/11.

How many years will it take them to decribe the effects of the occupation on Iraq. The murders, the rapes, the pillaging, the killing fields of Bush and Blair?

[Mark Gobell]

Deliberately boring, the usual plethora of tricks. Badger the opposition, Dylan Avery's body languge was unconvincing he scratched and fidgeted as he was repeatedy badgered by the interviewer. Fetzer, Jones and Avery were filmed in badly framed and lit shots. Associate it with Kennedy and Jews and other wacky theroies. Sell the lie with authority then change the subject to something emotional, the victims all accompanied by Berbers Addagio.

bs WHITEWASH!

I was asked what the music was. I guessed it was a dirge. Thanks Banish.

Samuel Barber's Adagio for Strings has become an American mourning anthem since it was played at the funerals of JFK and Roosevelt.

Sick or subtle ? Both ?

Hi Banish. How's the bairn ?

[dontbelievethehype1970]

rada trained presenter cv http://www.pfd.co.uk/clients/catzc/a-act.html

echoe comments re presentation, particuarly fetzer looking and acting deranged. is he the best the movements got. sureley not.

very perceptive comment re family steering commitee above. Why did they make no mention of the jersey girls etc which actually got the US 911 commission started.

[paul wright]

I thought the show was pretty good what do you guys want blood!

It wasn't good Patrick. It was pretty much as expected. It is part of a managed exposure project, but will at least send sizeable numbers of looking into material more closely

[wickywoowoo]

I found the late of Thermite and yes, even NPT on the show a surprise, considering those are two of the largest theories going about at the moment and one is easily used to debunk and make everyone look like fringe nutjobs.

In fact, the whole show was almost a waste of time. "Conspiracy" people will still believe and now be more determined and non believers will still believe and be even more sure we are all "nutjobs".

The show will probably not have changed many, if any people's opinions at all if we are totally honest.

[kookomula]

No footage of Silverstein saying 'pull-it', would they have to get permission to show this? Why wouldn't they?

[Newspeak International]

Unequivical!!!!! (sp)

OK so did I get this right building 7 comes down in freefall speed,because
it has been destroyed by explosive demolition,as we know.But it just looks like controlled demolition because the BBC puts some guy from Popular mechanics on to say so,and no footprint image after the collapse.

And it was only to be expected to collapse of the 2 towers was done by the rapid cut method,hardly gave anyone a chance to observe the squibs much,and time the full collapse.

Not much evidence of Big Boeings at Shanksville or the Pentagon still,just a voice over saying there was,and a few out of context stills.
Though I liked the pilot of the transport plane ,a homely sort I'm sure stating he saw flight 77 impact the Pentagon,though notice the graphic at that time is a straight line to the Pentagon(though the 30 degree bank was alluded to).

To the casual viewer this was quite good (Patrick),and that the rumours they'd been hearing have been unfounded,but (as we have said)this leaves the field open counter-attack,and may have backfired already.

Nice touch playing Barbar's Adagio for strings at the end

[Bongo]

Absolute CR@P!

I see they never aired the footage of Larry Silverstein's comments on PBS.

They picked on specific 'dubious' points which could be de-bunked, while staying clear of any area that they would have difficulty in putting on an OCT slant.

Also they are out of date with the facts. They could made this film 4 years ago, they show the pancake collapse model, but don't mention that NIST have even backtracked on the 'Pancake collapse' theory...

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

NIST’s findings also do not support the “controlled demolition” theory since there is conclusive evidence that:

1. the collapse was initiated in the impact and fire floors of the WTC towers and nowhere else, and;

2. the time it took for the collapse to initiate (56 minutes for WTC 2 and 102 minutes for WTC 1) was dictated by (1) the extent of damage caused by the aircraft impact, and (2) the time it took for the fires to reach critical locations and weaken the structure to the point that the towers could not resist the tremendous energy released by the downward movement of the massive top section of the building at and above the fire and impact floors.

... Very telling that they did not air a single live news clip at the WTC! What about all the CNN, ABC, FOX etc live broadcasts which have reporters telling of witnessing 'huge explosions'?

...Like Abandoned Ego, I could go on and on with regards to the 'ommissions' in this very poor BBC 'hit piece'.

The only crumb of possitivity I take out of this is that many more people will do their own research and discover for themselves that the BBC are either negligent in their research or indeed are deliberately suppressing the real issues.

[Newspeak International]

Absolute CR@P!

Also they are out of date with the facts. They could made this film 4 years ago, they show the pancake collapse model, but don't mention that NIST have even backtracked on the 'Pancake collapse' theory... .

They stayed with the pancake,but did use the new term "progressive collapse".

Anyone who has seen Loose change,or any others with similar footage with an open mind will know for certain now about 9/11,and the collusion
of the media in the official fairytale.
And those who haven't may be curious enough to,and see the whole
Google video for themselves.

[Jayhawk]

I think the X files guy's comment that it was more comfortable to believe Bushco did it than that the terrorists did it was the absolute giveaway. How can he possibly believe that?!!
It was so obvious that they decided what they thought and then backed it all up with cherry picked clips and witnesses, while throwing in some fairly tame stuff for the truthers to hang onto. More significant was what was left out and how they wasted so much time on the Jews and X files. Classic example of how to make an "investigation" conclude what you want it to conclude. I'm not sure it will change many minds. A lot hangs on how good Loose Change 3 is.

[conspiracy analyst]

training on the day of 9/11?

Doesn't that explain why no fighter jets were scrambled and if they were they went anywhere, but where they were needed?

Didn't the same happen in London during the tube bombings?

No mention anywhere of this, yet it appeared in the propaganda version of what happened on United 93 by Paul Greengrass.

Why is that? A terrorist atrocity occurs and anti-terrorist training occurs on the same day. The coincidence of that is what?

Even by their own standards they fall short in propaganda. One film gives one picture and another a 'documentary' another.

[numeral]

training on the day of 9/11?

Doesn't that explain why no fighter jets were scrambled and if they were they went anywhere, but where they were needed?

Didn't the same happen in London during the tube bombings?

Yup, they scrambled jets to fly along the Underground tunnels. Unfortunately, their wings got clipped.

[disco volante]

seriously guys.


FORGET ABOUT HOW nonsense THIS DOCUMENTARY WAS!

any publicity is good publicity. the program's start section included questions about why the towers and wtc 7 collapsed. when peoples attention is at the very pinacle probably..............nobody within the movement will have their 9-11 demolition thoughts changed as a result of this broadcast and anybody who gives a flying f*ck will no doubt have the need to investigate the wtc attack even more..........


f*ck the blair broadcasting corporation.......this documentary will blend in with every other piece of psychological style 9-11 attack piece.


anyone who is duped with this bbc documentary is either too stupid,ignorant and in respect of authority to think otherwise and would therefore be a pointless ineffective participant in any pro-911 truth method of action anyway....or they just couldnt care enough to get the whole picture anyway........i mean its been over 5 years

there are only people in the 9-11 movement and people who dont give a sh*t.


the movement will prevail and eventually a brand new international independent investigation will take place in order to truly investigate the demolition hypothesis........the satanist united nations will come in and say we cant have these pesky individual countries carrying out false flags..............lets get even closer to a one world governing body and stop this!