Saturday, December 16, 2006

Jones Ducks BBC Debunking Show

From the blog of a BBC News editor:

A number of you looked forward to the other programmes in the series, which continues in the New Year, especially the programme about 9/11. To answer questions about what we are covering in the 9/11 programme, we are covering all the key issues, including World Trade Centre 7, which was not hit by an aeroplane but which collapsed. And yes we did contact Professor Steven Jones, but he did not want to be interviewed for the programme and instead we interviewed the co-chair of Scholars for 9/11 Truth, Professor Jim Fetzer.


Snicker, snort!

26 Comments:

At 16 December, 2006 09:25, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Report: US senator's remarks on Assad are 'lies'

 
At 16 December, 2006 10:34, Blogger The Artistic Macrophage said...

stay focused BG...read the blog post again.

anyway....back to the topic of the blog post....

Jones would have made for more intellectual debate...barely. Now we just get the same old nutjob ranting about the same old things, long debunked. I only hope the BBC will have on experts representing NIST and others.

TAM

 
At 16 December, 2006 10:42, Anonymous Anonymous said...

tam,

You know I have no intention of staying on the topic of a particular blog post's subject here, don't you?

 
At 16 December, 2006 10:46, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Jones would have made for more intellectual debate...barely..

Please!!!! There's no comparison.

Part of the reason that I didn't have much to say about this here is that it's a significant negative turn of events for the "good guys" if Jones won't defend his work.

 
At 16 December, 2006 11:03, Blogger Alex said...

You know I have no intention of staying on the topic of a particular blog post's subject here, don't you?

Yes, we know you're a spamming fucktard just a few degrees shy of Niko himself. The only thing I'm amazed by is that Pat and James continue to allow your (and Nico's behaviour on their blog.

 
At 16 December, 2006 11:03, Blogger CHF said...

BG,

"turn of events?"

As if his cowardice is something new.

Stephen Jones has NEVER defended his work. He still refuses to submit it for peer review, remember?

 
At 16 December, 2006 11:13, Anonymous Anonymous said...

chf,

Stephen Jones has NEVER defended his work. He still refuses to submit it for peer review, remember?

My assumption was not that had refused to submit his work.

I was assuming no body would accept it.

Do you know one way or the other for sure?

 
At 16 December, 2006 11:18, Blogger Democrat said...

What were the conditions for the program? I mean, making it to MSM and then not getting a WTC7 demolition video aired. What was the media scared off?

 
At 16 December, 2006 11:47, Blogger Alex said...

You might want to rephrase that question. Right now it reads almost like free-association.

 
At 16 December, 2006 11:49, Anonymous Anonymous said...

alex,

You might want to reconsider every one of your silly comments to this blog.

 
At 16 December, 2006 11:56, Blogger Alex said...

Well, gee, that's constructive BG. I ask the guy to rephrase his question so that his meaning is more clear (and so it can be answered), and in return I get not only an insult, but a childish and baseless one at that. If you're going to try and insult me you need to work on both your timing and your content.

 
At 16 December, 2006 11:59, Blogger ConsDemo said...

I mean, making it to MSM and then not getting a WTC7 demolition video aired.

They probably thought it was crap.

 
At 16 December, 2006 12:21, Blogger Democrat said...

Thank you for the opportunity to rephrase my question.

There has been an occasion in which Jones was on tv for 5 minutes in some sort of tv show. He was asked by e-mail to be interviewed in the show, specifically requesting the topic he wanted to talk about. Jones said that he wanted to discuss the WTC7 collapse and insisted that they would show a video of the WTC7 collapse. He sent a WTC7 collapse video to the show, but when he was on, no video was shown. Only a static picture of the intact WTC7 building was shown. Now Jones asked several times, explicitly, whether the TV guy had showed the video of the collapse so Jones could talk about it. They never did show it and started to put him under pressure to come up with a story for the remaining minutes. Well, he talked about his thermite thesis and so, but his request for a simple WTC7 collapse video and WTC7 collapse discussion never was honoured although specifically requested upon the studio's request.

From hereon, I start some speculation. I speculated that, perhaps, the conditions set by the BBC were not acceptable for Jones to be interviewed for the show. After all, his experience with the MSM cannot be considered to give him very much confidence in a proper debate (rush rush, yeah, sent us the video which we will never show).

I don't know what's behind him not showing up for an interview by the BBC, but the general background of my speculative comment is that there may be reasons why Jones does not want to be interviewed in this respect. Automatically mock at it is based on perception, and maybe not reality. We may find out later why Jones did not want to be interviewed.

 
At 16 December, 2006 12:42, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Democrat said...

Well done, dem.

I hasten to point out that any of those at this blog who have paid the least bit of attention already know the details of MSM misbehavior.

No matter how clearly the details are explained, they will act oblivious to reason.

 
At 16 December, 2006 15:02, Blogger Triterope said...

There has been an occasion in which Jones was on tv for 5 minutes in some sort of tv show.

And of course, this show doesn't have a name, a channel, or any other verifiable detail.

He sent a WTC7 collapse video to the show, but when he was on, no video was shown. They started to put him under pressure to come up with a story for the remaining minutes.

And this was a crisis? One of the leading lights of the 9-11 Truth community not only can't make a point without complete control over the footage, but lacks the ability to fill 90 seconds of air time? Why didn't he just keep asking them to play the video, which you said he did "several times"?

If what you're saying is true, then Steven Jones is about as useless as Carrot Top without his prop suitcase.

perhaps the conditions set by the BBC were not acceptable for Jones to be interviewed for the show

Awwww, the conditions weren't acceptable? You Twoofers are constantly whining that mainstream media doesn't take you seriously. But when someone wants to put you on, you won't do it unless they roll out the comfy chair and let you accuse thousands of complicity to mass murder without having to answer any hard questions about it?

If you people don't have the stones for a little conflict, maybe it's best that you stay off television.

 
At 16 December, 2006 15:09, Blogger Pat said...

And so the Denial Movement gets represented by Uncle Fetzer instead of Jones? There is a God!

 
At 16 December, 2006 17:43, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think I know how this blog thinks about David Shaylor, but I'd take Shaylor over Fetzer.

 
At 17 December, 2006 04:06, Blogger Democrat said...

There has been an occasion in which Jones was on tv for 5 minutes in some sort of tv show.

And of course, this show doesn't have a name, a channel, or any other verifiable detail.


It seems that you have not seen the show I am talking about. No, I don't reserve space for remembering a show not worth looking at normally. If you mean to tell us that you haven't seen the show fragment with Dr Jones I am referring to, this gives us a good idea about how much you have actually picked up from Jones' work for 911 truth. Don't worry, video.google.com is littered with fragments of Jones' activities.

You can find it if you like.

He sent a WTC7 collapse video to the show, but when he was on, no video was shown. They started to put him under pressure to come up with a story for the remaining minutes.

And this was a crisis? One of the leading lights of the 9-11 Truth community not only can't make a point without complete control over the footage, but lacks the ability to fill 90 seconds of air time? Why didn't he just keep asking them to play the video, which you said he did "several times"?


Not a crisis, dishonest. WTC7 is a real eye opener for people that have only picked up the 'channeled' information about 911 from MSM.

If what you're saying is true, then Steven Jones is about as useless as Carrot Top without his prop suitcase.

That's your opinion.

perhaps the conditions set by the BBC were not acceptable for Jones to be interviewed for the show

Awwww, the conditions weren't acceptable? You Twoofers are constantly whining that mainstream media doesn't take you seriously. But when someone wants to put you on, you won't do it unless they roll out the comfy chair and let you accuse thousands of complicity to mass murder without having to answer any hard questions about it?


I don't know who you are referring to as Twoofers. It's something you must have thought of yourself. I'll just pass it for being irrelevant. Conditions is what I was talking about. Conditions can be favourable, or not. Moreover, I said 'perhaps'. You may have overlooked that.

So it's about Jonens, it's about conditions and about a tv show, and you come up with 'Twoofers', 'complicity of mass murder' and 'MSM not taking someone seriously'.

Who is having a problem here?

If you people don't have the stones for a little conflict, maybe it's best that you stay off television.

There is no 'you people', but maybe for you (a conspiracy?)? A little conflict is what you seem fond of.

 
At 17 December, 2006 08:24, Blogger The Artistic Macrophage said...

Democrat:

You know exactly what he is talking about when he says the word "twoofers", and when he refers to "you people". I know you are not that ignorant or dumb. There is a definite 9/11 "truth" movement, and he was referring to it when he spoke of "you people" and when he said "Twoofers", which is mock of the word "truthers".

You have posted here frequently enough, and for long enough to know exactly what he is talking about. Now if you are saying that you personally don't consider yourself part of the "truth" movement, than that is your perogative, but it is his perogative to express his opinion, which MAY be that he feels you are a "Twoofer".

TAM

 
At 17 December, 2006 09:42, Blogger Alex said...

Not a crisis, dishonest. WTC7 is a real eye opener for people that have only picked up the 'channeled' information about 911 from MSM.

What's dishonest is pointing at the WTC7 collapse video and yelling "SEEEE! IT LOOKS LIKE A CONTROLLED DEMOLITION!!!".

 
At 17 December, 2006 09:56, Blogger Triterope said...

Don't worry, video.google.com is littered with fragments of Jones' activities.

I'm quite aware of that. I'm interested in the particular program you are making allegations about, in hopes of investigating the matter myself to verify the validity of your statements. If you cannot provide this, I can only regard your allegations as false.

Not a crisis, dishonest.

There are also plenty of innocuous reasons for the show not to have aired this video. This is why I want to investigate the matter; to see if your claims are valid.

WTC7 is a real eye opener for people that have only picked up the 'channeled' information about 911 from MSM.

Yeah, Lord knows everyone who sees it on the Internet immediately converts to the conspiracy side. Not.

And once again, if Steven Jones had a real case about WTC7, the lack of video should not have been a fatal obstacle. He could have easily made his point without it, and directed viewers to the Internet for the video evidence.

That the point cannot be made without video evidence (a) makes the point look weak, and (b) makes Steven Jones look weak.

 
At 17 December, 2006 13:54, Blogger Democrat said...

It's all about impact through mass media. No one listens to a dull professor. It needs moving pictures, just like the Timberlake video clips.
The video would have made the difference.

They would not show it.

Period.

What were they afraid of?

And TAM, why should I be bothered by someone calling other people 'Twoofers'? It still means nothing to me.

 
At 17 December, 2006 17:37, Blogger R.Lange said...

Tsk, tsk, Democrat...

triterope asks you which program you're referring to and all you can say is, "They would not show it. Period."

That's pretty weak. I, too, have no choice but to assume your claim is false.

 
At 17 December, 2006 20:03, Blogger Triterope said...

Democrat,

Produce verifiable information about this program, or retract your allegation.

A link to wherever you heard the story would also be acceptable.

 
At 17 December, 2006 20:31, Blogger Alex said...

There's a very good reason not to show misleading videos on television. You're right, videos do have a disproportionate impact on people, and that's exactly why networks need to be careful about what they show. For instance, there's a video on YouTube from Fallujah of a bus, on fire, rolling down the street. The bus stops, a guy gets out and starts running, and promptly gets mowed down by machine gun fire. Ofcourse, anyone people seeing the video automatically think "oh my god, they just shot an unarmed civilian!". In reality, the bus was full of insurgents who, minutes before, had been firing wildly at the US forces.

Video evidence is good to have, but it needs to be taken in context with all other available information. That's why crime scenes and accidents are analyzed by professionals, and information is only released to the public once a reasonable conclusion has been drawn.

Same goes for WTC7. If you have some idiot on TV pointing at the tape and yelling "LOOK! IT LOOKS LIKE A CD!", you're going to have a lot of people swayed by that. That's because most people won't stop and think "wait a second...what else is it SUPPOSED to look like?", or "if it looks like a CD to me...wouldn't some of the experts have noticed it by now?". THAT is exactly why I, were I in their position, would refuse to air the video, unless I had an expert on hand who could refute the conspiracy idiots. Even then I might not bother. It's an unfair representation of the circumstances that plays on peoples ignorance in order to change their views. It's one of the most despicable methods employed by the conspiratoids.

 
At 20 December, 2006 08:43, Blogger Triterope said...

(SFX: crickets chirping)

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home