Sunday, February 18, 2007

BBC 9-11 CT Show

Reports are starting to come in on the BBC's new show, 9/11: The Conspiracy Files. The Deniers have been waging pre-emptive warfare against the show by claiming it was a hit piece. Our fellow debunkers at 9-11 Cultwatch, which now has a blog seems to like the debunking section:

Several of the key issues to 9/11 "Truth activists" were debated - the attack on the Pentagon, the collapse of WTC 7 and the fate of the fourth plane, Flight 93. Anyone who has tried to debunk some of the dafter 9/11 theories will have some sympathy for the Indiana academic who expressed his shock at the abuse received when he published his findings into the Pentagon attack. We know how he feels! The dangers of web based research were suggested by the anomalies concerning Flight 93 wreckage - many "researchers" had calculated the mileage from crash site to debris by road mileage, using the Internet, not how the crowd flies. Some people really do need to get out more beyond their computer screens.

But they were not pleased with other parts:

Due to the safe old image of the BBC, the need to reach a nice fluffy middle of the road conclusion was hardly a surprise. Yes there was a conspiracy, but it was of the arse-covering, don't question Capitol Hill variety. Perhaps so - but also being the BBC no hard questions were raised about some of the biggest 9/11 issues. Not what did the Americans knew before hand - what did Saudi Arabia know? What did Pakistan know?

Such questions are not on the BBC's radar. Here they cannot claim ignorance - Senator Bob Graham from the Congressional Inquiry into 9/11 was interviewed. Graham has expressed his considerable frustrations at the lack of a desire in Washington to look into the behaviour of Saudi Arabia, but you would never have got that impression from this documentary.

Such questions are on our radar, as they should be for any serious researchers. For the BBC, taking on the likes of Alex Jones using taxpayers money is one thing. Messing with the Saudi's is clearly quite another.....

I am hoping the show will pop up on YouTube or Google and will post it here if I find it.

Labels: , ,


At 18 February, 2007 17:10, Blogger CHF said...

Dylan Avery, Alex Jones and James Fetzer.

Any movement with these morons as spokespeople is toast.

From what I hear on JREF they came off looking like the loons that they are.

At 18 February, 2007 20:14, Blogger BG said...

"morons", "loons"

Can't you fit a few more insults in.

Seems like your "insulting word" to total word ratio is falling below %10 (2/32).

At 19 February, 2007 01:39, Blogger muckers said...

"From what I hear on JREF they came off looking like the loons that they are. "

That was the disappointing aspect of the documentary. With the theories Avery, Jones and Fetzer put foward, and the facts that the BBC gave to the contrary, there was plenty of opportunity for them to show those three up.

But they flapped it.


At 19 February, 2007 06:25, Blogger BG said...


You aren't going to attempt to answer to my questions, are you?

1. What was Bush talking about when his said interrogation of KSM uncovered how bombs were planted in the WTC?

2. Did anybody act unlawfully in relation to the outing of Valerie Plame Wilson?

At 19 February, 2007 12:34, Blogger Alex said...

WTF does that have to do with anything? Here, look, I can do that too:

1) WHAT, is your name?
2) WHAT, is your favourite colour?
2) WHAT, is the average wingspeed of an unladen swallow?

At 19 February, 2007 18:34, Blogger shawn said...

1. What was Bush talking about when his said interrogation of KSM uncovered how bombs were planted in the WTC?

That's not actually what he said.

At 20 February, 2007 00:15, Blogger Der Bruno Stroszek said...

BG, he answered those questions in the comments section of the post you asked him those questions in. Surprisingly.


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home