Sunday, February 18, 2007

BBC Show

Excellent stuff.

Can't seem to get the first part up but here are parts 2-7. A little too focused on failures rather than a system-wide failure of imagination perhaps, but otherwise rather solid. I love Dylan Avery telling Popular Mechanics to go back to reviewing tractors.











Labels: , ,

25 Comments:

At 18 February, 2007 22:59, Blogger BG said...

I watched a small part of Fetzer talking about the Pentagon. Fetzer is over-acting. This performance rachets up my distrust of Fetzer and every thing he's had his hand in.

 
At 19 February, 2007 00:08, Blogger BG said...

Reviewed the record....

With 9/11 Truth, Fetzer came extremely late (Dec., 2005) to the Party.

With 20/20 hindsight, looks like he was tasked to monitor / neutralize S. Jones.

 
At 19 February, 2007 00:09, Blogger BG said...

Tracing the Entry of Fetzer into the 9/11 Truth Movement

 
At 19 February, 2007 00:46, Blogger The Reverend Schmitt., FCD. said...

It was actually surprisingly good. I loved Dylan Avery getting smacked around by the reporter on his more obvious lies and misquotations by omission (the guy's known about them for years for God's sake), and seeing some structural engineers and independent experts giving their direct opinions on specific conspiracy theories was absolutely fascinating. There was a lot of good, original stuff in the documentary. Fetzer looked a right old joke, totting out the old standards before being demolished by reality. Good stuff.

I liked the bit on the 9/11 Commission Report too, especially the exposure of the administrations' obvious attempts to hide specific mistakes or create an impression of being on top of things which simply wasn't genuine. Far from being a whitewash the Commission revealed a number of inconsistencies and what could only have been lies. This is the real bloody cover up, and conspiracy theorists have helped relegate it to the realms of irrelevancy by trying to stuff it into the messes of their non-theories.

 
At 19 February, 2007 01:32, Blogger muckers said...

I didn't like it. Too much time wasted on the "4000 Jews" crap, and not enough solid debunking in there.

Granted, it shifted a lot of the theories aside with some statements from other people (such as PM), but it didn't go out of its way to disprove the theories and say "They're wrong, here's what happened."

They didn't do a great deal on the "WTC demolition" theory, which was an opportunity missed - easily the most talked about theories and the most widely accepted in teh conspiracy theory community.

 
At 19 February, 2007 05:55, Blogger BG said...

I didn't like it. Too much time wasted on the "4000 Jews" crap,

Maybe they should do a follow-up show on 9/11 Truth conspiracies and Holocaust deniers.

 
At 19 February, 2007 06:24, Blogger Swing Dangler said...

Pat, I see you are still pushing the 'failure to imagine' conspiracy theory which has been debunked over and over. You've got to find another excuse for 9/11, brother.

 
At 19 February, 2007 06:37, Blogger Swing Dangler said...

Yet another expert on the Fake Bin Laden confession tape...

http://mujca.com/hoax.htm

 
At 19 February, 2007 06:51, Blogger Swing Dangler said...

http://debunking-bbc.blogspot.com/

BBC program debunked..

 
At 19 February, 2007 10:21, Blogger Cl1mh4224rd said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 19 February, 2007 10:26, Blogger Cl1mh4224rd said...

Apparently in Barrett's world writing a single book about bin Laden makes someone a "Top U.S. Bin Laden Expert".

What a nut.

 
At 19 February, 2007 11:05, Blogger CHF said...

Nice "debunking" of the BBC, Swing.

A lot of Prisonplanet links in there plus some of the usual "the BBC doesn't say that this is disputed among twoofers" (ie. we can't get our fucking act together).

 
At 19 February, 2007 11:07, Blogger Der Bruno Stroszek said...

I disagree, muckers, I thought they spent just enough time on the controlled demolition idea. The tone of the documentary was fairly neutral, but once you've heard the guy from Popular Mechanics come out with a plausible explanation for the 'explosions' shown in Loose Change, then cut to Dylan blustering about how they don't know anything and they're amateurs, it's hard for the viewer to draw any conclusion other than "Dylan Avery is full of shit".

I think this might be the best piece on 9/11 conspiracies I've seen in the mainstream media - honest, well-researched and without that irritating "who knows what happened that day, but for Dylan Avery it's blah blah blah plug for Final Cut" tone you usually get in magazine articles about the Loosers. A few things I'd have done differently, and a fair amount of ground not covered, but considering it's a one-hour show about an increasingly splintered and digressive movement, they did a good job of getting most of the main points across.

 
At 19 February, 2007 11:48, Blogger Falco98 said...

http://debunking-bbc.blogspot.com/
BBC program debunked..


convincing, MAYBE, to those here who haven't been around long enough to recognize all the strawmen that "debunking" is brimming with. it's kinda sad when even I, one who doesn't spend a whole lot of time here, instantly recognize no fewer than 5 or 10 old-standard 911 myths, recirculated here as "debunkings".

 
At 19 February, 2007 14:51, Blogger shawn said...

Pat, I see you are still pushing the 'failure to imagine' conspiracy theory which has been debunked over and over.

There was no plot prior to 9/11 to fly planes into landmarks. The closest was Bojinka.

 
At 19 February, 2007 15:04, Blogger Realist06 said...

Lame, sloppy movie, proves nothing.
Lots of straw men, ignores so many aspects about 9/11 that have never been explained. Of course the producer had a bias going in. You guys at screw loose change can add this to your artillery. They set out to prove that ALL 9/11 conspiracy theories were wrong, problem is, that means that even the official story is wrong and we're left with nothing. Ridiculous!

 
At 19 February, 2007 15:11, Blogger Swing Dangler said...

There was no plot prior to 9/11 to fly planes into landmarks.

Okay, Shawn, you are either a denier, ignorant, or just uniformed.

On 9/11, CIA Was Running Simulation of a Plane Crashing into a Building
http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/
cia-simulation.htm
gency planned exercise on Sept. 11 built around a plane crashing into a building
www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2002/08/21/national1518EDT0686.DTL
JOHN J. LUMPKIN, Associated Press Writer Wednesday, August 21, 2002
(08-21) 15:08 PDT WASHINGTON (AP) --
"Agency planned exercise on Sept. 11 built around a plane crashing into a building"
By John J. Lumpkin, Associated Press
WASHINGTON [September 2002]

"In what the government describes as a bizarre coincidence, one U.S. intelligence agency was planning an exercise last Sept. 11 in which an errant aircraft would crash into one of its buildings.

Ever read about the NRO practice on 9/11 regarding a plane crashing into their building? Look it up.

Pentagon and MASCAL? See the military's own website.

OHHH But wait I'm sure you will, say it was for an accident not a terrorist attack. Aww shucks, I guess the motive of the plane's pilot makes you right, huh?. LOL

Anyway, to use the failure to imagine reason makes the National Security structure of the United States appear to be totally incompetent. They aren't. They know exactly what they are doing.

Besides if there was a 'failure' who is blamed for the failure? Who should have been shit canned? What brilliant mind in the National Security Structure is responsible for imainging how terrorists will strike the U.S.? Find that out and that person should be fired. Or perhaps you are completely wrong.
And by clenching to the 'failure to imagine' theory you make the huge assumption of knowing exactly what goes on in the halls of the NSA, CIA, NRO, DIA, etc. Don't be so foolish.

 
At 19 February, 2007 15:16, Blogger The Reverend Schmitt., FCD. said...

Lots of straw men

Can't really straw man a movement which lacks a coherent theory.

They set out to prove that ALL 9/11 conspiracy theories were wrong,

They did? Fascinating. Incidentally 'conspiracy theories' is a compound noun and doesn't mean what you think it means.

 
At 19 February, 2007 15:21, Blogger The Reverend Schmitt., FCD. said...

Swing Dangler said...
Aww shucks, I guess the motive of the plane's pilot makes you right


Yes, if you pay attention to what he actually says, you do address a straw man. Well spotted.

God it's so precious seeing you stumbling around.

 
At 19 February, 2007 16:04, Blogger shawn said...

"In what the government describes as a bizarre coincidence, one U.S. intelligence agency was planning an exercise last Sept. 11 in which an errant aircraft would crash into one of its buildings.

Goddamn you're an idiot.

Taking a plane and using it as a missle is totally different than someone losing control and crashing.

 
At 19 February, 2007 17:55, Blogger ConsDemo said...

Another great part is when they describe the actions of the twoofers in response to the group that verified a plane crash into the Pentagon. Also, look at their dishonest slander of the air force pilot.

Their description of Fetzer implies more credibility than he deserves. There is mention of his former academic career and alleged military service. I didn't hear that he is a long time conspiracy nut.

Alex Jones is dishonest lying asswipe. He is no more "loyal" to this country than Benedict Arnold and his "concern for his life" is laughable. He has been slandering this country for years and continues to do so, exactly how is this imbecile under threat?

Frank Spotnitz was spot on in his analysis of the conspiratoids. Of course they smear him.

 
At 20 February, 2007 00:28, Blogger Der Bruno Stroszek said...

Did anyone see A Scanner Darkly? That bit where Jones was tasered and bundled into a van by government agents really made me roll my eyes - Alex Jones dreams of that happening, it's the only thing that would give his sad little crusade any validity. In reality, even if the US was a fascist state, they still wouldn't take any action against Alex Jones, because he's just too ridiculous to take seriously. His hectoring manner, shockingly poor standards of fact-checking and uncritical embrace of any woo-woo who comes his way make him a sort of auto-debunking figure. You can't possibly discredit him more than he discredits himself every time he opens his mouth.

The Fetzer thing is a good example of why I enjoyed this documentary - the editorial comment was neutral, even sympathetic. The reason why the CTers are calling this a "hit piece" is because Fetzer opened his mouth and talked gibberish. The people from the BBC knew that all you have to do with these people is sit back and give them enough rope to hang themselves. Or maybe Fetzer and Avery only looked like fools because of those darned Jedi mind tricks again?

 
At 20 February, 2007 06:05, Blogger muckers said...

I disagree, muckers, I thought they spent just enough time on the controlled demolition idea. The tone of the documentary was fairly neutral, but once you've heard the guy from Popular Mechanics come out with a plausible explanation for the 'explosions' shown in Loose Change, then cut to Dylan blustering about how they don't know anything and they're amateurs, it's hard for the viewer to draw any conclusion other than "Dylan Avery is full of shit".

I dunno, I guess I was disappointed at the fact that out of all the experts in both the demolition industry and the structural egineering/fire science industry, that there were loads of experts who they could've interviewed to provide a more complete blowing out of the water of Avery's film.

I'll give it another watch, but I reckon when compared to the stuff shown in SLC, it seems a bit timid and thin.

 
At 21 February, 2007 10:52, Blogger Falco98 said...

http://video.google.de/videoplay?docid=8331629640228117189

 
At 22 February, 2007 00:26, Blogger Der Bruno Stroszek said...

I agree it's not as comprehensive as some of the debunkings on this site, but this site's been running for just shy of a year and there are no limitations (as far as I can tell) on post length. Considering that the BBC filmmakers had to press five years of conspiracy theorizing and rebuttals into one hour, I think they did as well as could be expected.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home