• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Merged BBC WTC7 Programme

~enigma~ said:
I really like the jerk with Luke that says "We think we're being lied to and we can prove that." Can someone explain that glaring logical contradiction?
Click to expand...

So, they can't prove that they're being lied to, they can only prove that they they THINK they are being lied to.
 
I thought it was as fairly done as possible, skirting right up to the line of being overly friendly to the "Truthers", especially early in the program. But that turned out to be a sound decision, because they had so much solid evidence that debunked the conspiracy theories.

Great moments:

1. Hearing the "Live Free or Die" song. I actually laughed when that came out of my speakers.

2. Seeing Mark and Ron. Great point about unconnected dots, Mark.

3. Nigro talking about how the conspiracy theories were obscene.

4. Loiseaux noting the harassment he and his people have undergone.

It was near perfect. What I liked the most was the shots of WTC-7 between the collapses; that was quite startling. Peruggia of course talks about it, but it's quite another thing to see it.

Lowlights: Dylan swearing; note how pinched up his face is at that point. Also Dylan trying to claim that Barry Jennings saw dead bodies. Jennings got a little overly dramatic, but he did not see dead bodies.
 
That was an excellent program, giving the truthers ample time to come up with an argument, only to have them debunked by real professionals. I think it was revealing that Jennings said he doesn't believe in a government conspiracy, and his statements were taken out of context, a slap in the face to the truthers who said he was being harassed by debunkers.

P.S. Thanks Walter Ego for providing the video, it was well worth it.
 
skepticalcriticalguy said:
Ok, so maybe it was 10 days ago. But regardless, the debunk was bunk.
Click to expand...

10 days ago? Are you unable to count?

The speculative "debunk" was only "bunk" because it turned out there was nothing to debunk in the first place. Once again, the leading lights of the "Truth" movement lied and misrepresented what a victim said but still can't admit they were wrong, and you don't care.
 
Doctor Evil said:
I did not like the show. Fairly shallow discussion, resulting in a he said, she said, type of argument. I would have preferred a deeper discussion on some of the points, but that's me.
Click to expand...

In fairness the programme is pitched more at the novice and casual observer of conspiracy theories. In that sense it gave a reasonable overview. If it'd done deep discussion then they'd have needed a full season of programmes, not just a one-off one hour broadcast.
 
Open Blinded said:
Listen to audio of Bermas and Alex Jones discussing the BBC "hit piece" if you can stomach it
Click to expand...

Funny though how they claimed the first programme was a 'hit piece' (even before it was actually broadcast) yet footage of Alex Jones appeared briefly in this one along with his more involved appearance in the first one, and Avery appeared heavily in both. I guess they'll just get whatever publicity they can take these days.
 
wooooody64 said:
At the end of the day, does it really matter? and that was my point. :)
Click to expand...

Well, yes, in a way, it does. The point is that conspiracy theorists don't seem to start by examining the evidence and then formulate a theory that agrees with as much of it as possible; rather, they seem to start with a predetermined point of view, then misinterpret, misrepresent and select from the evidence to support that point of view without ever formulating a theory at all. The "BBC was in on it" theory appears to have been formulated to shoehorn the Conspiracy Files documentary into the overarching conspiracy theory, and for this some further evidence had to be produced; a search was undertaken, and the erroneous report of the WTC7 collapse was duly discovered and blown up out of all proportion. Had it been a factor in the original formulation of truth movement opinions, wouldn't it have been widely publicised at the time just like "faster than freefall", automated missiles at the Pentagon, and every other truth movement canard?

Dave
 
Wow, if Dylan though that it was a good idea to be filmed for this, he surely shows how much of an idiot he is. THIS show, just ruined him for life; he came off a snot nosed kid, who has demonstratedly no respect for those who KNOW more than he does.
 
I loved it, I thought it was great.

Even for expeirenced debunkers, the show provides tons of youtube video-bites that can be handily used to devastate twoofer talking points.

I also foubnd it interesting to put faces and voices to eyewitnesses from that day that until now I had only read about.

Good show all around.

One more thing; does anyone here know how to save google videos locally?
 
On Loose Change Forum:

look-up said:
so they lied about Barry Jennings, then. Classic.

To ommit something like the explosions he heard, is truly a lie, isn't it? Should we kid ourselves about definitions now? They are lying to us every time we turn on the "tube"... thats for my brittish friends!
Click to expand...

No, that's what we ride to work, not our televisions.
 
Not terrible, could be much better

At the end of the show, Lieutenant Frank Papalia said

"I think they have no respect for all the friends of mine that I lost, for all the people that died that day, it's like a slap in their face."

However, I don't believe any firemen were lost in WTC 7, so this quote seems to be cherry-picked in order to cast aspersions on WTC7 conspiracy claimants. (To be sure, all of these will be 911 Conspiracy claimants, but the show's focus is about WTC 7.) I don't think that's showing respect for Lieutenant Papalia, even if he feels that way, personally. Besides the cherry-picking aspect, I can't help wonder about the placement of this segment at the very end of the show. Is that because this is what we are supposed to remember, above all else? Is this simply a propaganda ploy?

Furthermore, although I thought the program was balanced, if I was an honest investigative journalist I would have certainly re-interviewed Jowenko, showed him the clips of Loizeaux, and then asked for a response. An EXPERT response. Why didn't BBC do this?

The question of the sound and window-shattering effects of CD explosives is raised. But, unfortunately, the question of the sound associated with various formulations of nano-thermite detonations, of different intensities, is not discussed in the program. This is a technical question, but one which the BBC, which obviously had some kind of budget, could have pursued. Apparently, they either didn't think of it, didn't try, or tried and failed. I can't tell from watching the program, can you?

I also have questions as how many firemen were even in the building, since, as the program showed, the collapses caused failures in the water system. Are firemen in the habit of rambling through a building, with either no water-supplied firehoses, or else an insufficient amount of them? I should think not. Therefore, a serious investigative reporter would have asked such rather obvious questions, and tried to quantifiy the amount of water that was applied to the building, especially from the inside, vs. what was necessary. That would have provided some type of cross-check as to how many firemen were inside the building, or at least how many would have made sense to be inside the building. The question of how many firemen were inside the building is non-trivial, since if the building was jury-rigged quickly on 9/11 for CD, large numbers of them might well have seen CD artifacts. The NIST guy, Dr. Shyam Sunder, gave what I thought was a rather disingenous argument, when he pointed out that a column which has lost structural integrity can fail quickly.

Duh.

The question is, how could ENOUGH of the columns fail so quickly that a symmetrical collapse is produced. There's a large time span, so perhaps some kind of argument could be made that sequential losses of columns' structural integrity occurred relatively slowly, but that a critical number was attained only over a brief time span. Why was the BBC not astute enough to ask a rather obvious question of Dr. Sunder? Especially since they interview ae911truth's Kamal Obeid, a structural engineer, who expresses doubt that simultaneous collapse of all columns is possible, even if local failures of one or two are not. Instead, they have incorporated a non-explanation explanation into their show.

If we had wanted that, we could have just asked the government - they're just full of non-explanations!

Perhaps the best example of how non-critical the BBC program was is when they showed Dr. Gene Corley. Dr. Gene Corley tells us that evidence for controlled demolition was looked for, but no details are provided. Oh, heck, why would the BBC want to bother Dr. Corley for such details, just because they're doing a show on WTC 7 CD claims?

In sum, the BBC program was balanced, but of questionable fairness, as it was unquestionably non-critical. (In fairness, I note that it could have been more critical of the CD proponents, also.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom