After some Googling I found this.

"On February 18, 2007, the BBC broadcasted an hour-long episode which it claimed would examine and answer the questions of the 9-11 truth movement. However, both the episode and the written Q&A turned out to be attacks on the skeptics rather than a true investigation. The public was presented with a heavily controlled and edited discussion, which was rigged in favour of the official story. Worse yet, propaganda techniques were used to portray the opponents of the official story unfairly. Techniques included: manipulative camerawork, personal attacks and a show which focussed on only the weakest evidence presented by the opponents of the official story.

The aim of this article is to address the inaccurate rebuttals offered by the BBC, as well as to analyse the propaganda techniques and reiterate the questions that the BBC failed to address."

Debunking BBC Blogspot
From Alex Jone's PrisonPlanet - What The BBC Program left out...
First debunk by Alex Jones's PrisonPlanet

I still don't know what to make of it. But as a video maker, I must say this is sophisticated hit and run journalism.

*snort*

A website with that URL is making accusations of bias?

The thing is this issue is a proverbial hall of mirrors. But's really hard to deny the fact that there was criminal negligence on the behalf of America's security contingent. Furthermore the measures since 9/11 aren't working, intelligence agencies still don't operate cohesively, there has been a massive loss of civil liberties under the banner of war. And I honestly don't like that the documentary fails to make that point in closing.

All of which happened under the Republicans' watch, which further stupefies the sane among us as to why they're still considered the party of national defense.

If I could downvote Alex Jones' voice I'd do it.
Good documentary though, remember watching it on the box.

No one who's nutty enough to believe there was a conspiracy is going to believe anything other than what they want to believe - they would simply lose too much face. And it looks like some of them don't have anything else to do with their lives or are actually making money off these delusions.

It's kind of naively sweet that one of the conspiracy nuts quotes a fictional character (Sherlock Holmes) to make a point.

What strikes me most watching this is the fevered egos of the conspiracy theorists;
they remind me of religious fanatics in that they're so sure of their conclusion that they'll pick bits that support their theories and throw away the majority.

Sorry, but I'll take Popular Mechanics over some snot with a Radio Shack laptop any day.
I see no evidence of "hit and run journalism" here; I see systematic reporting on hit and run conspiracy theorists.

Well Theo am glad you posted because your comment clearly shows that this docu-drama had had it's intended effect.

Simple video comparison between how the conspirators are portrayed and the debunkers are it's easy to throw out their arguments. It's Film-making 101.

It's called subject framing, notice that when the conspirators are shown it's angled right at their faces, something at first I found disturbing but in reality it's basically what you mentioned. It makes them seem in the "You're with us or against us camp". I loved it when it shook with the guy as he leaned that was just laughably transparent. Notice how each person is presented. Vigilantes. Just how American Southerns are often framed on BBC, see Top Gear sift.

They are only allowed to speak in fragments heavily edited, their entire case was not made. That Loose Change guy is sold to us as a someone who profited from the get-go, but you must remember he made Loose Change before he profited from it. Alex Jones is framed in the position of lunatic, which arguably he is. All shown in places that create emotional distrust in the viewer. I mean the guys bedroom with the plasma TV...

But these are 3 people out of hundreds that raise what at times I believe are reasonable questions under the Freedom of Information Act.

When the debunkers are shown they are framed in places of emotional authority, WTC site, stated they were there, and such. They way they are presented you'd have to be dead not to emote with them.

9/11 was terrible. This is true and no one denies this. However when objectivity is lost in a BBC documentary to such an extent it is troubling.

Personally the negativity just towards the discussion of this is troubling, it sounds exactly what was said after JFK and the questions about that started to arise. It took Oliver Stone's JFK to give the idea some credibility in the mainstream, at least towards finding out what happened. What about Watergate, if there was no Deep throat, Nixon could have stayed on and that would be a conspiracy theory now for us too.

Am sorry it's just not blatant like Fox News for you. But we all know the BBC is better at TV.

Farhad, you're not much of a "video maker" if you don't recognize the need to edit a lot of information into a tolerable amount of time.

I have absolutely no doubt that the conspiracy theorists they interviewed went on and on and on; editing their rants down to their most interesting bites is necessity, especially for an hour program which covered that much ground.

You will not find one instance of a documentary that does not have a point of view; it's quite impossible to find a point of view that will satisfy every viewer, as your need to find nefariousness in camera angles and interview techniques shows.

The BBC is not being unfair by showing conspiracy theorists to be the crackpots they are. They even went so far as to show that conspiracies do happen, as with the cover-ups of Watergate, Iran-Contra, and post-9/11 investigations.

Theo, please. I think you know exactly what I meant. Separate your personal feelings about this issue and think objectively. Remeber this sift? Look at your comment there. You were right, that was a great documentary, giving voice to people from both sides of the issue without personalized attacks against the people Here is an extract so you can remind yourself, because Google pulled the original.

When it comes to the pivotal moment of the 21st Century that has changed the way our world is in mere 6 years. I think it needs a far more credible, balanced and objective discussion. Slick television doesn't satisfy me, and it only fans the flames of these crackpots.

If I remember correctly, that was a very pro-Palestinian documentary, which was refreshing because you don't often see their point of view in the American media, which goes back to my point about all docs having a point of view.

However, a reporter's obligation is to the facts, not this here's-both-sides-and-you-decide crap that the American media is passing off as "fair and balanced".

Sometimes the facts are clearly on one side or the other, and that's obviously the case here.
Religious arguments would no more be allowed as fact on the Sift or any other reasonable place, so why should faith-based arguments about what 9/11 crackpots believe but have no evidence for be any different?

I don't even believe in 9-11 conspiracies, but I thought that this documentary was pure crap. There is nothing new or intelligent here - they pull out a few of the more ridiculous 9-11 claims, frame them in a bad light, and then offer 'expert opinion' as evidence to the contrary. Yawn.

they pull out a few of the more ridiculous 9-11 claims

LOL - is there any other kind?

This realy is a piss pore documentry that simply is designd not to shine light on things but to make people dismiss opisotoin to the oficeal story. you would have hoped that the bbc could have dismissed all the stupid consipicy theries and actualy done some research into this. there are a cuple of key issues that need looking at

boulding 7 colaps although it is mentoind in this documentry the structure of the reporting sides with the non consiprcy people and the last coment ends with sajestoin saying the oficeal report is sead to conclude that the boulding WAS NOT DEMOLISHED the emphasis on the last words is actualaly a method used in hypnosis to convay relavence to aireas of a sentence that in reality have equal relivence to the rest of the sentence.

it didnot look at fall velocities and how the bouldings fell at free fall
it didnot investigate the varouse sound recordings that record multiple explisoins before and during the colaps

additoinaly to all this alix jones is a compleat cock and lose change is just a bad documentry as this bbc one. why dident the bbc look at some of the decent documentries out there ore evan better look at the evidence for themselfs. the priority should be findinf the truth not tring to prove a predetermd piont that you have come to.

OMG HOW STUPID ARE PEOPLE THE LOSE CHANGE KID IS AN IDOIT the bbc are idoits alix jones is an idoit. can people stop been compleat and utter retards and look at things objectivly.

westy, have you met choggie?

I think you two have a lot in common.

Haha

Theo, in the World Trade Center bombing (February 26, 1993) a car bomb was detonated by Arab Islamist terrorists in the underground parking garage below Tower One of the World Trade Center in New York City. The 1,500-lb (680Kg) urea nitrate-fuel oil device killed six and injured 1,042 people. It was intended to devastate the foundation of the North Tower, causing it to collapse onto its twin.

I don't remember going to War to Afghanistan (which prolly should have happened at least to capture Bin Laden), or war on terror or even to Iraq based off this attack.

Before 9/11 there was long term knowledge of attack, that amounts to criminal negligence, given the previous attacks in 1993, the Oklahoma City bombing and other terrorist acts the fact that this information was not acted on is shocking to say the least. The events of 9/11 created the perfect opportunity for the US to secure long-term oil and gas supplies from Central Asia and the Middle East. If you think that's conspiracy I think you should read US Military force deployments from http://www.globalsecurity.com.

Read about the 17 FOBs in Iraq, the fact that the Pentagon is building a permanent military communications system in Iraq, in a you know sovereign nation that is 'not' going though civil war. What about the largest buttoned down military facility for an US embassy, the size of the Vatican?
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article712424.ece

But you know back in 2002, the American people got fooled into going to War in Iraq. Which had nothing to do with 9/11, yet was easily sold to the American public due to the fear created post 9/11. Questioning the war back them was unpatriotic, yet look at events now. Is the US goverment directly implicated? Probably NOT. Did they use the situation post 9/11 to implement their own imperialistic polices. DEFINITELY.

Am sorry I studied too much history to suddenly think that the most highly trained and specialized intelligence community in the world would fail due to sheer negligence and confusion as stated by the documentary, to defend it's country against threats foreign and domestic.

There is nothing George Bush or any person can tell me, to make me believe that Al Qadea is somehow better trained then the KGB. That's just stupidity.

"Jordanian intelligence (the GID) makes a communications intercept deemed so important that King Abdullah's men relay it to Washington. The message states that a major attack, code named “The Big Wedding,” is planned inside the US and that aircraft will be used. [International Herald Tribune, 5/21/02; Christian Science Monitor, 5/23/02]"
http://www.americanhiroshima.info/911warnings.htm

A mainstream channel like this is unlikely to end up supporting a conspiracy theory so you could argue they are "biased" from the start.

I'm not sure what you mean Farhad, if they had interviewed the Loose Change guy next to the WTC site he would have had a fairer hearing? The fact is they interviewed several key witnesses who people can either believe or not believe.

There's been a number of years for people to take in 9/11. But even though I resent the way the BBC wastes license-payers money this wasn't one of those times. I'll take their journalism over a crackpot's anytime.

What I mean is this:

"If the BBC was serious about addressing the actual questions that arise post 9/11, they would NOT have questioned Loose Change people. They should have addressed the questions, not the people who raised them, covering the people before the issue which is expected in a objective discussion is called character assassination. And they have succeeded, they picked the 3 most lost people who got played and didn't even realize it.

Currently the program is sold to the viewer as being an honest reevaluation of the events of 9/11, then it proceeds to place in front of you the Loose Change guy, and then attack just 3 of the points raised by the 9/11 movement. Not only that they pick 3 of the most dubious people to represent this issue. So to me this program currently amounts to nothing more then yellow journalism. To me it's especially troubling because 9/11 is such an important event, so much has changed due to it. And it drives me mad how the American public has a 15 second memory when it comes to how they got to Iraq in the first place, what has happened and what is going on. Then the same guy gets re-elected."

But maybe it's true, am crackpot and studied too much of Propaganda for the People 101 from Joseph Goebbels.

That's a good point.

It's interesting that by framing the the issues in this context the viewer is essentially being asked to form an opinion on the basis of whether they like the person being presented.

Personally I'm able to filter that out, I've never been convinced of the claims and I doubt that more credible conspiracy theorists would change my mind.

In the BBC's defence, how do you make a programme about 9/11 without upsetting a substantial number of people? I don't think you can.

My personal belief is that we must always address the questions of the people no matter how ridiculous initial claims are.

- Copernicus was prosecuted for his ideas about the Solar system.
- Galileo was prosecuted for his ideas.
- We still can't separate religion from goverment policy. In the US and elsewhere.
- Gulf of Tonkin incident was ridiculed as well, then it turned out to be dubious.
- Agent Orange is still claimed to have caused no harmful effects.
- Depleted uranium still is denied having any effects post Gulf War 1 and Gulf War 2.
- PTSD was only identified post-Vietnam when effects were seen in WW2, at the time they were dismissed as 'battle fatigue' and 'cowardice'.
- We went to Iraq for WMD. Don't let the smoking gun be a mushroom cloud.
- The US administrations handling of the war is claimed to be reactionary in light of overwhelming odds, when it reality is it failing due to mismanagement and poor planning.

And on and on and on....

From the perspective of documentary style, I don't see too much difference between something like this and The Power of Nightmares. I agree with you, Farhad, that the BBC presenters provide more visual cues than necessary that the 9/11 Conspiracy Crowd is bonkers (in their view). But I disagree strongly that you always have to address specious "questions from the people" in the archetypal "fair and balanced" way. Fair and Balanced is often an excuse for a documentary director to turn off the camera and turn on the microphone. Alex Jones is clearly unmoored from fact and discoverable reality and a good documentary presentation demonstrates how he is unhinged. To blithly compare someone like Alex Jones to Copernicus/Galileo . . .well . . .this way lies madness.

News documentaries like this one should always have a critical perspective. Intelligent people can discern the perspective. Sheep will be sheep even if you just turn on the camera and microphone.

Farhad, I also think that you vastly overrate a perceived unitary structure within the executive branch of the American Government. You offer compelling sites showing that evidence certainly existed (of the attacks, of the lack of WMD). The most highly trained and specialized intelligence unit does not have area specialists who are Arabs. The Federal Bureau of Investigation also does not have area specialists. And these two groups interact like Italian principalities in the 1500s. It takes coordination to use and apply evidence in an intelligent way and the Bush Admin. coordinates nothing. Finally, I don't believe that anyone working in the Congress or Executive Branch was "fooled" into going to Iraq. We all are aware that is a vast oversimplication to say that the U.S. is there for WMD. It is larger than that. The United States is there for much larger geopolitical aims of the New American Century

Am sorry I guess it's bad for me to use the words "fair and balanced", I just remembered it's FOX News banner. I meant objective.

I know the wider geopolitical implications of the New American Century. However to mention them in this forum, with this video would sap it of it's actual gravitas. Furthermore, irregardless of the reasons that were outlined it is sad to see the day that politics now are no more then politics in times of Rome. Not a single person in their position of power could actually follow through how events would play out?

There hasn't been a single military foreign policy intervention under the use of force that hasn't backfired back to the US. CIA... BLOWBACK...

Politics has always been about the consolidation of power. I don't believe that it is a historical trend/mistake that we are doomed to repeat; rather, it is just embedded in the DNA of human existence.

I don't think that the BBC chose the most lunatic of the fringe here. All of these men have been making the public relations rounds and likely contacted BBC to advance their viewpoint (no doubt thinking that they would have a more sympathetic source than FauxNews . . .hah suckers)

When you are outside of the mainstream in law or public policy, you must strive put your best case forward and downplay any lunatic fringe that may be attached to your cause. Unfortunately for the 9/11 truth movement, the lunatic fringe is the public face of the movement. It happens.

My objection on a politcal level to providing any sort of traction to 9/11 Truthies is that they are such a wanky, scattered, superfluous movement. They don't confront real and actual structural evils either within this current Administration or within the current relationship between the West and radical or moderate Islam. "Bush Lied, People Died" or "Israel Brought Down the Towers" is more of an obstinate and evasive tactic to confronting these problems. It is the 21st Century version of the Know Nothing Party.

Farhad, try to stay on message - this is not a documentary about the inner goings on of the U.S. government leading up to 9/11, it's about conspiracy theories. This is one episode in a series of docs on conspiracy theories; Diana's death, JFK, etc. etc.

I'm sorry this doc wasn't exhaustive enough for you, but it was never intended to cover the vast amount of area you're complaining about - just conspiracy theories.

If you want meatier investigations, go back and watch some of PBS' Frontline episodes on the lead-up to the war; they're excellent. But don't crucify the BBC because they were covering a different topic entirely.

There's great comfort for the loons in believing sinister yet civilized men within a Western government planned 9-11. The truth the loons don't want to face is that islamofascist savages exist, are a credible threat to world peace and are deserving of complete and utter extermination. Have a nice day.

By Watching This Video I Can Say Without A Doubt, 9/11 Never Happend.




jk, lqtm

*dead

This published video has been declared non-functional; embed code must be fixed within 2 days or it will be sent to the dead pool - declared dead by burdturgler.

rasch187 has fixed this video's dead embed code - no Power Points awarded because rasch187's points are already fully charged.

*conspiracy

Adding video to channels (Conspiracy) - requested by EndAll.

*dead

This video has been declared non-functional; embed code must be fixed within 2 days or it will be sent to the dead pool - declared dead by eric3579.