bbc will talk about 911 theories sunday

dunkman

sapperskunk wrote:

Trust me, I'm not comparing it to US news sources, I'm merely stating they're just as bad.

I was in Kosovo in December of 2000. I was conducting a mission along the serbian border when we came under some extremely limited small arms fire. Nobody was hurt, everyone was fine. We didn't return fire because it came from the other side of the border, from a bad sniper or something.

Anyway, the BBC caught wind. Since nothing else was going on in the world, this was big news. About five hours later when we were back at our camp watching television, our story came on. The BBC blew it way out of proportion and reported "unconfirmed" accounts of how many could be hurt or killed. Also, those assholes showed a picture of one FUCKED up HMMWV. It was on fire and looked like somebody wrecked it. Our Hmmwv had one hole through the tarp on the top that could have been necessarily cause by anything.

Our commander was pissed the fuck off. He filed reports, confronted the reporter, talked to his superior and reported it to our JAG. But nothing came out of it.

That's why the BBC's bullshit.

thats one event... no disrespect to you but that one reporters bad journalism does not a news agency make!!

i think the BBC is the most highly respected news agency out there... and they have the respect of their peers, no arguments there...

Collin

sapperskunk wrote:

That's why the BBC's bullshit.

You based your opinion on that event? One event that happened more than six years ago?

sapperskunk

Collin wrote:

You based your opinion on that event? One event that happened more than six years ago?

That one event was kind of a big deal. But I guess you don't mind being lied to.

And that's one report that I KNOW of, because it happened to me. How many other times has this shit gone on and nobody's the wiser?

And what does six years ago have to do with it? Within those six years, the BBC could have spun and bullshitted thousands of stories.

RavennaSeattle1911

sapperskunk wrote:

Trust me, I'm not comparing it to US news sources, I'm merely stating they're just as bad.

I was in Kosovo in December of 2000. I was conducting a mission along the serbian border when we came under some extremely limited small arms fire. Nobody was hurt, everyone was fine. We didn't return fire because it came from the other side of the border, from a bad sniper or something.

Anyway, the BBC caught wind. Since nothing else was going on in the world, this was big news. About five hours later when we were back at our camp watching television, our story came on. The BBC blew it way out of proportion and reported "unconfirmed" accounts of how many could be hurt or killed. Also, those assholes showed a picture of one FUCKED up HMMWV. It was on fire and looked like somebody wrecked it. Our Hmmwv had one hole through the tarp on the top that could have been necessarily cause by anything.

Our commander was pissed the fuck off. He filed reports, confronted the reporter, talked to his superior and reported it to our JAG. But nothing came out of it.

That's why the BBC's bullshit.

they are liars- lieing trash

in usa i have 3 tvs and can record a show or 3 at same time

i get the idea in uk you have to pay a taxxxxxxxxxxxxxx and have one tv unless youre rich

RavennaSeattle1911

http://prisonplanet.com/articles/february2007/190207tissueoflies.htm

BBC Hit Piece a Tissue of Lies, Bias and Emotional Manipulation
Outraged truth community demands answers from Guy Smith, immediate retractions and apologies urged, savage agenda driven yellow journalism an insult to the truth

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
Monday, February 19, 2007


The BBC's Conspiracy Files documentary about 9/11 was a tissue of lies, bias and emotional manipulation from beginning to end. Producer Guy Smith should be ashamed of himself for inflicting this travesty of yellow journalism upon the 9/11 truth movement and he is assured to encounter a vociferous and outraged response in its aftermath.

You can watch the one hour show below via Google Video.

Separated into two categories below are a number of questions intended to highlight Guy Smith's production for what it was - a deliberate hit piece on the 9/11 truth movement structured around fallacy, lying by omission and overwhelming bias. We invite Mr. Smith to respond to these questions and the hundreds of others that are already being asked by furious and informed community of people who were made sick to their stomachs by Smith's yellow journalism hatchet job.

GROSS FACTUAL INACCURACIES AND YELLOW JOURNALISM

1) Why did the BBC use a thoroughly debunked graphic animation from PBS' Nova show to illustrate the collapse of the twin towers? This graphic portrays the tower collapsing at a rate of ten floors every six seconds. For this to be accurate, the tower's 110 floors would have taken 66 seconds to completely collapse. In reality, the towers collapsed in just 14-16 seconds at the extreme end of the estimation. The graphic also erroneously depicts the floors collapsing without resistance, which could not have happened if the building's collapse came as a result of fire damage alone. Furthermore, the thoroughly debunked "pancake theory" holds that the core column remained upright and static as the animation shows when in reality the entirety of the towers, including the concrete support structures, were pulverized into small pieces and dust. A video explanation of the erroneous Nova animation is included below. Does producer Guy Smith consider using an animation that portrays a tower collapsing in 66 seconds an accurate reflection of how the twin towers collapsed? Will producer Guy Smith retract this error before his show is aired again? Will the BBC announce a retraction of this error as is common practice for proven factual inaccuracies carried in BBC programming?

2) Why did the program claim that debris from Flight 93 having been found 8 miles from the crash scene was a factual error on behalf of 9/11 skeptics? Both the FBI and the NTSB admitted that mail the plane was carrying had been found 8 miles from the crash scene. Pittsburgh Tribune Review: Crash debris found 8 miles away.

3) Why did the program claim that the collapse of Building 7 resulted in no casualties without mentioning the statements of both an eyewitness at the scene and Congressman Otter who both publicly stated that Secret Service Agent Craig Miller died as a result of the collapse?

4) Why was footage filmed at ground zero on 9/11 of a firefighter discussing the damage to Building 7's sprinkler system used to support the notion that fires caused the building to collapse while footage and testimony attesting to the notion that Building 7 was deliberately brought down, that firefighters had been warned in advance that it was going to be brought down, and that bombs had brought the building down, uniformly ignored? Why was the testimony of Craig Bartmer, a former NYPD official who states he heard bombs tear down Building 7 as it collapsed , omitted from the final edit? Why were the dozens and dozens of references to bombs exploding at all levels of the twin towers including the basement areas made by ground zero rescue workers and firefighters, caught both on camera and tape recorded from the firefighter's communication radios, omitted from the final edit? Why was there no effort made to include the testimony of William Rodruigez, who was a witness to underground explosions in the basement levels?

5) Why during brief coverage of the Building 7 issue were the words of Larry Silverstein, the owner of the WTC complex who told a September 2002 PBS documentary that he and firefighting chiefs decided to "pull" the building, not even mentioned? Why were the hundreds of millions of dollars Silverstein made from the collapse of this building alone not mentioned as a plausible motive for its demolition?

6) Why was coverage of the collapse of the twin towers and Building 7 narrowed into a mere debunking of the "squib" issue and testimony from the dozens at the scene who both saw and heard explosions completely omitted. In debunking the squib issue, why did the documentary fail to point out the fact that such emissions could be seen exiting the towers many floors below the collapse point?

7) Why were the numerous unprecedented wargames that were conducted on 9/11 dismissed as "routine" when they were anything but? Though the show admitted th.......................

sapperskunk

Nice post Ravenna.

RavennaSeattle1911

bbc guy was on alex jones today
it reppeats at 3am i think on http://www.infowars.com radio click listen link

as for me i dont know if i beleive him

dunkman

RavennaSeattle1911 wrote:

they are liars- lieing trash

in usa i have 3 tvs and can record a show or 3 at same time

i get the idea in uk you have to pay a taxxxxxxxxxxxxxx and have one tv unless youre rich

1 licence enables me to own as many fucking TV's as i want... try and think before you vomit words onto the screen

'you get the idea'.... give me a fucking break :rolleyes:

bootlegger10

Some folks just want to believe that the US was behind the attacks. They are not driven by truth, but driven by a distaste for their country and government.

Abookamongstthemany

bootlegger10 wrote:

Some folks just want to believe that the US was behind the attacks. They are not driven by truth, but driven by a distaste for their country and government.

Wrong.

Collin

sapperskunk wrote:

That one event was kind of a big deal. But I guess you don't mind being lied to.

It was a big deal to you. And I do mind if I'm being lied to. An apology from the reporter would have been nice. But since I didn't see it so I can't really comment on it.

And that's one report that I KNOW of, because it happened to me. How many other times has this shit gone on and nobody's the wiser?

Who knows.

And what does six years ago have to do with it? Within those six years, the BBC could have spun and bullshitted thousands of stories.

Do you still watch the BBC?

sapperskunk

Collin wrote:

It was a big deal to you. And I do mind if I'm being lied to. An apology from the reporter would have been nice. But since I didn't see it so I can't really comment on it.



Who knows.



Do you still watch the BBC?

You don't think it's a big deal, yet you DO mind being lied to?

Yes or no, do you think that what the BBC did in my example was an excellent example of media spin and bullshit found ever so often in the US media?

I have a pair of bunny ears on top of my TV, so I don't see anything cable, but, I catch the BBC radio once every week at work.

I'm not trying to say our media is better here in the US. What I'm trying to say is, that your's is just as bad.

Collin

sapperskunk wrote:

You don't think it's a big deal, yet you DO mind being lied to?

That story was a big deal to you, not to me.

Yes or no, do you think that what the BBC did in my example was an excellent example of media spin and bullshit found ever so often in the US media?

I never said anything about the US media.

I have a pair of bunny ears on top of my TV, so I don't see anything cable, but, I catch the BBC radio once every week at work.

So you haven't watched the BBC is 6 years?

I'm not trying to say our media is better here in the US. What I'm trying to say is, that your's is just as bad.

It's not "mine".

sapperskunk

Collin wrote:

That story was a big deal to you, not to me.



I never said anything about the US media.



So you haven't watched the BBC is 6 years?



It's not "mine".

So the BBC lies, but you don't like being lied to?

I was just asking a question, don't get defensive and not answer it, I even put it in yes or no format for ya.

When did I say I haven't watched the BBC in six years?

You make no sense my friend and I have to make a playlist for my show. I'll catch ya later.

Collin

sapperskunk wrote:

So the BBC lies, but you don't like being lied to?

How do you know they lie? Maybe it was a one time mistake.

I was just asking a question, don't get defensive and not answer it, I even put it in yes or no format for ya.

I'm not getting defensive, how can I answer that question, I've only seen 10 maybe 15 US news reports.

When did I say I haven't watched the BBC in six years?

How many times do you watch it?

You make no sense my friend

Why do you say that?

ThumbingMyWay32

I think the Democrats are behind 9/11.

sapperskunk

Collin wrote:

How do you know they lie? Maybe it was a one time mistake.



I'm not getting defensive, how can I answer that question, I've only seen 10 maybe 15 US news reports.



How many times do you watch it?



Why do you say that?

I'm talking with somebody whose only seen 10-15 US news reports!

What the fuck are you wasting my time for?

If you think that my experience with the BBC was an "honest" mistake, re-read my original post and dig your head out of the sand.

It's like arguing with a child. You have absolutely no knowledge with media biasedness cause you've never really watched multiple media outlets!

And you're asking me whether or not and how much of the BBC I've seen.

Well it's a lot more than 10-15 for christs sakes.

Collin

sapperskunk wrote:

I'm talking with somebody whose only seen 10-15 US news reports!

That's why I don't comment on US tv news.

What the fuck are you wasting my time for?

Don't read my posts if your time is so precious.

If you think that my experience with the BBC was an "honest" mistake, re-read my original post and dig your head out of the sand.

Even if it wasn't, it could have been a one time thing. Most likely isn't, though. And I didn't say honest.

It's like arguing with a child.

Likewise.

You have absolutely no knowledge with media biasedness cause you've never really watched multiple media outlets!

Because I haven't watched US media I have absolutely no knowledge of the media and you suddenly assume I never really watched multiple media outlets?

I watch the Belgian news, the Dutch news, BBC, Czech news, sometimes German and French new reports, I read Time magazine and daily check a number of news source on the internet, including many American ones and I read the Belgian paper.

There isn't a single unbiased news source out there and if there is please inform because that would be very welcome.

And you're asking me whether or not and how much of the BBC I've seen.

Well it's a lot more than 10-15 for christs sakes.

How many times in those 6 years? Once a week, months, 6 months...?

Collin

It was about the Oklahoma Bombing this time, pretty interesting.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6292143.stm