Monday, February 19, 2007

Debunking the BBC's 9-11 Conspiracy Files

Following up BBC's 'questionnaire' branding people believing in government conspiracies as paranoid sociopaths, BBC released yesterday, sharply breaking with its reputation of neutrality and balanced journalism, an astounding piece of propaganda that defamed the investigative efforts of thousands of people questioning the government-sanctioned version of the events of 9/11.

In order to counter this shameful, ridiculous spectacle of journalistic monstrosity, I-Am-Wolfman and I have spent some evenings to put together an analysis to address this filthy litany of disinformation:

To give you an idea of this monumental farce of a hit piece, here is a lengthy excerpt of the analysis, courtesy of my trusty colleague:

The programme began with the narrator saying the theories were offensive to those families affected by 9-11 - a logical fallacy called an 'appeal to emotion'.

The programme shows us bent WTC steel columns and damaged vehicles in a warehouse, then proceeds onto the official story, whilst showing the alleged hijackers on CCTV at an unnamed airport. Then casualties were discussed, videos of shocked people were shown, and emotional phonecalls were aired. This is all emotional manipulation, and it is not related to pure theory, as it does not prove or disprove anything. This did not dissuade the BBC however.

There were scientists used to support the official story, but no counter-scientists shown, such as Professor Steven Jones, David Ray Griffin PhD and others [19]. It was continually stated that blaming the government was scapegoating, yet it is precisely that act which was carried out by the mainstream media and the authorities when blaming Bin Laden.

When Fetzer and Avery were shown talking to the camera, they were overwhelmingly depicted as single-minded and emotional, with a forcible attitude of 'you're either with us or against us', which was intended to subliminally turn the viewer off them - and thus discredit their points.

Before Avery began talking, they called him a college 'dropout', and said he made his money selling Loose Change. Avery is shown saying he does not care what the debunkers say - we believe this clip to be out of context, and that Avery was disagreeing with something else.

Fetzer was always pictured close-up when talking, to make the viewer uncomfortable and to ensure his gestures were exaggerated beyond what was reasonable - a technique that could be used to subliminally turn the viewers off him. There was no explanation made of Fetzer's conflicts with other prominent members of the truth movement regarding his more unusual theories.

Avery and Fetzer were used the most. Alex Jones was not, despite the fact that Alex Jones is one of the more eloquent, respected, and knowledgeable people on these matters.

It was almost half an hour before we got to see Alex Jones, who was introduced when he was yelling to an audience about the New World Order. The BBC said he was like an 'evangelist' -- this was another underhanded technique where the BBC tried to associate alternative thought with religious fundamentalism.

Contrarily to the libelous claims of the Blair Broadcasting Corporation, it is the BBC that befouled the memory of the 9/11 victims by endorsing a demonstrably fraudulent account of the events, disculpating and protecting whom half of the victims consider to be the prime suspects, with strawmen known to be strawmen and omissions admitted to be omissions, as demonstrated by their refusal to cover real evidence despite having been presented it by their interviewee Alex Jones, making themselves accessories after the fact of a sinister hoax. Needless to say, we are not impressed by the insults of the BBC, nor by their treasonous behaviour and their hypocritical accusations towards us and the 9/11 Truth community.

Official BBC moron Mike Rudin responds to accusations of being a government agent:

Oh and by the way, in answer to one comment, no I am not and have never been a spy.

Those assurances aside, it remains all the same that a government con artist would not have operated otherwise.

By the way, we also shamelessly admit to being the authors behind Debunking Maddox. If you don't believe me, you can check the signature of the post; I tried to edit it and Google forced me to upgrade the Blogger account, which I was unable to do without transferring it to my own account.

More articles dealing with BBC's drivel:


At 10:50 AM, Blogger littlebitofsonshine said...

bless you and thank you for sharing

At 3:27 AM, Anonymous banyan said...

Griffin is not a "scientist" Kev. He was a theologian the last time I looked.

At 3:40 PM, Blogger Laukev7 said...

David Ray Griffin was cited because he is a prominent speaker and researcher in the movement, despite his lack of scientific credentials. He should have been mentioned by BBC, but instead they chose to speak to Fetzer, who is controversial amongst the 9/11 Truth academics. If you had followed the link included after his name, you would have found an extensive list of professors (yes, including scientists) who support the 9/11 truth movement.

If you insist, I can remove David Ray Griffin and replace him with Hugo Bachmann or Jörg Schneider, Dr hc. But I assumed that the link to the list of scientists was enough clarification.

At 3:48 PM, Blogger Laukev7 said...

By the way, this is what one of the scientists, research physicist David L. Griscom, PhD, had to say about David Ray Griffin's book:

Personal blog 2/9/07:"David Ray Griffin has web-published a splendid, highly footnoted account of The Destruction of the World Trade Center: Why the Official Account Cannot Be True: This scholarly work, rich in eyewitness accounts, includes 11 separate pieces of evidence that the World Trade Center towers 1, 2, [each 1300+ feet tall, 110 stories] and 7 [570 feet tall, 47 stories, and not hit by an airplane] were brought down by explosives.

... I implore my fellow physicists and engineers who may have the time, expertise, and (ideally) supercomputer access to get to work on the physics of the World Trade Center collapses and publish their findings in refereed journals like, say, the Journal of Applied Physics.


Post a Comment

<< Home