BBC2 Conspiracy Files 9/11

[Oliver]

Seems to be online now as torrent file:
http://conspiracycentral.net:6969/torrents/973f72777722f5cb499005324883910fdd282690.torrent
http://conspiracycentral.net:6969/

[Oliver]

:whistling

[T.A.M.]

Any word of it being up on youtube or google...I don't "Torrent" very well...lol

TAM

[maccy]

Any word of it being up on youtube or google...I don't "Torrent" very well...lol

TAM

Being added in 10 minute chunks by this guy:

http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=policestate1984

It may be a while before all the parts are uploaded and available, though.

[T.A.M.]

Thanks...I'll go check it out.

TAM:)

Files unavailable. Guess he is still awaiting Youtube approval.

TAM:(

[~enigma~]

Can't get the torrent from conspiacy central.

[jon]

anyway, the responses to this are great. One truther investigates why the BBC didn't mention no plane theories - apparently, if they had mentioned these, it'd have made the truthers look *less* nuts.

The BBC would do anything to make the truth movement look a bunch of loonies.

Well not a single mention of no planes -----why is this?

Because they know it's true and don't want several million viewers rewatching the events of 911 in slow motion.

The sooner you all realise the importance of this the better --- this is their achilles heel. (http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=7287)

[maccy]

Parts one, two and three have finished processing:

part one:
vR3aNMLkahc

part two:
uQ1kSE74hmU

part three:
Pml4pTnhEC4

I assume the same user will upload another three parts at some point.

[Oliver]

*LOL* That. Was. GREAT! *weep*

There is only one thing left to say:

RQq3m83FksQ

http://www.philipcrammond.com/labradoodle/images/links_and_photos/union_jack_animated.gifhttp://www.philipcrammond.com/labradoodle/images/links_and_photos/union_jack_animated.gifhttp://www.philipcrammond.com/labradoodle/images/links_and_photos/union_jack_animated.gif

[Oliver]

The torrent is availabe if you log in under:

http://conspiracycentral.net:6969/
User: torrent
Pass: torrent

... looks like PD'oh made this account ... :D

[T.A.M.]

So far my favorite part is in part 4, where the BBC guy teache Dylan what a "Simile" is....it is priceless.

TAM:):):)

[maccy]

Still seem to be processing, but:

part four:
N_Zt7G3hKpU

part five:
BX0AIyycLKc

ETA:
part six:
FianbvnWILk

part seven:
g_dDxdqc_Qo

[Alareth]

anyway, the responses to this are great. One truther investigates why the BBC didn't mention no plane theories - apparently, if they had mentioned these, it'd have made the truthers look *less* nuts.


So it's like the homeopathic, "less is more" approach?

The less insane ranting they display, the crazier they look?

[LashL]

Oh my. Thanks for the links, maccy. Part 1 wouldn't play but instead gave me a message saying "The video you have requested is not available. If you have recently uploaded this video, you may need to wait a few minutes for the video to process."

but I've watched parts 2 and 3 so far and am currently on part 4.

[WildCat]

There's a torrent here (http://thepiratebay.org/tor/3621606/The_Conspiracy_Files_911_BBC_hit-piece.avi), you don't have to log in or be a member for this one.

[maccy]

Oh my. Thanks for the links, maccy. Part 1 wouldn't play but instead gave me a message saying "The video you have requested is not available. If you have recently uploaded this video, you may need to wait a few minutes for the video to process."

but I've watched parts 2 and 3 so far and am currently on part 4.

If you try part one again it should work. I've added the links to parts six and seven to my previous post - that's the whole documentary now.

[LashL]

If you try part one again it should work. I've added the links to parts six and seven to my previous post - that's the whole documentary now.

Thanks. I did see the further links and have just finished watching part 7 but I will go back and try to view part one again, as that's the only one I've not seen yet.

[The Doc]

Quote by Dylan Avery
Their authority is tractors, ok. They should stick to what they know. ok. Popular mechanics is the last company that should be "investigating" 9/11.

I'm sorry Dylan. If this is the case, how are you qualified to "investigate" 9/11?

It's a shame to see you are living in poverty Dylan. All that money you donated to the victims of 9/11 must have put a dent in your income. You know, that 30" monitor just doesn't hold up to the standard that us middle-class folks.

[Brainster]

I love that they included the Cleveland Airport Mystery, now that Dylan has finally decided to take it out of FC.

Still can't seem to get part 1 to load.

ETA: Loved the Wally Miller bit. Good for him!

[StoneWT]

I'm sorry Dylan. If this is the case, how are you qualified to "investigate" 9/11?

It's a shame to see you are living in poverty Dylan. All that money you donated to the victims of 9/11 must have put a dent in your income. You know, that 30" monitor just doesn't hold up to the standard that us middle-class folks.

One of the MANY :drool: things Dylan does not understand is 'expertise.' PM consulted with genuine experts for their 9/11 CT issue and book. It wasn't the editors and an errand boy at PM doing everything on their own. God forbid that you should, I don't know, maybe consult with someone that knows more about a given subject than you do.

[gumboot]

Very good program, thanks for sharing.

I can't say I agree on their conclusions as far as the "intelligence failure" aspect, but otherwise, spot on.

-Gumboot

[The Doc]

Well I'd have to say that was brilliantly done.

The end speech by the x-files writer was superb. Definitely going in my signature.

[alexg]

I loved the show. At least one error I think; they showed the old 'pancake' collapse theory for the TTs where the trusses fail, did they not? Just a technicality though. I thought they could have done a better job on the WTC in general but the parts about 93 and the Pgon were great.

Fetzer, Jones and Avery. Three despicable slimebag opportunists!

[The Doc]

I loved the show. At least one error I think; they showed the old 'pancake' collapse theory for the TTs where the trusses fail, did they not? Just a technicality though. I thought they could have done a better job on the WTC in general but the parts about 93 and the Pgon were great.

I'm not really a religious man but as God is my witness please, PLEASE bring justice to Fetzer, Jones and Avery. Three despicable slimbag opportunists!

Yeah I noticed that. I saw the PBS model come up and just went "Awwww..."

[gumboot]

I loved the show. At least one error I think; they showed the old 'pancake' collapse theory for the TTs where the trusses fail, did they not? Just a technicality though. I thought they could have done a better job on the WTC in general but the parts about 93 and the Pgon were great.

Fetzer, Jones and Avery. Three despicable slimebag opportunists!


Yeah there were a few little things. I think it shows how much we all know about the subject!

Another was how they summed up the ATC/NORAD actions on 9/11 in the first section. They implied there was chaos and failure due to lack of preparation. The reality was, in SPITE of chaos due to information overload, they responded very well.

The best thing of all is the programme made the three key CTers look like complete and utter morons.

-Gumboot

[alexg]

The best thing of all is the programme made the three key CTers look like complete and utter morons.

Yes! I'd never seen Jones in full evangelical mode like that. Spooky. It's clearly gone to his head.

What did Fetzer say, something like, 'a plane could not have hit the pentagon threfore no plane hit the pentagon!' Just empty dogma. Funny stuff.

[LashL]

On the upside:

1) Do-Over Dylan Avery comes across as a juvenile, uneducated, ill-informed, seriously deluded, tinhat-wearing moron incapable of carrying on a serious conversation with adults. No surprise there.

2) Fetzer comes across as a seriously deluded, tinhat-wearing moron and all around nutcase on all fronts, incapable of rational thought in any way, shape or form. He looks seriously crazy throughout this video. Not exactly surprising, that.

3) Jones comes across as a seriously deluded, uneducated, ill-informed, nutcase looking for a Jim Jones or David Koresh style following to willingly drink his koolaid. But he looks seriously crazy in every video he's ever been in, so again, no surprise.


4) The interview with the C-130 pilot, Steve O'Brien. Brilliant.

5) The interview with the X-Files guy explaining why tinhatters are so delusional from the perspective of someone who makes his living by understanding how to sell nonsense to the delusional. Brilliant.


On the downside,

1) There was so much more that they could have and should have done to dispel so many more aspects of tinhat conspiracy BS.

2) It would have been so easy to carry out (1) above if they'd only asked around here :)

3) They used an erroneous and long debunked graphic near the end, and they should have known better.

Just a quick and dirty mini-review, for what little it's worth, as I have to get some sleep soon, but those are my preliminary observations/reactions to the show.

[gumboot]

The best thing of all is the programme made the three key CTers look like complete and utter morons.

Yes! I'd never seen Jones in full evangelical mode like that. Spooky. It's clearly gone to his head.

What did Fetzer say, something like, 'a plane could not have hit the pentagon threfore no plane hit the pentagon!' Just empty dogma. Funny stuff.



My favourite bit is Fetzer says it is impossible for a plane to have hit The Pentagon, AND he says the C-130 was controlling the plane that hit The Pentagon.

Astounding.

-Gumboot

[Alareth]

I casually followed a link to the UK 9/11 site and the first thing i see is a complaint that they didn't bring up the "ISI connection" or "Northwoods"

These people are just drones, with limited brain capacity that only allows them to store a handful of rote statements and ideas that play in an endless loop.

[The Doc]

Getting a 2 hour audio clip of Alex Jones repeating the same phrase would be no different to debating a real truther lol.

[JQH]

I think the programme demonstrated that the so called "Truthseekers" don't do elementary checks and just make stuff up.

e.g. "The crash site of UA93 is 6.9 miles from where wreckage, including engines, was found at Indian Lake"

FACT. The only wreckage found at Indian Lake, according to local witnesses, was paper and bits of insulation which were almost certainly blown there by the wind. Also, Indian Lake is 6.9 miles from the crash site by road. As the crow flies its one mile.

I have to say that its kind of ironic that the kind of crazies who accused Clinton of being a murderer are now plaguing Bush. As far as they're concerned he's now the Washington Establishment.

[gumboot]

I found the Indian Lake thing really interesting. I'd actually never come across the 6.9 miles distance before. I'd heard 8 miles. Of course, that was from "8 square miles". 8 sq mi, for a plane crash, is a very small debris field. I'd expect an aircraft that broke up in the air to spread debris over hundreds of miles.

-Gumboot

[Ersby]

3) They used an erroneous and long debunked graphic near the end, and they should have known better.

Which graphic was that?

On the whole, I thought the program did well to use the "give them enough rope" technique. Introducing the 9-11 deniers as (iirc) "a self-confessed drop out", a "doctor of philosophy", and a "radio talk show host" was a neat way of demonstrating how qualified they are to speak about the technicalities of 9-11.

Of course, the program could have been twice as long, but as it was it summarised the arguments okay.

[MikeW]

I found the Indian Lake thing really interesting. I'd actually never come across the 6.9 miles distance before. I'd heard 8 miles. Of course, that was from "8 square miles".
No, it was 8 miles away, in New Baltimore: http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/13/penn.attack/ . That's another problem with the programme, they mentioned Indian Lake but didn't cover this debris from further away at all.

Anyway, a radio talk show is apparently going to allow people to respond to the programme. It's on BBC radio 5 & you can listen online from http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio/aod/fivelive.shtml . The show starts at 9:00 am GMT, in just over 30 minutes, but I'm not sure when they''ll be discussing 9/11 - might not be for another hour or so.

[gumboot]

Which graphic was that?


I believe they're talking about the animation that shows the floor trusses failing and breaking free of the core.

In fact the trusses didn't break away, which is why the building collapsed.

Which reminds me, they had a shot of the collapse I had never seen.

It was right on a corner, and at the moment of failure you can clearly see the individual columns buckle and twist before collapsing.

Leaves no doubt that the collapse was gravity induced, not explosive induced.

-Gumboot

[ref]

How many minutes is the duration of this program? Do I have time to watch it during my lunch hour? :D

[Spins]

How many minutes is the duration of this program? Do I have time to watch it during my lunch hour? :D60mins

[ref]

Ok, thanks. I'll watch half of it then, the other half later. :cool:

[The Doc]

Wow,

I'm just looking at all the replies in the "LC In The Media" forum over at the LC boards.

Apparently the documentary was "bias as all hell". What I saw was mainly facts. So it is proven. The facts are bias and they aren't favoring the conspiracy.

No constructive criticism in the threads... just stuff like "Bush himself probably commisioned this".

Pure entertainment those forums. Nothing more lol.

[ref]

Wow,

I'm just looking at all the replies in the "LC In The Media" forum over at the LC boards.

Apparently the documentary was "bias as all hell". What I saw was mainly facts. So it is proven. The facts are bias and they aren't favoring the conspiracy.

No constructive criticism in the threads... just stuff like "Bush himself probably commisioned this".

Pure entertainment those forums. Nothing more lol.

They can not say anything else. Just some meaningless denial phrases, because they have nothing to back them up. If they ever woke up and saw they have nothing..

[Oliver]

The full documentary now on GoogleVideo:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7621076970651593769&q=911+conspiracy+files&hl=en

7621076970651593769

[cludgie]

Link to the BBC 'Points of View' message board I mentioned earlier

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/mbpointsofview/F1951566

[jon]

Link to the BBC 'Points of View' message board I mentioned earlier

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/mbpointsofview/F1951566

Yay - once again we learn that "The Towers fell in 10 seconds at the speed of gravity". Physics (inc. some study of forces live gravity) is compulsary in UK schools, too :rolleyes:

[Firestone]

Link to the BBC 'Points of View' message board I mentioned earlier

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/mbpointsofview/F1951566OMG!

And they had the wife of someone who died saying that all conspiracy theorists are insulting the families of the people who died (cue the sad music) But didn't mention the group call The Jersey Girls. A group of 900 women who lost people all wanting to seek the truth.The Bin Laden cofession tape that has now been proved as fake by the FBI. So fake that they have said that Bin Laden is off there top 10 most wanted list due to lack of evidence.

9 of the hijackers have been found alive and never have been to america.I can assure you this is NOT true. The majority of the american people believe that the government had something to do with 9/11, in fact a recent poll said that 86%This in the three first messages!

[cludgie]

Yes, the 86% poll made me laugh somewhat too. Where did they conduct that? At a 9/11 Truthers convention?

[Firestone]

Yes, the 86% poll made me laugh somewhat too. Where did they conduct that? At a 9/11 Truthers convention?Nope.

It should be 84%, but here (http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/October2006/141006poll.htm) you can read how Alex Jones gets to 84%. :)

Here the real info (http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/index.cfm/fuseaction/viewItem/itemID/13469).
The PDF-file (http://www.angus-reid.com/admin/collateral/pdfs/polls/NYT_October2k6.pdf) with all the details of the poll is also very interesting.

[T.A.M.]

Those 4 posts from teh BBC website/forum have to be some of the stupidest CT stuff I have heard in a while. I guess they don't make CTers over there like they do on this side of the pond.

TAM:)

[David Wong]

Those 4 posts from teh BBC website/forum have to be some of the stupidest CT stuff I have heard in a while. I guess they don't make CTers over there like they do on this side of the pond.


Yes, they do.

[jeremyp]

Those 4 posts from teh BBC website/forum have to be some of the stupidest CT stuff I have heard in a while. I guess they don't make CTers over there like they do on this side of the pond.

TAM:)

We do. However, our main conspiracy theory is the one that says Princess Diana was assassinated by MI5. The idea of a conspiracy theory behind 9/11 probably came as a surprise to most of the British people who watched that programme.

[Oliver]

For your 9/11 collection:

Someone at the LC-Forum posted the high quality version of the BBC Program:
http://stage6.divx.com/members/245557/videos/1125037

[Arus808]

wow, i love how they juxtaposed fetzers "claim" of remote control from the c130 then they actually interviewed the C130 pilot; and thereby accusing this pilot of being apart of the crime?

why can't truthers do this?

fetzer is delusional. this bbc program just put the truth movement into the real light; that they are bunch of bungling idiots without no modicum of basic understanding to know what can happen and what really happened.

Alex Kischeimer had it right; its just flawed people that have to have something to dream about...

Part 4 was awesome. Those that lived in the area of 93's crash site saw the debris falling.. what was it ? Paper! Insulation! ...

again, truthers just love to speuclate and dont bother to talk to the PEOPLE WHO WERE THERE! Love how Dylan is aruging about what Wally Miller (coroner) was stating something, but can't see that the coroner meant something else! Take one quote out of context and he continues to fight the interviewer about it! What a tool. and he got schooled about what a simile is!!!

[Yurebiz]

Well, now THAT put WTC7 to rest. *High fives JREFers* Now, I'm 30% LIHOPer as promised!
Oh wait, no it didn't. Never mind... :o

[gumboot]

wow, i love how they juxtaposed fetzers "claim" of remote control from the c130 then they actually interviewed the C130 pilot; and thereby accusing this pilot of being apart of the crime?



My favourite bit about that was a few minutes earlier he categorically stated that no plane hit The Pentagon, that there was no evidence, and that anyone who said otherwise was a liar.

And then he says the plane that hit The Pentagon was controlled by remote via the C-130.

Astounding. Actually... I'm going to nominate him for a Stundie.

-Gumboot

[cludgie]

Highly amusing attempt to debunk the BBC piece, including putting forward Stephen Jones' thermite theory as one that should've been seriously considered regarding the collapse. Oh and apparently the 1945 B-25 Empire State Building crash was somehow a useful precedent that should've been mentioned...

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

[Aphelion]

[QUOTE=alexg;2355839 At least one error I think; they showed the old 'pancake' collapse theory for the TTs where the trusses fail, did they not? Just a technicality though.[/QUOTE]

Just a technicality? This shows how poorly researched this documentary was. They couldn't even get the right reason for the collapse of the towers.

[MG1962]

I found the Purdy (?) University professor responsible for that simulation of the plane going into the Pentagon. The poor fellow looked like he trod on a land mine as he described the hate mail he got over the research. I almost think he was unaware of the whole conspiracy thing.

And the revelation of how far Indian lakes is from the Shanksville crash site.... A true Kodak momment

[Aphelion]

I found the Purdy (?) University professor responsible for that simulation of the plane going into the Pentagon. The poor fellow looked like he trod on a land mine as he described the hate mail he got over the research. I almost think he was unaware of the whole conspiracy thing.

And the revelation of how far Indian lakes is from the Shanksville crash site.... A true Kodak momment


What on earth did the Purdy guy mean when he said it was the weight of the liquid in the wings that damaged the pentagon?

[cludgie]

Just a technicality? This shows how poorly researched this documentary was. They couldn't even get the right reason for the collapse of the towers.

If I remember rightly they mentioned the correct theory but showed one of the wrong graphics (the pancake animation). Before that they did show an animated graphic of the truss failures.

And CT'ers are the last ones on earth who should be calling anyone when it comes to minor innaccuracies or errors.

[MG1962]

What on earth did the Purdy guy mean when he said it was the weight of the liquid in the wings that damaged the pentagon?

He was talking about the weight of the fuel. From memory a Litre of fluid weighs a kilo, which is 2.2 pounds, and there is 4.5 lites to the gallon. Because the main body of the craft was effectively a hollow tube it distintergrated very quickly

[gumboot]

He was talking about the weight of the fuel. From memory a Litre of fluid weighs a kilo, which is 2.2 pounds, and there is 4.5 lites to the gallon. Because the main body of the craft was effectively a hollow tube it distintergrated very quickly


Jet-A fuel weighs 6.84 pounds per gallon (nominal density which changes depending on temperature etc).

-Gumboot

[JAStewart]

Those 4 posts from teh BBC website/forum have to be some of the stupidest CT stuff I have heard in a while. I guess they don't make CTers over there like they do on this side of the pond.

TAM:)

I give you Killtown.

Case closed.

[ref]

Highly amusing attempt to debunk the BBC piece, including putting forward Stephen Jones' thermite theory as one that should've been seriously considered regarding the collapse. Oh and apparently the 1945 B-25 Empire State Building crash was somehow a useful precedent that should've been mentioned...

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

That blog is nuts. It repeats the pull-it, alive claims, mystery passport, thermite and others as their hardcore evidence. I will soon be making part 4 of my series. There I will attack the hijacker claims with latest knowledge including that 'mystery passport' myth. I try to find time to complete that part somewhere along the line.

[Firestone]

... including that 'mystery passport' myth ...
It's off-topic, but afaik, the Suqami-passport is not a myth.

Suqami’s passport survived the attack: a passerby picked it up from the World Trade Center and handed to a New York Police Department detective shortly before the towers collapsed.
...
The passport was recovered by NYPD Detective Yuk H. Chin from a male passerby in a business suit, about 30 years old. The passerby left before being identified, while debris was falling from WTC 2. The tower collapsed shortly thereafter. The detective then gave the passport to the FBI on 9/11. See FBI report, interview of Detective Chin, Sept. 12, 2001.

9/11 Commission Staff statement (http://www.9-11commission.gov/staff_statements/911_TerrTrav_Ch2.pdf)

[JAStewart]

It's off-topic, but afaik, the Suqami-passport is not a myth.

"Man in a suit"

Agent. lies. shill. sheep. disinfo.




[/Alex Moans]

[Firestone]

"Man in a suit"

Agent. lies. shill. sheep. disinfo.



[/Alex Moans]
Yes, it is bizarre. :)
But the source is quite credible.

I don't know if any effort has been made to identify the "male passerby in a business suit". If he was bona-fide, it is a little odd that he has not come forward.
Anyway, this is one of the (very minor) points that puzzle me.

[Brainache]

Yes, it is bizarre. :)
But the source is quite credible.

I don't know if any effort has been made to identify the "male passerby in a business suit". If he was bona-fide, it is a little odd that he has not come forward.
Anyway, this is one of the (very minor) points that puzzle me.

Well if it was me, I doubt I'd come forward either. He found a passport and gave it to a cop. End of story.

If he stepped up now he would be constantly harassed by our nutjob friends.

Or he was an evil Mossad agent planting evidence yada yada yada...

[Firestone]

Well if it was me, I doubt I'd come forward either. He found a passport and gave it to a cop. End of story.

If he stepped up now he would be constantly harassed by our nutjob friends.

Or he was an evil Mossad agent planting evidence yada yada yada...Or he was an Al Qaeda acolyte prepositioned there with Suqami's passport ...

And no, don't ask me why they'd do that. Why are only our nutjob friends allowed baseless speculation? ;)

[Iggy]

I watched this and it was so transparent. Those who were on the side of the official theory came across as idiots. I mean, the only thing found in shansville was a passport of a 'hijacker' and a bandana. Are they having a laugh?

[eddyk]

I watched this and it was so transparent. Those who were on the side of the official theory came across as idiots. I mean, the only thing found in shansville was a passport of a 'hijacker' and a bandana. Are they having a laugh?

They also found a whole load of plane parts...also shown in the show.

Or did you cover your eyes and ears like a good conspiracy theorist should?

[Firestone]

I watched this and it was so transparent. Those who were on the side of the official theory came across as idiots. I mean, the only thing found in shansville was a passport of a 'hijacker' and a bandana. Are they having a laugh?They also found body parts of all the passengers and crew, all identified by DNA. :rolleyes:

+ what eddyk says of course

[twinstead]

I watched this and it was so transparent. Those who were on the side of the official theory came across as idiots. I mean, the only thing found in shansville was a passport of a 'hijacker' and a bandana. Are they having a laugh?

The only people who look like idiots are those who actually believe all they found was a 'passport and a bandana'. It means that they formed a predisposed conclusion about what happened without even the most rudimentary of investigation into the event.

I suppose all those first responders and hundreds of volunteers who for weeks scoured the ground picking up hundreds of bits of bone, personal effects, and airplane fragments are idiots as well?

[cludgie]

The only people who look like idiots are those who actually believe all they found was a 'passport and a bandana'. It means that they formed a predisposed conclusion about what happened without even the most rudimentary of investigation into the event.

I suppose all those first responders and hundreds of volunteers who for weeks scoured the ground picking up hundreds of bits of bone, personal effects, and airplane fragments are idiots as well?

They actually didn't finish sifting debris for human remains and whatnot until sometime last year I think.

[ref]

It's off-topic, but afaik, the Suqami-passport is not a myth.

Sorry, I presented my case poorly :blush:. Of course the passport was there. I meant the claims about the passport surviving the inferno.

What is a myth is, that there was something mysterious about that passport. There wasn't.

[Niclas]

Here are some examples of the subliminal messages that the imagery in the documentary is used to convey:



Narrator: " but some will just not accept the official account, no matter how distressing this might be to the victims families"

IMAGERY: A raggdoll lying on a bench.

ASSOCIATIONS: Brings to mind a mourge, the doll becomes an effigy off a dead child
The narrators comments and the imagery implies that the "conspiracy theorists" are insensitive to
the grief of the victims families


This is repeated throughout the film.




IMAGERY: Internet sites filmed right from the screen are flashing by again drifting in and out of focus, through out the film.



ASSOCIATION: Conspiracy theories fester on the internet, ( but are not real )




LIGHT VS DARKNESS


Dylan, Jim and Alex are all filmed in more or less dark rooms.

Jim Fetzer is introduced with a view over a nocturnal suburbia.


Most of the other paricipants are filmed in light and airy enviroments


ASSOCIATION: Conspiracy theories fester in the dark, light dispels them!



THE BIRD EYE AND THE FISH EYE.

prior to presenting someone objecting the conspiracy claims, we are shown bird eye views over cityscapes or the
Hollywood mountains, this symbolism prepares the viewer for the clear sighted overview that mongers of bad science and
X-files fiction writers are supposed to give us.

At the end, we se passenger planes about to take off, to make a conection to the last trip the passengers on the 4 airplanes ever made.

We take off with one of the airplanes, leaving the conspiracies behind, accepting the "painful truth" in the fiction wrtiters words.


The imagery of conspiracies are framed differently, the camera plunges beneath the surface of a lake, pages are sinking to the
bottom, together with the myths,



ASSOCIATION: Conspiracy theories lingers beneath the surface or underground.




The wide angle lens is used througout the film, but it conveys different messages.

A close upp wide angle view of an agitated Jim Fetzer makes him out as the conspiracy bogeyman of the film

When the same teqnique is used on David Colburn and the pilot, it is to convey a feeling of monumentality and authority


David is also presented with lots of books about 911, and piles off paper, on his desk, suggesting his thorough investigation.




We are presented with a dramatization or " reconstruction " as they call it of what happened at the
North American Aerospace Defence command as they recieved the first phonecalls about possible hijackings.

The narrator is telling us the official story as we see a dramatized reconstruction off the events, the imagery
suggests confusion and desorientation, thereby "explaining" why everything went wrong on that day.

Running the story and the imagery side by side , we are made to believe that this is what actually happened.

[Apollo20]

Niclas:

Nice post!

I have been reading Jean Baudrillard's "Simulacra and Simulation" as well as "The Spirit of Terrorism". Very interesting stuff!

Most of us watched 9/11 through the filter of television - a "cold" medium indeed. TV allows us to be detached from the real events. Those who saw the collapse for real from the streets of New York screamed and cried out in shock and horror. Those who watched "the movie" on TV, sat impassively ..... We are fed what the "media" want us to see; and the media moguls understand full well the power of symbolism.....

[Matthew Best]

Those who watched "the movie" on TV, sat impassively.

Speak for yourself!

[8den]

A close upp wide angle view of an agitated Jim Fetzer makes him out as the conspiracy bogeyman of the film

I can assure you the camera angle's contribution to making Fetzer out as "conspiracy bogeyman" was minimal. Jim deserves the lion's share of credit in that department.

[Niclas]

it´s all about advertising, it´s the banality of evil, and this is true no matter
what conspiracy version you believe.

The persons behind this attack fully understand how to create publicity.

You have to create a trademark to sell terror to the people.

" nineeleven" sounds catchy and is made to be used by politicians
and tv networks over and over again.

How about "thirtythirdofoctober" ? not as catchy ey!?

The visual impact is much more important than casualties,
people will forget about numbers but remember pictures of the planes hitting the buildings
and la grande finale, the towers collapsing.

[Niclas]

of course i undertand that you did not like what he had to say, with or without
the wide angle lens, but my point is that the documentary falsely claims to be objective

[T.A.M.]

Well perhaps if the thirtythirdofoctober actually existed, it might!

TAM:D

[funk de fino]

it´s all about advertising, it´s the banality of evil, and this is true no matter
what conspiracy version you believe.

The persons behind this attack fully understand how to create publicity.

You have to create a trademark to sell terror to the people.

" nineeleven" sounds catchy and is made to be used by politicians
and tv networks over and over again.

How about "thirtythirdofoctober" ? not as catchy ey!?

The visual impact is much more important than casualties,
people will forget about numbers but remember pictures of the planes hitting the buildings
and la grande finale, the towers collapsing.

I guess you are not american?

[fullflavormenthol]

it´s all about advertising, it´s the banality of evil, and this is true no matter
what conspiracy version you believe.

The persons behind this attack fully understand how to create publicity.

You have to create a trademark to sell terror to the people.

" nineeleven" sounds catchy and is made to be used by politicians
and tv networks over and over again.

Huh? Okay well 9-11 rolls off the tongue because you have heard it thousands of times. Play with the phrase 2-11, 3-11, 4-11, 5-11. Basically any single digit followed by eleven rolls of the tongue, a conspiracy though that doesn't make.

How about "thirtythirdofoctober" ? not as catchy ey!?

Well that I will give to you. 33rd of October doesn't roll off the tongue, mainly because there is no 33rd of October or any month for that matter. Of course try out ten-o'-eight. You're playing on the familiarity to the phrase 9-11 to make your point.

The visual impact is much more important than casualties,
people will forget about numbers but remember pictures of the planes hitting the buildings

Yeah, that is what terrorism and terrorist groups like Al Qaeda are known for.

[T.A.M.]

Here are some examples of the subliminal messages that the imagery in the documentary is used to convey:



Narrator: " but some will just not accept the official account, no matter how distressing this might be to the victims families"

IMAGERY: A raggdoll lying on a bench.

ASSOCIATIONS: Brings to mind a mourge, the doll becomes an effigy off a dead child
The narrators comments and the imagery implies that the "conspiracy theorists" are insensitive to
the grief of the victims families


This is repeated throughout the film.




IMAGERY: Internet sites filmed right from the screen are flashing by again drifting in and out of focus, through out the film.



ASSOCIATION: Conspiracy theories fester on the internet, ( but are not real )




LIGHT VS DARKNESS


Dylan, Jim and Alex are all filmed in more or less dark rooms.

Jim Fetzer is introduced with a view over a nocturnal suburbia.


Most of the other paricipants are filmed in light and airy enviroments


ASSOCIATION: Conspiracy theories fester in the dark, light dispels them!



THE BIRD EYE AND THE FISH EYE.

prior to presenting someone objecting the conspiracy claims, we are shown bird eye views over cityscapes or the
Hollywood mountains, this symbolism prepares the viewer for the clear sighted overview that mongers of bad science and
X-files fiction writers are supposed to give us.

At the end, we se passenger planes about to take off, to make a conection to the last trip the passengers on the 4 airplanes ever made.

We take off with one of the airplanes, leaving the conspiracies behind, accepting the "painful truth" in the fiction wrtiters words.


The imagery of conspiracies are framed differently, the camera plunges beneath the surface of a lake, pages are sinking to the
bottom, together with the myths,



ASSOCIATION: Conspiracy theories lingers beneath the surface or underground.




The wide angle lens is used througout the film, but it conveys different messages.

A close upp wide angle view of an agitated Jim Fetzer makes him out as the conspiracy bogeyman of the film

When the same teqnique is used on David Colburn and the pilot, it is to convey a feeling of monumentality and authority


David is also presented with lots of books about 911, and piles off paper, on his desk, suggesting his thorough investigation.




We are presented with a dramatization or " reconstruction " as they call it of what happened at the
North American Aerospace Defence command as they recieved the first phonecalls about possible hijackings.

The narrator is telling us the official story as we see a dramatized reconstruction off the events, the imagery
suggests confusion and desorientation, thereby "explaining" why everything went wrong on that day.

Running the story and the imagery side by side , we are made to believe that this is what actually happened.

1. You are assuming, unless you have talked to the author, that these were subliminal messages. You may be right, but your analysis is speculation.

2. Many of the truther leaders are insensitive to the Family Victims. The public face of the "movement" such as Dylan Avery and others have mocked the victims on board the flights, and have made accusations of victim family members.

3. 9/11 CT movement DOES FESTER ON THE INTERNET. Without the internet, the 9/11 truth movement would be NOTHING.

4. Dylan, Jason, Alex, and Fetzer DESERVE to be filmed in Dark Light. They promote unsubstantiated lies.

5. As for the rest of your interpretation of the film's imagery, subjective malarky.

6. So you wanna start analyzing any of Alex Jone's Documentaries like this.

7. Anyone else, besides the BBC filmmakers, you wanna add to the list of evil doers?

TAM:)

[Niclas]

In another documentary, "911 conspiracy theories, fact or fiction" the same
strategy is used. First we get the "conspiracy claim" and the the "experts" get the
last word, let alone that the guys from PM has pointed out that they are NOT experts,
in this case they did not kick and scream when the producers ascribed this title
to them, or maybe they just did not have a saying, oh well, i feel for them....

[8den]

In another documentary, "911 conspiracy theories, fact or fiction" the same
strategy is used. First we get the "conspiracy claim" and the the "experts" get the
last word, let alone that the guys from PM has pointed out that they are NOT experts,
in this case they did not kick and scream when the producers ascribed this title
to them, or maybe they just did not have a saying, oh well, i feel for them....

As I recall both Alex Jones and Dylan Avery are allowed hang themselves with their own rope. Alex's asinine attempt to compare himself to Copernicus, and Dylan's misquoting of the coroner are both laid out in black and white. They expose Alex as a egotistical blow hard with a dubious grasp of history, and Dylan as a lying manipulative SOB who has no comeback when confronted by professional filmmakers.

[Niclas]

You certainly don´t need to be a "truther" to see that the film is heavily biased.

Im not saying "BBC made a biased documentary, therefore Bush made 911"

It only takes a minimal understanding of how images are used to convey emotion
and messages to realise how manipulative this film is, even without the way
it manipulates the facts ( this was the only part of my review that i have translated from swedish to english so far )



Are Alex Jones films biased? Totally! and they do not claim to be anything else.

Do the producer and director of this film claim to be objective?

Absolutely, he has made this statement over and over again in an interview.

[tsig]

You certainly don´t need to be a "truther" to see that the film is heavily biased.

Im not saying "BBC made a biased documentary, therefore Bush made 911"


and messages to realise how manipulative this film is, even without the way
it manipulates the facts ( this was the only part of my review that i have translated from swedish to english so far )



Are Alex Jones films biased? Totally! and they do not claim to be anything else.

Do the producer and director of this film claim to be objective?

Absolutely, he has made this statement over and over again in an interview.
deleted

[T.A.M.]

You certainly don´t need to be a "truther" to see that the film is heavily biased.

Im not saying "BBC made a biased documentary, therefore Bush made 911"

It only takes a minimal understanding of how images are used to convey emotion
and messages to realise how manipulative this film is, even without the way
it manipulates the facts ( this was the only part of my review that i have translated from swedish to english so far )



Are Alex Jones films biased? Totally! and they do not claim to be anything else.

Do the producer and director of this film claim to be objective?

Absolutely, he has made this statement over and over again in an interview.

There is no film made, outside of perhaps 1970s animal documentaries, that are completely without bias, or a view point. Michael Moore's films - Bias, Alex Jones Films - bias. Press for Truth - Bias. Loose Change - Bias.

TAM:)

[Wildy]

...and Dylan as a lying manipulative SOB who has no comeback when confronted by professional filmmakers.

I thought he had no comeback when someone pointed out his poor grasp of the English language?

[RedIbis]

1. You are assuming, unless you have talked to the author, that these were subliminal messages. You may be right, but your analysis is speculation.

2. Many of the truther leaders are insensitive to the Family Victims. The public face of the "movement" such as Dylan Avery and others have mocked the victims on board the flights, and have made accusations of victim family members.

3. 9/11 CT movement DOES FESTER ON THE INTERNET. Without the internet, the 9/11 truth movement would be NOTHING.

4. Dylan, Jason, Alex, and Fetzer DESERVE to be filmed in Dark Light. They promote unsubstantiated lies.

5. As for the rest of your interpretation of the film's imagery, subjective malarky.

6. So you wanna start analyzing any of Alex Jone's Documentaries like this.

7. Anyone else, besides the BBC filmmakers, you wanna add to the list of evil doers?

TAM:)

TAM, I've always been partial to your numbering system, very efficient.

1) This is bizarre logic to say the least. a) What makes you think talking to the author is going to give you the truth about how the doc was made? b) How do we critically analyze a film in which the director/writer is dead? Is all analysis invalid then?

2) Hard as you might try to convince people, there is no such thing as truther leadership. If there ever were, it certainly wouldn't be led by someone such as Dylan Avery, and that's no slight against him, it just happens to be true. Your tactic here is to convict by guilt by association. You have to disavow yourself of this transparent attack.

3) Only because it exists today. Daytrading festers on the internet, web based education is the fastest segment of that industry and festers on the internet. We could go on and on.

4) If you were really so sure of this, you wouldn't need to bathe them in dark light. The most persuasive journalism is objective, and doesn't need these cheap tricks. Period.

5) Actually, his/her analysis is quite consistent with the discussion you would find in nearly any college film class, of which I took a few.

6) This isn't about Jones' docs, it's not about Penn & Teller's shows, Niclas is analyzing this doc.

7) You don't have to be part of some vast conspiracy to be inaccurate and impose bias.

Niclas, well done. You'll find out soon enough, the more specific you are, the more virulent the attacks will become.

ETA: Please don't take my use of the second person, personally,TAM. I do mean it, obviously, in the general sense.

[A W Smith]

I have not watched the documentary. What is it exactly they get wrong?

be specific

[8den]

I thought he had no comeback when someone pointed out his poor grasp of the English language?

Now now, according to Dylan he "is perfectly aware of what a simile is". Apparently the coroner's comments "were still completely valid", even removed from the actual context of what he said.

[Brainster]

You certainly don´t need to be a "truther" to see that the film is heavily biased.

Do the producer and director of this film claim to be objective?

Absolutely, he has made this statement over and over again in an interview.

I agree that the program revealed a bias. The problem is that the Truthers are so nutty that it's extremely difficult to be unbiased. It's like if you had one person saying that the Moon is made of green cheese, could you analyze that claim in an unbiased manner?

[boloboffin]

I agree that the program revealed a bias. The problem is that the Truthers are so nutty that it's extremely difficult to be unbiased. It's like if you had one person saying that the Moon is made of green cheese, could you analyze that claim in an unbiased manner?

Would anyone be required to attempt an unbiased manner? :) I'd sooner try to make to the Moon of my own volition.

[T.A.M.]

1. You are assuming, unless you have talked to the author, that these were subliminal messages. You may be right, but your analysis is speculation.

2. Many of the truther leaders are insensitive to the Family Victims. The public face of the "movement" such as Dylan Avery and others have mocked the victims on board the flights, and have made accusations of victim family members.

3. 9/11 CT movement DOES FESTER ON THE INTERNET. Without the internet, the 9/11 truth movement would be NOTHING.

4. Dylan, Jason, Alex, and Fetzer DESERVE to be filmed in Dark Light. They promote unsubstantiated lies.

5. As for the rest of your interpretation of the film's imagery, subjective malarky.

6. So you wanna start analyzing any of Alex Jone's Documentaries like this.

7. Anyone else, besides the BBC filmmakers, you wanna add to the list of evil doers?

TAM:)

TAM, I've always been partial to your numbering system, very efficient.

1) This is bizarre logic to say the least. a) What makes you think talking to the author is going to give you the truth about how the doc was made? b) How do we critically analyze a film in which the director/writer is dead? Is all analysis invalid then?

2) Hard as you might try to convince people, there is no such thing as truther leadership. If there ever were, it certainly wouldn't be led by someone such as Dylan Avery, and that's no slight against him, it just happens to be true. Your tactic here is to convict by guilt by association. You have to disavow yourself of this transparent attack.

3) Only because it exists today. Daytrading festers on the internet, web based education is the fastest segment of that industry and festers on the internet. We could go on and on.

4) If you were really so sure of this, you wouldn't need to bathe them in dark light. The most persuasive journalism is objective, and doesn't need these cheap tricks. Period.

5) Actually, his/her analysis is quite consistent with the discussion you would find in nearly any college film class, of which I took a few.

6) This isn't about Jones' docs, it's not about Penn & Teller's shows, Niclas is analyzing this doc.

7) You don't have to be part of some vast conspiracy to be inaccurate and impose bias.

Niclas, well done. You'll find out soon enough, the more specific you are, the more virulent the attacks will become.

ETA: Please don't take my use of the second person, personally,TAM. I do mean it, obviously, in the general sense.

A habit from med school (The numerical listing).

1. I am not saying we can't analyze, but to present it as anything but speculation or opinion is incorrect. It is like reading subtext in a film...you may be right, maybe not. You can speculate, but unless you ask the filmmaker, you cannot know if that is what he meant.

2. Ok, I will restate it as "Public Face of the Truth Movement". However, that said, you are kidding yourself if you think that Dylan Avery, Alex Jones, Richard Gage, and others, are not looked up to, looked to for guidance and advice, by many in the truth movement, therefore, in many ways they are "leadership".

3. I will disavow nothing. I was merely commenting on why I think Dylan and others deserve to be "lit in Black". Snake Oil Salesmen can fool many a person if not exposed. If "black lighting" helps, great.

4. I have not said that he was inaccurate in anything, nor accurate. My comments were not directed at his analysis of possible imagery and other tricks of persuasion (I have a little background in film making myself). My comments were more or less in response to his own prejudices. I personally do not care if he thinks the doc was a metaphor for Icke's Aliens. One exception would be my "subjective malarky" response.

5. given he has not been specific about any aspect of 9/11, I doubt we will get to see if you are correct. I always welcome specifics...the trouble is no one from the TM is able to provide any.

TAM:)

[SDC]

T
Niclas, well done. You'll find out soon enough, the more specific you are, the more virulent the attacks will become.



Cut by me to this piece of presumably unintended outrageous hilarity.

Red I. never gets specific. He (could be she) just throws up a bunch of stuff and runs away when the errors and fallacies are pointed out.

Red I., you comical scamp!!

[Tomblvd]

Here are some examples of the subliminal messages that the imagery in the documentary is used to convey:

.............snip...............




What possible reason could you have to resurrect a year old thread, not to point out some factual problems, but to allege perceived bias?

[Par]

Niclas, well done. You'll find out soon enough, the more specific you are, the more virulent the attacks will become.


I notice you’re persisting with your narcissistic yet well-rehearsed grievance pantomime. Very well. I don’t suppose you can make it as far as the nearest bus-stop without being mortally wronged in some sense or another. Can there be no justice?

[Niclas]

I started to watch films like "loose change" and "911 mysteries" about a
year ago, i was not aware of the debate going on overseas
(i live in sweden ) I just accepted the official story and did not give it much
thought, but i ASSUMED that bringing the towers down completely was part
of the terrorists plan, somehow they KNEW or made sure that the towers
would collapse, because i could see the tremendous importance of the
apocalyptic images off the collapse and of people being chased down the
streets of New York by an enormous dust cloud.

Lets imagine, that the planes flew into the towers and the towers withstood
the impact, the trauma might not be as great and people would go back to
living their lives as before when the initiall shock has settled.

You have to push people to certain limit, where the trauma is IRREPARAPLE
and there is no going back, and then we have a "pre 911" world
and a "post 911" world.

However, watching these films i learned that it was just a "lucky strike"
from the terrorists perspective, that the towers were brought down!

The intention of the first bombing 93 was to bring the building down
i believe? Why would the asspirations of attempt number 2 be any less?


Sorry, im drifting away from the topic....:o


Anyway, i watched these films and was not convinced because i know how
easy it it to become duped when you are presented with a lot of claims
that are difficult to verify. "Loose change" makes the mistake of flooding the viewer
with data, eagerly trying to convince us.

So i started to look for alternative explanations refuting these claims.

They turned out to be difficult to find and always dissapointing
( had an e-mail correspondance with the guy behind "dubunking 911"
that led absolutely nowhere )

people turning to documentarys like conspiracy files and 911 conspiracies
for answers will feel betrayed if they are not content with being given a
security blanket to suckle on.

They might just be digging their own grave with this kind of journalism.

At the end of the film we get the impression that they have done a
thourough investigative work by critisising FBI and CIA

But there is already a broad consensus pointing to neglect on the part of
these agencies, you can also read it in the 911 commission report.

[SDC]

Translation into English, please?

ETA: uhm, and into good sense, while you are at it?

[Niclas]

Whether conspiracy theories "fester" on the internet....well i guess it depends on your perpective.


I belive that this is the internet right? And JREF is an internet site?

And this is a place where people both debate and share ideas and
information with like minded people.

You might have found some really good "debunking" stuff and can´t wait
to tell your friends on JREF and there will be lots of readers as well.

So maybe from a "truthers" perpective the official conspiracy theories
are "festering" on the JREF forum, they are also sharing ideas
with each other and from their perpective, it´s the truth.

So just because you find some information on the internet does not mean
that it is untrue or true, you have to be critcal of EVERYTHING you are
being told, whether its the reporter, the web site or your mother telling it.

So when the BBC makes a documentary for tv, its journalism, while people
on the internet are gossiping and spreading romours?
The idea that what we see on television IS REAL is deeply ingrained
in us, and i belive that BBC conspiray files exploits this.

[Apollo20]

Niclas:

Please be aware that you are casting pearls before ..............

(Well you know Matthew 7, v 6)

[Niclas]

Lets say im a movie reviewer for the NY times, i go to see a film that turns out to be a disaster.

I will write in my review: " i laughed for all the wrong reasons, cried to see good actors acting way beond their ability, and shivered
when i realised that there was still an hour left of the movie"

The next day i will see this quote from my review in a movie theatre advertising: " I LAUGHED.......I CRIED......I SHIVERED" NY times "

Do i have the right to claim that i am misquoated? I would say yes. Although these are my words they are taken out of context.

The coroner has made at least two apperances in documentaries claiming that he has been
misquoted by Dylan Avery.

Is this true i thought? I had to check it out for myself, let´s see what he has to say:

"He was stunned at how small the smoking crater looked, he says, "like someone took a scrap truck, dug a 10-foot ditch and dumped all this trash into it." Once he was able to absorb the scene, Miller says, "I stopped being coroner after about 20 minutes, because there were no bodies there. It became like a giant funeral service."

Help me out here, where is he misqoted? Is something taken out of context here?

Oh you mean the " it became more like a funeral service" part?

This is Wally contemplating the sad scene and the fate of the passengers. How does that help us understand what happened?

Off course he assumes that the passengers are dead! Has anybody claimed that Wally came to the crash site and said:
" Nope, no bodies here! And someone has obviously faked a
plane crash site, must be the deed of that bad Bush! Let´s call it a day guys , what´s for dinner?"
.

What is important here is that Wally is a witness.
what did he percieve with his senses?.
A witness interpretations are of less importance i would say, unless perhaps, he/she is also an expert.

Can we expect to see bodies, or even bodieparts at a plane crash site? ( or a bandana? )
Is this what a crash site is "supposed" to look like?

I don´t know, and most of the viewers of LC probably don´t either. But Wally does indeed claim to have found tissue belonging to the victims. From the article:


"They were essentially cremated together upon impact. Hundreds of searchers who climbed the hemlocks and combed the woods for weeks were able to find about 1,500 mostly scorched samples of human tissue totaling less than 600 pounds, or about 8 percent of the total."



Is Dylan giving us the full account of this event in Loose change?

Providing us with information that will both support and refute the claim that plane 93 crashed there?


No he does not. Is he misquoting anybody? I can not see that he is, i might say that its cherrypicking,
but Guy Smith is also cherrypicking his way through the documentary he has directed and produced..
The difference is that Guy pretends to be objective, and there is a vast difference between failing to
be objective and being manipulative.



No wonder Dylan looks confused, when the interviewer is merely stating the obvious:
That wally is saying all this as a similie.

BUT I THINK THE " IT LOOKED AS IF" PART WOULD BE SUFFICIENT TO SORT THAT OUT.

And Dylan does get that part right!

So, no misquoting there either im afraid.

[Shrinker]

...

No wonder Dylan looks confused, when the interviewer is merely stating the obvious:
That wally is saying all this as a similie.

BUT I THINK THE " IT LOOKED AS IF" PART WOULD BE SUFFICIENT TO SORT THAT OUT.

And Dylan does get that part right!

So, no misquoting there either im afraid.

Perhaps if you had researched the common usage of 'misquote' you could have saved yourself this lengthy excercise in pedantry.

From Collins Essential Thesaurus 2nd Edition 2006 © HarperCollins Publishers 2005, 2006...

misquote
verb: misrepresent, twist, distort, pervert, muddle, mangle, falsify, garble, misreport, misstate, quote or take out of context

[Dave Rogers]

Niclas,

Apart from the clear implication you are making that Dylan Avery neither is nor pretends to be objective - an implication most regulars here would agree with wholeheartedly - can you not see that your analysis proves the exact opposite of what you claim it proves, that by your own definition Dylan Avery misquoted Wally Miller? Specifically, you admit that Avery is cherrypicking, yet when you say,


Do i have the right to claim that i am misquoated? I would say yes. Although these are my words they are taken out of context.



you are clearly identifying cherrypicking as a form of misquoting. Can't you even follow your own analysis?

Dave

[Niclas]

The story of Delta 89, as being told by one of the passengers in the BBC
film, seems to be fairly consistent with the story Dylan gives us in LC,
exept that his take is a lot more dramatic.

But through clever editing, this is omitted and we are made to believe
that Dylan does not mention Delta 89, but he does, see for youself.

" This woman must be telling the truth, that she was on the plane that
had to land, and it was not plane 93, why would she lie?
So Dylan must be lying then!"

This is what the viewer is supposed to be thinking.

[Niclas]

I convinve us, it is important to include both "experts" that appeals to our faith
in authority, and "common people" that the we can identify with.

They are probably all being asked why they think that "conspiracy theories"
florish, becuause they all provide answers for this.

Again, we are being "helped" to come to a conclusion.

[Niclas]

To convince us, it is important to include both "experts" that appeals to our faith
in authority, and "common people" that the we can identify with and who
provides the "common sense".

They are probably all being asked why they think that "conspiracy theories"
florish, becuause they all provide answers for this.

Again, we are being "helped" to come to a conclusion.

[CptColumbo]

IIRC, and it's been a while since I watched the BBC doc, each person was filmed in their home and/or place of business. If their home and/or place of business (basement or trailer) has poor lighting it is not the fault of the filmmakers. They will probably suggest a change of location, but if the person being interviewed is more comfortable where they are, they will do their best to light them. If you want better lighting, and the producers have the resources, try to be in front of a large window. The crew then is forced to put more light on you from the front (usually reflected) so you are not lost in shadow.

I've found that softer lighting makes for a more pleasing image than stark lighting.

If I wanted to make a person seem inferior, I would manipulate the level of the camera. The cameras height relative to the person's eyes can manipulate a viewers perception of the superiority or inferiority of a subject more than lighting.

[fullflavormenthol]

"He was stunned at how small the smoking crater looked, he says, "like someone took a scrap truck, dug a 10-foot ditch and dumped all this trash into it."

Like...doesn't imply that some DID just dump trash into a hole. I have seen the devastation from a tornado and I have described it on similar terms. For your researching pleasure I present you this link about the term simile (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simile).

Once he was able to absorb the scene, Miller says, "I stopped being coroner after about 20 minutes, because there were no bodies there. It became like a giant funeral service."

Now what he was saying is really simple if you understand the job of a coroner (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coroner). Once it had been established what had killed these people (plane crash), the only thing left to do was identify the bodies; which to be very blunt were in pieces. It took advanced techniques to identify the remains, that go beyond the scope of the average coroner. Nevertheless there is plenty of documentation from Wallace Miller clarifying his statements.

[SDC]

Look. Here we are, paying attention to someone whose English is obviously poor, yet who is claiming to be able to clarify the significance of the statements of a number of native speakers of American English, who have varying degrees of education and articulateness themselves.

Sheesh. That's downright plain ridiculous. Walk away, walk away. Too silly for words.

[Brainster]

Help me out here, where is he misqoted? Is something taken out of context here?

The point is that Dylan's using Miller's quotes to reinforce his claim that Flight 93 did not crash in Shanksville. But when you look at the full quotes it is quite clear that Miller 100% believes that Flight 93 did crash there.

This is misleading anybody who watches Loose Change I or II into believing that Wally Miller agrees with the Troofers. But in fact, as you saw in the BBC documentary, Miller does not agree with them.

[chillzero]

let´s see what he has to say:

"He was stunned at how small the smoking crater looked, he says, "like someone took a scrap truck, dug a 10-foot ditch and dumped all this trash into it." Once he was able to absorb the scene, Miller says, "I stopped being coroner after about 20 minutes, because there were no bodies there. It became like a giant funeral service."

Help me out here, where is he misqoted? Is something taken out of context here?

You've had a few responses on this already, but the way I have seen this taken out of context involved the words I bolded. This phrase has been used as evidence that there were no people on the plane; or even no plane in the first place. When the following sentence is left in, it becomes clear that this is not the claim. He clearly acknowledges that people died at this scene - but their bodies were irrecoverable. When that sentence is taken out, it is twisted to imply that he claimed there were no deaths or casualties at that location.