It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

BBC actually produced 2 9/11 documentaries. Forced to air pro-gov version.

page: 2
3
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 19 2007 @ 01:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by waynos
Everyone has an opinion, even a BBC reporter. As long as both sides of the argument are presented they have done their job.


Those comments were not made by a BBC reporter, they were made by a supposedly impartial and unbiased Narrator. The point of my reply was that you tried to say that they were unbiased and impartial, but if they are inserting opinions that support one side and not another, then how is that unbiased and impartial? Don't try and play games with me.


Originally posted by waynos
I don't recalling calling anybody anything, if you took a general remark as a personal insult and can see no distinction between yourself and one of the many rabid nuts that populate the internet it says more about you than me and is not my problem. I retract and apologise for nothing in that comment.


You called us all Hypocritcal Conspiracy Nuts for disagreeing with the BBC documentary yet you then go on to say that there are lots of unanswered questions about 9/11 (which this documentary attempted to debunk) and that the BBC could have done a better job. Fine, don't retract your insult then you mindless Slave. You're the hypocrite!


Originally posted by waynos
Of course it did, this is called presenting both sides as I remarked. My case in point was not *the theory*, but rather the members on here who are unable distinguish between provable fact and fantasy and simply refuse to believe those points which are easily provable. That is an example of the nut element. Yes, they are here.


Irrelevant, you and the person you were paraphrasing from a different thread said that the film didn't contain anything about the Pentagon theories, I corrected you both and informed you that it indeed did contain such theories. I'm not responsible for what someone else has said (if they have indeed said it, and you're not just making it up). You didn't make this clarification when you chopped out your sweeping generalisation that people who thought this documentary was a whitewash were Hypocritical Conspiracy Nuts, so don't try it now. It's not going to work with me, I'm afraid.


Originally posted by waynos
The reason I brought up the no-757 theory was that I read it put forward not two minutes before I came to this thread, on another ATS thread in this forum, as a reason *why* this documentary is not to be believed. That is not to say the documentary is 100% correct, only that silliness like that serves no useful purpose as it makes the conspiracy theorist look just as silly as the programme he is complaining about does, does it not?


Nobody in this thread said anything of the sort though, and the only reason you mentioned it here was to try and make us look stupid.


Originally posted by waynos
Regards the second point, what is it about constant Govt moves to try to gag the BBC over several decades and, on the few occasions when sensitive programmes have been dropped on the insistence of the Govt the BBC makes sure it announces the fact publicly on the News programmes, makes you think they are a Govt mouthpiece? Do you remember the furore over the BBC's open reporting during the invasion of Iraq? Why would they do that if the Govt was controlling them?


You say it yourself that the Government have tried to gag the BBC before, so what makes you think they haven't done it this time, and been successful in their endeavors? Besides, I posted an entire page of BBC's ‘Day by Day’ coverage of the war a few posts above. I'll post it again right here. Please point out to me this 'Open reporting' and Government criticism.

To be furthered... (4000 charachter limitation)




posted on Feb, 19 2007 @ 02:15 PM
link   
Continuation from above...



Originally posted by waynos
The failings of the documentary are editorial failings, nothing more sinister than that, hampered also by the need to try to compress a very complex subject into a one hour programme, the results are never going to be satisfactory and yes, the programme was more entertainment at the conspiracists expense than educational or investigative. I'm not arguing that point.


What? 'The failings of the documentary are editorial failings,' yet 'the programme was more entertainment at the conspiracists expense than educational or investigative'? Do you even think what you're typing before you type it? The failings of the documentary is that it's not educational or investigative! You even admit that it was more at our expense than it was educational or investigative. What in the flying # is the use of a documentary that is neither of those things, and how can you even write posts attacking us for speaking up about the lack of those things?


Originally posted by waynos
Its the supposed fact that the programme makers failings were due to *another* conspiracy and MI5 control etc that just emphasises the paranoid nature of these things. The programme can't just have been crap, it has to be a cover up. Thats what is Bull#! as you eloquently put it.


Actually that would be a failing of the *same* conspiracy. The programme was both crap and a cover up at the same time.


Originally posted by waynos
The case for the BBC being a govt controlled propaganda machine is nothing more than a poor programme that the people on here disagree vehemently with (surprise!). Well hows that for leaping to a conclusion?


Who's jumping to conclusions? You've even just typed that the Government have tried to silence the BBC on many occasions, just what makes you think they haven't managed it here? Didn't they force the BBC director to resign a few years ago and then install their own little Scumbag, or something similar?


Originally posted by waynos
The things I've seen in all my own years of experience however convince me that the BBC is actually a thorn in the side of whichever ruling government is in power precisely because it WILL NOT be told what to say. (maybe someone could put together a reel of all the political leaders that have stormed out of interviews where they have been exposed and outmanouvered by the likes of Frost, Day, Paxman etc over the years)


Who knows what they get told to do behind the scenes? Like I have already explained, I can't really seem to find a great deal of criticism about any real issues other than a few exceptions here and there. Not everything at the BBC is controlled, things slip through. Yet it's quite clear that things are fairly locked down by several certain obviously nefarious Groups.


Originally posted by waynos
Of course, after this you may well turn round and call me an agent of the propaganda machine myself for daring to have a different view on this but, for the record, my opinion is that those exposed as idiots on the show deserved it. I also feel that the show steered clear of the more difficult points on 911 that are made by the saner conspiracists that inhabit this site and whos posts I follow with deep interest.


To be honest they tried to make every single one us look like Idiots, even the 'saner conspiracists that inhabit this site and whos posts you follow with deep interest,' not just the people in the 'Movement' who actually are Idiots. What good is 'proving people Idiots' with a documentary that's 'not informative or investigative?' I don’t think you’re an Agent I just think you’re [REDACTED].



posted on Feb, 19 2007 @ 02:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by mister Jones
Personally, i dont think there were 2 versions for one simple reason.
If you read the article Guy Smith wrote on the BBC site prior to the TV documentary, it is pretty obvious that this producer already had a strong preconcieved opinion on conspiracies (more a mental thing, for people afraid to face reality) and had no intention what so ever in going into issues that could burn his fingers... his article here


I read that, and I would agree. Apparently he also told Alex Jones during filming that he didn't believe any of the 9/11 conspiracies.


Originally posted by mister Jones
IMO, this is one of the worst pieces of journalism i have ever seen on the beeb.


Agreed. The question is, was it intentional or not? I get the feeling that it might just have been.

[edit on 19-2-2007 by MassiveOrigamiRacoon]



posted on Feb, 19 2007 @ 02:45 PM
link   
This documentary was a total joke (as I predicted
) but I thought I'd post the video for any people who could/did not see it.


Google Video Link


[edit on 19-2-2007 by Xeros]



posted on Feb, 19 2007 @ 02:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by andy1033

Originally posted by Peyres
I'm sorry, who forced the BBC.? The U.S government or the U.K government. Neither have any sway on what the BBC does. The BBC does as it pleases. Much of its News and Documentaries are very left wing, anti-war, anti-American..the list goes on.


bbc gets all its funding from the government, the government(i.e mi5 run bbc). people outside uk, may not know that bbc runs no commercials and they get all there funding from the government. so they are not an independent media, the sky conspiracy show on illuminati did a better job, and thats owned by r murdock.

on the basis that it is said they edited two versions. what does it matter, they could of made 10 versions, at the end of the day, they showed the one they showed, does not really matter if they have another version.


[edit on 2/19/2007 by andy1033]



actually the bbc are funded by licsence fees !



posted on Feb, 19 2007 @ 03:11 PM
link   


You called us all Hypocritcal Conspiracy Nuts for disagreeing with the BBC documentary


Where? Or are you translating my 'some of the nuts' remark into 'everyone on ATS'? Care to explain how you come to that conclusion?



Fine, don't retract your insult then you mindless Slave. You're the hypocrite!

What insult? I've already told you it was an observation. You are being excessively defensive on this, almost as if you are trying to avoid the point by stirring up an argument.


Irrelevant, you and the person you were paraphrasing from a different thread said that the film didn't contain anything about the Pentagon theories,

Where? I was using the reason he gave for not believing the documentary as an example that two wrongs don't make a right, nothing more. Are my sentences really too complex for you to follow or are you being deliberately obtuse as a means of diffusing MY views?


You didn't make this clarification when you chopped out your sweeping generalisation that people who thought this documentary was a whitewash were Hypocritical Conspiracy Nuts, so don't try it now. It's not going to work with me, I'm afraid.

You really are stretching this 'not understanding what I say' act beyond credibility now. I have clearly stated that my point is purely about whether the BBC is in the Govt pockets or not. And I believe not. Just because you think they are you are trying to counter my argument with rants and lies. That's not very clever of you.



Nobody in this thread said anything of the sort though, and the only reason you mentioned it here was to try and make us look stupid.

*sigh* if you say so mr paranoid. I'm a long time member of ATS myself, I love it here and I read through various boards every single day. I regard many people on ATS as friends and I hope they feel the same way. Why would I come here and try to make anyone look stupid? That is a very childish and pathetic way try to discredit an opinion that differs from your own - shame on you.



Please point out to me this 'Open reporting' and Government criticism.


The BBC doesn't just have a website you know. I was referring specifically to the TV news coverage and to the verbal criticism broadcast on the BBC itself as well as all the other channels. If you want to see evidence on line then just go and type 'govt cricism of BBC' or a variation of that phrase into the search bar on BBCi, or google, or anywhere else. Its all out there. I just did it myself and it works so go and have a look. I do not need to justify myself with proof of something you could find yourself in about 5 seconds if you wanted to. Your unwillingness to look for the opposite viewpoint speaks volumes about your own blinkered closed mindedness much more than anything I could say.




What? 'The failings of the documentary are editorial failings,' yet 'the programme was more entertainment at the conspiracists expense than educational or investigative'? Do you even think what you're typing before you type it? The failings of the documentary is that it's not educational or investigative! You even admit that it was more at our expense than it was educational or investigative. What in the flying # is the use of a documentary that is neither of those things, and how can you even write posts attacking us for speaking up about the lack of those things?


Didn't I already say that I am speaking about the impartiality of the BBC and NOT defending this individual programme? I'm sure I did but you are choosing not to listen, or absorb and at least think before rejecting what I say.



Who's jumping to conclusions? You've even just typed that the Government have tried to silence the BBC on many occasions, just what makes you think they haven't managed it here?


You seem to be. Yes the Govt have tried several times AND FAILED. Now, what leads you to suppose they succeeded this time? I call that jumping to a conclusion despite a complete lack of either evidence or track record to back it up.



Not everything at the BBC is controlled, things slip through. Yet it's quite clear that things are fairly locked down by several certain obviously nefarious Groups.


It appears to be clear only in your mind, unless you can give instances that I ought to know about? Or maybe even just tell me what to type in what search engine if you prefer as I don't wish to be a hypocrite.

As for the last remark, again we come back to the point that a poor programme is not evidence of govt control. Unless you are a paraonoid conspiracy nut who just WANTS it to be of course.



posted on Feb, 19 2007 @ 03:32 PM
link   
Let's not forget that it was the hugely respected and influential BBC Radio 4 "Today" programme which broadcast Andrew Gilligan's infamous report which accused Alistair Campbell of "sexing up" one of the dossiers and ultimately precipitated David Kelly's suicide. (Which incidentally is the subject of next weeks "Conspiracy Files" programme).

The fallout of that flawed report, (it was Gilligan's own admission that it was flawed by the way), did lead to the resignation of the then Director General amidst much controversy but the fact that the report was cleared by the programme editor and broadcast clearly indicates that the BBC is far from being simply a Government mouthpiece.

Anybody who has read or posted on this site for any period of time cannot fail to be aware that plenty of rational and intelligent people who owe no allegiance to either Bush or Blair and have a relatively open mind on conspiracy theories do not accept the controlled demolition theory, or the no Boeing theory or lots of other theories. What is a pity is that one or two people, (not all, fortunately), on this thread and others seem to take such personal affront that a large broadcaster like the BBC presented a programme which adopted this point of view rather than theirs.

The result has been that rather than take a mature approach and present rational objections or rebuttals of the programme's standpoint they have resorted to metaphorically throwing their toys out of the pram and accusing the BBC of being controlled by MI5 and being Government stooges without providing a scrap of evidence to support such nonsense.

Come on guys please get used to the idea that not everybody who fails to swallow the 9/11 conspiracy agenda hook, line and sinker is a disinformation agent in the pay of the CIA.



posted on Feb, 19 2007 @ 03:37 PM
link   
To cover many of the points above, the Licence Fee pays for television (national and local), radio (national and local), transmitters and digital development for both television and radio broadcast. Much of the BBC is now privately owned having been sold off over the past five years or so.

I worked for the BBC for 10 years and spent 8 of those years with BBC News. I was on duty (not in an editorial capacity) during 9/11 and can say from first hand experience that the journalists take great pride in their impartiality and would not be swayed by government pressure. If any were received, the journalists would be more likely to realise they were on to something and dig deeper.

Proof of this? Look what happened to Andrew Gilligan over the 45 minutes scandal. www.guardian.co.uk...



posted on Feb, 19 2007 @ 04:57 PM
link   
Generally, I simply do not consider this corporation to be impartial. Anyone ever seen 'Question Time'? or the national and regional BBC news coverage? It's a propaganda tool and a very powerful one at that.

On issues such as race, politics, religion, the representation of the English in Europe..no, I don't consider the BBC to be impartial. Far from it. I would not trust this corporation to tell me the colour of orange juice and as for paying for the privilege..no thanks. Just about the only thing I find remotely entertaining about this corporation is it's coverage of wildlife and technology, as well as older material. Beyond this, almost nothing.

[edit on 19-2-2007 by Ross Cross]



posted on Feb, 19 2007 @ 05:14 PM
link   
Only someone from outside the UK would dare to think the Beeb take any notice of the Government.

To be honest I have ocassionaly been peed off by the BBC keeping up its attack on the government when there is other stuff going on. Once they stick their teeth in they do not stop. From Radio 2 & 4 to news 24 and any BEEB news outlet. The quality and integrity of the reporters is such that other organisations poach them, because the BEEB can't approach private sector (or yank) wages.

There are times I feel agrieved that I have to pay the licence but then in the morning you hear John Humphreys or James Naughtie interview some greasy, slimy politician and you can feel the politician squirm. Magic.
I really believe that reporters like Humphreys are in short supply, more so in America.

The BEEB scared of the Government, ha ha. It is definitely the reverse.

Personally I thought the documentary was a bit lame. But generally gave a bit of both sides. As I see it, the whole CT is all about interpretation of incomplete information. Neither side will give way. So leave it there.

2 cents



posted on Feb, 19 2007 @ 09:07 PM
link   
Warning: somewhat off topic...

Who saw the accusations of being a hit-piece coming a mile away, before the film even aired? I can't help but wonder what level of evidence it would take to convince the 'truthers' that the official story is indeed what happened? Would it take John Titor himself (provided he was real and not a load of horse manure) coming to you and taking you back to see the hijackers planning things out, prepping up for the big day, and finally watching from an adjacent building as the planes hammered their targets? Even faced with that would any of you hard liners be willing to accept the official story ever, or is the defense of the theories more a way to rebel?



posted on Feb, 20 2007 @ 02:40 AM
link   
Thats an interesting point to ponder helig. To be fair they could never have hoped to comprehensively cover the subject in a one hour programme and so it did skim through various points dismissively while skipping others altogether. Maybe a dedicated series might have had more success but I doubt it.

There will always be an element who will simply refuse to believe the official line , whatever evidence may be put before them, simply because it IS the official line and the govt always lies to us.

The sad thing is these types don't even realise they are the epitomy of the closed and narrow mind that they supposedly rail against.

Also the more lunatic theories (eg no planes hit the WTC at all or that 4,000 jews stayed off work that morning etc) damage the credibility of the genuinely searching investigations that many are trying to pursue on this subject.

Similarly, when a person is confronted with a conspiracy theory to explain an aspect of this that they KNOW is moonshine then the person that propounded that theory has no credibility with anything else they say either.

example;

person A puts forward theory on major event.

broadcaster B puts out a show that person A does not like.

person A then puts forward second theory that broadcaster B is govt controlled and part of the whole conspiracy.

person C comes along and reads this but knows that the latter is complete bollocks from personal experience and decides that person A has no credibility and, therefore, original theory is also likely to be bollocks as well.

See how it works? Thjis is the sort of unthinking lashing out that various conspiracists damage themselves with far more effectively than any effort to debunk them achieve.

So fine, lets have the theories and the investigations, lets review all the evidence carefully and with a open mind. But lets not lash outand assume everything that goes against what we say is also part of the cover up because if they weren't they would agree with us. That way lies madness.



posted on Feb, 20 2007 @ 08:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by waynos
Where? Or are you translating my 'some of the nuts' remark into 'everyone on ATS'? Care to explain how you come to that conclusion?


What do you mean where? How about right here:


Originally posted by waynos
Here's a theory, how about the Govt was thoroughly embarrassed by some of the truths they would rather the BBC had not broadcast during the war and now some of the 911 conspiracy nuts are feeling the same way. Simply accusing the BBC of a whitewash whilst firmly clinging to your own blinkered theory is all right, but to criticise other people who see things differently who will not be swayed to YOUR way of thinking is a tad hypocritical, no?


Seeing as how I openly accused the BBC of a whitewash on this board not even 35 Minutes after the show had aired, then you're calling me a Nut! You then go on to call me hypocritical! It's right there in your very text. Who is really the hypocrite if they're going around calling people names who have a different opinion to themselves and then lie about it and accuse the opposition of their own crime!? You, Sir, you! No


Originally posted by waynos
What insult? I've already told you it was an observation. You are being excessively defensive on this, almost as if you are trying to avoid the point by stirring up an argument.


Are you trying to say now that an observation cannot also act as an insult? If I said to you that you were as thick as #, that would be an observation -- yet it would also be an insult, too, would it not? Don't waste my time with your pathetic semantics, Time Gymnast.


Originally posted by waynos


Irrelevant, you and the person you were paraphrasing from a different thread said that the film didn't contain anything about the Pentagon theories,


Where? I was using the reason he gave for not believing the documentary as an example that two wrongs don't make a right, nothing more. Are my sentences really too complex for you to follow or are you being deliberately obtuse as a means of diffusing MY views?


Oh for crying out loud, what do you mean where? RIGHT HERE in the very same bloody post as I just got your other quote:


Originally posted by waynos
A case in point is the guy on another thread about this subject who refuses to believe anything in this programme might be right because it did not conclude that a 757 didn't hit the Pentagon, and therefore must be lying.

Pardon?

There is so much evidence in the public domain both now and right at the very time on live news feeds, that there is no way anyone with any sort of understanding of aviation and air crashes or even an ability to evaluate evidence accurately can have any doubt whatsoever that it was a 757.


Right there.


Originally posted by waynos
You really are stretching this 'not understanding what I say' act beyond credibility now. I have clearly stated that my point is purely about whether the BBC is in the Govt pockets or not. And I believe not. Just because you think they are you are trying to counter my argument with rants and lies. That's not very clever of you.


Look, my patience really is wearing thin now, I have supplied plenty of BBC links to help back up my case, I haven't lied a single time in this thread at all, and I'm not ranting! Would you please stop lying? Actually, to be honest I don't care even if you don't, because your trickery and dishonesty is right here in this thread for everyone to witness for themselves.



posted on Feb, 20 2007 @ 08:31 AM
link   
The BBC is there as a national broadcaster, but the government can censor it - and other media outlets - by issuing whats known as a "D" notice.

This notice is issued when it relates to matter surrounding issues of extreme sensitivity and national security.

That having been said, the BBC IS the mouthpiece of the British Government, and there are articles inbuilt into its charter to enable the use of its equipment and regional facilities as part of the regional defense and emergency broadcast system (every government bunker has a BBC run facility in it I do believe)

I would suggest that, despite the complaints from ministers, the BBC is very much in-line with the UK government, and a quiet word from the right places in the Civil Service is enough to get any programme pulled.



posted on Feb, 20 2007 @ 08:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by waynos
Didn't I already say that I am speaking about the impartiality of the BBC and NOT defending this individual programme? I'm sure I did but you are choosing not to listen, or absorb and at least think before rejecting what I say.


Who wrote, produced, and aired the documentary? Walt Disney? Besides, you were actually defending this individual programme in your initial post in this thread -- if you turn around and ask "Where?" again I'm going to go completely insane. Look... please, just do me a favour, alright? Please don't ask where.


Originally posted by waynos


Please point out to me this 'Open reporting' and Government criticism.


The BBC doesn't just have a website you know. I was referring specifically to the TV news coverage and to the verbal criticism broadcast on the BBC itself as well as all the other channels.


I am very well aware that the BBC has a Television service, thank you. I've been watching it for the past 15+ years and I have seen on something like 100,000 occasions the BBC do exactly the same as they have on their "Day by Day coverage" of the Iraq war. I asked you a question, I said please point out to me this 'Open reporting' and Government criticism from the BBC, not Government criticism of the BBC. You have failed to show any such thing on the page I provided and you have changed the subject to Television. Tell me something, if the BBC were so critical on Television then why has hardly any of that criticism appeared on their page set up to list their "Day by Day coverage of the War," which you have ignored?


Originally posted by waynos
If you want to see evidence on line then just go and type 'govt cricism of BBC' or a variation of that phrase into the search bar on BBCi, or google, or anywhere else. Its all out there. I just did it myself and it works so go and have a look. I do not need to justify myself with proof of something you could find yourself in about 5 seconds if you wanted to. Your unwillingness to look for the opposite viewpoint speaks volumes about your own blinkered closed mindedness much more than anything I could say.


Sir, I've looked directly at your viewpoint, I've done the search. Look at the state of the Government criticism of the BBC -- it's all over incredibly trivial matters. "Oh, the BBC lied to protect a source. Naughty Broadcasting Corporation." "Occasionaly, the BBC will say something to the effect that the Government is lying. We in Government do not appreciate this overly." I would hate to see what they would do to the BBC if they really did start reporting on the really big issues. Oh wait... They did actually try to once and look what happened:

BBC News Chief Criticises Reporters Journalism
Gilligan resigns
Two of BBC's Most Senior Figures resign

Wait for the crescendo!


BBC Apologises for 'Errors' During Kelly Affair

Director General Greg Dyke has quit as the BBC's crisis deepens in the wake of Lord Hutton's damning verdict.

The BBC's new Acting Chairman Lord Ryder also apologised "unreservedly" for errors during the Dr Kelly affair.

Mr Dyke's departure came 20 hours after BBC Chairman Gavyn Davies resigned following the Hutton Report and after the governors spent Thursday morning in crisis talks in London.

The pair quit after parts of Andrew Gilligan's BBC reports of claims Downing Street "sexed up" a dossier on Iraq's illegal weapons were branded "unfounded" by Lord Hutton.

Lord Ryder said: "The BBC must now move forward in the wake of Lord Hutton's report, which highlighted serious defects in the Corporation's processes and procedures"



posted on Feb, 20 2007 @ 09:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by mossad99
Sorry mate, MI5 reports to the PM.


does it really work like that, i bet its the other way round. bit like how bush does not run nsa or cia, mainly the navy does. blair and bush come and go, but there agencies stay the same.

just look how powerful kgb is in soviet union, and and now fsb. they are just exagerated forms of all intelligence agencies. i bet there are some battles behind the scenes between blair and his agencies.



posted on Feb, 20 2007 @ 09:11 AM
link   
God damn this ridiculous 4000 charachter limitation!

I shall continue on now (from the same article as above):


news.bbc.co.uk...

"On behalf of the BBC I have no hesitation in apologising unreservedly for our errors and to the individuals whose reputations were affected by them."

Prime Minister Tony Blair quickly welcomed the statement, saying it meant both the BBC and the government could move on.

He said: "This for me has always been a very simple matter of an accusation that was a very serious one that was made. It has now been withdrawn, that is all I ever wanted."


Take a look at that last statement -- take a look at the whole stinking article -- and then try and tell me that the Government can't silence the BBC.



It appears to be clear only in your mind, unless you can give instances that I ought to know about? Or maybe even just tell me what to type in what search engine if you prefer as I don't wish to be a hypocrite.


I've already done it for you, old Man. See above.



As for the last remark, again we come back to the point that a poor programme is not evidence of govt control. Unless you are a paraonoid conspiracy nut who just WANTS it to be of course.


It's evidence of someones control. Regardless, I have shown unequivocally that the BBC are being gagged and controlled by detailing the atrocities that took place over the Gilligan/Kelly/Campbell/Hutton scandal. I have provided you with the BBC's own reports on nearly 9 or 10 occasions in this thread clearly illustrating my point. You have provided nothing. You have been utterly destroyed, and I care not what you will now go on to say.

I will not place you on ignore, but I will not bother replying to you further in this thread if you carry on with these foul games any longer.

Good day to yourself, foul Sir. It has been an absolute pleasure.



posted on Feb, 20 2007 @ 09:16 AM
link   
MassiveOrigamiRacoon, thx for adding some facts to our argument. did anyone listen to guy smith on alex jones radio yesterday, alex just made him look very ignorant of the facts.

but the damage is done to the 911 truths, but maybe some may be intrigued enough to just look into it, and at least give alex jones a fair hearing.



posted on Feb, 20 2007 @ 09:17 AM
link   
Seems to me that because the BBC don't agree with you then you automatically assume they've been silenced. After it, it's impossible that they are right and that you are wrong ......

Interesting the programme draw similar conclusion to me though


Anyone know what next week's episode is about?



posted on Feb, 20 2007 @ 09:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Essan
Anyone know what next week's episode is about?


Next week's programme is about the suicide of David Kelly. You remember, he's the scientist who died after the BBC broadcast criticism of the Government...



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join