This years Black - Conspiracy Terrorists

I'm sitting here at 00:15 watching This Week, a light hearted political programme on BBC1. They are discussing why conspiracy theorists seem to persist even when the truth is divulged, the theory debunked.

The BBC are also running a series of documentaries called The Conspiracy Files, which attempts to debunk, sorry, investigate conspiracies which have proved very popular amongst the masses.

Is it me or are the Beeb trying a little too hard to sway popular opinion?

One of the examples given by the presenter of This Week was a man who claimed the CIA had planted an atomic bomb in the WTC, and that had caused the destruction, wasn't one of you guys was it.......?

A rather narrow example of the conspiracy community I feel the BBC are trying to portray.

Is the witch hunt going to turn from terrorist to theorist, will it prove unpopular for the masses to even consider the idea of questioning if they are going to be mocked in the street and called names like "Theorist" and abused with "CT go home".

Why are the Beeb suddenly giving the Theorists air time?

What reason could they possibly have for tarring all theorists as nuts?

Me reckons they are on a damage limitation exercise, post accusations of the preempting the collapse of WTC 7, amongst other things.

Anyone?


[edit on 8-3-2007 by Koka]

Originally posted by Koka

Is the witch hunt going to turn from terrorist to theorist, will it prove unpopular for the masses to even consider the idea of questioning if they are going to be mocked in the street and called names like "Theorist" and abused with "CT go home".

I really don't mind people theorizing (sp?) about anything.

It's when people make direct claims about something, without any proof
other than, their word, or some far-out web-site as proof.

Speculate all you want. I'll even read and consider it. But, try to throw it at me as fact ?

Sorry, no.

Lex

I watched The Conspiracy Files at the weekend. It concerned the Oklahoma City bombing, and entertained the possibility that Timothy McVeigh had an accomplice. I found the show to be even handed. Both the sides of the conspiracy theorist, and the establishment seemed to be covered, and the show didn't attempt to draw any conclusions.

Now, if you entertain the idea, that the official story may not be accurate in this case, then why should you not with regards to any other?

Shows are made by production crews. These are made up of people. With people, as you can see on this site, you find a myriad of differing opinions.

Either that, or we're the puppet people and the BBC is there to tell us how to think.

Whatever floats your boat i guess.

Originally posted by Lexion
I really don't mind people theorizing (sp?) about anything.

It's when people make direct claims about something, without any proof
other than, their word, or some far-out web-site as proof.

Speculate all you want. I'll even read and consider it. But, try to throw it at me as fact ?

I agree, but when the facts given by the authorities are questionable is it right to point at the person asking the question and say "You're a conspiracy nut".

Think of Joe Bloggs at home watching and pondering as to why questions are not being answered, too worried to open his mouth for fear of being considered a conspiracy nut just cos' he doesn't understand the conclusions he is being presented with.

Originally posted by Implosion
Now, if you entertain the idea, that the official story may not be accurate in this case, then why should you not with regards to any other?

I do not entertain ALL CTs to be true, as I do not entertain ALL aspects of any individual conspiracy.

Originally posted by Koka
I do not entertain ALL CTs to be true, as I do not entertain ALL aspects of any individual conspiracy.

Sorry, perhaps I should have said, "if one..". Point being. One show, the one regarding the 911 conspiracy, seems to have disregarded the accusations of foul play [I didn't see it, I don't know]. The one I watched, entertained the idea, of a government cover up. Now, how can the same series do both? Possibly because they were made by different people, with different world views. Almost like individuals.

TBH, the idea that people are going to watch the BBC and take everything they say to be gospel, is IMO doing people, as I know them to be, a great disservice. I'm a person, and I like to think that I have the ability to think for myself. I'd like to think that I'm not alone in that capacity. The last place I'm going to look, for a guide on how to think, is the television. I'm sure you're the same. Why then, hold such a low opinion of all the Joe Blogs' out there?

[edit on 8/3/07 by Implosion]

Originally posted by Implosion
One show, the one regarding the 911 conspiracy, seems to have disregarded the accusations of foul play [I didn't see it, I don't know.

I did see that one and yes they avoided many awkward questions.

The one I watched, entertained the idea, of a government cover up. Now, how can the same series do both? Possibly because they were made by different people, with different world views. Almost like individuals.

Some potatoes are hotter than others.

TBH, the idea that people are going to watch the BBC and take everything they say to be gospel, is IMO doing people, as I know them to be, a great disservice. I'm a person, and I like to think that I have the ability to think for myself. I'd like to think that I'm not alone in that capacity. The last place I'm going to look, for a guide on how to think, is the television. I'm sure you're the same. Why then, hold such a low opinion of all the Joe Blogs' out there?

IMO, the average Joe, does not think like you and I, but there are more of them.

Please don't get me wrong, in thinking differently it is not my belief that I would believe I were superior, far from it, in many regards.

I do believe there are people who question or at least ponder, but fall foul of voicing themselves, and many that bow to peer pressure and humility.

It is not my belief that what the BBC say will be taken as gospel, I try not to make generalisations.


[edit on 8-3-2007 by Koka]

Originally posted by Koka
IMO, the average Joe, does not think like you and I, but there are more of them.

You know, I probably overstated the point a little, but I do think that more and more people are getting sick of the lies they are told on a daily basis.

I would say one indicator of this would be voter apathy. Not directly linked to the topic at hand, however, if you can't trust your politicians [and more and more people seem to be deciding that they can't] then who would trust the media. It is after all, their primary mouthpiece.

This is where we have a problem. You can vote in a general election using your feet. Instead of going to the polling station, you go to the pub. This of course, could lead to dire consequences, as far as the the government representing the people goes. What we lack, is a viable option. Leaders have lied to the led for time immemorial. The media, when not hawking products, is trying to push somebody or an other's viewpoint down our throats.

We have a government we can't trust to represent the people, and we have a media who acts as the highest bidders mouthpiece. What can be done? People have enough trouble working forty hour weeks, and paying the bills. Life is short, and you have to try to enjoy what free time you have.

I think, instead of a population who are willing to accept the official story on anything, we have a population which has grudgingly resigned itself to the fact that not a damn thing they can ever do will change anything.

[edit on 8/3/07 by Implosion]

Originally posted by Implosion
I think, instead of a population who are willing to accept the official story on anything, we have a population which has grudgingly resigned itself to the fact that not a damn thing they can ever do will change anything.

I agree with your whole statement Implosion, thats very much how I see it.

Whether you believe the official story, take the resigned approach or question, we are all being manipulated.

Working, paying bills, looking after the kids, people are just to busy to open their eyes especially when the wool is being pulled over them.

I'm sitting here trying to figure out what the title of this thread means. "This year's black"

If it means what I think it means, I find it a little offensive. Perhaps you should change it?

If you are offended, then it doesn't mean what you think it means.

I can only assume you think the phrase "this year's black" has some racial connotation.

When something is said to be "this year's black" it means that it is this years must have. What is fashionable. What is essential to own.

Why would you assume that there must be some sort of negative connotation with this phrase?

It is possible to be too politically correct, as I think you've illustrated beautifully.

Assumption is the mother of all... well, you know.

Kind of like my wife saying, This years 40 is 30...

I wish.

Lex

Originally posted by sensfan
I'm sitting here trying to figure out what the title of this thread means. "This year's black"

If it means what I think it means, I find it a little offensive. Perhaps you should change it?

Not sure what interpretation you have managed to get out of the title that could be considered offensive.

I would be interested to know.....

My apologies. I had never heard that term before, and assumed wrong. I should know better than to assume anything...you know the old saying about assuming? Yeah, that's me...the ass.

Again, sorry :-)