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.

 

ST911 Scientist to Sue BBC for Public Deception

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 16 2007 @ 12:05 PM
link   

A British scientist and member of Scholars for 9/11 Truth, John A. Blacker MSc IMI (Physical Systems), is planning to sue the BBC for mass public deception via their “9/11: The Conspiracy Files” program, RINF Alternative News can reveal.

ST911 Scientist to Sue BBC for Public Deception


Now with BBC in deep trouble over the Blue Peter, Queen scandle this could be the final tipping point for them, this will most likely get wide attention. A brave move by the man im very intrested in how this will turn out and what he will use for his case, i try to stay on the outside of this debate and questions need to be answered, but the program the BBC put out was a awful and ill-informed hit peice.

Mod Edit: External Source Tags – Please Review This Link.


[edit on 16/7/2007 by Mirthful Me]




posted on Jul, 16 2007 @ 12:44 PM
link   
Its about time the BBC got itself checked out.. they have been the governments and corporations right hand man for along time. There news coverage is so blatent now, just about every story they choose you can see exactly why they picked it, and why they show it in the order they do..

There coverage of the alternate side to reality.. or the truth in otherwords, is shocking.. they hold a monopoly over the British public, in controlling their attitudes. Everyone knows the BBC, and gets a sense of being "british" from them..

they have the attitude of an old male in the Royal Family, an elitist snob, who only wants to show you whats best for him and his families interest.



posted on Jul, 16 2007 @ 12:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by estar
Now with BBC in deep trouble over the Blue Peter, Queen scandle this could be the final tipping point for them, this will most likely get wide attention. A brave move by the man im very intrested in how this will turn out and what he will use for his case, i try to stay on the outside of this debate and questions need to be answered, but the program the BBC put out was a awful and ill-informed hit peice.


Strange
I thought it was a well presented piece. It looked at things relatively objectively and came to the conclusion there was no conspiracy.
Same as most other sane people.

Mode Edit: Reduced Quote.

[edit on 16/7/2007 by Mirthful Me]



posted on Jul, 16 2007 @ 02:02 PM
link   




It was awful it used conspiracy's that aren't even talked about, they didn't give any of the 9-11 truther's a chance to get their message across, the so called debunkers got much more time. I'd suggest watch this documentary countering that BBC show they put out.

911 and the British Broadcasting Conspiracy


[edit on 16-7-2007 by estar]



posted on Jul, 16 2007 @ 02:14 PM
link   
It's up to the BBC to choose the Conspiracy De Jour? What were they to do? Take a poll to see what CT was the most popular and take it from there?

This law suit will not see the light of day (IMO).



posted on Jul, 16 2007 @ 02:31 PM
link   
I remember watching that documentary....it was extremely biased and tilted towards ridiculing anyone who deviated from thinking outside the Bush/Blair explanation about 911....

If I remember rightly they devoted a proportion of the docu talking about holograms and saying how 911 truthers were so desperate they would come up with this sort of idea....WTF?

To my mind this was the BBC's way of getting the demograpic viewing population at the time of night, (hard working 30 - 60 year olds tuning in for the news!!!!!) to believe the crap they were showing.....

This was biased rubish but to the lay man surrounding 911 it would seem totally plausable......

I will watch again when I have time so I have all the facts at hand......but this really wasnt worth the air time let alone my f****g licence fee......

The sooner the BBC dies ther better..........


MR



posted on Jul, 16 2007 @ 02:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
It's up to the BBC to choose the Conspiracy De Jour?


Of course it is....thats stating the obvious......what ever suits their agenda!


What were they to do? Take a poll to see what CT was the most popular and take it from there?


Well at least that would have been better than the poo that was broadcast!.....


This law suit will not see the light of day (IMO).


I agree with you there.....I doubt it will even get 1 line in any British news paper......hhhhmmm I wonder why.........


Mod Edit: Profanity/Circumvention Of Censors – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 16/7/2007 by Mirthful Me]



posted on Jul, 16 2007 @ 02:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
It's up to the BBC to choose the Conspiracy De Jour? What were they to do? Take a poll to see what CT was the most popular and take it from there?

This law suit will not see the light of day (IMO).




Watch the Original video and the one I have posted, its biased rubbish that the BBC put out, false evidance. No they shouldn't put a poll out, I expect fair and well research journalism from the BBC as they work for the people and are funded by the people. Some of theory's they put in the documentary i have never heard of before and i've read a lot on the subject.



posted on Jul, 16 2007 @ 02:49 PM
link   
So...if the BBC were to say.... take 5 structural engineers from the offical report. (perhaps NIST engineers) and have them in a room with 5 "scientists" or engineers with their report.

Ok... you have 10 engineers. 5 of them standing there with their million page report with mathmatical equations that most of us have EVER seen let alone understand.

You have the other 5 standing there saying their mathmatical equations is wrong... and they pull out theirs....

Can you guys see where I'm going with this? WHO WOULD WATCH IT??

ZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzz -fest

BUT...you throw out hollograms and freaky stuff like that and VIOLA!

It's all about ratings. Hollograms and Space Rays attract viewers.

Math equations and Thermatic reactions do not.



posted on Jul, 16 2007 @ 03:27 PM
link   
SO, CO, I guess essentially what you are saying is that the BBC were chasing ratings and were not interested in a balanced programme?

Well judging by the quality of the programme I would have to agree with you.

MR



posted on Jul, 16 2007 @ 03:42 PM
link   
Yes... exactly. As wrong as the BBC program may have been. IMO it was purely legal and 100% for ratings.

No different from the garbage they put out on American TV.



posted on Jul, 16 2007 @ 04:05 PM
link   
Crikey.....

Sounds like we are all in agreement about this programme then.......



posted on Jul, 17 2007 @ 11:00 AM
link   
The letter he wrote was a really good read, would be inetresting to see the BBC's responce to it!



posted on Jul, 17 2007 @ 02:58 PM
link   
Strange
I thought it was a well presented piece. It looked at things relatively objectively and came to the conclusion there was no conspiracy.
Same as most other sane people.

Mode Edit: Reduced Quote.

[edit on 16/7/2007 by Mirthful Me]

Relatively objectively? I think you should consider the WT7 clip that has been so elusive, the one where they announced that WT7 was going to fall 20 minutes before it did. if they were so "objective" then how did they know it was going to fall? How did they get that info and then broadcast it with a correspondent actually reporting live from a view that shows WT7 before it collapses. i think if your going to call people who question the half baked "official" stories that some media giants publicize (media giants like BBC) insane for doing so you could be argued to be supporting the standpoint that they want and expect you to take.

The very fact alone that they came to the conclusion that there wasnt a conspiracy indicates that they are missing much more information than they made available. there are lots of facts that leave the official stories of 9/11 to say the least in doubt.

For instance, just one meager example, The supposed entrance whole in the pentagon attack wasnt even large enough for the plane that they allege crashed into it to be a realistically believable story, they didnt recover either of the engines whom each were made of titanium alloy and weighed 6 tons respectively, not even fragments. no cross sections, tail pieces, nothing. they want us to believe that the jet fuel which for the most part incinerated on impact (assuming you buy their story) incinerated an ENTIRE plane aswell? come on man. im not going to say its deffinitively a conspiracy but i will not say that the BBC made a thorough attempt to disprove ALL the evidence against the official stories released.Try to keep your eyes on the angles, thats where the concoctors of these ridiculous stories fowled up in my opinion.



posted on Jul, 18 2007 @ 03:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Marlborough Red
SO, CO, I guess essentially what you are saying is that the BBC were chasing ratings and were not interested in a balanced programme?

Well judging by the quality of the programme I would have to agree with you.

MR


balanced? BBC? PFFT! to entertain such a possibility itself is humerous.what is painfully clear is often hidden in denial by the individual perspective.




top topics



 
1

log in

join