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.

 

UK 9/11 TV discussion - small victory for truth

page: 1
7

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 25 2009 @ 05:37 AM
link   
I just found this TV programme posted on YouTube, and it's rather interesting. It's an attempt to be fair and balanced (not in the Fox sense) on 9/11 and there are two people on each side to debate the issue.

I know a little bit about a couple of people on each side.

Far and away the most astute person on the panel in Annie Machon, who is the wife of David Shayler. They both worked for MI5, and David Shayler was prosecuted under the official secrets act for whistleblowing on the fact that MI8 paid Al Qaida a hundred thousand pounds to assassinate Colonel Gadaffi. (It all went wrong, of course, and innocent people were killed.) As you'd expect, she knows what's going on.

She makes her points clearly and concisely, and wisely refrains from committing to a POV at times, preferring instead to say simply, "we want a proper independent enquiry to establish what actually happened".

On the opposite side is a name that will be familiar to many people on ATS: Nick Pope. Watching him on this video made me re-evaluate what I think about him quite significantly.

It's interesting that before the program started and at its conclusion, the audience was asked to vote whether they thought there was a conspiracy behind 9/11, and having heard a reasonably balanced discussion, the proportion of those that did increased significantly, it was something like an increase from 40% to 80-85%.

So... could there ever be a discussion like this on US TV?

If so, what would be the result?

I think it shows that if people are presented with some of the facts in a reasonable way, they are capable of realising that there's a case to answer.

Part 1


Part 2


Part 3


Part 4


Part 5


Part 6


Part 7




posted on Mar, 25 2009 @ 05:53 AM
link   

the proportion of those that did increased significantly, it was something like an increase from 40% to 80-85%.


Fantastic, I'm going to watch it right now.


So... could there ever be a discussion like this on US TV?


I'm not holding my breath. It has been a long time since JFK and Bobby Kennedy died and I still watch History channel specials that leave out evidence from the discussion that suggest a conspiracy. They usually pick out a few popular theories, spend an hour or two debunking them and then just address claims made by the nuttiest groups of conspiracy theorist.



posted on Mar, 25 2009 @ 05:59 AM
link   
Nick Pope has really discredited himself with this one. I was wary of him before, but now... I reckon there's no such thing as a "ex"-Mi5 officer.



posted on Mar, 25 2009 @ 06:16 AM
link   
I know exactly what you mean - but Annie Machon and David Shayler are both ex-MI5, and they're the real deal. If you dig out what happened to him you'll see what I mean.

I was quite surprised that Annie M didn't mention that her husband had blown the whistle on that during the programme - but there might still be a gag order on it. You couldn't get Shayler's website in this country, and when I saw him speak, there were two uniformed policemen following him around quite blatantly.



posted on Mar, 25 2009 @ 06:19 AM
link   
Very true, I was being overly cynical.

Not all ex-intelligence officers are on the payroll. Annie Machon seems great. David Shayler was great once but he's gone mad now. People say they got to him, fed him Ibogen or something and turned him crazy, poor guy. That's probably the reason she didn't mention him.

[edit on 13f20093amWed, 25 Mar 2009 06:21:10 -050010 by HiAliens]



posted on Mar, 25 2009 @ 06:34 AM
link   
Hadn't heard about that... mind you, I don't know how long I'd last if I had a couple of coppers following me everywhere but the toilet. Shame, because he had some good things to say and he was sound on the London bombings.



posted on Mar, 25 2009 @ 06:44 AM
link   
This is pretty much on topic cos it deals with UK 9/11 truth activists, and the husband of one of the debaters in the vid.

Watch this and weep:
www.youtube.com...



posted on Mar, 25 2009 @ 07:00 AM
link   
I'm watching the videos right now. Very interesting.

Respectfully wish to point out, however, that I can't see a station ident on these youtube videos so I'm unsure which British TV channel it was broadcast on. Seems to be an organsation called "Press TV", which by all accounts is an English language news channel which broadcasts 24/7, is based in Tehran & which is solely funded by the Iranian Government.

Think that's important to bear in mind, Press TV is NOT a mainstream British tv channel.



posted on Mar, 25 2009 @ 07:36 AM
link   
reply to post by HiAliens
 



That video is really sad... and you just KNEW they were going to compare him to Icke.

Mind you, Icke only said we were ALL God, which is fair enough, really. To claim you're the Messiah is to ask for people to say, "you're not the Messiah, you're a very naughty boy".

No, he's really lost it. Pity.

LOVE the ending... the segue into the next segment of the programme... "are the British eating too many pies?"

[edit on 25-3-2009 by rich23]



posted on Mar, 25 2009 @ 07:38 AM
link   
reply to post by The Lass
 


That explains a great deal.

In other words, it takes an Iranian-sponsored TV channel to broadcast a balanced discussion about 9/11.

That gives an interesting perspective on it all, doesn't it?

I apologise for the error in the title - in fairness, the presenter, half the panel, and the audience are clearly Brits.

[edit on 25-3-2009 by rich23]



posted on Apr, 27 2009 @ 07:23 PM
link   
Bumping this for the great information that takes place in this debate. Which, by the way, had a great outcome in educating the audience with the poll at the end.



posted on May, 1 2009 @ 11:32 PM
link   
I was very impressed by this debate.

Both sides were allowed to speak their minds and in an intellectual manner. The evidence has been presented in a easy to understand form and allows the layman to come to his own conclusion if he puts in the time to understand what is really going on here. I hope more people watch this instead of passing it up due to the length. Very informative.



posted on Jun, 8 2009 @ 12:20 PM
link   
what struck me as funny was in part 6 and their aside on secrecy. It was suggested that no way could a secret of this magnitude with the number of people it would have taken to be involved in it, could ALL keep quiet about it. what was not put forth was the use of conspiracy theories as a way to do this - whereas anyone coming forth, a year, 3 years, now, in 2 years from now, with evidence will be discredited outright under the label conspiracy theorist and the argument will be disregarded as such. it was suggested that the REAL conspiracy theorists are backing the 9/11 commission, but it was never developed.




top topics



 
7

log in

join