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 tries to debunk top 5 "conspiracy theories" in relation to the 911 events.

page: 3
5
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 30 2011 @ 06:52 AM
link   
Could it be that the BBC wanted to leave the door open for a follow up show?

It's like those dumb shark shows on Discovery. They found they grab viewers and now they have shark week every year.Anyone for 911 week each year?




posted on Aug, 30 2011 @ 08:10 AM
link   
I'm all for a serious look into 9/11 and examining the conspiracy points. But I don't want to see a program where they just go out of their way to refute all the theories, don't take it seriously and just push the official story.

Also is it me or does the narrator sound really patronising and annoying?



posted on Aug, 30 2011 @ 08:12 AM
link   
reply to post by samkent
 


It's like that already.

Already channels in the UK have 9/11 shows lined up. One I saw advertised was about children who lost their parents in 9/11.



posted on Aug, 30 2011 @ 12:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Darkwing01
reply to post by Frira
 





What would be the motivation to cause the BBC to provide weaker debunking than the typical ATS poster?


People who write these articles are human too. Anyone with half a brain who looks at the facts must at least come to the conclusion that all is not well and good in OS-land.

But you don't seriously expect them to actually say that on the Beeb do you? No, they just print lame-ass commentaries like this that makes the OS look even more idiotic. Note the editors picks in the comments, see how relatively balanced they are?

It is the climb down you should be looking for, not an apology. You can see the same sort of thing with climate change, which is all of a sudden not such a dire emergency after all.

People may have a stake in being fooled and playing along much of the time, but they aren't idiots either.


Why not a suspicion of conspiracy or being a part of one? Why the easy absolving of the media for taking such a light touch as "being only human?"

Why is the "inside job" equated as "Mr. Bush's War" not now evolving to include Obama?

I find the conspiracy theories seem to start from an anti-conservative-America political ideology, while being characterized in the media as not as dangerous as ultra-right-wing ideology.

The results are an unapologetically bold liberalism and a timid conservatism-- who might gain from that?

And how might that play on people's emotions-- and their votes, and their activism, and the conspiracies to which they whole-heartedly subscribe and the conspiracies which they refuse to even suspect?

Several reports of democrats posing as republicans yelling obscenities, and republicans posing as democrats throwing rocks at Republican campaign buses. I'm saying-- suspect both sides play nasty-- including the BBC.



posted on Aug, 30 2011 @ 02:29 PM
link   
Watched the programme, and thought it was sort of open ended giving both sides of the arguments and leaving one to make up their own mind.

The one big question it left me with was, why did the Pentagon have such bad camera surveillance, poor picture quality, would have expected it to be state of the art stuff, also the building that seemed to have been built on the cheap, are these all signs of saving money or the fallacy of competitive tendering where the finished article is made to the cheapest cost?



posted on Aug, 30 2011 @ 03:57 PM
link   
reply to post by dowot
 




The one big question it left me with was, why did the Pentagon have such bad camera surveillance, poor picture quality, would have expected it to be state of the art stuff, also the building that seemed to have been built on the cheap, are these all signs of saving money or the fallacy of competitive tendering where the finished article is made to the cheapest cost?


The cameras were not there to bird watch. They were there to observe people and vehicles.
Name one building today that has its security cameras pointed up in the sky.

The Pentagon was build during time of war. Money was tight. Fancy building or a new air craft carrier? All of the walls, except the one exposed to the streets were made as cheaply as possible.



posted on Aug, 30 2011 @ 04:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kram09
I'm all for a serious look into 9/11 and examining the conspiracy points. But I don't want to see a program where they just go out of their way to refute all the theories, don't take it seriously and just push the official story.

Also is it me or does the narrator sound really patronising and annoying?



This is all you can ever expect from the MSM unless they're trying to exploit someone like Jesse Ventura (because he has some level of respect in this and the general libertarian community) for "cognitive infiltration". They will never seriously examine anything. And even if they appeared to be, would you really trust them? I wouldn't. They probably know they've lost most of us completely a long time ago. They're just pumping out reinforcement for the people who already mostly believe them.



posted on Aug, 30 2011 @ 05:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by samkent
reply to post by dowot
 




The one big question it left me with was, why did the Pentagon have such bad camera surveillance, poor picture quality, would have expected it to be state of the art stuff, also the building that seemed to have been built on the cheap, are these all signs of saving money or the fallacy of competitive tendering where the finished article is made to the cheapest cost?


The cameras were not there to bird watch. They were there to observe people and vehicles.
Name one building today that has its security cameras pointed up in the sky.

The Pentagon was build during time of war. Money was tight. Fancy building or a new air craft carrier? All of the walls, except the one exposed to the streets were made as cheaply as possible.



While these are seemingly good points, I don't believe for a second the Pentagon was that soft and that there wasn't surveillance from every conceivable angle. We're talking about the heart of the US military here. Are you kidding me? Do you honestly believe they wouldn't be watching for airborne threats at the Pentagon?



posted on Aug, 30 2011 @ 05:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by BrianFlanders

Originally posted by samkent
reply to post by dowot
 




The one big question it left me with was, why did the Pentagon have such bad camera surveillance, poor picture quality, would have expected it to be state of the art stuff, also the building that seemed to have been built on the cheap, are these all signs of saving money or the fallacy of competitive tendering where the finished article is made to the cheapest cost?


The cameras were not there to bird watch. They were there to observe people and vehicles.
Name one building today that has its security cameras pointed up in the sky.

The Pentagon was build during time of war. Money was tight. Fancy building or a new air craft carrier? All of the walls, except the one exposed to the streets were made as cheaply as possible.



While these are seemingly good points, I don't believe for a second the Pentagon was that soft and that there wasn't surveillance from every conceivable angle. We're talking about the heart of the US military here. Are you kidding me? Do you honestly believe they wouldn't be watching for airborne threats at the Pentagon?

NORAD was watching out for airborne threats, but unfortunately their equipment was geared towards external threats coming in via the ADIZ, not internal threats from hijacked domestic airliners.

Of course, there's still the matter of the Pentagon lying less than a mile - and directly in the flightpath of - a major US airport.



posted on Aug, 30 2011 @ 05:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by roboe

NORAD was watching out for airborne threats, but unfortunately their equipment was geared towards external threats coming in via the ADIZ, not internal threats from hijacked domestic airliners.

Of course, there's still the matter of the Pentagon lying less than a mile - and directly in the flightpath of - a major US airport.


And there wasn't so much as a radar station in the entire Pentagon? I just don't buy it. And ten years after the collapse of the Soviet Union, ALL of America's air defenses were still oriented to watch for Soviet bombers (and.or external threats)? No one thought of the thread of hijacked airliners? The Lone Gunmen plot alone proves otherwise. If a TV show writer can think of it, someone whose job it is to predict threats certainly could. Nobody ever thought the Pentagon might just be a target (regardless of where the threat came from)? Just laughable. After Oklahoma City and the 1993 WTC bombing, the thought that the heart of the US military would be a sitting duck for a few guys with box cutters at the controls of a plane just makes no sense.
edit on 30-8-2011 by BrianFlanders because: Clarification

edit on 30-8-2011 by BrianFlanders because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 30 2011 @ 06:52 PM
link   
reply to post by BrianFlanders
 





And there wasn't so much as a radar station in the entire Pentagon? I just don't buy it. And ten years after the collapse of the Soviet Union, ALL of America's air defenses were still oriented to watch for Soviet bombers (and.or external threats)? No one thought of the thread of hijacked airliners? The Lone Gunmen plot alone proves otherwise. If a TV show writer can think of it, someone whose job it is to predict threats certainly could. Nobody ever thought the Pentagon might just be a target (regardless of where the threat came from)? Just laughable. After Oklahoma City and the 1993 WTC bombing, the thought that the heart of the US military would be a sitting duck for a few guys with box cutters at the controls of a plane just makes no sense.


What good would a radar be when you are a mile from the airport?

By the time you see the plane comming at you it's knocking at your window. How would you determine if the plane was hijacked or just avoiding some errant single engin plane?

And no one considered that someone would intentionally crash a plane into buildings until 911.
When did they consider the possibility of shoe bombs? After that knuckle head tried it.

Have you considered that the smallest charter planes do not have sealed cockpits? It would be no problem for a few bad guys to take over the plane and fly it into the Whitehouse. Despite the surface to air defences we have now.



posted on Aug, 30 2011 @ 07:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by samkent


And no one considered that someone would intentionally crash a plane into buildings until 911.


If you really believe this, I'm not going to waste any of my time trying to convince you the US government might actually have some employees/strategists/planners/etc who aren't completely brain dead. Unless you believe they never spent a dime or wasted more than a few minutes considering internal threats, this continues to be one of the most laughable things people keep saying in defense of the OS.



posted on Aug, 30 2011 @ 08:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by iunlimited491
I'm not going to comment on my own personal views of what really happened on 9/11, but I'm going to post a video that proves a "tall structure" can fall in the exact same manner in which the World Trade Center collapsed. I know, I know, building v.s. blocks, haha, I don't care, that's not my point. I'm just saying.




why do you keep posting this??????
it has no relevance to anything other than to show that it took about 5 seperate shots to even make this stacked stick tower collapse...the twin towers were hit only once each and they had all kinds of support built into them, yet they collapsed with one strike each??? hell it took 5 strikes to knock this stupid stick tower down ha ha ha ha ha



posted on Aug, 30 2011 @ 09:31 PM
link   
reply to post by BrianFlanders
 





And there wasn't so much as a radar station in the entire Pentagon? I just don't buy it. And ten years after the collapse of the Soviet Union, ALL of America's air defenses were still oriented to watch for Soviet bombers (and.or external threats)? No one thought of the thread of hijacked airliners? The Lone Gunmen plot alone proves otherwise. If a TV show writer can think of it, someone whose job it is to predict threats certainly could. Nobody ever thought the Pentagon might just be a target (regardless of where the threat came from)? Just laughable. After Oklahoma City and the 1993 WTC bombing, the thought that the heart of the US military would be a sitting duck for a few guys with box cutters at the controls of a plane just makes no sense


All of America's air defenses.....and thats where the problem starts.

Prior to the collapse of the Soviet Union we had 48 fully armed interceptors on alert in the 48 Continental United States....not to mention a few dozen others that could be ready in an hour or so

On the morning of 9/11, we had 14 aircraft on alert.....that was the extent of our air to air defenses. No super secret missile batteries at the Pentagon....no Nike Ajax or Nike Hercules missile emplacements around major cities........but, 14 aircraft to cover both coasts.

The only surprise was that it took someone ten years to figure out just how naked we were to an attack.



posted on Aug, 31 2011 @ 04:18 AM
link   
reply to post by patternfinder
 



I actually had two tabs open, I must have posted on both threads without realizing it.



posted on Aug, 31 2011 @ 10:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Flyer
reply to post by Frira
 


Asking the unanswered questions would be the best way to do that,

ie why was the camera footage confiscated that would have shown the plane?

You're making the basic mistake of assuming that the footage would have shown a plane.


Why was it never released to the public?

It was


There are probably more, this was just a fast search on YouTube.


What does the government gain from keeping obviously non sensitive files secret?

If you're talking about the videos, it's private property belonging to private businesses.



posted on Aug, 31 2011 @ 10:50 AM
link   
well, if the os was true about the speed, no one would have seen what it was if it was going 530 mph....especially a video camera......



posted on Aug, 31 2011 @ 11:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by vipertech0596

All of America's air defenses.....and thats where the problem starts.

Prior to the collapse of the Soviet Union we had 48 fully armed interceptors on alert in the 48 Continental United States....not to mention a few dozen others that could be ready in an hour or so

On the morning of 9/11, we had 14 aircraft on alert.....that was the extent of our air to air defenses. No super secret missile batteries at the Pentagon....no Nike Ajax or Nike Hercules missile emplacements around major cities........but, 14 aircraft to cover both coasts.

The only surprise was that it took someone ten years to figure out just how naked we were to an attack.


That may be what we have been told but do you honestly believe it? I don't buy this for a second. You honestly believe the bad guys in those awful 80s TV shows were armed well enough to beat the world's most powerful country? GTFOH!

You really believe nobody ever thought about domestic threats? You honestly believe that?
edit on 31-8-2011 by BrianFlanders because: I have a headache.



posted on Aug, 31 2011 @ 07:31 PM
link   
I watched the 'documentary' and I was completely underwhelmed by it. I have always been sympathetic to the conspiracy side because of the things that came out after 9/11 - the leaked document about a 'Pearl harbour' type event being needed (or has that been debunked/discredited too?) and so on.
The programme I felt tried very hard to lampoon any theory that there was any complicity in the events of 9/11 and at the end suggested that anyone that didn't believe the official version is somehow disrespecting the victims and their families, almost an admonishment to all of us that we must toe the line and not make waves.
I feel that even after 10 years there are so many unanswered questions and even so many hollow debunks of the theories that it still doesn't ring true. I realise we may never know the truth but I still believe the truth matters to everyone.
If all the theories are so much rubbish, how do they explain the comments by the fire fighters that there was a sequence of explosions floor by floor like a demolition, or that the quote about pulling building 7 has been mangled and misquoted? I have seen/heard the original statement and Larry Silverstein refers to the decision to 'pull the building'. I have played it over and over and it really doesn't sound like he meant 'pull the fire fighters out'. I am a layman and nothing about the events of that day makes sense once you look beneath the surface.



posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 01:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by nrd101
 



the idea that a fire could bring down a steel-beamed modern building is pretty funny when you look at the history of fires on them.

I think that the idea that you refer to the structures involved in 9/11 as "steel-beamed modern buildings" and then go on to try and sound like some kind of expert on fire performance and structural history.







He is still right though, although he probably follows somebody with expertise on the field, rather than having done his own research. Or can you think of any other high rise steel buildings that collapsed from fire?



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join