BBC bias against Danish scientist on 9 11

Here is just another old example on why the media is not to be trusted, but even thou it is old i did not find this on ats, correct me if im wrong.

These videos show how the media, BBC in this case, twist and distort the message to make it fit their agenda. The interview is with the Danish physician Dr. Niels Harrit and concerns multiple anomalies in the official 9 11 story. The original interview is two hours long and is boiled down to a 12 minutes debunking attempt by BBC. Here is the BBC clip:



Niels Harrit was smart enough to know he's words would be twisted, so he recorded the entire interview and put it out public. If you listen to the original interview it's very obvious how the aggressive journalist tries to lure the scientist into speculations instead of keeping to the facts. Niels basically draws he's conclusion after 6 minuts 57 seconds, and the rest of the interview is an attack from the journalist to make Niels speculate. Even thou Niels Harrit keeps he's calm all the way thru the interview, he does make a few funny comments making the journalist look stupid. Like after 42 minutes where he talks about how the pilots in the planes, he follows up on this issue around 56 minutes into the interview.



The PDF version of Niels Harrits peer reviewed paper can be found in this link, its 9,88 MB.

Now, I'm no expert on 9 11, so I'll not comment on the actual content of the interview, my purpose is to share the BIAS from the media on this issue and drop a link to Niels Harrits paper that some of you might find usefull.

as long as there are still videos of the pentagon attack that are kept away from the people there is no chance that we get any close to the real 911-event..

i dont want to discredit the effort of these scientists but to solve the 911-event there are much bigger holes in the story - like the pentagon or building 7

reply to post by Mimir

Now, I'm no expert on 9 11, so I'll not comment on the actual content of the interview, my purpose is to share the BIAS from the media on this issue and drop a link to Niels Harrits paper that some of you might find usefull.

So, if you are not an expert on 9/11 (whatever that means) then how do you know that the media is bias? Because the edited an interview? Thats a pretty common occurence and is acceptable part of journalism. Are you an expert on "peer-review"?

reply to post by Mimir


Of course the media is biased. It's the main population control machine, remember? Now, if media is biased to the core because it is funded by Rothschild-owned banks, what about all these silly scientific and religious theories that are being spoon-fed to the public by those media? Can we trust them? No. Is Global Warming a marketing tactic to make money and to lead people into making things? Yes, it is. Remember when Al Gore said that NO scientific opposed Global Warming theory? Well, what about those 300 000 scientists at the UN that tried to speak up but were hushed by the media? Why did Al Gore lied?
Sickening. As soon as someone see something on the media, they automatically assume that it's the Undeniable Truth of Our World just because the news are presented with an apocalypse-faced news anchor with great hair and a urging tone of voice. Wake up, people! Rothschild OWNS ALL MEDIA! You are believing what Rothschild tells you to believe! Your opinion is forged by the media!

reply to post by Hessdalen


Agreed and Harrit does talk a lot about building 7, a lot less about the pentagon attack because of lack of evidence (in the long interview).

reply to post by hooper


Absolutely not, but listen to the long version and it will become obvious to you that this journalist is trying to enforce contradictions, constantly interrupting on important points, twisting NH's choice of words and trying to put words in the mouth of Harrit that he did not say. You can call it whatever you want, but to me that is not honest journalism. It's true medias usually make a longer interview and edit in the content, but its very unusual to edit out 95+ % of an interview, because if you do that it's constructed and no longer a interview.

reply to post by swan001


Yep I fully agree that the media lost most of its trustworthiness. It's not just the american end british media it's the same thing all over Europe and certainly true in Denmark.

reply to post by Mimir

It's true medias usually make a longer interview and edit in the content, but its very unusual to edit out 95+ % of an interview....

Really? And what is that statement based on? What is the usual edit percentage? How did you derive that percentage and how does percentage vs. substance factor into your editing assumptions?

reply to post by hooper


You sir is obviously a troll on this issue.

I don't know what the normal percentage of editing is, but I can guaranty you that in most cases points is lost or altered the more you edit. Now you will ask why am I editing every post I do if I'm erasing my points in doing so? Simply because English ain't my native tongue and my answers would be incoherent at best if I did not edit.

The 95% was a estimation, I assumed Niels Harrit roughly talked 5 minutes in the BBC interview, taken from a 2h8m interview i made a quick estmated calculation in my head and arrived at 95%. On a calculater it would look like this 5/128*100= 3,9 %. I see I was wrong on making any kind of assumption because now i feed the troll's. In reality Niels gets to talk about 8,5 minutes, so the real numbers should be 8,5/128*100=6,64%. So they edited away atleast 93%, I was off only 2% doing estimations, what your point?

And to the post below....It is you who brought up this issue, but I will let it rest now, I've allready pointed out why I see the Journalist as biased in my initial answer to you. He does not act like an honest Journalist, trying to invent contradictions, and put words in the mouth of the scientist he did not say. About the troll issue, no I dont see a troll as someone who I disagree with, but someone who on purpose ask's the wrong questions to derail an issue. I may be wrong and you may just want to "debunk" the message of the post instead of the videos, that is fair enough but not very constructive. There can't be any doubt to anyone who actually watch the entire second video that the journalist is far to aggressive in hes questioning, which alone would make him biased, so the amount of editing does'nt really matter if you ask me.

Here is a small though experiment. Compare the interview with a 20 minut exam, where the "teacher" totally ignore the 18m36s you did superb, and instead focus on and give you you'r grade based entirely on the 1m24s where you did'nt do flawless, is this biased?

Originally posted by Mimir
reply to post by hooper

 

You sir is obviously a troll on this issue.

The 95% was a estimation, I assumed Niels Harrit roughly talked 5 minuts in the BBC interview, taken from a 2h8m interview i made a quick estmated calculation in my head and arrived at 95%. On a calculater it would look like this 5/128*100= 3,9 %. I see I was wrong on making any kind of assumption because now i feed the troll's. In reality Niels gets to talk about 8,5 minuts, so the real numbers should be 8,5/128*100=6,64%. So they edited away atleast 93%, I was off only 2% doing estimations, whats your point?

edit on 16-7-2012 by Mimir because: (no reason given)

You don't seem to get the point. I am not disagreeing with your math relative to this one interview. I am just wondering how you arrived at your conclusion that this is not the usual level of edit. And by "troll" I assume you mean someone who does not agree with you and may challenge your assumptions. Like your assumption that this interview was subject to a special level of editing and therefore is suspect.

While I have'nt seen the videos in this thread yet, I'll say this. If the interviewer constantly interupts the person being interviewed then, in my view, this is because they will be trying to stop the interviewee saying and expanding on things the interviewer does not want the viewer to hear and; they are trying to get the interviewee to say or what interviewer wants them to say or do.

reply to post by hooper


Said by the guy who only posts in 9/11 forums...
Ahem.

CJ

It isnt necessarily an attack. Dry facts are zhe boring. Maybe he just wanted to get him something interesting to say, albeight vapid. Just like journalists asked the brass during the vietnam war if they think that nukes need to be used. None of them seriously though America was going to deploy nukes, but talk of nuclear weapons at the time generated sufficient emotions.

However yes, your guess is as good as mine I must admit.

Originally posted by Hessdalen
as long as there are still videos of the pentagon attack that are kept away from the people there is no chance that we get any close to the real 911-event..

i dont want to discredit the effort of these scientists but to solve the 911-event there are much bigger holes in the story - like the pentagon or building 7

...and as long as the truthers insist on relying on evidence they've manufactured themselves...namely, that there's some secret video of the Pentagon attack somewhere that someone is keeping from us...they will continue to obfuscate the search for the truth behind the 9/11 attack and they will continue to get in the way of those who really are searching for the truth behind the 9/11 attack.

Let's face it, Neils Harrit is either a coward or an idiot. If he's claiming he found evidence of explosives in the wreckage then he's necessarily announcing there's a conspiracy whether he''s openly coming out and saying it or not. He can't just say I FOUND EXPLOSIVES and then try to keep his distance from these conspiracy theories regardless of how much he's apparently struggling to do because "explosives" and "conspiracy theories" are really one and the same thing.

Originally posted by ColoradoJens
reply to post by hooper

 

Said by the guy who only posts in 9/11 forums...
Ahem.

CJ

How do you know I only post in 9/11 forums? Do I need to again point out that there are other websites on the internet and other forums besides the ones listed here?

Originally posted by hooper

Originally posted by ColoradoJens
reply to post by hooper

 

Said by the guy who only posts in 9/11 forums...
Ahem.

CJ

How do you know I only post in 9/11 forums? Do I need to again point out that there are other websites on the internet and other forums besides the ones listed here?

Well, a quick perusal of your post history on this site shows that. So, here on ATS you only post in the 9/11 forums - other than the one post. I don't know what you post on other websites, just on this one.

CJ

reply to post by ColoradoJens

I don't know what you post on other websites, just on this one.

Exactly. And from that limited knowledge you are more than comfortable extrapolating what exactly?

reply to post by hooper


I am more than comfortable saying you only post on 9/11 - you'd know what an "expert" on the subject is.

CJ

reply to post by hooper

Originally posted by ColoradoJens
other than the one post.

I have double checked this allegation and it appears you have posted a reply outside the 911 conspiracy section of this forum.

I'm reporting you to headquarters.