BBC conspiracy film asserts it has the answers but really it says nothing
I just watched the BBC's film The Conspiracy Files: 9/11 which aired last fall and is available on Google Video.
The piece acts as if it closes the case on all 9/11 conspiracies, but in fact it says very little, and its argumentation and evidence are deeply flawed.
I urge you to watch the film and make up your own mind, but here are some of the problems I have with the film.
The film depends heavily on use of little known people, some of whom were not even eyewitnesses to the events of 9/11. Very often, it asks these people what they think about why conspiracies exist about 9/11.
The most egregious of these is when they filmmakers ask the sister of a man who died on the WTC what she thinks of the conspiracies. From a rhetorical standpoint, this carries no weight. The woman was not an eyewitness, and her grief over her brother clouds any kind of judgment she might have
The film also draws heavily on Popular Mechanics, which has been widely discredited by many in the 911 Truth movement. Even so, it uses the words of one editor/writer at the magazine, without providing any specific proof.
Thats the problem with this film: there is little or no proof here. Just lots of talking heads saying the conspiracies are not true or crazy.
The most clever and nefarious inclusion is how it refutes the notion that many Jews stayed home from work that day, suggesting some kind of Jewish plot. Most of us in the 9/11 truth movement have never taken this story seriously for it has been widely discredited.
By including it in its film, the BBC undermines serious questions about 9/11 by grouping it with a clearly racist and groundless idea. This is often done to undermine serious inquiries.
The film does nothing to address the evidence about the supposed hijackers flight training and skills. It mocks the idea of remote control flight, something which the US military has been doing since at least the 1960's. It also ignores the allegations that the "hijackers" were CIA assets.
The one area where the film does suggest there was a conspiracy was in the area of intelligence. It basically accuses the FBI of incompetence.
The film is worth a look, but what it presents is nothing new and nothing definitive.
Also, such small but glaring errors as "Newark, New York" do not lend to its credibility
If you question the BBC's motives, you might want to check out the film 911 and the British Broadcasting Conspiracy
The piece acts as if it closes the case on all 9/11 conspiracies, but in fact it says very little, and its argumentation and evidence are deeply flawed.
I urge you to watch the film and make up your own mind, but here are some of the problems I have with the film.
The film depends heavily on use of little known people, some of whom were not even eyewitnesses to the events of 9/11. Very often, it asks these people what they think about why conspiracies exist about 9/11.
The most egregious of these is when they filmmakers ask the sister of a man who died on the WTC what she thinks of the conspiracies. From a rhetorical standpoint, this carries no weight. The woman was not an eyewitness, and her grief over her brother clouds any kind of judgment she might have
The film also draws heavily on Popular Mechanics, which has been widely discredited by many in the 911 Truth movement. Even so, it uses the words of one editor/writer at the magazine, without providing any specific proof.
Thats the problem with this film: there is little or no proof here. Just lots of talking heads saying the conspiracies are not true or crazy.
The most clever and nefarious inclusion is how it refutes the notion that many Jews stayed home from work that day, suggesting some kind of Jewish plot. Most of us in the 9/11 truth movement have never taken this story seriously for it has been widely discredited.
By including it in its film, the BBC undermines serious questions about 9/11 by grouping it with a clearly racist and groundless idea. This is often done to undermine serious inquiries.
The film does nothing to address the evidence about the supposed hijackers flight training and skills. It mocks the idea of remote control flight, something which the US military has been doing since at least the 1960's. It also ignores the allegations that the "hijackers" were CIA assets.
The one area where the film does suggest there was a conspiracy was in the area of intelligence. It basically accuses the FBI of incompetence.
The film is worth a look, but what it presents is nothing new and nothing definitive.
Also, such small but glaring errors as "Newark, New York" do not lend to its credibility
If you question the BBC's motives, you might want to check out the film 911 and the British Broadcasting Conspiracy
Comments