http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctwo/programmes/ ... racy_files
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2 ... ies_1.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/conspiracy_files/
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/mike_rudin/
I watched this on Sunday. The programme presented the 9/11 conspiracies from the point of view of the film "Loose Change" (which serious 9/11 truth-seekers heavily critiscised) and cherrypicked the most ludicrous theories, presented the case against them, then more-or-less suggested all the theories are bunkum. Oh and for full effect, featured the nutjob Alex Jones. Nothing whatsoever on the saner material from David Ray Griffin or Michael Ruppert. I felt insulted to have my licence fee being used to fund such superficial propaganda.
Anyway, not wanting to get into a protracted argument over 9/11, what occurred to me is that Rudin (the programme maker) is bent on killing conspiracy theories per se. Now this could be useful. One of the madder theories from Mr Jones is that Peak Oil is a story to allow the oil companies to rip everyone off, and that oil is made abiogenically. It's also something that laypersons will believe when petrol prices go sky high. "Money grabbing ba*tards, they're sitting on the oil!"
So perhaps it might be worth using someone like Rudin to "investigate" the abiogenic oil theory along with the Peak-Oil-isn't-real-it's-an-oil-company-conspiracy-to-bleed-money-from-everyone and publicly debunk the myth that we all know to be b*llocks. Or maybe not. Maybe it could backfire horribly.
The Conspiracy Files
Moderator: Peak Moderation
The Conspiracy Files
Olduvai Theory (Updated) (Reviewed)
Easter Island - a warning from history : http://dieoff.org/page145.htm
Easter Island - a warning from history : http://dieoff.org/page145.htm
-
SILVERHARP2
- Posts: 611
- Joined: 14 Feb 2006, 17:02
- Location: DUBLIN
It may have been a hatchet job from your point of view, but to be honest we are better off without conspiracy theories as they feed the paranoia of certain types of people. The average joe isn't a structural engineer so he isat the mercy of self proclaimed experts.
My simple rule on these things are, the bigger the conspiracy the less likely it is to be true, gov. escpecially are terrible at keeping secrets, I prefer to believe that gov's are inept as opposed to being all powerful.
My simple rule on these things are, the bigger the conspiracy the less likely it is to be true, gov. escpecially are terrible at keeping secrets, I prefer to believe that gov's are inept as opposed to being all powerful.
Some people "prefer to believe" that economics and/or technology will deliver an ever-expanding supply of energy.SILVERHARP2 wrote:I prefer to believe that gov's are inept as opposed to being all powerful.
I watched the programme too. Complete hatchet-job. Almost embarrassingly so. I wish someone would address the issues intelligently and without an agenda.
Here here.Tess wrote:Some people "prefer to believe" that economics and/or technology will deliver an ever-expanding supply of energy.SILVERHARP2 wrote:I prefer to believe that gov's are inept as opposed to being all powerful.
I watched the programme too. Complete hatchet-job. Almost embarrassingly so. I wish someone would address the issues intelligently and without an agenda.
Real money is gold and silver
Why are we so anxious to believe/ want to believe 9/11 conspiracy theories? All the JFK conspiracies turned out to be a load of old twaddle and that BBC show made a good job of debunking the nuttier 9/11 conspiracies. Okay, the FBI and CIA could have prevented 9/11 but made a series of cock-ups but other than that, I don't think there was much more evil US government involvement than this.
The plane hit the Pentagon at an angle so the hole in the side was smaller than it would have been if it hit face on.
The plane hit the Pentagon at an angle so the hole in the side was smaller than it would have been if it hit face on.
Re: The Conspiracy Files
Any thoughts on this idea?Bandidoz wrote:So perhaps it might be worth using someone like Rudin to "investigate" the abiogenic oil theory along with the Peak-Oil-isn't-real-it's-an-oil-company-conspiracy-to-bleed-money-from-everyone and publicly debunk the myth that we all know to be b*llocks. Or maybe not. Maybe it could backfire horribly.
Olduvai Theory (Updated) (Reviewed)
Easter Island - a warning from history : http://dieoff.org/page145.htm
Easter Island - a warning from history : http://dieoff.org/page145.htm
Re: The Conspiracy Files
I think it's a great idea personally!Bandidoz wrote:Any thoughts on this idea?Bandidoz wrote:So perhaps it might be worth using someone like Rudin to "investigate" the abiogenic oil theory along with the Peak-Oil-isn't-real-it's-an-oil-company-conspiracy-to-bleed-money-from-everyone and publicly debunk the myth that we all know to be b*llocks. Or maybe not. Maybe it could backfire horribly.
Whether you could get anyone to do it is another matter . . .
"Please, Brer Fox, don't throw me into the briar patch . . ."
Andy Hunt
http://greencottage.burysolarclub.net
http://greencottage.burysolarclub.net
Eternal Sunshine wrote: I wouldn't want to worry you with the truth.
It was an interesting program. Based purely on the "Who would I trust as a babysitter?" test, the 9/11 "truth" crowd failed miserably.
Irrespective of the cause they were espousing, their main failing was how they reacted to criticism: they attacked the messengers rather than the message .. which is typical cult-like behaviour.
They have also failed to get off their white middle class quasi-intellectual bottoms and move away from their PCs and simply jump in a car to the Pentagon or the other sites and simply speak to people to ask what they did - or did not - see on the day.
The anti-conspiracy side seemed to have real evidence ... whilst the 9/11 conspiracy crowd simply had convictions & opinions.
Re the Pentagon attack: didn't the physics simulation guru say that their model explained the small hole ... and that he had been pestered & abused by the 9/11 conspiracy crowd because he was saying things they didn't want to hear?
So, yes, I expect that many minor conspiracies took place AFTER THE EVENT : the prats who filled WTC7 with fuel must have been very embarrassed ... especially as the Mayor was one of them! The architects and the suppliers of the steel framework must have been glad to see the metal recycled ... just in case they got landed with any legal suits concerning the design or steel quality. After a disaster like 9/11 anyone who even vaguely suspected that they would be named-and-shamed for anything whatsoever must have gone into maximum self-defence mode!
More generally, I suspect that sociology courses 50 years from now (PO permitting) will marvel at the way people from this era are so prepared to believe conspiracy theories.
They will also research the way that most blogs (serious or light) of the current era attract an almost permanent, generally small, population of disruptive, toxic and highly opinionated posters who seem to have plenty of spare time, not much in the way of common sense although often of reasonable IQ. (Teenage middle class white males???)
Note: Before flaming me please note that I am NOT referring to this forum ... it's a pleasant quiet well-behaved place at the moment! However this problem of the toxic troglodytes is certainly present on various medical, software, technical and also other PO forums I visit. I hope more blogs install "rate the quality of the poster" software.
Irrespective of the cause they were espousing, their main failing was how they reacted to criticism: they attacked the messengers rather than the message .. which is typical cult-like behaviour.
They have also failed to get off their white middle class quasi-intellectual bottoms and move away from their PCs and simply jump in a car to the Pentagon or the other sites and simply speak to people to ask what they did - or did not - see on the day.
The anti-conspiracy side seemed to have real evidence ... whilst the 9/11 conspiracy crowd simply had convictions & opinions.
Re the Pentagon attack: didn't the physics simulation guru say that their model explained the small hole ... and that he had been pestered & abused by the 9/11 conspiracy crowd because he was saying things they didn't want to hear?
So, yes, I expect that many minor conspiracies took place AFTER THE EVENT : the prats who filled WTC7 with fuel must have been very embarrassed ... especially as the Mayor was one of them! The architects and the suppliers of the steel framework must have been glad to see the metal recycled ... just in case they got landed with any legal suits concerning the design or steel quality. After a disaster like 9/11 anyone who even vaguely suspected that they would be named-and-shamed for anything whatsoever must have gone into maximum self-defence mode!
More generally, I suspect that sociology courses 50 years from now (PO permitting) will marvel at the way people from this era are so prepared to believe conspiracy theories.
They will also research the way that most blogs (serious or light) of the current era attract an almost permanent, generally small, population of disruptive, toxic and highly opinionated posters who seem to have plenty of spare time, not much in the way of common sense although often of reasonable IQ. (Teenage middle class white males???)
Note: Before flaming me please note that I am NOT referring to this forum ... it's a pleasant quiet well-behaved place at the moment! However this problem of the toxic troglodytes is certainly present on various medical, software, technical and also other PO forums I visit. I hope more blogs install "rate the quality of the poster" software.
What a distraction this conspiracy theory is. It may well be true, but what we do know is that the neocons capitalised on 9/11 to pursue a neo-imperialist agenda, as set out in their "Project for the New American Century" website. This should be the focus for opposition.
What is more likely is that the US govt new about the attacks and chose not to do anything about them.
Whilst I think Monbiot is a bit clueless on energy, today's piece in the Guardian on this is spot-on.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... 06,00.html
What is more likely is that the US govt new about the attacks and chose not to do anything about them.
Whilst I think Monbiot is a bit clueless on energy, today's piece in the Guardian on this is spot-on.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... 06,00.html
If a 'Conspiracy Files' programme about Peak Oil were to be made I'm sure it won't be as bad as the one about 9/11. I have to agree with Tess. Why was there a distinct lack of intelligent analysis?
Towards the end, the narrator made a statement to the effect that the facts dispute the claims of the theories. Well excuse me, what absolute and unquestionable facts were given? I heard or saw none.
Take the Pentagon. Where were the wings and no, the computer modelling did not show them to have folded back into the hole? Sure, the man talking about the wreckage was good reason to believe a Boeing had crashed but the bits were small, clean and easily removed by hand by the FBI within a few hours. Amazing, considering it was a crime scene. Shame that the BBC made no comment about this fact or that the plane parts found in the Pentagon did not match those you would expect to find on a Boeing. The engine housings were completely different. Even the journalists on the ground that day reported there was no jumbo jet to be seen. Oh, but the BBC didn't report that either.
As for Flight 93. Are we expected to believe the aircraft is still buried in the ground after five and a half years? Why hasn't it been removed for forensic examination? Did the BBC even think to ask? No! Amazing still that the scene of the crash seemed chaotic and yet the FBI was able to find a clean, unburnt bandana as worn by one of the hijackers. Plane crashes are not usually left without proper investigation. Just look at Lockerbie or the crash of TWA Flight 800 which was recovered and rebuilt to establish the cause as well as to quash the subsequest conspiracy theories which surrounded it.
It was interesting that the BBC chose the team at Popular Mechanics to explain the WTC collapses. Shame they chose Davin Coburn to do the job although they didn't ask him any tough questions so it wasn't necessary to seek anyone else's opinion. Davin Coburn is one of the editors at PM and his reasoning has been shown to be poor. Just listen to this US radio interview with him from last year. It makes me smile everytime I hear it as the interviewer is able to dismis Coburn's claims with simple logic and intelligence. You can almost hear Coburn squirming on his chair towards the end. The BBC even showed images from the old pancake collapse theory which is now defunct. Even NIST acknowledges the floors could not have caused main core failure and in fact NIST still cannot give a report on what happened after the twin towers started to collapse, they only hypothesise up to the point of collapse; probably because the official explanation is deeply flawed. And as for WTC7, NIST has not fully reported on this either which is strange considering that Davin Coburn told us how it collapsed without being party to any of NIST's investigations. By the way, NIST are a governmental body which I guess is in keeping with the ploy to use government members to maintain the story like those who oversaw the two official investigations into 9/11. Oh, and no steel high rise structure has ever suffered disproportionate (progressive) collapse and fallen entirely to the ground, ever! Except for the three steel structures which all fell at near free fall speeds into neat piles, without causing too much damage to surrounding buildings on 9/11. I wish I'd had a bet on that one happening. As a former architect I would never have thought that one possible
And now Monbiot is on the case. He wrote an article in the Guardian on 9/11 a couple of weeks ago and has responded again today in what looks like a case of throwing his toys out of the pram. Rather than looking at the arguments and tackling them head on he has chosen instead to call conspiracy theorists morons. Well.....what great journalism! I'm so glad he can sleep at night knowing his income is generated through name calling. It seems to me he is actually quite jealous of the mania surrounding 9/11 compared with the issues he thinks we should all be discussing and as such has chosen to attack. Why should it even bother him? If he doesn't agree with the theories then he should either ignore them or disprove them through proper journalism. But name calling is very immature don't you think? Then again, that's what debunkers always seem to do. I shouldn't be bothered about Monbiot though, his views seem to change with the wind direction. His about turn on peak oil last year as posted on this forum was quite stunning and sad to me.
So to answer your question Bandidoz. I don't think the editor will understand peak oil enough to be able to explain it's significance. Even if he did, he would probably seek to undermine it. He might even turn to Alex Jones which would be a shame since Jones is bad news. The portrayal of Jones on Sunday night as a mad heretical preacher is the only thing the BBC got right.
Come on Vortex, give me your best shot, I know you're waiting. But please make an effort this time
Towards the end, the narrator made a statement to the effect that the facts dispute the claims of the theories. Well excuse me, what absolute and unquestionable facts were given? I heard or saw none.
Take the Pentagon. Where were the wings and no, the computer modelling did not show them to have folded back into the hole? Sure, the man talking about the wreckage was good reason to believe a Boeing had crashed but the bits were small, clean and easily removed by hand by the FBI within a few hours. Amazing, considering it was a crime scene. Shame that the BBC made no comment about this fact or that the plane parts found in the Pentagon did not match those you would expect to find on a Boeing. The engine housings were completely different. Even the journalists on the ground that day reported there was no jumbo jet to be seen. Oh, but the BBC didn't report that either.
As for Flight 93. Are we expected to believe the aircraft is still buried in the ground after five and a half years? Why hasn't it been removed for forensic examination? Did the BBC even think to ask? No! Amazing still that the scene of the crash seemed chaotic and yet the FBI was able to find a clean, unburnt bandana as worn by one of the hijackers. Plane crashes are not usually left without proper investigation. Just look at Lockerbie or the crash of TWA Flight 800 which was recovered and rebuilt to establish the cause as well as to quash the subsequest conspiracy theories which surrounded it.
It was interesting that the BBC chose the team at Popular Mechanics to explain the WTC collapses. Shame they chose Davin Coburn to do the job although they didn't ask him any tough questions so it wasn't necessary to seek anyone else's opinion. Davin Coburn is one of the editors at PM and his reasoning has been shown to be poor. Just listen to this US radio interview with him from last year. It makes me smile everytime I hear it as the interviewer is able to dismis Coburn's claims with simple logic and intelligence. You can almost hear Coburn squirming on his chair towards the end. The BBC even showed images from the old pancake collapse theory which is now defunct. Even NIST acknowledges the floors could not have caused main core failure and in fact NIST still cannot give a report on what happened after the twin towers started to collapse, they only hypothesise up to the point of collapse; probably because the official explanation is deeply flawed. And as for WTC7, NIST has not fully reported on this either which is strange considering that Davin Coburn told us how it collapsed without being party to any of NIST's investigations. By the way, NIST are a governmental body which I guess is in keeping with the ploy to use government members to maintain the story like those who oversaw the two official investigations into 9/11. Oh, and no steel high rise structure has ever suffered disproportionate (progressive) collapse and fallen entirely to the ground, ever! Except for the three steel structures which all fell at near free fall speeds into neat piles, without causing too much damage to surrounding buildings on 9/11. I wish I'd had a bet on that one happening. As a former architect I would never have thought that one possible
And now Monbiot is on the case. He wrote an article in the Guardian on 9/11 a couple of weeks ago and has responded again today in what looks like a case of throwing his toys out of the pram. Rather than looking at the arguments and tackling them head on he has chosen instead to call conspiracy theorists morons. Well.....what great journalism! I'm so glad he can sleep at night knowing his income is generated through name calling. It seems to me he is actually quite jealous of the mania surrounding 9/11 compared with the issues he thinks we should all be discussing and as such has chosen to attack. Why should it even bother him? If he doesn't agree with the theories then he should either ignore them or disprove them through proper journalism. But name calling is very immature don't you think? Then again, that's what debunkers always seem to do. I shouldn't be bothered about Monbiot though, his views seem to change with the wind direction. His about turn on peak oil last year as posted on this forum was quite stunning and sad to me.
So to answer your question Bandidoz. I don't think the editor will understand peak oil enough to be able to explain it's significance. Even if he did, he would probably seek to undermine it. He might even turn to Alex Jones which would be a shame since Jones is bad news. The portrayal of Jones on Sunday night as a mad heretical preacher is the only thing the BBC got right.
Come on Vortex, give me your best shot, I know you're waiting. But please make an effort this time
I think George sums up my thoughts very well with this...
I'm sure there are lot's of things TPTB would love to be able to do, I just don't belive that they are capable.In other words, you must believe that Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and their pals are all-knowing, all-seeing and all-powerful, despite the fact that they were incapable of faking either weapons of mass destruction or any evidence at Ground Zero that Saddam Hussein was responsible. You must believe that the impression of cackhandedness and incompetence they have managed to project since taking office is a front.