Thanks for posting this. I've only watched the first video, and Annie, and Ian are doing wonderfully. The other side is doing absolutely horribly.
Though the voluminous evidence supporting the 9/11 Truth Movement isn't especially well argued or articulated throughout this program, what's absolutely stunning is the swallowing whole-cloth of the 9/11 commission findings and its regurgitation by the panel's defenders of the official story. Assumptions litter every sentence spoken by the doltish and irrational defenders of the the commission report. Not 8 minutes into the first program Nick Pope is defending the nearly two year interval that passed from the day of 9/11 to the creation of a commission to investigate what had happened, by saying that "everyone was too busy trying to track down those responsible for the attacks, Al Qaeda." (or words very close to that) without the slightest comprehension of having just stated as a fact what can only be called, and very generously, the repetition of a false premise.
Nearly every argument made by the defenders of the official story as to their perception of the faulty logic of those panelists calling attention to the report's omissions and distortions, and who reasonably are urging a new and independent investigation, is a frantic and unexamined embrace of the discredited commission report.
The very criticisms they make against "conspiracy theorists" are in fact evident in every irrational statement they make in defense of a story they've been told, have not investigated, and to which they cling as a child does to a fairy tale.
I can't recommend watching this exercise in frustration which requires listening to the most thick-headed abrogation of reasoning, time after time, by the panelist's official story defenders. Watching this video is like a having extensive root canal. However it must be said that in the end, the audience is persuaded to doubt the official story more than they had (by a show of hands) earlier in the "discussion".
"Journalist" Nick Pope proves himself to be an idiot who would believe in the existence of Santa Clause if some government agency issued a report stating that Santa Clause was in fact a real person; and the woman from Skeptic Magazine can only rouse herself to be skeptical of assertions on the order of "water runs uphill" or "pigs fly."
I suppose it's better that such a program gets airtime than that it doesn't, but anyone who's very familiar with the evidence surrounding the commission whitewash in any detail will be tempted to kick over their computer. This program is for the uninformed only. It's quite depressing to be subjected to the paucity of intellectual rigor from such smug and unquestioning "journalists" as Nick Pope and Ms. Skeptic.
Once again, the "liberal media" proves to be as vapid and intellectually bankrupt as any "conservative media" you care to poke with a stick. The spectacle of watching well-paid, professional "journalists" fail utterly at being curious or having even minimal brain-function is sickening.
"The innocence of the creatures is in inverse proportion to the immorality of the Master." Thomas Pynchon
But it's very encouraging to see a program like this whittling away the wall of incredulity and waking up a lot of people.
So the mainstream media isn't hostile to articles challenging the official story?
Why then have UK TV failed to screen a single documentary that does so?
"Press For Truth", "Zero: an investigation into 9/11", the award-winning "Elephant in the Room", "911 False Flag", not even "Loose Change" have found a place in the schedules of BBC, ITV etc.
When German WDR TV produced and screened Aktenzeichen 11.9 Ungelöst (File 911 Unsolved) the film-makers Willy Brunner and Gerhard Wisnewski were pilloried and lost their jobs.
I'm sure you're right. And others here who see the benefit of this program are also right. I guess I've become so weary of the empty rhetoric and irrational arguments of defenders of the official myth, that to hear them rattle on at all makes me feel angry and disheartened.
I do need to be reminded of how hard a pill the truth is to swallow, how difficult it can be to see past one's preconceptions and assumption, and how much effort it takes for one to become familiar with all the complex details of this event.
So thanks for giving me more reason to hope than I myself can muster on my own.
future generations to learn ;-)
Great program! This just proves that although the government loyalists keep regurgitating the same ol' same ol', credible people like the former MI5 agent have real evidence and more people are realizing this, thankfully because of credible people like her.
It was great to see at the end of the program that 80%-85% of the audience believe in the "conspiracy theories", up from 45% at the beginning of the program.
New independent, international investigation please.
I made it tomorrow's story on my blog.
Was a very informative piece, but more importantly a clean, rational argument for why a new investigation is required. The truther panelists were spot on in their analysis, calm, and on message. They didn't take too much crap from the other side and made great work in getting across the key points. Essentially, to the uninitated lay man they came off aa totally sane, rational experts who easily sowed doubt about the official story. No mention of controlled demolition, missiles, or any of the "physcial" arguments were needed to deal a serious blow to the commision story. In fact, while I am sure many people here will be angry that WTC7 or the towers got no mention, I believe that the very fact that these issues were omitted from the discussion helped to lend greater credability to the truthers and the push for a new investigation. We have to remember that when we are in public like on this show our goal is very simple: convince people to doubt the official story and investigate for themselves. No one can be convinced by a TV show to believe the alternative theories, but they CAN be convinced by doing their own research - which can only happen if we succesfully sow doubt about the official story. While it may or may not be likely that the WTC was demolished, the notion of it is shocking for many lay people and may immediately evoke an emotional backlash to our message. Ease people into the debate, don't shoot them in the face with steel and sulfur.
The other side of the panel was remarkable in their singular inhability to really say anything on this issue. The gentleman from the defence department merely reiterated his support for the commision report and the fact that there is no doubt that Al-Quaeda did it. In fact even though he claimed he wasn't an apologist for the administration, at every turn of the debate he was making excuses. First off he claimed that no investigation of the crime was done because they were busy going after the perpetrators of said crime. The sheer irony of this statement pretty much sums up his thought process for the rest of the show. How in the world could the US go after those responsible if they hadn't yet investigated who was responsible? His later statement that 9/11 had nothing to do with the Iraq war was also laughably insane, though perhaps he didn't understand the question - Iraq had nothing to do with it, but the US war in Iraq was sold on it. All and all he was quite innefective throughout.
The lady from Skeptic magazine also had some severe issues. First it was clear that she hadn't really done much research on the topic, since she actually didn't discuss too many details. Her best argument against the alternative theory was that she couldn't believe that Americans could kill Americans (I guess the reports I hear of American criminals killing their fellow citizens must be totally false!) She was totally naive on the role of intelligence and the historical facts of false flag operations. I also found it stupifying how superficial her argument was that their is no control of the media by intelligence agencies: We'll I write lots of articles and I'm not controlled! It was simply unbelievably that someone could make such a specious argument - the point that had been made was that intelligence agencies routinely plant false stories to manage public perception, not that every journalist is "controlled." This reducto ad absurdam by OCTs never ceases to amaze me - someone claims that a couple of false stories are planted and suddenly the OCTs take that to mean that the claim is a BIG BAD CONSPIRACY where everyone in the media is involved. Pitiful. The worse part for her though came when an audience member asked that if the conspiracy theories were true, what would it mean for the US and the world. While the other panelists talked about war crimes and trials, she was blabbering on about electing a Democrat to the White House... Nothing more needs be said - sounds like a standard liberal democrat stuck in post election 2000 anger.
Overall this show was quite informative for the lay person, and our panelists came off very well with hard hitting info and stuck to their points. The proof of the efficacy of this approach was evident at the end, when a full 40% of the audience had moved closer towards the conspiracy camp. Please everyone, watch this, learn from it, and repeat. This is how you convince people to look at the evidence.
I won't rehash what you said above, as you pretty much laid it all out. I just want to say I agree that the two 911 truth advocates were very effective and we all can learn from how they comported themselves.
While not the best evidence was promoted and a stronger case could have been made some good points were brought out especially by the former MI5 agent. Interesting in part 2 at about 6:28 or so skeptical Wendy Grossman remarks that when the towers "blew up" well, well, well, so you think the towers blew up eh. Now don't you mean collapsed, or did you speak the truth about what you saw in the video, and how do you think that happened. Pope is a smooth operator and a professional debunker who got off lightly in a couple of spots, someone like
Col. Bowman or Richard Gage or Steven Jones or Jason Bermis or Jon Gold and so many more would have blown him away! Pity no one mentions WTC7 and the premonition of demolition by the BBC, that would have been interesting. All in All it was better than no exposure and the audience seemed to have some serious doubts about the official story.
"I'm not a conspiracy theorist, I worked for MI5 which is like America's FBI and was a highly trained investigator"
I hadn't heard he was the leader of the opposition in Japan.
Sunday March 30, 2008
Alex Jones interviews Japanese MP Yukihisa Fujita of the Democratic Party of Japan, a member of the House of Councillors in the Diet of Japan (national legislature), who questions the official 9/11 narrative/myth and the endless "war on terror." Mr Fujita may be the single most important person to step forward htis year and ask hard questions about the catalyzing event that changed the shape of world history.
I'd not heard the Ellsberg quote before, but its very a powerful refutation of those who argue that someone would have talked.
"The reality, unknown to the public and most members of Congress and the press, is that secrets that would be of the greatest import to many of them can be kept reliably from them for decades by the Executive Branch even though they are known by thousands of insiders."
Does anyone have a reference for this quote?
Secrets: A Memoir of Vietnam and the Pentagon Papers.
Daniel Ellsberg, August 22, 2008:
how each and every debunker and/or supporter of official bullcrap theory is an extremely bad liar.
"wtf i hate all cops"