| Welcome to Pumpitout. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
| 9/11 Truth Versus The BBC | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Nov 27 2011, 11:25 AM (715 Views) | |
| ScootleRoyale | Nov 27 2011, 11:25 AM Post #1 |
|
Debunking all the BBC 9/11 propaganda pieces over the years! 9/11 Truth Versus The BBC http://skepticdenialism.blogspot.com/2011/11/911-truth-versus-bbc.html http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LwcL-uQf1mk |
![]() |
|
| broken sticks | Nov 27 2011, 01:50 PM Post #2 |
|
this video is terrible. |
![]() |
|
| shure | Nov 28 2011, 09:08 PM Post #3 |
|
Administrator
|
I have some issues with the new video, although The CIT Deception Mock Trailer is one of my all time favourites! |
![]() |
|
| Matt | Nov 29 2011, 01:10 AM Post #4 |
|
Two thumbs up for the "CIT Deception Mock Trailer."
|
![]() |
|
| ScootleRoyale | Nov 29 2011, 03:57 AM Post #5 |
|
Really? Coz I listened to your interviews with John-Michael (a brief clip of it is in the video), JimD and Chandler etc. and tried hard to make sure you guys would be okay with this. What did you have issue with?
Edited by ScootleRoyale, Nov 29 2011, 04:01 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Matt | Nov 30 2011, 08:37 AM Post #6 |
|
SR, I watched the video this thread discusses. I liked it. Have you seen the Dave Shayler BBC Conspiracy vid? Reminded me of that, but a version more on the "Conspiracy Files: 9/11: The Third Tower" that was apparently rehashed for the 10th anniversary. The WTC demolition evidence is tough to swallow for some. I think that was the issue here. I've taken a liking to the evidence personally. |
![]() |
|
| shure | Nov 30 2011, 02:07 PM Post #7 |
|
Administrator
|
I thought the beginning was good. Maybe it’s just me, but I got a hint that you're inferring the hijackers weren’t real (passport reference), or they couldn't have flown the planes (plane at the pentagon)??? You cut the BBC where the girl landed the plane and went to Jesse's BS conspiracy show, a show that has been proven over and over again to be less than truthful to try and prove a point. Then we have the ever popular thermite argument which conspiracy theorists go around pushing as factual scientific evidence, when it reality that couldn't be farther from the truth!!! Ask yourself... Why has nobody bothered to get an independent lab to confirm the so called "nanothermetic materials" conspiracy theorists claim to have been found in the dust? No attempt has ever been made. WHY? If I discovered something as important as what is claimed to be found, I would be falling over backwards to have my results confirmed by independent labs. |
![]() |
|
| MAC | Nov 30 2011, 09:34 PM Post #8 |
|
(Quotation marks, etc removed as theyre not scripting right) ..I got a hint that youre inferring the hijackers werent real (passport reference) Doesnt have to infer that. You think the passport was really found now? ..or they couldnt have flown the planes (plane at the pentagon)??? Do you now believe Hanjour pulled that off? You cut the BBC where the girl landed the plane and went to Jesses BS conspiracy show What was special about her landing a small plane with a pilot next to her compared to Hanjours dramatic solo, 500mph move in a Boeing to hit a 77ft high wall at ground level? Cutting to the clip from CT was to demonstrate the differences between the 2 types of exercises.. one doesnt have to be a fan of Ventura to appreciate that, surely. a show that has been proven over and over again to be less than truthful to try and prove a point. Yes.. and so has the BBC. Then we have the ever popular thermite argument which conspiracy theorists go around pushing as factual scientific evidence, when it reality that couldn't be farther from the truth!!! Ask yourself... Why has nobody bothered to get an independent lab to confirm the so called nanothermetic materials conspiracy theorists claim to have been found in the dust? No attempt has ever been made. WHY? If I discovered something as important as what is claimed to be found, I would be falling over backwards to have my results confirmed by independent labs. Of course. But whats all this conspiracy theorist wanky talk?! |
![]() |
|
| shure | Nov 30 2011, 10:30 PM Post #9 |
|
Administrator
|
Yeah, for sure. |
![]() |
|
| ScootleRoyale | Dec 1 2011, 04:02 AM Post #10 |
|
I don't deny the hijackers were on the planes, but some of the initial pieces of evidence such as the passport seemed a little to convenient, even the CNN guy found it hard to believe. I think some evidence may have been planted purely for propaganda purposes. And I do think a plane hit the pentagon. That's why I have Emily from the conspiracy road trip program say "I don't think the phone calls were fake, I think a plane hit the pentagon, I don't think flight 93 didn't exist and they've made it look like those are my arguments, which I think is just a complete misrepresentation of who I am and what I believe in" coz those are my sentiments exactly. Jesse's pentagon conspiracy show is generally BS, I agree, but I think that particular scene is interesting. While I don't deny a plane hit the pentagon, I agree the approach maneuvre is very difficult and I find it hard to believe Hani Hanjour could do it. This video was about debunking the BBC primarily and that scene from Jesse's program was alot more relevant to the debate than the scene in the BBC program. Why didn't the BBC put the road trip participants in a simulator and have them try to hit the pentagon? As for the thermite stuff, over at debunking the debunkers we've been addressing the disinfo about the red-grey chips for over two and a half years. Just about every image in the paper refutes the debunkers' assertions that it's something like paint. The electron microscope images of the nanoparticles prove it isn't paint. The DSC plot proves it isn't paint. The iron spheres post-ignition proves it isn't paint. The videos of it reacting proves it isn't paint. The paper was published in an open journal and not a mainstream journal because it is very long and you'd never get a 25 page paper with 33 colour images in a leading journal. Also they wanted it to be free to download and not sit behind a pay wall which is what would happen if they submitted it to a more mainstream journal. And the findings have been independently replicated by Mark Basile who I also included in the video. John-Michael, Adam and Chandler explained all this when you interviewed them. You can criticize Jones' and Harrit's work all you want, but it's more scientific than anything NIST has ever done. See what the BBC chose to ignore from their program that attempted to discredit Niels Harrit ... Niels Harrit Versus Mike Rudin http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CyiXiv-QsL0 I understand that there's a lot more to 9/11 than just this "conspiracy" stuff, but again, my intention with this video was to respond to the BBC's claims. I do intend to make a video at some point about all the foreknowledge and intelligence stuff, ie the stuff the BBC didn't cover, and when I do, audio from your podcasts will likely feature heavily! Edited by ScootleRoyale, Dec 1 2011, 04:29 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| MAC | Dec 1 2011, 08:15 AM Post #11 |
|
Wow, youre actually proud of your wanky talk calling the rest of us conspiracy theorists. Dont you know how that makes you sound? Next you'll be refering to everyone else as twoofers. |
![]() |
|
| MAC | Dec 1 2011, 08:41 AM Post #12 |
|
ScootleRoyale This video was about debunking the BBC primarily and that scene from Jesse's program was alot more relevant to the debate than the scene in the BBC program. Why didn't the BBC put the road trip participants in a simulator and have them try to hit the pentagon? Precisely. Flying around having a bit of fun in a small plane proved s***. Put 'em in the sim and try to hit that 77ft high wall in a Boeing at high speed! I guess there's a reason the BBC didn't want to do that. Nice one. |
![]() |
|
| shure | Dec 1 2011, 05:22 PM Post #13 |
|
Administrator
|
|
![]() |
|
| broken sticks | Dec 2 2011, 04:06 PM Post #14 |
|
Exactly. Scootle, it doesn't matter how many times you say it isn't paint, that doesn't make it so. Claiming the DSC results prove it isn't paint doesn't make it nanothermite either. So the chips caught fire when heated to several hundred degrees - so what? They do no DSC comparisons to a control sample for you to suggest there is anything out of ordinary whatsoever. And they could use two control samples: they could use real nanothermite as a control, or they could use real chips of coated structural steel as a control. Guess what they use as a control? Surprise, they have none. So they prove: some chips of debris catch fire at ~450degrees. Not only is it no surprise, but its also not shown to be a surprise. And another lab doesn't need to publish 25pages with images in order to repeat an analysis. They just need to repeat the analysis and release the data. Scootle, do you think the passports and other paper items found at Shanksville were planted? |
![]() |
|
| shure | Dec 2 2011, 04:13 PM Post #15 |
|
Administrator
|
![]() |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Lates News · Next Topic » |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2








9:42 AM Jul 11