The BBC "Hitpiece" admits there was a coverup conspiracy

Many have trashed the BBC Conspiracy Files 911 as being a "hitpiece", most particularly for attacking the highly debatable -prime- Loose Change arguments, but there is one little detail in there that may have been overlooked: they admit that the evidence points to a coverup.



I must state that the show was highly slanted. They mostly went after those highly debatable LC arguments, while sidestepping the bigger more concrete issues. They offered some new evidence for a few cases. Completely whitewashed and appealed to authority on the rest. They took highly debatable issues and summed them up "in half a page" ala Popular Mechanics. ETC and so on. They actually let AJ and Avery speak, but of course they show Avery using Ad Hominem attacks against Pop.Mech.

BUT, at the very end they finally admitted the indisputable coverup, and that's the big story as it was before the BBC attempt at a documentary. In my view, a coverup in a case like 911 is as good as guilty, as in any homicide case, and this is an issue that I would consider "actionable consensus". That is, since there's a coverup we really shouldn't need all of the fancy ype issues to push for movement NOW.


EDIT: I forgot to underscore the way the interviewer tries to frame the question. Instead of it being an objective "so there was a coverup?", he instead says "so there was a conspiracy to coverup their blunders?". That's absolutely not objective questioning, and that one example alone speaks for the bias that the full film is dripping with.

[edit on 28-5-2007 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]