BBC To Apologize For 9/11 Truth Hit Piece

Why is the truth movement being such a target? Are people really that afraid of the truth, or are the trying to cover up the truth that much?


www.liveleak.com...

The BBC could be forced to apologize and admit mass public deception for airing a documentary on the 9/11 truth movement that was clearly riddled with errors, lies and bias, as the scandal-hit corporation desperately squirms to avoid a potential court case brought by a British scientist.

John A. Blacker, a qualified physicist & mechanical engineer and a member of Scholars for 9/11 Truth & Justice, is currently engaged in a pre-action protocol with the BBC in an attempt to settle out of court and get an apology from the broadcaster as well as a guarantee that the program will never be shown on television again.

In a letter to the BBC , Blacker cites a catalogue of errors, distortions and outright lies that were contained in the program, arguing that the documentary is an insult to those that lost their lives on 9/11.

"The Conspiracy files team spoke to and recorded the testimony of many eyewitnesses, fire fighters, police officers, and public high witnesses, plus also officialdom high witnesses and had access to written testimony from many high witnesses via official sites on the WWW," writes Blacker. "YET NOT ONE SINGLE HIGH WITNESS WAS PRESENTED IN THE DOCUMENTARY TO PUT THE TRUTH PERSPECTIVE," he adds.

I watched the program, it was a complete whitewash obviously made by someone with an agenda to discredit anyone who questioned the official version.

I would really like to know what people have against someone trying to find the truth. Are people really that afriad fo the truth?

reply to post by ULTIMA1''"YET NOT ONE SINGLE HIGH WITNESS WAS PRESENTED IN THE DOCUMENTARY TO PUT THE TRUTH PERSPECTIVE,"''


They want 'High Witnesses'??

J.

Originally posted by jimbo999
They want 'High Witnesses'??

Well they want people in high positions so the people that believe the official story will not say that its not a good witness.

There are several good witnesses for the truth movemrnt side.

I watched this hit piece and it clearly biased from my POV.
As "journalists" you'd think they would do some home work and present a fair program.
If the media is this bent on portraying "truthers" as ill informed or crazy, I wonder who's footing the bill for this propaganda campaign.

I would really like to know what people have against someone trying to find the truth.

I guess that would depend on who these people are.Follow the trail of lies and it's very easy to see who they are.
I can't prove it for 100%, but I can prove they lied.Those being Bush,Cheney,Rumsfeld,Rice,Rove.They've decepted the American public for a reason and Bush & Blair got along nicely.
The puppets are easy to spot,finding the master proves a bit more elusive.

well at least they consider apologizing!

Please do not make this thread into another hologram debate there in enough of hem already.

reply to post by ULTIMA1


I could be wrong, but this is an old piece. The BBC Piece was out like a year ago.

You wont see an apology.

Ultima,

Do you not think that in a post which is attempting to highlight alleged "errors, distortions and outright lies" of the BBC that it would be a little less disingenuous if you were to reinstate the question mark which was originally at the end of the headline which forms the title of this thread?

Originally posted by timeless test
Do you not think that in a post which is attempting to highlight alleged "errors, distortions and outright lies" of the BBC that it would be a little less disingenuous if you were to reinstate the question mark which was originally at the end of the headline which forms the title of this thread?

I do not think the question mark makes that much difference.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

I do not think the question mark makes that much difference.

Actually, the question mark changed the whole meaning of the sentence. The link clearly states "BBC to apologize for 9/11 truth hit piece?". By removing the question mark, it changes it from being speculative to being a fact.

That would be like making a post that says "Dodge to stop making Ram pickups.", when the link really states "Dodge to stop making Ram Pickups?"....a debate on whether to continue the truck line or not. The question mark poses it as a question, not fact.

[edit on 13-11-2007 by Disclosed]

Originally posted by Disclosed
By removing the question mark, it changes it from being speculative to being a fact.

But it is a fact. It is a fact that they made a documentary with errors and bias.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
I do not think the question mark makes that much difference.

Are you being remotely serious?

The question mark changes the line from being a speculative thought process to a, (wholly erroneous), statement of supposed fact. It changes an invitation to consider a possible, (if highly unlikely), outcome into what is a blatantly false statement.

Given that the whole essence of the original article was that the BBC had allegedly distorted the truth can you not see the irony of using such an obvious and clumsy untruth to make the point?

Tell me, was the omission of the question mark an oversight or a deliberate action? I hope it was the former.

why are you arguing about a question mark????

hahahaha I am sorry, but that's SILLY!!! If anything, he's downplaying the significance of what he's saying a little bit. I don't see being humble as a bad thing.

if it were something else being presented on here as fact, like "PROOF OF MOTHMAN!!!" as opposed to "Proof of mothman?"... but he clearly states his source, and the source clearly states that BBC MIGHT apologize....keyword being MIGHT. So will they apologize? I dunno. That question hasn't been answere4d yet, thus the need for the question mark at the end of the title.

oh crap! did it again!!!! Ahhhhhhggg!!! Yes please add the friggin question mark, OP silly...guy! I apologize to EVERYONE for my airheaded posts lately!

reply to post by indierockalien


It was of significance to me because I decided to open and read the thread due to my surprise that the BBC had supposedly agreed to apologise for the program only to find out that this was not the case.

It is interesting on a broader scale because, if intentional, it is an amusing example of a so called "truther" being somewhat less than honest.

Of course, if it was not intentional then it is another matter altogether but Ultima1 seemed to imply that this was not the case. That would be disappointing.

Originally posted by timeless test
It is interesting on a broader scale because, if intentional, it is an amusing example of a so called "truther" being somewhat less than honest.

I believe that the documentary is a biased hit peice. I also agree that there should be a question mark. But i dont give a crap about a question mark, if it isnt holograms its semantics detracting from the topic at hand.


I think its plainly obvious that they should be apologizing, i would like to see a fair documentary. Maybe from the same boys that did The Power of Nightmares...

CAn someone point out what erros the BBC made? Im not saying it was perfect....just curious-