Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Charlie Veitch 911 turnaround (New BBC documentary coming soon)

Options
2»

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 25,236 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Obelisk wrote: »
    Read the background information link I posted.

    The other lad Afrodub made some good points too.
    So I suppose actually engaging in the discussion is out of the window too...:rolleyes:


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 456 ✭✭Obelisk


    King Mob wrote: »
    Obelisk wrote: »
    Read the background information link I posted.

    The other lad Afrodub made some good points too.
    So I suppose actually engaging in the discussion is out of the window too...:rolleyes:

    If actually reading the thread is out first then I guess so, yes. (SMH etc)


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,006 ✭✭✭Daithi 1


    This documentary is on BBC3 now. Over at 10 though. Didnt know that dude from Kilbarrack was involved :(

    Repeats @ 12:30


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,006 ✭✭✭Daithi 1


    Charlie turned on day 1 :pac:


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 456 ✭✭Obelisk


    Muppet! Cant wait to look @ it, there is another one on again tomoro night cant think of the name offhand but have it on record. Pricks!


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 1,145 ✭✭✭lolo62


    i couldnt believe it how quickly he changed his mind...didnt know in advance by the way, have seen this guy on youtube though.

    why are they rounding up a group of inexperienced kids/youtube celebrities and a stand up comedian to make a documentary about something like this?

    personally i dont think there is any big conspiracy behind charlies mind change, he just didnt have the backbone when it came to the crunch

    the fact that they arent bringing in the so-called 'authorities' on this is what is suspicious to me...i would love the conspiracy to be disproved at this point but i cant help but wonder why they arent making a documentary with the people making the most noise on this if they dont have anything to hide.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 456 ✭✭Obelisk


    lolo62 wrote: »
    i would love the conspiracy to be disproved at this point but i cant help but wonder why they arent making a documentary with the people making the most noise on this if they dont have anything to hide.

    That's the problem, dont we all mate.

    On the plus side, 'Charlie' memes are on the up again... (Where have we seen that before?)

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056367085

    Charlie Veitch, truth seeker, described as an ex-banker by the bbc, returns from his road trip with a change of heart. He releases a video filmed in new york where he is obviously relishing his time under the neon signs in one of the biggest shopping areas in the world, and praises various famous singers who had written about new york. People become enraged at this as he has spent the past 2 years soliciting donations and producing videos railing against the established order, shopping and commercialism. He responds by calling David Icke crazy, and Alex jones a fat texan conspiracy theorist, and those that are annoyed haters.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,006 ✭✭✭Daithi 1


    Here ya go Oblisk and anyone whoo misssed it.

    9/11 conspiracy road trip, bbc3




  • Closed Accounts Posts: 456 ✭✭Obelisk


    Hahaha. SNAP :D Lokks SHIIIIIITE :confused: Maxwell the pariah, what a crock of bollocks! **** these shams :pac: Charlie Veitch quote….
    My anarchism and libertarian mindset has strengthened. So I’ve spent 5 years listening to the conspiratorial view – then I got the opportunity to grill the historical/accidental view of 9/11 proponents. Where I stand now is that America’s defences got caught with their pants around their ankles. I do not think there was high level evil complicity in the events of that day. Yes, I have changed my mind.


    The first five minutes set the standard BBC tone, with a voice over by Mr Maxwell, where he reinforced the ‘official’ story and stated that he was “as certain as certain can be that Osama Bin Laden ordered the attacks”. This was followed by an introduction to the five “theorists”, interspersed with shots of them crying and shouting at each other. Without going to far off track, you may remember (from my “Popcorn For The Mind” blog series) that I looked into the media use of “love-bombing”, “divide and conquer” and “herd mentality” tactics in it’s programming. It’s certainly something worth looking out for in a re-watch of this program. These first five minutes are classic examples of social engineering aspects, with all the hallmarks of certain organisations: from Tavistock to Common Purpose. Methods that would have raised a knowing smile from the likes of researcher, Brian Gerrish!

    Andrew Maxwell pointed out that it was “unbelievable” that there were people out there who questioned the “truth” about 9/11. He first took the group to WTC Ground Zero, believing that by simply going there it would change their mind and giving them a “reality check”. This trite act is akin to taking a group of Ufologists to the desert in New Mexico and hoping they’ll raise their hands to the sky and shout, “My God I’ve Seen The Light!”. It trivialises any real attempt to present a critical analysis of 9/11 research, right off the bat.

    He went on to declare that the 9/11 Commission was “totally independent”… you only have to look into the people involved (including the farcically initial period with Henry Kissinger) to know that this is just a biased and misleading comment.

    The specific theories were represented by half a dozen of the (what I consider anyway) weaker aspects of 9/11 speculation. “Amateur pilots couldn’t have done it”. The program then went on to take the group to a flight school where one was taken up in a tiny two man plane and proceeded to fly it above Manhattan for ten minutes. The ‘expert’ flight instructor commented that “if you’re tender with the controls, you’ll probably land it first flight”. He claimed it was easy to navigate and land on a runway, but also said that it was “easier to fly a big jet”. If that were the case, then why isn’t everybody flying jets for British Airways within a day of signing up?! They then dropped in a sound bite of Shazin saying that she thought it would be easy to do it with a Boeing. Well I’m convinced already!…

    This section was closed with the statement: “All they had to do was fly straight and level”. Clearly this is a ridiculous observation. You need only look at the ‘official’ flight path, altitude and angle of Flight 77...

    Next up was the view that the US government screwed up their security procedures. This was quickly dismissed by a quick recollection of the ‘official’ account, with every aspect including the word “Did”. United Airlines pilot Buck Rogers (yes really!) made a staggering remark that there had never been one single aircraft hijacking in the US before 9/11. Where do these people learn their history?!

    At this point, it was obligatory to show the group arguing and shouting at each other, whilst Mr Maxwell (apt name!) called them “childlike” and “gullible”. Next stop was the controlled demolition theory. No physics, simple mathematics or laws of gravity here. Just demolition ‘expert’ Brent Blanchard (do some serious research on this man, you’ll be surprised what you find…) and his reassuring claim that “buildings NEVER fall OVER”, they are simply “compressed”. By now, Charlie Veitch was presented as having an epiphany: “It makes sense now”. The producers must have rubbing their hands with glee.

    Onto the means used to create a controlled demolition and Rodney was next to be ridiculed. “You would think that a science grad would be more rational”, said Andrew Maxwell (another example of nothing more than insult). Another ‘expert’ displayed combustion of a steel girder which was barely scratched, thus the “conspiracy theory” was definitively debunked. Charlie Veitch was, again viewed, voicing his opinion: “It’s becoming more and more unlikely that this stuff was used to bring down buildings… and planes DID mess up the buildings”. At this point, they showed Charlotte upset because “Charlotte has been relying on Charlie to back her up”.
    Onto The Pentagon . The producers obviously didn’t want to touch this one at all, for fear of showing themselves up. They simply presented the ‘official’ commission approved animation of Flight 77’s impact… the one that removes an engine from the schematics in order that it fit’s the pattern of damage (see parts 7 and 8 of my 9/11 blog series, to understand this crucial evidence). Maxwell said here, “Do you think a missile could go in there unnoticed by the public… I think that’s nuts”. Please Mr Maxwell, much more of your profound knowledge and I’ll have to admit defeat and close my blog down…

    At this point I nearly choked from laughing when he said, “What’s more important, the truth or the right answer!”. If it wasn’t such a serious matter, I’d have almost mistaken it for a “Carry On…” film. More arguing and he accuses them of “sulking”. He finally shows himself for the dignified and morally superior being by walking off and saying, “**** Them!”. He then claims that the group “selectively hear things” and mentions something about Israel and MI5, claims that “Santa does not exist, how do you know he doesn’t exist… this is ludicrous”.

    A demonstration of physics followed, in order to explain the crash of Flight 93. This involved a pebble and a mound of flour, followed by the group throwing some eggs and water bombs. Seriously! You couldn’t make this stuff up!

    Onto voice analysis of the ‘passengers’ of ‘93 and an expert who bravely commented that the calls could have been edited or faked, however they were not really practical in “realtime”. Lots of crying for the finale, as the group met the mother of Mark Bingham. She said that her son often used his first name and surname in personal conversations because of habits he’d picked up in his profession and commented that people “on the internet” had “not many brains”.

    The whole ordeal ended with more arguing and shouting and the final position of the group regarding 9/11. Charlie Veitch was praised as a “realist” because of his decision to renounce the “conspiracy” path and join the rest of the sheeple. At which point I could pretty much feel my brain running out of my ears and decided that an hour in the company of the BBC’s psychological manipulation machine was more than enough…

    Maxwell is some muppet.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,006 ✭✭✭Daithi 1


    Another perspective on the situation...



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 7,980 ✭✭✭meglome


    Daithi 1 wrote: »
    Another perspective on the situation...

    You have to wonder when someone thinks it's more likely that a technology that doesn't exist (i.e. holographic planes) is more likely than the official version of events.

    Seriously if you have to invent ways for it to happen it really doesn't help anyone else to believe you.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,006 ✭✭✭Daithi 1


    meglome wrote: »
    You have to wonder when someone thinks it's more likely that a technology that doesn't exist (i.e. holographic planes) is more likely than the official version of events.

    Seriously if you have to invent ways for it to happen it really doesn't help anyone else to believe you.


    When they do invent this technology you will be the first to know and if anyone has any further accusations regarding false flags using secret technology, they can cross reference it with you to arrive at the truth.

    We'll all call you, the... "secret technology current existance knower." :rolleyes:


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,980 ✭✭✭meglome


    Daithi 1 wrote: »
    When they do invent this technology you will be the first to know and if anyone has any further accusations regarding false flags using secret technology, they can cross reference it with you to arrive at the truth.

    We'll all call you, the... "secret technology current existance knower." :rolleyes:

    My best guess is holographic technology would have limited military use. It's not as if holographic planes would show up on radar and fool the enemy. However it would have massive consumer usage and would be worth a fortune. Money talks and no one has anything even in the same ballpark as it would take to project those planes on 911, and that's ten years on.

    If you believe a story that involves a non-existent technology there is something seriously wrong with your logic and thought processes.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,006 ✭✭✭Daithi 1


    I dont believe it, just throwing "another perspective" on the Charlie story out there, no need to get your knickers in a twist. The girl in the video doesnt believe holographic planes were used, nor does Charlie and nor do I.


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,980 ✭✭✭meglome


    Daithi 1 wrote: »
    I dont believe it, just throwing "another perspective" on the Charlie story out there, no need to get your knickers in a twist. The girl in the video doesnt believe holographic planes were used, nor does Charlie and nor do I.

    Unless I'm mistaken she is more inclined to believe holographic planes rather than the official story so my point stands.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,006 ✭✭✭Daithi 1


    meglome wrote: »
    Unless I'm mistaken she is more inclined to believe holographic planes rather than the official story so my point stands.

    All she said was, regarding Charlie.."just because you saw no evidence for it, doesnt mean it didnt happen."

    Doesnt mean she has an opinion on it. She simply doesnt believe the official story. And who can blame her. It's not easily believable by any standards. I think few people would believe it happened exactly how the gov said it did.


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,980 ✭✭✭meglome


    Daithi 1 wrote: »
    All she said was, regarding Charlie.."just because you saw no evidence for it, doesnt mean it didnt happen."

    Doesnt mean she has an opinion on it. She simply doesnt believe the official story. And who can blame her. It's not easily believable by any standards. I think few people would believe it happened exactly how the gov said it did.

    Look I can't know that the government reports are completely accurate. But I can look at the differing claims and see how they stand up to the government reports. Here's the problem... the CT's often contradict one another, they sometimes use tech that doesn't exist, they consistently use out of context quotes to imply they mean something else, they makes connections betweens things but don't actually explain what the connection is, they often leave out evidence as it doesn't agree with them, they cut video to show it means something else, they talk constantly about explosions but can't show one shred of real evidence that there were any explosives, etc etc. So given the choice of who to believe on 911, I choose the people who are not proven liars.. i.e the official reports.

    I'm sorry you find the official reports unbelievable but find the often outlandish claims from the CT believable. I'll follow the logic and evidence thanks very much.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,006 ✭✭✭Daithi 1


    meglome wrote: »
    Look I can't know that the government reports are completely accurate. But I can look at the differing claims and see how they stand up to the government reports. Here's the problem... the CT's often contradict one another, they sometimes use tech that doesn't exist, they consistently use out of context quotes to imply they mean something else, they makes connections betweens things but don't actually explain what the connection is, they often leave out evidence as it doesn't agree with them, they cut video to show it means something else, they talk constantly about explosions but can't show one shred of real evidence that there were any explosives, etc etc. So given the choice of who to believe on 911, I choose the people who are not proven liars.. i.e the official reports.

    I'm sorry you find the official reports unbelievable but find the often outlandish claims from the CT believable. I'll follow the logic and evidence thanks very much.

    The official reports are unbelievable because they are not true. It was admitted that the report was hampered at every level by the pentagon and the whitehouse. Both chairmen of the report said it was set up to fail.

    You find it easier to believe the report even though your being told by it's chairmen that basically it's not the truth, yet you call conspiracy theorists outlandish ? lol


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,980 ✭✭✭meglome


    Daithi 1 wrote: »
    The official reports are unbelievable because they are not true. It was admitted that the report was hampered at every level by the pentagon and the whitehouse. Both chairmen of the report said it was set up to fail.

    You find it easier to believe the report even though your being told by it's chairmen that basically it's not the truth, yet you call conspiracy theorists outlandish ? lol

    You'll find that people covered their asses so they didn't look bad, i.e. hiding incompetence. That's what I took from what was reported. That does not mean the physics of what happen is wrong, not even close.


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,236 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Daithi 1 wrote: »
    You find it easier to believe the report even though your being told by it's chairmen that basically it's not the truth, yet you call conspiracy theorists outlandish ? lol
    So you believe that the people overseeing the 9/11 commission say that their final report is inaccurate? Do any of them say that the NIST report or any technical reports are inaccurate?
    Why would they do so?
    Why aren't they in on the conspiracy and then just say that the reports are super awesome and explain everything?
    How come they are allowed to say otherwise, if they do indeed say as much?

    Because the truth is that you are being fed out of context quotes from these people, who do in fact stand behind their final report.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 2,006 ✭✭✭Daithi 1


    meglome wrote: »
    You'll find that people covered their asses so they didn't look bad, i.e. hiding incompetence. That's what I took from what was reported. That does not mean the physics of what happen is wrong, not even close.

    It certainly doesn't confirm the physics either, it puts the whole version of events in question. People have genuine questions and deserve genuine truthful answers.

    And as much as we appreciate you helping CT'rs with their queries about 9/11, you're hardly qualified to do so.


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,980 ✭✭✭meglome


    Daithi 1 wrote: »
    It certainly doesn't confirm the physics either, it puts the whole version of events in question. People have genuine questions and deserve genuine truthful answers.

    Again I have no issue with the truth. But ever time I look for truth from the CT movement I find a pack of mistruths and lies. What I find amazing is people would choose that over official reports which while perhaps not perfect are generally very accurate.

    The CT movement is like a splatter gun, if you keep firing enough shíte you'll might eventually get something to stick. Or at the very least confuse enough people into believing you.


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,980 ✭✭✭meglome


    Daithi 1 wrote: »
    It certainly doesn't confirm the physics either, it puts the whole version of events in question. People have genuine questions and deserve genuine truthful answers.

    And as much as we appreciate you helping CT'rs with their queries about 9/11, you're hardly qualified to do so.

    I am trying to help, genuinely. But let's be clear in most cases I don't need to be qualified to take a claim then go and check it with the available evidence. That's how I know for a fact that most of the CT's don't add up, just by doing basic checks.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,006 ✭✭✭Daithi 1


    Well your last few posts have been a great help :pac:


Advertisement