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

9/11: Conspiracy Road Trip with Andrew Maxwell

Options
2»

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 275 ✭✭Bistoman


    lolo62 wrote: »
    ok i stand corrected...she was talking about a voice recording not a call...she said she could hear, on the recording, a group of 4-7 men charging forward

    its up on youtube

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qpQzU74X9rE&feature=mfu_in_order&list=UL

    She says She " Could Just Visualize" Not that She heard.


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


    Bistoman wrote: »
    She says She " Could Just Visualize" Not that She heard.

    this is what she said...''what i could HEAR was a group of about 4/5/6/7 men charging forward'' then she went on to say 'i can just visualize' her son leaping over the seats


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


    This from one of the girls on the show:





    9/11 Roadtrip - My Perspective


    by Emily Louise Church on Friday, September 9, 2011 at 3:27am

    Hello, my name is Emily Church and I am a mute.

    Well, according to the masters of propaganda at the BBC/Renegade Productions.

    This summer I participated in a BBC hit-piece on 9/11, entitled 'Conspiracy Roadtrip'. The premise is simple, five non-believers of the official story journey across the east coast of the USA in search of the truth. On the way we meet 'experts' and victims of the attacks, guided by "comedian" Andrew Maxwell who believes the 9/11 comission report was the be all and end all of the 9/11 story.

    The show aired a few hours ago and I felt compelled to write my version of what happened on that 8 day roadtrip, to give you the perspective you were not shown by BBC 3.

    Firstly, I must tip my hat to them, they did a wonderful editing job. Anyone that has ever had a conversation with me or knows me personally will be very much aware of my opinions re: 9/11, and how outspoken I am about them. However, on this show I appear to be pretty much silent the entire way through.

    I wasn't.

    Throughout my time on the show I asked question after question, I asked every single person we met whether they believed the official story to be true and the vast majority of them said no. Ask yourselves this question, why has the footage of us meeting Tom Owen, a voice analyst who worked on the Osama Bin Laden 'confession' tapes, been cut completely? There is a simple answer, because he told us not to believe the official report. Why? Because we aren't in the 'need-to-know' category, his words, not mine. Throughout our entire meeting with Tom Owen it was pretty much clear that the director of the show wasn't happy with his take, like most of our meetings with 'experts' she would try and steer the conversation in a direction that would better fit her hit piece.

    I'd also like to ask why footage of Ben Sliney saying that someone needs to be held accountable for 9/11 was cut? Surely that's something that the TV license paying public should be able to see? But no, it didn't fit their requirements for the perfect hit piece.

    On the journey I was one of the most vocal contributors, consistently asking questions and receiving no answers whatsoever. I wonder why? Is it completely out of this world to assume that the answers to my questions might have made the truth about 9/11 a little too clear to the viewer? Is it a ridiculous conspiracy theory to assume that the reason the BBC turned me into a mute was to create a biased hit-piece?As with most 9/11 'conspiracy' documentaries, they focused on mostly debunkable theories such as no plane hit the Pentagon and fake phone calls. In other words, **** that pushes us further away from real truth and accountability. They also did a great job at making it seem like I believed most of these theories. I'll freely admit that before I went on the show I was a '9/11 was an inside job' sort of girl. Hell, I even have a t-shirt from infowars.com. Yes that's right, I knowingly gave money to Alex Jones.

    Before I went on the show I had an epiphany of sorts. I realised that all evidence points to a plane hitting a Pentagon, that maybe the twin towers and Building 7 weren't a controlled demolition and maybe Dick Cheney and co hadn't plotted the whole thing with fake hijackers. Now I don't know what is true and what isn't, I am not 100% convinced about controlled demolition but it is a distinct possibility. I just decided to focus on the other, less spoken about side of 9/11. The fact that with multiple warnings, the US failed to prevent an attack on their own shores. The fact that so many people have been gagged from talking about 9/11 and revealing information they might know. The fact that the 9/11 commission report, by it's own ADMISSION was set up to fail. These are just a few of the facts that I brought up on the show. Were they shown?No.

    I made it very clear, before I went to the US, that I thought these theories can sometimes be harmful to our chances of ever getting a new investigation into 9/11. I asked repeatedly to speak to some sort of government representative, someone who I could ask my questions to. And despite being told I would get to speak to someone, alas that time never came.

    So tonight I watched the show and saw no effort on the BBC's part to differentiate myself from these theories, in fact, they made it look like these theories were actually my own. As you will see if you watch the show, they told me to ask about airport security, yet they cut out clips of me asking why the hijackers weren't prevented from entering the country. I asked why, with all of the foreknowledge that the US had, were precautions not taken to protect the innocent American people that tragically lost their lives. I didn't get an answer.

    In ten years, not one person has been held accountable for the events of 9/11, when it is now so evident that the attacks could of been prevented. Hell, even Ben Sliney said that the attacks could've been prevented. Why are we so comfortable with letting people get away with this? And why, after ten years, are people that dare to question the official story still painted as conspiracy theorists? Hasn't it been proven, time and time again, that elements of the US administration covered up their criminal involvement in 9/11?

    Interestingly, the whole show seemed to be centered around Charlotte, trying to portray her as something she isn't. The editing was truly phenomonal, here we have a typical conspiracy theorist, unwilling to listen to anyone else's point of view and adamant that she is right. That's not how it was. They also included an argument that me and Charlotte had and took it completely out of context, they failed to include the fact that we made up shortly afterwards, with me apologising to her. It made me quite angry to see vicious comments about her, considering the fact that she is a friend of mine and one of the people I have stayed in most contact with after the show. Yes, I may disagree with her on some points, but that is the great thing about being able to formulate our own opinions. Me and Charlotte are united on the fact that 9/11 desperately needs a new investigation. Please don't fall for the BBC's clever editing trick, she is not a bad person and the show misrepresented her entirely.

    The same goes for Rodney, the other person I have stayed in contact with since being in the US. Again, we may not agree on everything and we have our differences, but in my experience with him he is a rational and down to earth person. Maybe we should all remember that this was a well-crafted hit piece, the editing was designed to generate ill-feeling towards Rodney and Charlotte, the most head-strong people on the show (along with myself, obviously).

    And here we reach Andrew Maxwell, the Irish comedian who consistently ridiculed us and walked away in the middle of debates. See, the BBC don't want you to know that he complained throughout the entire shoot, laughed about us behind our backs and on more than one occassion said that he wished he'd never signed on to do the show. He's not a bad person, he was there trying to make some money, we were there trying to get some truth. It's as simple as that.

    Personally, I'm pretty disgusted at the documentary and I think participating in the show will always be one of my biggest regrets. But at the same time, I feel pretty lucky that I got to meet the people I did and ask the questions that I did, even though they weren't included in the show. It saddens me that I look like a dumb student who doesn't know a thing about 9/11 and it angers me that I barely have a voice in the entire 60 minutes that the show runs for.

    Overall the experience was an interesting one, but one I wouldn't do again. Imagine intense heat, stuck on a bus all day with cameras shoved in your face, 12 hour filming days, early mornings and emotional break downs. It was intense to say the least.

    There are a lot more grievances I have with the show but that's something I will write about another day. Now, it's time to get some sleep and try to find hope in the fact that I know what happened on the 9/11 Conspiracy Road Trip, I know what I said and I know the answers I got.


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


    They busted wide open thos crazy conspiracies with lego, eggs and water balloons :pac:

    The tower made from lego is when Charlie turned lmfao. He tilted the top of it and you could see a lightbulb come on... "no i get it!!" :pac:

    They threw water balloons on the floor and dude said..

    "see how the water splashes ? thats what happened flight 93" lol

    You couldnt make this stuff up.


    :pac::pac::D:D:rolleyes::rolleyes:


  • Registered Users Posts: 33,624 ✭✭✭✭Penn


    Two posts removed. If you wish to join the discussion, do so in a respectful way. Please read the forum charter for more helpful tips and advice.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 275 ✭✭Bistoman


    Barrington wrote: »
    Two posts removed. If you wish to join the discussion, do so in a respectful way. Please read the forum charter for more helpful tips and advice.

    Not trying to be Piggy about it, But are You suggesting that You must be a true believer in conspiracy theories to post Here?
    and there was Me thinking that having a valid point of view gives You a right to post.
    Enjoy playing in Your own little world then, Because everyone will agree with You.


  • Registered Users Posts: 33,624 ✭✭✭✭Penn


    Bistoman wrote: »
    Not trying to be Piggy about it, But are You suggesting that You must be a true believer in conspiracy theories to post Here?
    and there was Me thinking that having a valid point of view gives You a right to post.
    Enjoy playing in Your own little world then, Because everyone will agree with You.

    Not at all. We have many posters here who don't believe in conspiracy theories. The forum is about 9/11 and conspiracies about 9/11. Both sides are needed otherwise there would be no real discussion.

    However, comments like
    And to Emily Louise Church - maybe your parts were cut so the Beeb don't come across as a bunch of tinfoil hat wearing lunatics by including your completely ludicrous and overly fantastical opinions on such an Internationally touchy subject?

    Maybe look at yourself first and think of the reason WHY YOU are so sceptical.

    are not acceptable. I only deleted your post because you quoted and responded to it.


  • Registered Users Posts: 275 ✭✭Bistoman


    Barrington wrote: »

    are not acceptable. I only deleted your post because you quoted and responded to it.[/B]

    I removed that part of the quote before I posted it,because I saw it as a little harsh.


  • Registered Users Posts: 33,624 ✭✭✭✭Penn


    Bistoman wrote: »
    I removed that part of the quote before I posted it,because I saw it as a little harsh.


    Sorry, I just rechecked there and you're right. Apologies. I was a little quick off the mark there.

    But yeah, this forum is for everyone. Feel free to agree or disagree with anyone.


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


    Bistoman wrote: »
    I removed that part of the quote before I posted it,because I saw it as a little harsh.


    I'm glad Emily Louise Church wasnt here to witness your vicious attack :D


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


    Barrington wrote: »
    Sorry, I just rechecked there and you're right. Apologies. I was a little quick off the mark there.

    But yeah, this forum is for everyone. Feel free to agree or disagree with anyone.

    Sept mods :pac:


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 456 ✭✭Obelisk


    lol...

    Here is the full thing from the 'tube;



    Looks like BOLLOCKS already in the opening :mad:


  • Registered Users Posts: 33,624 ✭✭✭✭Penn


    Daithi 1 wrote: »
    Sept mods :pac:

    Darn tootin'

    Now back on topic please folks


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,017 ✭✭✭Leslie91


    I watched it. Was Emily the loudmouth?.

    There was 2 lads and 3 women. Of the 3 women there was a black girl who flew the plane, a girl who appeared to cry in the company of Bingham's mum and another. Was this 3rd girl Emily?. (sorry was not interested in their names)

    I dunno how she thinks she was portrayed as a mute. Quite the opposite in fact, my impression was she was a loudmouth who would not be swayed 1 bit no matter what. She has her opinion and she was sticking to it end of.

    In terms of the conspiracies.

    Imho a plane defo crashed into the Pentagon, it wasn't a missile. The impact of the jets with their fuel etc brought the towers down, there was no demolition.

    2 things I would agree on/like to hear more about are (1) that the US authorities knew something big was in planning and seemingly did F all about it and (2) building 7 collapse, WTF happened there?.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,752 ✭✭✭cyrusdvirus


    Daithi 1 wrote: »
    Was a joke, a sham.

    I dont wonder why NONE of the multitude of anti conspitatorial programs dont mention Larry Silverstein or the FACT that the BBC stated building 7 collapsed PRIOR to it's collapse.

    I dont wonder why, to prove thermate doesnt cut steel, they poured a pile of thermate on a hotizontal steel beam and set it alight. While we know that thermate needs to be packed tightly/encased to the beam to have full effect.

    For starters.

    Charlie Veitch is an idiot. I just posted this on his facebook page in rage of his turning on day 1 !!!!!!
    "Cant believe you caved on day 1 Charlie lol, youre one donkey. Thremate needs to be packed/enclosed to cut the steel, not poured on top of it lmfao. That said, the U.S gov could easily disprove the CT's by releasing the 80+ pentagon videos to prove it was a plane that hit it. Therefore, we must conclude they revel in the discombopulation of the masses. So the conspiracy continues. 1 question remains..... Why am I talking to a donkey ? "

    And Maxwell is a FnCKTARD !!!!!


    You posted an abusive message on some randomers facebook page, and you think that's a good thing.

    Did you ever stop to wonder why all CTers are marginalised??

    And there's nothing like a bit of revisionist history from Emily Church now is there....

    The company i work for were involved in a once off tv programme a while ago.. before it was aired we were shown a copy of the broadcast, i can only assume that Ms Church and her cohorts were also given the same courtesy.

    And when her super secret "We know the Truth about 9-11 and the rest of the planet (who believe their own eyes and evidence) are idiots" meeting gave her a wrist slap last night she wrote up that drivel.


  • Registered Users Posts: 275 ✭✭Bistoman


    Obelisk wrote: »
    lol...

    Here is the full thing from the 'tube;



    Looks like BOLLOCKS already in the opening :mad:

    It worth watching, Gives a good insight into people who just refuse to believe anything that is contrary to what they already believe. It also quite funny watching how frustrated Maxwell gets.
    I said before that I dont know ware the truth lies about 9/11, But I find myself being pushed more towards the accepted theory ( That is that Bin Ladan did it) every time I see or hear a Zealot like these, Refusing to accept the slightest chance that they Just "might" be wrong.


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,692 ✭✭✭Dublin_Gunner


    Barrington wrote: »
    Two posts removed. If you wish to join the discussion, do so in a respectful way. Please read the forum charter for more helpful tips and advice.


    Great, a moderator that allows one point of view to be posted.

    So I can't have an opinion?

    The term 'tin foil hat' is a well known and used term, and is not derogatory in any fashion, but merely used to describe an individual who is more likely to believe a conspiracy, than the more basic 'truth'.

    I've noticed the people that describe a non-sceptic [Andrew Maxwell] as a fúcktard don't get their posts removed.

    Propaganda and censoring at its best, Boards style.

    Barrington = no credibility.

    **edit

    Oh, and of course you remove my ENTIRE post, completely taking my own opinion away from the thread. Could you not have just edited the bits you said you had a problem with??

    But then of course you'd have an opinion posted that discredits CT's beliefs with the simplest, most likely theory of all...


  • Registered Users Posts: 33,624 ✭✭✭✭Penn


    Great, a moderator that allows one point of view to be posted.

    So I can't have an opinion?

    The term 'tin foil hat' is a well known and used term, and is not derogatory in any fashion, but merely used to describe an individual who is more likely to believe a conspiracy, than the more basic 'truth'.

    Check out other threads on the forum. Check out the Architects and Engineers for 9/11 thread where I've spent the last few pages disagreeing with the conspiracy theory. Check out other people who disagree with most of the theories posted. Both sides of the debate are welcome here. Comments like 'tin foil hat' isn't. We have a wide range of posters who believe in many different topics to varying degrees. Tin foil hat doesn't mean someone who is more likely to believe in a conspiracy, it means a crazy person, and it is disrespectful to the posters here.

    Like I said, feel free to disagree with anyone's opinions here. I welcome it. It stimulates debate and discussion which is what a forum should be about. But show the people on the other side of the debate some respect.

    Any more discussion on this is to be done via PM and not on thread, or I'll have to grab my trusty tin foil banhammer.

    Here's the relevant parts of the forum charter too:
    It is almost inevitable that you will see large amounts of the users here falling into two main camps, either in general, or on specific issues. On any issue there are those who support the Conspiracy Theory, and those who do not (referred to as "the skeptics", commonly). Whether you fall into one of those groups, or are more of a "fence-sitter", you're welcome here as long as you treat everyone else with respect.
    If you're here to discuss why you believe differently to others... Great.
    Don't make the natives restless. This is a catch-all rule for general trolling, bitching and similar. Posting in a manner purely to get a reaction from someone will not be tolerated. If a moderator feels that said poster is doing this intentionally or is the cause of the mess, then that poster can and will be infracted and/or banned.
    Please don't use sweeping generalisations which indirectly attack or belittle other posters here. Posts which are insulting to those who believe conspiracies / the mainstream, for example, may be considered to be insulting to other posters, and as such will not be tolerated.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 456 ✭✭Obelisk


    Well I just watched it. What an anti-climax! That programme was an insult to my intelligence and I feel sorry for the type of people its designed to appeal to! Also, maxwell is a ****.


  • Registered Users Posts: 275 ✭✭Bistoman


    Obelisk wrote: »
    Well I just watched it. What an anti-climax! That programme was an insult to my intelligence and I feel sorry for the type of people its designed to appeal to

    Why? Did You expect a definitive answer to the 9/11 attacks on a late night BBC3 doc?
    Obelisk wrote: »
    ! Also, maxwell is a ****.

    Also Why? He doesn't believe the CT's he tells You that. And nothing was done to suggest that the CT's ware true.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 3,597 ✭✭✭Richard tea


    I thought it was a piss poor doc that CTers & skeptics would agree was a waste of time.


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


    gatecrash wrote: »
    You posted an abusive message on some randomers facebook page, and you think that's a good thing.

    Did you ever stop to wonder why all CTers are marginalised??

    And there's nothing like a bit of revisionist history from Emily Church now is there....

    The company i work for were involved in a once off tv programme a while ago.. before it was aired we were shown a copy of the broadcast, i can only assume that Ms Church and her cohorts were also given the same courtesy.

    And when her super secret "We know the Truth about 9-11 and the rest of the planet (who believe their own eyes and evidence) are idiots" meeting gave her a wrist slap last night she wrote up that drivel.


    Eh Charlie is not a randomer, he's on my friendlist.

    I know exactly why it's marginalised, I dont think you do.

    She may well have been given the courtsey, who knows ?

    Lot of assumptions there so you didnt really say anything at all...

    An empty post :rolleyes:


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,869 ✭✭✭Mahatma coat


    I dunno lads, As teh Mod said Posting abuse about people is not nice, however I dont think theres a court in the lands that would pull you up for calling Andrew Maxwell a C***/S***bag/Pr***

    However I would expect them to hop off ya for Misrepresntation if you referred to him as a Comedian.


    Unfunny annoying <insert preferred expletive> who has made a career from being Unfunny in an Ironic Emperors new clothes kind of way


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 456 ✭✭Obelisk


    I would expect them to hop off ya for Misrepresntation if you referred to him as a Comedian.

    Well that's true. 'Conspiracy Comedy'??? He can kiss my a-hole. This,



    (is an example of conspiracy comedy)


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,577 ✭✭✭enfant terrible


    Obelisk wrote: »
    Well I just watched it. What an anti-climax! That programme was an insult to my intelligence and I feel sorry for the type of people its designed to appeal to! Also, maxwell is a ****.

    Not as big a **** as the blonde girl.


  • Registered Users Posts: 33,624 ✭✭✭✭Penn


    Just a horrible programme. The stuff about the thermite was interesting enough, but the rest was neither informative nor any way conclusive.


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


    Here is a better thermite video.. one that proves it can cut steel.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1 ansealgair


    This programe was the biggest load of dis-info rubbish I have seen on 9-11 and it was presided over by an idiot with 5 numpties. Pure dribble. What a fake this so-called comedian is. He is as funny as a burning orphanage


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


    Daithi 1 wrote: »
    Was a joke, a sham.

    Wasn't a great show... however they at least went there and spoke to people with expert opinion. I can't count just how many CT's I've read that never get tested or queried properly.
    Daithi 1 wrote: »
    I dont wonder why NONE of the multitude of anti conspitatorial programs dont mention Larry Silverstein or the FACT that the BBC stated building 7 collapsed PRIOR to it's collapse.

    Why should they? The only reason to mention it is if you assume there is a conspiracy. Larry Silverstein uses the word 'pull'. Now since that is not a word used in controlled demolition it's only an issue if... A. You choose to believe otherwise against the evidence and B. You believe he's really stupid enough to admit to something like this on TV. It makes much more sense they were pulling the fire-fighters out.

    WTC 7 had been making unhealthy noises, noises which the fire-fighters took to be sounds of possible collapse. The news media knew this. The BBC reporter is on record as saying they got the wrong info from one of the news agencies. She was drafted in and didn't even know which building was WTC7. The fluppin building was behind her on the screen, worst CT ever. On a confused day, confused things will happen. If they didn't then there would be something to be concerned about.
    Daithi 1 wrote: »
    I dont wonder why, to prove thermate doesnt cut steel, they poured a pile of thermate on a hotizontal steel beam and set it alight. While we know that thermate needs to be packed tightly/encased to the beam to have full effect.

    They didn't say thermite can't cut steel. They were trying to show that because thermite is an uncontrolled chemical reaction it's very very difficult to make that happen. In the experiments I've seen they welded steel 'boxes' onto the girders and covered the insides in clay. Even after doing that they they still couldn't cut the steel properly. Imagine...Exposing dozens of the steel girders by breaking open the walls, carrying in the van loads of steel and clay with tons of thermite then fitting them all. And all this in a building with twenty thousand people working, open 24/7. And not one person, not one, sees anything. Should I believe in santa too?
    Daithi 1 wrote: »
    Charlie Veitch is an idiot. I just posted this on his facebook page in rage of his turning on day 1 !!!!!!
    "Cant believe you caved on day 1 Charlie lol, youre one donkey. Thremate needs to be packed/enclosed to cut the steel, not poured on top of it lmfao. That said, the U.S gov could easily disprove the CT's by releasing the 80+ pentagon videos to prove it was a plane that hit it. Therefore, we must conclude they revel in the discombopulation of the masses. So the conspiracy continues. 1 question remains..... Why am I talking to a donkey ? "

    A guy goes there and sees for himself then changes his mind. This isn't a competition. Fair play to the guy for keeping an open mind when confronted with a different viewpoint. Can't believe you went and insulted the guy, says a lot more about you than him.

    BTW you do realise that video cameras point at the ground, right? Because unless the video cameras in Washington were pointing into the air for some reason they wouldn't have caught anything. And forgive me but even if every single one was release the CT's would just say they were faked.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 3,006 ✭✭✭thebullkf


    Barrington wrote: »
    Check out other threads on the forum. Check out the Architects and Engineers for 9/11 thread where I've spent the last few pages disagreeing with the conspiracy theory. Check out other people who disagree with most of the theories posted. Both sides of the debate are welcome here. Comments like 'tin foil hat' isn't. We have a wide range of posters who believe in many different topics to varying degrees. Tin foil hat doesn't mean someone who is more likely to believe in a conspiracy, it means a crazy person, and it is disrespectful to the posters here.

    Like I said, feel free to disagree with anyone's opinions here. I welcome it. It stimulates debate and discussion which is what a forum should be about. But show the people on the other side of the debate some respect.

    Any more discussion on this is to be done via PM and not on thread, or I'll have to grab my trusty tin foil banhammer.

    Here's the relevant parts of the forum charter too:


    LOL'd at this bit


Advertisement