Conspiracy theorists get an easy ride on BBC Radio 4’s Front Row

Tonight Front Row was truly abysmal. I was writhing in frustration at all the questions left unasked. Mark Lawson flunked as an interviewer – why the hell did he try to do it himself?

“A new film out this week, Zero: An Investigation into 9/11, gives a detailed account of holes in the theory about the 9/11 hijackings. The internet is full of conspiracy theories about events that day, including another film Loose Change: Final Cut. Mark Lawson brings together the films’ directors Francesco Trento and Tim Sparke to question their version of events.

Zero: An Investigation into 9/11 is showing at selected cinemas across the country, and opens in London on Thursday”

Get some proper debunkers next time – somebody who can tell the difference between a hole in the US version of events (possibly covering up incompetence) and a plan to murder 3000 of its own people, frame Iraq and then invade.

The directors asked why we should believe the tobacconist (US Govt) version of events when 4000+ experts disagree. Personally I wonder why we should believe a teeny group of architect and engineer conspiracy theorists with a motiveless suspicions about the US Govt when we could listen to the majority of their peers who think they are bonkers.

Advertisements

5 thoughts on “Conspiracy theorists get an easy ride on BBC Radio 4’s Front Row

  1. I completely agree. This number of architects and engineers gets trotted out again, and again as if it means something… I know it sounds like circular reasoning, but a part of me thinks “it did happen, so let’s find out how”, rather than “it couldn’t happen, so let’s come up with alternative explanations”.

    I also think the interviewee misunderstands (or mistrusts) the scientific process when he was implying that he can throw up any crazy theory, and the onus is on the other side to debunk his theory, rather than the onus being on him to debunk the explanation.

    Which isn’t to say that the official explanation is very watertight or unambiguous.

  2. Yes I know. The political irresponsibility of refusing to pursue the loose ends (e.g. what happened to the plane that ‘didn’t’ crash into the Pentagon) of their own theory while insisting we address the loose ends of the official story.

    I think it is absolutely necessary to point out holes in official versions of events. Proposing alternative versions, maybe – but when the alternative version is even more far-fetched than the original, with more loose ends and improbabilities, that discredits the person advancing it as a conspiracy theorist.

  3. Is there a list of these 4000+ engineers and architects? I would like to avoid working with them. I wonder if they put it on their CVs? Maybe on their LinkedIn profile?

  4. Just a couple of short points on this and other conspiracies,

    1) Those who believe in them tend to do so with a commitment usually only seen in religious extremists – ask yourself how would the government convince people god didn’t exist?

    2) You cannot prove a negative.

    3) Any expert who disproves the theories and/or comes up with compelling evidence supporting the ‘authorities’ view will always been seen as a stooge. There is an added problem here that in order to become an expert in something as esoteric as what happens when you blow up buildings you are going to have strong links to the establishment – no body else can access the research or is likely to pay for it.

    4) If the US government spent even more money and even more time dealing with all this rubbish then they (the 9/11 truthers) would only say this means there is something in what they say.

    Basically terrorists flew planes into buildings and they blew up and fell down. The US should have spotted them before it happened but large organisations are incompetent at drawing together disparate pieces of knowledge.

    The official report probably has holes in it but this is beause of the point I made above and the fact that it is a very complex subject and was written by committee.

    Having said all this very dissapointed in the BBC and Mark Lawson – where was the balance on the other side?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s