“9/11 Conspiracy Roadtrip” – A Participant’s Perspective

[Dunamis]

Quote:“9/11 Conspiracy Roadtrip” – A Participant’s Perspective
September 8, 2011
Author: Emily Louise Church



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 commission 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 who 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 [FAA National Operations Manager] 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, shit 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 realized 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 have 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 phenomenal. 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 Charlotte and I had and took it completely out of context. They failed to include the fact that we made up shortly afterwards, with me apologizing 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. Charlotte and I 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 and 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 occasion 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 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 breakdowns. 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.

Source: http://911truthnews.com/911-conspiracy-r...rspective/

• '9/11: Conspiracy Road Trip' torrent - http://concen.org/tracker/torrents-details.php?id=25372
• Directly related torrent comments - http://concen.org/forum/showthread.php?tid=42473
  

[icosaface]

Good for her!

[Dunamis]

Quote:Response to Tom Sutcliffe from The Independent.

Hi,

I'm writing in response to your article (http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entert...544.html). I thought it might be handy for you to have the perspective of someone who actually participated in the show but who's contributions were mostly edited out.

To start with, I did not believe most of the ridiculous theories that were shown on the show. I don't think that the calls were faked, I am on the fence about the controlled demolition theories, I don't think a missile hit the Pentagon, I think the hijackers could've easily hit their targets and I don't think that United 93 didn't exist. But you wouldn't know that from watching the TV show. I made it very clear BEFORE I went on the show that I did not believe in those theories, that I found them damaging to the cause of 9/11.

I will start by addressing your first paragraph:

"In 9/11: Conspiracy Road Trip, the comedian Andrew Maxwell adopted a completely different strategy, taking five confirmed conspiracists on a Dimwits' Holiday to the United States, where he was going to try to introduce them to the alien concepts of probability and critical thinking. He, obviously, was a lot more tactful – openly declaring his own conviction that the Twin Towers had been brought down by al-Qai'da plotters, but declining to indulge in any pre-emptive name-calling."

Of course, the edited product would not make Andrew Maxwell look like he actually did for the 8 days we filmed the show. They wouldn't include him insulting us, on-camera, on numerous occassions, or his hissy fits when he didn't get him own way. Excellent editing on part of the BBC and Renegade. Probability and critical thinking are not alien concepts to me, although I understand why you would think that given the "information" that's put forward in the show.

I applied to be on the show because I don't believe that we have been given the full story of 9/11, I know that the 9/11 commission report covered up the criminal negligence of the US administration. By the 9/11 commission's OWN admission, they were setup to fail. I believe, along with hundreds of other 9/11 family members, that there has not been any government accountability. People like to argue that the Bush White House were just tragically incompetent, I'm sorry but there is no such thing when almost 3,000 die as a result. It is criminal negligence at the very least, why hasn't someone been imprisoned for this?

Even Ben Sliney said, on the show, that 9/11 could have been prevented. We know it could have been prevented. So why wasn't it? These are the questions that we need to ask, we need to dig into the nitty gritty parts of the 9/11 story without fear of being labelled as conspiracy theorists. These theories that others on the show did believe (and it is their right to believe them even if I disagree with them entirely) seek only to destroy the credibility of a growing movement of people who want answers to their questions in my opinion. The family members want answers to the questions they posed to the 9/11 commission report, 70% of which remain unanswered to this day.

Is it an absurd conspiracy theory to wonder whether there has been a cover-up? Ten years later and a 28 page section of the Congress Joint Inquiry report remains censored. I wonder Tom, have you read this article by any chance? (http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/featu...gotopage1) It's a very interesting read if you have the time.

Sadly this documentary edited out the majority of my questions about Al Qaeda and Saudi Arabia and the ISI, as well as questions about foreknowledge etc. The list could go on.

We are now ten years on from 9/11 and we still don't know the truth. Instead of writing about a rubbish TV show that focused on theories that have no evidence or founding what-so-ever, why don't you do something important? Like publish an article about the 70% of questions that were never answered by the commission report? Or Richard Clarke's explosive new claims on why the CIA failed to catch the terrorists, you can find that here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bl6w1YaZdf8)?

I expected better from The Independent, although going on the crap that they put out on that show I am not surprised by your article. I just wanted you to see things from my perspective, to see that I am not a 'typical conspiracy nut' who believes in crap, unfounded theories. It's sad that I've been portrayed that way and it's sad that ten years on we don't know the full story of 9/11.

I would love to hear your own response to my e-mail.

Thank you for your time,

Emily Church

Source: https://www.facebook.com/notes/emily-lou...7487598981

[yeti]

Here is a video made by Rodney, also from the show:

[JazzRoc]

The Basic Weaknesses of AE911's Case

The basis for the following argument is questionable, setting aside the question of whether or not AE911Truth proves its claims.

The AE911Truth argument goes:
Premise: Any building collapse that has these features (A, B, C, etc.) must be a controlled demolition.
Premise: The 3 WTC buildings have these features (A, B, C, etc.).
Conclusion: The 3 WTC buildings were controlled demolitions. Therefore, if the group can demonstrate the truth of both premises of this argument, their conclusion is inescapable.
The vast majority of the group’s argumentative effort is spent presenting evidence to prove the second premise. This evidence should and will be examined. However, this argument stands and falls on the truth of both premises, and the only evidence ever presented to support the first is an illegitimate appeal to authority.

Illegitimate Appeal to Authority
From where do these lists of characteristics come from? Since the subject matter is controlled demolition, the answer should be controlled demolitions experts. However, AE911Truth produces no evidence that this list was developed and vetted by a group of third-party, independent experts in the field.
Instead, these lists shows every hallmark of being developed by the group itself. They change them at will. Should an characteristic be shown conclusively to have not occurred (as is the case of “squibs” in Building 7), the group erases the characteristic from this group of “all characteristics.” If a new argument appeals to their fancy (as in the case of iron microspheres and thermite), it suddenly appears on the lists.
The appeal to authority is also where the list of “architects and engineers” comes into play. They claim that they “can play a very significant role as building professionals because we have the necessary technical credibility that Congress will respond to.” If their authority was in the proper field, it might be part of a stronger case. As it is, arguing outside their field condemns them.

Poorly Constructed Lists
Examine these lists. Is it the case that all “classic controlled demolitions” have several tons of molten metal found at the scene? How about residue of thermite? Of course not. Is it the case that “destruction by explosives” always results in no pancaked floors below?
On the other hand, foreknowledge of a controlled demolition is tautological. And the type of foreknowledge seen in the collapse of WTC 7 is not certainty, but based on a reasonable expectation at the time.
Even the sloppy use of terminology points out the amateurish nature of this list. Did 1,830 °F dust clouds race through the streets of Manhattan at 450 miles per hour? That is what the use of the term "pyroclastic" implies. Here in these lists, the term “free-fall acceleration” has finally won the day, but the inaccurate term “freefall speed” still appears in their presentation.
Finally, there are clear signs of controlled demolitions that are not on these lists. For example, part of the documentation of controlled demolitions involve the analysis of seismographic recordings to identify when and if devices exploded in the proper sequence and time. It is crucial to know if some of the devices did not go off for whatever reason, because then the live explosives would need to be recovered from the debris field. Yet experts examining the various seismographic records that captured the fall of the Towers detected no explosive devices whatsoever. This is positive evidence that no explosives were at work in these collapses. Yet if explosives had been detected, they would be on AE911Truth’s lists.

Special Pleading
The list of characteristics for the Twin Towers also suffers from the logical fallacy of special pleading. This happens when someone wants to have an exception to the rule and yet provides inadequate or illegitimate reasons for that exception.
When AE911Truth first began its efforts, it used a single list: controlled demolition. Over time, the faults in that approach became apparent and the group developed a separate list for the Twin Towers. Did the collapses there begin in the top, completely out of character for any actual controlled demolition? Then that characteristic comes out for the Towers. Does debris mostly fly out instead of piling up as in WTC 7? Then that, too, becomes evidence for use of explosive devices in a separate list.

Affirming the Consequent
Without a basis of proper authority and expertise to ground the specially-pled lists of characteristics, AE911Truth’s case collapses into another recognizable fallacy: affirming the consequent. It’s best illustrated by the anecdote of the Texas sharpshooter, who fires his rifle at the side of a barn and then paints targets around the bullet holes. This does not make the rifleman a sharpshooter.
They have found certain elements of the WTC building collapses to be unusual. So have others, and peer-reviewed journals continue to accept articles from actual experts discussing the unusual features of these events. However, the people behind AE911Truth take their observations, express them in clumsy and prejudicial language, and present them to the world as an objective list of controlled demolition characteristics on their own questionable authority. They have the cart before the horse.
Until they demonstrate the reliability of their lists in other cases or adopt an independent, third-party list to apply to these buildings, they are only demonstrating reasons to dismiss AE911Truth entirely.

http://ae911truth.info/wordpress/topten/mass-v-mass/

---

Emily Church Wrote:

Nice piece of work.
A successful LIHOP?
Bit of a surprise for them, I reckon.
I missed the dance. I wonder when the fat lady will sing?

[Armilus]

Thanks for this, i deleted my copy of "9/11 Conspiracy Roadtrip". One thing is for certain -- if the truth was on their side, they wouldn't need to cut and edit unapproved material from their pathetic propaganda movies.

[JazzRoc]

(09-23-2011 03:46 PM)Armilus Wrote:  if the truth was on their side, they wouldn't need to cut and edit unapproved material from their pathetic propaganda movies.

The BBC is a long, long way from being "them". It has an entirely separate agenda in a different damn country. It may still want to smack down "troofers" for reasons I can readily identify.

And so could the heroine of this piece:

Before I went on the show I had an epiphany of sorts. I realized 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.

debunkable theories such as no plane hit the Pentagon and fake phone calls. In other words, shit that pushes us further away from real truth and accountability.

Well, well.

[Dunamis]

Wow, JazzRoc, 11 days pass after your first comment (copy and paste), and then you appear back and actually READ the article...

...no shock there, you commenting on a thread before reading it.

But she FAR from agrees with you, that is still clear.

[Bull Medicine]

this is anti BBC bullshit and probably totally illegal Time to dial 666 and call in the love police

[JazzRoc]

(09-24-2011 11:57 PM)Dunamis Wrote:  Wow, JazzRoc, 11 days pass after your first comment (copy and paste), and then you appear back and actually READ the article...no shock there, you commenting on a thread before reading it. But she FAR from agrees with you, that is still clear.

She exactly agrees with me.

I preferred to point out the reasons why the conspiracy theory isn't correct via the most succinct tract I've found. C&P was fine, as it was most succinct.

Adherence to this theory will cause you to be correct - if ever - only by accident. It deactivates you from effective activism. It takes you out of the game. It's USELESS.

No. It's worse even than that.

[Dunamis]

A commonality you may share with "this theory".

What 9/11 theory do I believe JazzRoc? Do you even know if I believe one? You're the one always banging on about 9/11 with copy and paste jobs, which by the way are not "most succinct" when having conversation. Being a habitual copy and paster in your "discussions" can be quite unhealthy.

Your as difficult to converse with as a no-planer who's drank too much.

I'd love to know what "effective activism" you ever get up to though, there must be lots to do in the Great British empire of middle-class retirement, I mean Spain.

[JazzRoc]

(09-27-2011 12:39 PM)Dunamis Wrote:  A commonality you may share with "this theory".

What "commonality"?

Quote:You're the one always banging on about 9/11 with copy and paste jobs

I have more original content than all of you put together.

Quote:You're as difficult to converse with as a no-planer who's drank too much.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

Quote:I'd love to know what "effective activism" you ever get up to

I was a sixties hippy. I became that between the careers of aeronautical engineering and industrial design, and just as I was forced to discard being a composing rock bassist and singer (a decision I've always regretted. I picked up my interest later working in a studio, buying a Roland synth, and discovering MIDI music.)
I shook hands and worked for Felix Dennis and Richard Neville, and worked for the newspaper called INK.
I was a prosecution witness against the CEO of a company called SPRINGFIX. He was jailed.
I have on occasions been fired for not participating in company business when I saw it to be immoral.
Apart from that I raised children who are now industriously-working graduates.
My wife of 43 years (just as qualified as I am) still works as a physics teacher at an English school in Tenerife, and supports me.

Quote:though, there must be lots to do in the Great British empire of middle-class retirement, I mean Spain.

Tenerife isn't Spain. It is warmer in winter, cooler in summer, and the natives aren't so restless.
When I was twenty, the prospect of surviving being thirty didn't seem so rosy.
The biggest surprise was the expansion in my enjoyment of pure existence when retirement became my only prospect.
And anyway, I DO have plans. They are awaiting fulfillment, and will be so for some time yet...

Oh, yes, CLASS. My grandfather was a Welsh miner. He committed suicide at the age of 41 in slight advance of his painful death of what was known then as silicosis. Due to his profession, you see.
My father was a station accountant officer in the RAF. Bank manager. Well read, with mathematics, but no science.
Me? Went to fourteen schools and four colleges. Working (intellectual). Welshman. Scientific. Artistic. Musical.

[yeti]

(10-07-2011 11:23 PM)JazzRoc Wrote:  Me? Went to fourteen schools and four colleges. Working (intellectual). Welshman. Scientific. Artistic. Musical.

You forgot "Arrogant. Twerp".

Anyway, I hope you don't mind me giving you another nickname. I dub thee...

RazzJoc!

[JazzRoc]

(10-08-2011 12:17 AM)yeti Wrote:  You forgot "Arrogant. Twerp"

"Yeti sysop" makes YE PISS TOY. I can see it now. It's a yellow waterwheel...
Or should it be "Ye is to spy"?

[yeti]

(10-11-2011 12:39 AM)JazzRoc Wrote:  "Yeti sysop" makes YE PISS TOY. I can see it now. It's a yellow waterwheel...
Or should it be "Ye is to spy"?

Sorry RazzJoc, but I don't see those catching on. You must admit though, your new nickname is quite apropos, no?