RT claims BBC stages Syria chemical attack to propagate war. [BBC Responds]

Pete Tar

Senior Member
(Posting a transcript or the main claims from the video would be better to include as well.)

Transcript from the RT website.

 
Last edited:

Pete Tar

Senior Member
No worries. :)
And a much shorter and concise article about it by Craig Murray, perhaps a less sensational source than RT. ( I know nothing about him but he seems relatively level-headed)

 

Pete Tar

Senior Member
I found the BBC's explanation posted on media lens forum.

That's a plausible reason. Much has been made of it , I wonder about RT's motivation for bringing it up again several months later. The news segment (The Truthseeker) is definitely a bit over the top.
 
Last edited:

Pete Tar

Senior Member
Ah, just got lucky in google.

There is a BBC follow-up story probably worth including here too.

 

Gary Cook

Active Member
I am a bit confused by this thread. Was the video debunked? I just found a mirror and thought it was new info.

That is hardly a good excuse. Why not just translate what she actually said?

They are reporting supposedly rather than interpreting. That is for the people forced to pay television licenses to decide.

To be fair, it is a shame we are having to convince people that there was wrong doing. If people cant admit there is something wrong with going in to a foreign country with an army to supposedly stop violence then nothing will convince them anyway.
 
Last edited:

deirdre

Senior Member
I am a bit confused by this thread. Was the video debunked? I just found a mirror and thought it was new info.

That is hardly a good excuse. Why not just translate what she actually said?

They are reporting supposedly rather than interpreting. That is for the people forced to pay television licenses to decide.
it would be nice if the claim was stated in the OP.
They explained why they didn't translate what she actually said.
 

Gary Cook

Active Member
Th
it would be nice if the claim was stated in the OP.
They explained why they didn't translate what she actually said.
How do we know if that was the real reason or if it was just an excuse?

As MikeC has rightly pointed out to me on another thread, RT is also state propaganda - but there is more than one claim in this video.

Maybe I should make a new thread. Although I dont have enough info about what seems to be fake acting, at least yet.
 

Gary Cook

Active Member
I'm not sure it makes a difference. they made a decision. which I for one happen to agree with.
Of course it makes a difference. Something is not debunked if its just a statement rather than a proven fact..

Then again, I dont understand what their excuse was fully so I might be missing something.

It would be nice to here what she said in her language so I can ask somebody to translate it.
 

Landru

Moderator
Staff member
Of course it makes a difference. Something is not debunked if its just a statement rather than a proven fact..

Then again, I dont understand what their excuse was fully so I might be missing something.

It would be nice to here what she said in her language so I can ask somebody to translate it.
Be sure to read the PGs. Improper threads end up in Rambles which limits its visibility on search sites.
 

Balance

Senior Member
Why not just translate what she actually said?
They are reporting supposedly rather than interpreting
I admit not reading every single link and quote but what translation are you meaning? The doctor does speak english, it's not a dubbed in actors voice - or am I missing something? Sorry if I got the wrong impression.
 

David Fraser

Senior Member
Just my pennys worth. The first video is the 29th August and the second is 30th September. RT is claiming the second video is to stir public opionion for military action. Given that military action was ruled out in a parliamentary vote on the 30th August why would the BBC alter footage a month later to garner sympathy for a decision already made?
 

Gary Cook

Active Member
Just my pennys worth. The first video is the 29th August and the second is 30th September. RT is claiming the second video is to stir public opionion for military action. Given that military action was ruled out in a parliamentary vote on the 30th August why would the BBC alter footage a month later to garner sympathy for a decision already made?
Just because they had to rule it out because of the public protested doesnt mean they would not try and effect public opinion so they could push for invasion again. True?
 

Melbury's Brick

Active Member
Of course it makes a difference. Something is not debunked if its just a statement rather than a proven fact..

Then again, I dont understand what their excuse was fully so I might be missing something.
.
It's fairly clear. In the first instance words were edited out for clarity because, by the time the piece was broadcast, the nature of the attack was known. In the second broadcast the "Panorama" editor left the original words intact, but the clip ended before she had finished speaking. This was explained in the next part of the programme, which RT chose not to mention. This is RT being mischievous coupled with a feeding frenzy of straw grasping conspiracy theorists. Of course, if we want to play a game of semantics "Napalm" IS a chemical weapon.
 

Pete Tar

Senior Member
but there is more than one claim in this video.
Yeah, it's a talk show of people with a heavy conspiracy bent using that 'incident' as a launching pad to make a bunch of claims about political manipulation of reality. It's very much an Alex Jones style show.
Only the first story was in the title so that was worth concentrating on. It's not really a clean 'debunked' but it is explained reasonably. It's obvious the talk show is really just using it as an excuse to launch a narrative about how the west is pushing for military intervention in Syria, and their motives for that should be questioned, as their message is way more heavy-handed and manipulative than the original BBC piece.
 

Gary Cook

Active Member
Yeah, it's a talk show of people with a heavy conspiracy bent using that 'incident' as a launching pad to make a bunch of claims about political manipulation of reality. It's very much an Alex Jones style show.
Only the first story was in the title so that was worth concentrating on. It's not really a clean 'debunked' but it is explained reasonably. It's obvious the talk show is really just using it as an excuse to launch a narrative about how the west is pushing for military intervention in Syria, and their motives for that should be questioned, as their message is way more heavy-handed and manipulative than the original BBC piece.
Well we cant really bunk it or debunk it as the person who made the thread didnt really make any claims. There is apparent evidence that there was acting. Has that been addressed anywhere on this forum?
 
Last edited:

Melbury's Brick

Active Member
Well we cant really bunk it or debunk it as the person who made the thread didnt really make any claims. There is apparent evidence that there was acting. Has that been addressed anywhere on this forum?
This was dealt with very quickly by Pete Tar who showed that the RT claim is bunk. Therefore the "acting" nonsense (seems to raise it's head every time these days) is irrelevant.

I recall when the Sandy hook acting accusations first came to the fore. It just seems to be the denizen of, shall we say, the more imaginitive conspiracy theorists. I thought it was ridiculous then and still do now. A bit like nine year old boys had been asked to write a script.......

"I know, they can all be actors"
"Yeah, yeah.....'cept the aliens"
"Ah, yeah....'cept the aliens"
"An' in the end they all wake up an' it was aaaall a dream!"

Actors my arse.
 

dirk100

New Member
Nothing has been debunked here, guys. I ask you to actually watch the footage. This editing of what was said was not simply cutting out certain words. It was removing a word mid sentence and then pasting in a different one. Changing what the person is saying. This is not narration - this was meant to be footage of a person being interviewed.

But this isn't the first of the dodginess from Ian Pannell's report. If there is to be reasoned debate then don't dismiss everyone as a crazed conspiracy theorist. Yes, there are people who believe that the guy who invented an engine that worked off water was assasinated by the oil industry and they will likely believe a lot of rubbish. But likewise there are some here who are in the same mindset just not believing anything could be wrong. Amusing to see how RT gets jumped on as all manipulation and the BBC gets a free ride as the bastions of truth without an ounce of scrutiny. The BBC explanation for the edit makes no sense at all. Where exactly are you given the right to change what someone being interviewed has said? This is meant to be a documentary - not a Hollywood movie.

Watch the video and if you still don't believe those are staged 'victims' then get back to me. This is with a backdrop of numerous fakery by the Syrian opposition. They have been caught out time after time.


Thanks
 

Pete Tar

Senior Member
So now the claim is the actual people in the hospital are actors? Not just the BBC edited the words to closer reflect the reality of what was known about the attack in a video summary some time after the original?

This explains it, what's your problem with it?


 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
So now the claim is the actual people in the hospital are actors? Not just the BBC edited the words to closer reflect the reality of what was known about the attack in a video summary some time after the original?

This explains it, what's your problem with it?


It appears in the original airing as an 'incendiary device' and a month later, in another airing, it is changed to 'chemical weapons'.

I do not believe it coincidental that it should be thus referred to at exactly the time when 'chemical weapons use' was the 'justification for attacking Syria'.

I note someone comments above that 'well napalm is a chemical weapon', (and I agree), but the U.S and Israel deny this as they have been by far and away the most extensive users of it. By that standard they would need to punish themselves by bombing their citizenry to deter themselves from using it again. Strange that!

There are a number of accusations in the video, including the use of actors; (fake blood/wounds/waking up from the dead).

There is the issue of

A parallel to another proven faked atrocity is remembered.


It seems pretty clear cut to me.
 
Last edited:

dirk100

New Member
So now the claim is the actual people in the hospital are actors? Not just the BBC edited the words to closer reflect the reality of what was known about the attack in a video summary some time after the original?[/EX]
No, there are two claims, which I've clearly stated. And they have a bearing on each other. I mentioned the acting because someone also tried to dismiss this.

It doesn't explain anything at all. What pauses, what digression? The word 'napalm' was pasted over with 'chemical weapon' in a sentence. This was not narration but altering the words of someone being interviewed in a supposed documetary. Where exactly is this common in broadcasting?
 

Pete Tar

Senior Member
The exact opposite to what you both are claiming happened.

It appears in the original airing as an 'incendiary device' and a month later, in another airing, it is changed to 'chemical weapons'.
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
The exact opposite to what you both are claiming happened.

So are you saying RT, are lying about when each version was aired?

RT say the first airing claimed 'incendiary/napalm' and the one a month later (by panorama), used "chemical weapons".

Which is it?

Are you also disputing the fake actors and

Syrian Observatory for Human Rights
element and the

Doctor Rola, on whose sole claim the BBC sends the napalm/chemical weapons allegations round the world, is actually the daughter of Syrian rebel Mousa Al-Kurdi.
https://wikispooks.com/wiki/Dr_Rola
 
Last edited:

dirk100

New Member
The exact opposite to what you both are claiming happened.

- The edited footage doesn't even retain the same video to the words
- Dr Rola herself claims she is not sure in her sentence so there would be no need to alter her words
- Why would you then even use the footage at all?
- Do you really believe the BBC were concerned about misleading the public over this while ensuring they had this aired as a special report before the Panorama episode and before the vote?
- But they were happy to mislead the public later on by leaving (what they claim) were the original words? Doesn't make an ounce of sense.
 

Pete Tar

Senior Member
Sorry, I was wrong. The first piece aired was edited to remove the chemical weapon phrase as it was known by then it was an incendiary and would have led to confusion. The second piece just used the unedited version because it was a longer piece and was able to further elaborate, it clarified that at the time it was feared chemical weapons, but it was definitely a napalm like attack.
If this is not clear from the following explanation, I really can't help you any further.
So yes RT is lying.

As for claims about dodgy acting and the doctor's nationality, I really couldn't give a crap, that kind of analysis is contemptible to me.
 

dirk100

New Member
As for claims about dodgy acting and the doctor's nationality, I really couldn't give a crap, that kind of analysis is contemptible to me.
So this is the extent of the debunking on this site - total arrogance.
 

MikeC

Closed Account
Acting and nationality are not debunkable - and raising them as an issue speaks to lack of facts to support a position - the arrogance lies not with the person who points that out.
 

dirk100

New Member
Acting and nationality are not debunkable - and raising them as an issue speaks to lack of facts to support a position - the arrogance lies not with the person who points that out.
I've not mentioned nationality but I have about acting. And further points above which have not been answered. How exactly is the authenticity of footage not relevant? Especially with a backdrop of fakery that has already been exposed. I've merely asked for people to view it and give their opinion. But to those who would rather deflect they will always pull out the indignation card.
 

Pete Tar

Senior Member
So this is the extent of the debunking on this site - total arrogance.
I'm one person, that's my opinion. Someone else may have the stomach to trawl through it, I don't.
A medical person on the site of an incident has her background scrutinised and questioned just so someone can feel clever about themselves 'exposing' something. I just don't find it compelling, sorry.

The initial claim I focused on was the alteration of words in the two BBC broadcasts, which are more than adequately explained by the BBC, but are obviously falsely represented by the RT segment to promote its agenda.
If you want a focus on your acting claims, you can start a thread.
(I suppose it falls under the umbrella of the title, but as the focus has gone to the change in words it would be better for a new thread so it's more direct)
 
Last edited:
Thread starter Related Articles Forum Replies Date
derrick06 5G Health Claims and Theories 5G and Other EMF Health Concerns 16
Dan Wilson Claim:HIV Protein Sequences in Covid-19 (report withdrawn by authors) & other "man made" claims Coronavirus COVID-19 31
Oystein Debunked: AE911T: CNBC Anchor Ron Insana claims Building 7 a Controlled Implosion 9/11 13
W Debunked: Qanon claims there have been 51k sealed indictments filed this year. Current Events 11
Mick West Russian Claims of a "False Flag" Chemical Weapons Attack in Douma, Syria Current Events 10
FlightMuj Claims of Predictions of Chemtrails in Old Texts Contrails and Chemtrails 3
deirdre Debunked: Alex Jones claims kids '[walking around firehouse] with hands up' in Megan Kelly interview Sandy Hook 1
Bill Statler "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence": practical problems using this argument Practical Debunking 3
MikeG Debunked: Mike Adam's Claims Regarding HPV "Shock Study" Health and Quackery 5
Inti Claims that compass “symbols” are evidence of Masonic involvement Conspiracy Theories 8
Chew Debunked: flat earth claims about lighthouse ranges Flat Earth 8
E Debunked: Virginia Shooting Hoax Claims - Lack of visible shell casings mean fake gun Conspiracy Theories 22
trevor Virginia Shooting Hoax Claims - Can People Run After Being Shot [Yes] Conspiracy Theories 41
Mick West Debunked: MH370: Daily Mail claims new sonar images indicate aircraft debris Flight MH370 3
TEEJ Bellingcat Analysis of Satellite Imagery Used In Russian Claims Against Ukraine Flight MH17 104
Trailblazer Debunked: Look-up.org.uk's claims of aerial spraying over London on April 12 2015 Contrails and Chemtrails 21
Graham2001 'NASA worker' claims to have seen humans walking on Mars in 1979 UFOs, Aliens, Monsters, and the Paranormal 7
CapnPegleg Debunked: Boyd Bushman, Area 51 scientist, claims existence of aliens in deathbed video [Hoax] Conspiracy Theories 16
Redwood James Fetzer Claims Lenny Pozner Forged Death Certificate Sandy Hook 13
Mick West Debunked: The Science Claims of Global March Against Chemtrails and Geoengineering Contrails and Chemtrails 4
Tobes Article in The Telegraph claims James Foley beheading video staged Conspiracy Theories 108
Dan Wilson Resources for Debunking GMO Toxicity Claims Health and Quackery 1
Mike Fl Debunked: Wolfgang W. Hablig's "Script" Claims Sandy Hook 5
Libertarian Claims Ukranian military using civilian planes as cover Flight MH17 72
Tobes Debunked: James Fetzer claims Shannon Hick's photo is "smoking gun" proof of a drill Sandy Hook 24
Josh Heuer MH17: Russia Claims Ukranian military plane flying nearby before incident Flight MH17 121
CapnPegleg Vegas Police Officers Shot - False Flag claims coming? Conspiracy Theories 32
nanotchi UniversalFreePress claims that " Democrats Plan to Repeal 1st Amendment Conspiracy Theories 8
MikeC Claims of Russia rigging the Crimean referendum General Discussion 11
Tobes Debunked: Movie producer Nathan Folks claims bombing false flag, Voice of Russia says blood too red Boston Marathon Bombings 134
Redwood James Fetzer Claims Robbie Parker Is Actor Sandy Hook 40
zebra100 Businessman Claims he Saw ‘White Plane Image’ Under Water while Flying from Melbourn Flight MH370 0
vooke Debunked: Tim Ackers MH370 Debris Claims Flight MH370 15
Tobes Debunked: Dr. Stanley Monteith's claims about Jeff Bauman's injuries Boston Marathon Bombings 12
derwoodii Flight MH370: Oil Rig Worker Mike McKay claims to spot plane crashing near Vietnam Flight MH370 50
nanotchi Debunked: Iran claims Snowden Documents Proving “US-Alien-Hitler” Link Stun Russia [Sorcha Faal] UFOs, Aliens, Monsters, and the Paranormal 2
gerrycan AE911 Letter to Inspector General Claims NIST WTC7 Report is Provably False 9/11 161
Jay Reynolds Debunked: Look-up.org.uk claims to find Gulf of Guinea Chemtrails base Contrails and Chemtrails 13
deirdre Conspiracy Theorist Mark S. Mann claims of being a Ct. Police Officer and Firearms Industry Executiv Sandy Hook 4
John Smith Kevin Ryan's Claims about UL certifying steel components for the WTC 9/11 32
moderateGOP Poking holes in "Syrian Rebels" Claims about Chemical Weapons Use General Discussion 137
Mick West Statement from Michael Mulder of Aerotoxic.org regard claims by Max Bliss Contrails and Chemtrails 1
Jay Reynolds Debunked: Dane Wigington's Claims That UV is "Off The Charts" Contrails and Chemtrails 207
Rroval Man Claims Mars Space Station Discovered On Google Mars (VIDEO, POLL) UFOs, Aliens, Monsters, and the Paranormal 2
somnamblst Posting this in light of the "EMT" claims regarding Jeff Bauman Boston Marathon Bombings 6
HappyMonday 9/11 Claims 9/11 6
Boston GMO's myths and truths. Heavily noted review of the claims of the GMO giants General Discussion 191
chem_what Any debunkings of these ridiculous claims? Contrails and Chemtrails 2
rezn8d Aquiess & Sciblue Inc - Dubious claims about rainmaking technology General Discussion 100
HappyMonday Bianca Jagger Chemtrail Claims Contrails and Chemtrails 1
Related Articles


















































Related Articles

Top