"Frontline" Equivalent in Canada Examines the "Unofficial Story" of 9/11

CBC's "Fifth Estate" examines the "Unofficial Story" of 9/11

For people wondering if the truth movement is making any headway among the vast, vast, vast horde of people with common sense who don't regard a tin foil hat as just the thing to ward off . . . er, cosmic rays (?), this documentary might be just the update they need.

Simply the fact of this program's existence is an acknowledgement of sorts. It constitutes a rare foray by the "unofficial story" into the parlours of the masses, miniscule as they are in Canada. There must be some cross border leakage involved as well.

You can see it here:

www.cbc.ca...

There are some supplementary interviews and features in other links on the page.

A totally horrible program. They examined claims from 2006. Didn't even provide any rebuttal to the claims they made.

forums.randi.org...


Yes, if you like to live back in 2006 at the height of the "911 Truth Movement" then their little program may seem to those, that provides to support 911 truther claims.

It does nothing of the sort.

The Truth movement is now dogged by factions, warring with each other and fringe lunatics who can't even be bothered to get their papers published in REAL peer review journals.

Oh and who site idly by while they let a "patsy" take the fall.

It's on YouTube already. It looks good. I'm just starting to watch. Here is the embed.

Part 1



Part 2



Part 3



Part 4



Part 5



[edit on 29-11-2009 by ipsedixit]

Just finished watching the program and I believe that it represents about the best that the truth movement can expect from the mainstream media at this time.

It touches lightly on the main bones of contention that the truth movement has with the "official story", the collapses of the towers, the collapse of WTC7, the damage at the Pentagon and the non-response of the USAF to the hijackings as well as the possibility that phone calls from the planes were faked. Featured are Richard Gage, David Ray Griffin, Keith Dewdney, and Brent Blanchard (who argues against controlled demolition). There is even a cameo from Craig Ranke.

The MSM is a blunt instrument and this program is no exception. I was sorry to see that more of the detail of some of the truther positions wasn't included, but I realize that kind of thing is probably beyond the scope of the program.

This program is, though, the type of thing we are likely to see more of. It represents a tentative acknowledgement that the truthers do have legitimate bones to pick with the "official story". When that becomes a broad consensus, a new investigation will become a serious possibility.

All in all a B+ for the program and a firm step forward for the truth movement.


[edit on 29-11-2009 by ipsedixit]

reply to post by RipCurl

I think you are getting this program mixed up with an earlier program they did. They mention the post 2006 nano-thermate claim and include a rebuttal of the controlled demolition theory by Brent Blanchard. The CBC presenter also asks some rather pointed questions to truthers. I think the program is very even handed although the stated intention is to focus on the "unofficial story".

I don't think you've seen this video.



[edit on 29-11-2009 by ipsedixit]

I watched this program earlier today. Not too bad at all.

reply to post by ipsedixit


typical desk agent.
l didn't watch it yet, and, surprisingly, i have no opinion on it, yet.
despite what ripcurl wants to believe, some of us weigh each piece of evidence and innuendo outside of our personal bias. i WANT to think that the fifth estate did a good, relatively honest job (they have a good 30 yr. track record), but until i watch the show, i won't have an opinion.

Originally posted by ipsedixit
reply to post by RipCurl

 

I think you are getting this program mixed up with an earlier program they did. They mention the post 2006 nano-thermate claim and include a rebuttal of the controlled demolition theory by Brent Blanchard. The CBC presenter also asks some rather pointed questions to truthers. I think the program is very even handed although the stated intention is to focus on the "unofficial story".

I don't think you've seen this video.



[edit on 29-11-2009 by ipsedixit]

If you bothered to go to the link that I used in my post, you would see that it was to a thread on discussion of this EXACT program.

The claims they discuss are still from 2006 with a minor few from later.

All them have been debunked and the show did NOT put on any rebuttals by professionals.



Im not going to repeat what has been stated elsewhere. This show by the Fifth State (and excellent program) is a piss poor one.

and, oh yeah, linking to a JREF thread should be considered a criminal act.
ewwwww!!! JREF! i feel dirty.

reply to post by RipCurl

Have you seen the video? I still don't think so. Why would you bother to link to a thread in another forum?

I agree that Brent Blanchard is not very convincing in rebuttal of the controlled demolition hypothesis, but in reality there are no convincing responses to it.

All in all, I think the program was fair in what it set out to do, which is explain the persistence of the 9/11 truth movement, which persists because it's claims and questions have substance.

Incidentally, JREF, from what I have seen is more of an emotional support group than a real discussion forum. It consists mainly of people who use a lot of snide posts to bolster each other's smug attitudes.

Originally posted by ipsedixit
reply to post by RipCurl

 

Have you seen the video? I still don't think so. Why would you bother to link to a thread in another forum?

Yes. I've seen it. Coldn't stand it. 90% of the show was exploring truther claims that have BEEN Debunked. In fact most of it were settled with the resulting NIST reports.

I agree that Brent Blanchard is not very convincing in rebuttal of the controlled demolition hypothesis, but in reality there are no convincing responses to it.

How can someone provide a convincing rebuttal to something that did not happen?


If you dont like his on screen interview, your are more than welcome to read his article that he wrote about the WTC towers, which is much more convincing than the 5 minutes he had to rebut the claims.

www.implosionworld.com...

He couldn't squeeze his report into an edited interview.

All in all, I think the program was fair in what it set out to do, which is explain the persistence of the 9/11 truth movement, which persists because it's claims and questions have substance.

You have an odd definition of what is considered fair. Fair is providing a truther claim, give their time to explain why they believe it, back it up with evidence then provide the EXACT same amount of time, to a debunker of the claim and have them provide evidence.

That did not happen.

Incidentally, JREF, from what I have seen is more of an emotional support group than a real discussion forum. It consists mainly of people who use a lot of snide posts to bolster each other's smug attitudes.

Seeing that they've been dealing with these same claims over 1000's of times on the forum, you have to come to the forum ready to defend your position. And that position has to be defended with EVIDENCe. Something the truthers have NONE of.

They should have interviewed a Statistician. He could have explained the odds of having three complete, fire-induced, structural collapses, in steel framed high-rise office buildings, at the same place, on the same day.

The first was 1/1000. The second, 2/1001 and the third 3/1002. That is 1/1001X(2/1002)X(3/1003) = 0.000999000999000999000999000999001X0.0019960079840319361277445109780439X0.0029940119760479041916167664670659 which equals, and believe me, if I could not cut and paste from my calculator, I would not have bothered to do this,.....

0.000999000999000999000999000999e+1996.

For the hexadecimal challenged here, the above number has 1996 zeros to the right of the decimal before this phantom of an improbability appears. Then on the same day, that's 1/365 and then same city... Trickier but doable, at 1/10 assuming there are 10 city s that would have had the same emotional resonance in being targeted. So its the above speck of probability divided by a sliver divided by 10.

Its such a small probability that it is impossible, so something else occurred. But what? Pizza is here. Gotta go. What are the odds of that?

Pizza man creeps me out, too. He looks like that Silverman guy who shrewdly adjusted his insurance before hand. Plus he drives for Mossad's Pizza...What are the odds of that. Seriously.

reply to post by RipCurl

We'll just have to agree to disagree.

I don't want to malign debunkers as a whole because some of them are very intelligent and argue very well within narrowly defined areas of expertise, but many of them are dishonest and abusive people, who are clearly bugged by the truth movement. Personally, I can't take anyone seriously who doesn't think there should be another investigation of the events of 9/11.

When you have the co-chairman of the 9/11 commission saying that the commission considered prosecuting certain military officers for perjury, but decided not to, everyone should be concerned to get to the bottom of the matter. Why has neither the Bush administration or the Obama administration tried to arrest General (Ret.) Mahmood Ahmad formerly of Pakistan's ISI, when the FBI believes that he arranged to wire Mohammed Atta $100,000 just prior to the attack? Let's get an investigation and find that out.

There are a host of unanswered questions regarding 9/11, some of which point to possible treason in high places. We need a new investigation. The truth movement is not going to go away until we get one.

One thing Brent Blanchard got right. This issue is damaging America around the world. Let's get it cleared up.

Originally posted by ipsedixit
reply to post by RipCurl

 

We'll just have to agree to disagree.

yes we disagree. I believe that 911 was caused by a group called Al Quaeda who was funded by Bin laden and orchestrated by 19 invidividuals (20 if you count Mossaoui).

You dont.

I don't want to malign debunkers as a whole because some of them are very intelligent and argue very well within narrowly defined areas of expertise

That is an entirely misrepresentation of what debunkers are. What we are asking is for proof/ evidence, of the claims made by the 911 truth movement. NONE has been provided in over 8 years. Keep in mind, in this day and age of the internet, no one has come forward with evidence of an inside job. Yet, Watergate was exposed in less than three years by two men, and there was no internet.

but many of them are dishonest and abusive people, who are clearly bugged by the truth movement. Personally, I can't take anyone seriously who doesn't think there should be another investigation of the events of 9/11.

sorry, but we've had nearly 6 investigations already. ALl have come to the same conclusion. Al quaeda trained ooperatives financed by Bin Laden trained 19 individuals for the purpose of causing harm to America's economy and drawing us into a war, in the most spectacular and biggest statement they could make.

They caused the 93 bombing of the WTC complex and Bin Laden VOWED at that time, he would try again.

When you have the co-chairman of the 9/11 commission saying that the commission considered prosecuting certain military officers for perjury, but decided not to, everyone should be concerned to get to the bottom of the matter.

The co-chariman had NO way of doing so. It was up to a military court to do so. In the end, no military personell was tried BECAUSE the military wasn't responsible for the failure that happened on 9/11/2001.

If you bothered to read "The Looming Tower" = it would give you an insight into how Al Quaeda operated and lead up to the attacks on 9/11/2001.

Why has neither the Bush administration or the Obama administration tried to arrest General (Ret.) Mahmood Ahmad formerly of Pakistan's ISI, when the FBI believes that he arranged to wire Mohammed Atta $100,000 just prior to the attack? Let's get an investigation and find that out.

Do we have evidence of this? Or mere speculation? And an "administration" can't arrest anyone. Foreign criminal matters rest on the FBI. Does the FBI have evidence to arrest? IS the man in a country that is protected from the domain of being arrested? FBI belive he "arranged" . Believeing that he did is NOT proof that he did.

That wouldn't stand up in court.

There are a host of unanswered questions regarding 9/11, some of which point to possible treason in high places. We need a new investigation. The truth movement is not going to go away until we get one.

The 911 commission outlined the failures of what lead up to 9/11. The Looming Tower expands on the findings of the 9/11 comission by looking closely at the administrations (both Bush and Clinton) as to why 911 happened.

You may want to STOP reading about questionbs not being answers and not EVERY question can be answere,d no matter how much you feel they should.

911 was showing how gullible AMERICANS were on that day, and still are.

reply to post by RipCurl

We're not going away no matter how many statements are made by jailhouse lawyers from the courthouse steps.

9/11 was an inside job. It has the fingerprints of high crimes and misdemeanors all over it.

Originally posted by RipCurl
we've had nearly 6 investigations already. ALl have come to the same conclusion. Al quaeda trained ooperatives financed by Bin Laden trained 19 individuals

Can you post what "nearly 6" reports you are talking about, that came to this conclusion?

Originally posted by RipCurl
If you dont like his on screen interview, your are more than welcome to read his article that he wrote about the WTC towers, which is much more convincing than the 5 minutes he had to rebut the claims.

www.implosionworld.com...

He couldn't squeeze his report into an edited interview.

Is this the same Blanchard that claims that no demolition has ever been top down?

That should tell you something right there. Especially when there are videos of top-down demolitions on the net.

reply to post by Nutter


Yes, the same Blanchard that made that and many other fallacious claims.

I made a thread about that paper over 3 years ago: A look at Mr. Blanchard's .pdf

Originally posted by Nutter


That should tell you something right there. Especially when there are videos of top-down demolitions on the net.

before 9/11 it was never considered safe to do a top down demolition (by the way, top down demolitions are done by hydraulics, not explosives).

demolition doesn't ALWAYS use explosives. Truthers always equate demolitions to the use of explosives in order to destroy a building

Originally posted by RipCurl
demolition doesn't ALWAYS use explosives. Truthers always equate demolitions to the use of explosives in order to destroy a building

Says who? You? I don't believe demolitions are limited to conventional explosives. It's people like YOU who are always trying to say that's what we ALL think, which is total bull, and then you don't even want to HEAR about unconventional possibilities. It's obvious that unconventional methods would be preferred in such a situation, simply because these are not commercial, legal demolitions we are talking about.