CBC - The Fifth Estate - The Unofficial Story

It will also be available at http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/2009-2010/the_unofficial_story/ on the 29th.

Most importantly, you can post comments on their website here: http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/discussion/2009/11/the_unofficial_story.html

Watched it

It was better than any other mainstream news 911 show... Fairer... Aired most of the dirty laundry.

It could have been even harsher on the media than it was -- because its hard to hide the fact that there has been an obvious news blackout about 911 details and questions.

Oh, that's ridiculous! Do you know how many people it would take to pull off a news blackout?

Popular Mechanics Gets It Wrong Again!


Meigs again blunders with NORAD. He says NORAD only tracked aircraft over America that originated OUTSIDE America. Well, let's see what NORAD and the Air Force has to say about this:

In 2008 NORAD said, "Since the tragic events of 9/11, NORADs role which previously was outward-looking now includes monitoring airspace within North America." --

In 2004 the Air Force said, "Before 2001, 1st Air Force was charged with keeping an eye on the nation’s borders, usually looking for threats in the form of Russian aircraft skirting too close for comfort to the mainland. In those few hours, the command’s mission went from looking outward to looking inward." -- http://usmilitary.about.com/od/airforce/a/airdefense.htm

In other words, NORAD and the Air Force's official position on its monitoring capabilities on 9/11 is that NORAD didn't track aircraft (foreign or domestic) within America (or Canada) at all. NORAD and the Air Force continues to claim that NORAD's monitoring capabilities were confined to areas OUTSIDE North American borders!

Now NORAD and the Air Force are smart when they say they didn't track domestic or foreign aircraft flying over North America, because if they admitted to only tracking foreign aircraft over North American skies then they would also have to admit to tracking domestic aircraft as well. Why? Because NORAD would need to see all aircraft in order to vector-in the interceptor to the correct suspect aircraft, especially in busy air corridors.

Meigs & Co. aren't particularly bright!

The fact that the documentary interviews Meigs instead of NORAD radar operators on the topic of NORAD's monitoring capabilities over America, tells one that the documentary is a piece of crap.

Interestingly enough, the NORAD tapes show that NORAD radar operators were, in fact, monitoring domestic aircraft on the morning of 9/11! The bastards propping up the official 9/11 conspiracy theory need to come together at a convention or something so they can get their story straight on NORAD!

Also, someone needs to get into the hands of Griffin, Zwicker, etc. the five articles on NORAD at DNotice.org. Griffin and Zwicker don't know what the real debate regarding NORAD is, consequently bastards such as Meigs makes mincemeat out of their arguments.

Now here's a nice little flashback from the National Guard Association of the United States in 1997:

"The six battle management and command centers, part of the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD), have been in existence since the first years of the Cold War. The centers in North America are linked together to monitor the borders of the United States and Canada. Aircraft flying over our [America, as opposed to the above sentence which discusses America's and Canada's borders] air space are monitored seven days a week, 24 hours a day. Much of the identifying process is done by hand." -- http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3731/is_199709/ai_n8766326

Dean Jackson/Editor-in-Chief DNotice.org
Washington, DC

ADDENDUM -- 2:11 AM EDT (12/1) --

I had a top score of five points, now I have four points. The person who voted me down, however, didn't leave a comment as to why my posting was voted down. Why would someone vote down a posting clarifying NORAD's true capabilities on 9/11?

Don't worry about the voting system here

A lot of the voting here is political and people have agendas. 10 people can vote a comment up and another 10 vote it right back down... and it appears as if no one ever voted on the comment at all. It's BS. The vote system should simply be canned altogether, or modified. Then people would have to think about what they're reading rather than be influenced at the outset by how other people have voted, i.e. groupthink.

Just stick to the facts and speak truth to power. :-)


and obviously a very well crafted hit piece aimed at causing doubt, not at getting to the "hard evidence".

For example;

They splice Gage's testimony to confuse WTC 7 and the Towers which discredits what he says about free fall. They also try to make Gage look like a cult figure and someone who is there for the aclaim of the crowd.

They fail to explain the changing testimony of the official conspiracy theory regarding the air defences and just stick to the current version without question?

PM gets it's usual good run with no calling on the facts that they lied about in their hit pieces?

They finish by putting Ranke's CIT flyover theory up, and as usual he states it is the only possibility while he has zero witnesses that saw 77 flyover and they all think a plane hit the Pentagon? Then they say "so many conspiracy theories so little time", so I wonder how CIT made the cut?

CIT prove very useful for our detractors to allow more confusion while they fail to mention molten metal or Nano-Thermite as there is just not enough time for all our theories....mmmm....I'm getting paranoid?

This is the most dangerous of hit pieces as it presents sound bites from our best advocates with no meat and allows weak theories time to lay out their whole case.

Makes me sick.

Looking forward(not) to the next segment...lets hope it gets better:)

Regards John

9/11 24/7 UNTIL JUSTICE!!

What next segment?

The fifth estate hasn't touched this story since 2003, and having done this now, will likely not revisit it again anytime soon, so I wouldn't get any hopes up about a next segment..

If you're suggesting...

that CIT (and by extension P4T) is a big disinfo op by the perps to discredit the movement, then yes, I think that in this particular case you're being paranoid.

John, I enjoyed your street talk vid with the skeptic. You seem like a genuine guy. Is there any way of contacting you privately to discuss the Pentagon issue? I don't want to publicly derail the thread into blogger's umpteenth debate on that topic. I noticed you don't accept e-mails via this site.

I make a point of reading all the down voted comments because I find many of them to be the best comments. - Atomicbomb

Yes I am Adam...and you may contact me!

I don't know whether CIT and P4T are doing it on purpose but they are doing it.

They support "no planes" directly and indirectly making statements as if fact based on very shaky evidence indeed.

As you may or may not know after my simulator test showed that a 767 Boeing would do the speeds at the WTC John Lear (P4T) contacted my work place and had me investigated, you may also realize he has worked for the CIA.

I and many others are waiting for P4T and CIT to produce papers for peer review at the journal, so their work may be looked at seriously?

Contact me at johnbursill@gmail.com and I will give you my phone number etc

By the way I did not watch all these you tubes only the first two, by the sounds of it it gets better which is great:)

So Adam I plan to win this battle for truth and I will continue to call what I see as weak evidence that is pushed as proof of an alternate story to what we have been told, as this is exactly what the perps want us to do...speculate.

Kind regards John

9/11 24/7 UNTIL JUSTICE!!

CIT is all about the path of the plane

and how that proves it did not cause the damage at the Pentagon. Their work is predicated on the fact that there was a plane.

Just finished watching; you are wrong on two counts

First, nano-thermite WAS mentioned. Specifically at 6:25 in the 4th video.

Secondly, Craig Ranke never mentioned "flyover" in the piece, and went on the record only to say that he feels the damage in the pentagon was due to pre-planted explosives.

Good to know....

thanks Adam!

So Craig does not mention the flyover but he demonstrates the witnessed flight path and then says they used explosives to create the damage. Fair enough I stand correct I'm at work today and a little distracted...

They mention Nano-thermite in the 4th that's good, I'll finish watching them tomorrow, as I said I only got the first two done.

So no flyover mentioned at all directly, that's very positive?

Regards John

9/11 24/7 UNTIL JUSTICE!!



Size matters


sorry, but that small object heading for the Pentagon in the five CCTV stills is NOT a 757! Why is that so difficult to understand? You do know that a 757 is large and would be clearly seen in the CCTV stills if one were there? As it is, all we see is a small tail fin sticking up above the car ticket dispenser! Therefore CIT's conclusions are right on target.

I agree with your other comments, though.

Dean Jackson/Editor-in-Chief DNotice.org
Washington, DC


Either way (fly over or not) the official story is a lie.

This cannot be called a "Hit Piece"

No way ! This is light years ahead of the BBC and History Channel Crap. Sure there are some weak spots and characters who represent the official theory, but without them, the show could not claim to be a balanced report. This will lead many people to start questioning the official story. Gage does not look like a "CULT figure, he makes an almost perfect presentation. Lots and lots of good stuff was covered. I think by the end the host of the show was converted even if he tried to appear objective. I think this was very positive for the movement.

Daniel Sunjata

was particularly eloquent.


..yes Daniel Sunjata was. I am unsure what to think of these clips. Yes i agree that WTC#7 is the Achilles heel
so why wasn't there more time spent on it? Still all the other unanswered questions are equally as important.
I will give them only credit for this as for now. We welcome to hear from both sides.
With this being said, everyone needs to challenge them to organize a debate. This will show how those who support the official fairy tale run and hide.
I would also like to add Gage did great , and didn't fall for the speculation set up.
As for the controlled demo expert he was an idiot.

I am glad this aired. It puts people's attention on the subject

This show exposes a lot of people to the subject of 9/11 Truth in a big way. It raises many questions about 9/11. Anyone in the 9/11 Truth Movement knows that it takes many, many, many hours of personal investigation in order to come to a better grasp of the questions surrounding 9/11...so, I see this show as "a teaser", as something to spark interest into the subject. Hopefully, many people will do further research into 9/11 as a result of this show. I think it is a win for our side, because the show can prompt many people to further investigate the issue of 9/11.

CBC - The Fifth Estate - The Unofficial Story

I just finished watching it. I thought it was the best 9/11 Truth documentary I have seen from mainstream media. But it was in Canada, not the US. I thought there was to much speculation thrown in during the interview with A. K. Dewdney. He brought up the old Flight of the Bumble Planes scenario. Wow, I haven't heard that in years. That was one of the first conspiracy theories I heard in regards to 9/11 once I started researching the issue back in 2003. The evidence 6 years later is much better than anything we had at that point. There is no reason we should be digging up old bones.

Overall it was good. The only arguments put forward by the other side were personal incredulity and nonsense. Let's keep their feet to the fire.


"The greatest triumphs of propaganda have been accomplished, not by doing something, but by refraining from doing. Great is truth, but still greater, from a practical point of view, is silence about truth."
- Aldous Huxley -

I agree, "The only arguments ...

put forward by the other side were personal incredulity and nonsense." This CBC documentary certainly exposes the lack of evidence and rational thought on the part of those who profess to support the official story.

Dewdney's Implausible Plane Swapping

This seemed to be a low point in the broadcast. An extraordinary allegation with no evidence (mid-air plane swapping, ditching of actual aircraft into ocean, ignoring IDd AA 11 and UA 175 remians by NYC medical examiner)

The actual aircraft circa 2001 were already subject to "electronic" hijacking:


Operation Northwoods, lest we forget..............


what exactly is so implausible about plane swapping, and if NYC firefighters and police are being cowered into not talking about what they know about 9/11, where do you get this confidence in the integrity of NYC's medical examiner from?

I think you've being watching too much Quincy, M.E. on the Retro Television Network.

Dean Jackson/Editor-in-Chief DNotice.org
Washington, DC

I Don't Watch Much TV

Dewdney has no evidence of mid-air plane swapping or of ditching aircraft into the ocean. If you think that AA 11 and UA 175 were ditched in the ocean, I await your remarkable explanation as to how then NYC medical examiner Robert Shaler and his dozens of support staff faked the remains ID process.

Plane swap scenarios are based on the poorly researched belief that the 9/11 model aircraft did not facilitate 'remote' takeovers. That has been proven false.


The vagaries of time and unforeseen events


please explain why hundreds of NYC police officers and firefighters won't talk about what really happened in the towers on 9/11? If you answer that question correctly, then you'll understand why your trust in the NYC M.E.'s office is naive!

I never said planes were switched, just that it isn't implausible. It is plausible.

By the way (and I said this months ago to you, but you never replied to the following point), if the 9/11 aircraft were endowed with remote flight capability, then the aircrafts used on 9/11 were NOT commercial aircraft. Why? Because remote flight capability means the aircraft can be flown remotely by more than one party. The bastards who carried out 9/11 would not use commercial aircraft due to the possibility of another entity overriding the remote flight navigation functions, landing the planes safely!

Also, the four aircraft wouldn't have come from a commercial airport. Too many things can go wrong at a commercial airport to delay a commercial aircraft's takeoff. An operation such as 9/11 would be mounted on a precise military time scale, which negates the use of civilian airfields.

The above suggests that plane switching wasn't necessary.

Again, put yourself in the shoes of the bastards who carried out 9/11. Would you use civilian airports and commercial aircraft from those civilian airports to carry out a timed military operation? The vagaries of time and unforeseen events places the four 9/11 aircraft on military tarmacs on 9/11.

Dean Jackson/Editor-in-Chief DNotice.org
Washington, DC

Commercial Airport Delays Would Affect Swap Rendezvous

Timed swaps are totally subject to commercial airport aircraft departure times, eliminating any alleged need for alternative departure sites.

As well, the DARP features of the FANS FMS functions were not even in official use by the transcontinental commercial aviation industry circa 2001, making re-aquisition of a redirected aircraft beyond the normal capability of ATC or an airline. Under normal conditions, route activations are manual.

Commercial Airfields vs. Military Airfields


I already said in my earlier comment that plane swapping can be ruled out, so why is your comment phrased to suggest I think plane swapping occurred?

Where did I say ATC or an airline could override the remote function on a 757/767? I didn't. I said IF remote functions were in use, then.....

Now to my main point: the four 9/11 aircraft wouldn't have originated from a commercial airport. Too many things can go wrong at a commercial airport to delay a commercial aircraft's takeoff. An operation such as 9/11 would be mounted on a precise military time scale, which negates the use of civilian airfields.

So the question is: do you believe the four 9/11 aircraft took off from commercial airfields?

Dean Jackson/Editor-in-Chief DNotice.org
Washington, DC

But the timeline of the events does not suggest...

... military precision. For example, wasn't the departure of flight 93 delayed considerably?

I don't think such a prolonged spectacle was precisely their idea.

Whose Timeline?


you make my point beautifully, however the aircraft re-designated Flight 93 landed at Cleveland before 9am (see my two articles on Flight 93 at DNotice.org: "One of Our Aircraft Isn’t Missing" and "United Awarelines").

Forget the timeline. The timeline is as full of crap than the persons who provide it. Remember, official timelines come from government sources who know what really happened on 9/11, but keep their mouths shut.

What truly amazes me are persons in the 9/11 Truth Movement accepting at face value the proposition that all four 9/11 aircraft took off from commercial airfields. Folks, you do know that it isn't rare for flights at commercial airports to be CANCELLED! Now, do you still think the bastards who planned 9/11 used commercial airports?

This is interesting. At 5:11 AM EDT (12/1), Vesa has a score of three points, while I have a score of zero points, even though Vesa's comment makes my point perfectly!

Dean Jackson/Editor-in-Chief DNotice.org
Washington, DC


Good news! I found Anatoliy Golitsyn's 1984 book "New Lies for Old" on the Internet, for FREE! Those of you not yet familiar with Golitsyn need to be, otherwise you don't know why the Al-Qaeda threat was created after the "collapse" of the Soviet Union:




Wow, as of 11:51 PM (12/2), Vesa has five points, and I still have zero points! Since Vesa confirms my point perfectly, how is that possible?

Silence is not Golden...it's rude


I'm still waiting for an answer. Why the silence?

Dean Jackson/Editor-in-Chief DNotice.org
Washington, DC

Appalling Hit Piece

Prior to the airing of this travesty I predicted the Fifth Estate doc would be “marginally better” than those put out by the BBC and History Channel.

I was mistaken.

Doc has an excruciatingly long segment exploring the Pentagon flyover theory and the cell phone calls, complete with emotional recordings from family members aired betwixt Dewdney’s wild speculations about voice morphing. Segment devolves into Dewdney claiming that the planes were flown into the ocean and that every single call was faked.

If the producers had time to delve into these bizarre theories then surely they could have spent a couple of minutes on the questions of the 911 family members? NORAD's ever-changing story? War games "simulating" planes crashing into buildings on the morning of 911? Pre-911 plans to invade Afghanistan? PNAC? Anthrax? Magic passports? Dancing Israelis?

I realize some of these issues are beyond the scope of the documentary, but again, if there's time for CIT and voice morphing, there's bloody well time for the family members and the basic problems with the official story.

The segment on CD is better than most, but the overall impression is to portray Gage as some sort of cult leader with no hard evidence. Why not take the opportunity to investigate nanothermite?

Comparison to "Moon Landing Hoax"? Check. Failure to rebut Popular Mechanics twit who claims that NORAD doesn't pay attention to North American airspace? Check. Pop Psycho-babble about American predilections for believing in "conspiracy theories"? Check. Repeated claim that "it would have to involve tends of thousands of conspirators"? Check.

If the latter is true, why do so many highly credible intelligence professionals from around the globe dismiss the official conspiracy theory? Instead of interviewing the guy with no credentials from Popular Mechanics, why not pay a visit to, say, Leonid Ivashov, former Joint Chief of Staff of the Russian Armed Forces (on 911)? He seems to think the official story is absurd, and that it is far more plausible that 911 was a covert op.

Why not explore concepts like compartmentalization, plausible deniability, and the history of highly successful covert operations by agencies like the CIA? Why not mention precedents to the allegedly implausible scenario of governments attacking their own citizens on a large scale -- say, Operation Gladio? Why do citizen journalists have to do all the work?

I'm a little surprised at the positive reviews here. If this was the first I saw of 911 truth I would probably dismiss the movement as a bunch of loons.

Nice comment from site

Character puff piece in the end. Couches "truthers" as cultists and "believers". Doesn't recognize the fact that the whole movement sprung from citizen journalism dissatisfied with mainstream media. Hits on some key points with obligatory rebuttals. Does a good job on forced and coerced speculation as a means of discrediting the meaning and/or facts. Presents half truths throughout. Not really an investigative journalism piece per se - more character study than anything else.

Clearly not balanced though it 'states' that it is. Witness the smirking and smarmy reactions from the host throughout. He also hasn't done his homework on many fronts. Didn't talk with victim families. Left out a key witness in William Rodriguez producers chose to get a 'B' list Hollywood talent instead.

Left out PNAC as well. I could go on. The Northwoods document etc. Trillions missing the day before. Plans for Iraq laid out well in advance - i.e. see today's news.

Credit for showing Building 7 going down and allowing Richard Gage to lay out the facts of elementary physics.

Someday...maybe a 100 years from now, people will marvel in total incredulity that the masses, along with the media, failed to recognize a patently obvious controlled demolition on TV.

If I could make one request to the Fifth Estate it is this. Please investigate 9/11. Go to the 9/11 timeline websites to start with. Read David Ray Griffin's books. Watch Gage's lecture.

You may say that you did that but you didn't. You only investigated the contention of the official story and purview-ed over some of the talking points.

Come on. Be the media. Get your hands dirty. Dig. Connect the dots. Get all the facts from every single side. Look at it from beginning to end. In short, do your job so we don't have to.

Gerry Todd | Edmonton | Posted November 28, 2009 02:15 AM

I know that Gerry Todd quite

I know that Gerry Todd quite well.

Why don't many here see what you and I see?

You are absolutely right with your assesment of this piece!

Why we have failed to move forward at greater speed is so many in this movement are "conspiracy theorists", thankfully as each day passes more of them drop off and more decernig scientific types come on board.

We must close ranks and sharpen our arguments if we wish to take the high ground!

Regards John

9/11 24/7 UNTIL JUSTICE!!


WTC 7 + Free Fall = Controlled Demolition = 9/11 was an inside job.

It's a cliche in the PR world that...

if you are an unknown, there is no such thing as bad publicity.

The mere fact that it is on a major news program legitimizes the truth movement. And it was better msm coverage than I have seen up to this.

There is no reason to criticize Gage, Griffin, Ranke or any of the other interviewed truthers. Typically only a small fraction of an interview gets used and they have no say about which fraction that is. What viewers can't miss is that passionate, intelligent, articulate men don't believe the official story.

Did CBC cover all the most important points? Did they cover it the way a truther would? Do they know as much as the average reader of this site? No, no, and no.

But overall it helps us. Hundreds, possibly thousands of people have gone to their computers and are now trying to learn more. That can only be good.

Not much I can add

I think Sheila nails the most important ramifications of this broadcast. I certainly did not walk away from watching this thinking our movement just got smacked. On the contrary, I think the fools (stooges) who continue to represent the OCT looked more foolish than ever (maybe I'm biased). IMO the hypercritical comments here are just that, hypercritical. 9/11 is a huge subject -- on par with, say, the Holocaust. There is no way a 45-min TV broadcast is going to cover all of the aspects "we" think should be covered. Even the documentaries the truth movement produces don't cover everything thoroughly.

To be sure, there was some sensationalism going on here. That's show biz. And it will always be that way -- always has. The strongest criticisms here complain that CBC is not exploring topics of more value, but if you look carefully at the content of the criticisms, they almost exclusively relate to speculation and not facts.

As a 9/11 documentary I give it a B-minus. As a breakthrough for us, I give it an A.

p.s. who's this dude writing a book about the 9/11 truth movement? Anyone got the dope on THAT?


I'm not criticizing Gage or Griffin, though DRG would be well advised to avoid speculation about alleged phone calls from the planes. We simply don't know enough about how the operation unfolded to theorize about "voice morphing" or such.

Disagree about "no such thing as bad publicity", but agree in part that this entry may well pique the interest of many viewers to delve more deeply into the matter despite the obvious attempts to paint the movement as a ship of fools.

Re: "Did they cover it in the way a 'truther' would?"

That's not my complaint. I'm not asking for a point-by-point refutation of the official story with no commentary by supporters of the Bush-Cheney version of events. I'm asking for a smidgen of journalistic integrity. To devote extravagant attention to highly speculative theories which sound (frankly) crazy and which most 'truthers' do not subscribe to while ignoring 90% of the most salient and damning facts the movement has unearthed is sloppy at best and malicious at worst.

The only thing missing was a reference to holocaust denial.

There is no reason for a self-described "journalist" to be ignorant of these basic facts. A few hours research on the internet is all that is required.

In my universe, the missing trillions announced on 9/10 deserves more scrutiny than theories propounded by 0000.1% of the movement about planes being flown into the ocean.

I do agree that the sections covering CD were significantly better than what we've seen in similar "documentaries", but I fail to see why I should be giving this doc a thumbs up in light of the overall presentation.


"To devote extravagant attention to highly speculative theories which sound (frankly) crazy and which most 'truthers' do not subscribe to while ignoring 90% of the most salient and damning facts the movement has unearthed is sloppy at best and malicious at worst"

Actually, I think they touched on a high percentage of the important "facts." Your example, the unaccounted $trillions, is a fact to be sure, but it's connection to 9/11 is speculative. Insider trading, now that's a fact that they missed completely.

Thankfully, you see that the explanation of CD is among the best we've seen from mainstream. So why should you give it a thumbs up? Because millions of people in Canada saw it the moment it was aired and countless others will see it in the future on the internet or re-broadcast. Up until now, the only broadcast documentaries to have that much clout have been obvious hit pieces that make us look like lunatics.

I rated this a B-minus because it's only a slightly better than average documentary. But along with some other stuff, we need to wake people up millions at a time if we're gonna win, and for that, I am grateful that our strongest points and best spokespersons were able to express their conclusions and that in general we were portrayed as sane and professional. No Fetzer, Haupt or Web Fairy or as you observed, Holocaust denial. They didn't pull a Richard Clarke out of their hat either.

Simply, I think we win on this one.

Crumbs from the table


I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree, or better stated, agree and disagree.

I think this doc presents CD in a COMPARATIVELY unbiased manner. Comparatively as in compared to the BBC, CNN and the History Channel. That’s not exactly a ringing endorsement. It’s a step in the right direction, but it’s a far cry from real journalism.

You said:

“our strongest points and best spokespersons were able to express their conclusions”

I disagree. Zwicker was given – what – two minutes? DRG was allowed some nebulous commentary on NORAD but evidently disallowed from showcasing the lie upon lie upon lie foisted upon the public BY NORAD during the 3-plus-yr shifting story phase (which he surely discussed during the interview). Popular Mechanics goof was given the last word on plane intercepts: a thoroughly ridiculous story involving profound impotence by the entire US military.

Best spokespersons? Solid spokespersons were included, I agree, and I’m sure some of their words were taken out of context and butchered on the editing room floor. But more to the point: 911 family members were given no airplay. Moreover, not a single high ranking intelligence professional who disputes the OFT – of which there are literally thousands from dozens of countries around the world – was allowed to clarify how black ops work in the real world. Ie they do not require “thousands of people” to be “in the know”.

Instead, we were treated to an elaborate segment on voice morphing and planes flying into the sea.

That’s not a minor oversight. That’s deliberate cutting on the editing room floor. That’s cherry picking. That’s lying by omission. That’s a monumental straw man.

The whole affair is decidedly unbefitting of a news organization whose bills are paid for by the public. We have THOUSANDS of intelligence professionals who actually lived through and participated in black ops screaming at the top of their lungs that the OFT is a lie, yet these “journalists” focus on voice morphing and future scuba diving sites courtesy of AK Dewdney?

Perhaps it’s because I’m Canadian, but I really resent my tax dollars being used to fund what I consider a grade-school equivalent of real journalism. Again, why should it be incumbent on “citizen journalists” to do the job of “professional journalists”?

Thanking these cowards for what they do is insulting.

oh well......

The story does not purport to be a thorough examination of the flaws of the OCT. It presents itself as a look at US and some of our unanswered questions. Yes, none of the Jersey Girls, et. al. were presented. But if they were, then to be balanced they would have had to present, say, Debra Burlingame (thanks god -- they didn't). And while I am as disappointed as you that none of the high-ranking (ex) govt officials were interviewed, again to be balanced they would have had to bring in govt. official who support the OCT (don't want to hear any more of THAT).

Mainstream television, in general, is lame, and geared to an eighth-grade mentality. What do you expect? Interestingly, this thread is split right down the middle regarding the value of this broadcast, unlike previous docs like History Channel or the BBC (though the rating of the comments seems skewed toward the personalities rather than the opinions, as if it matters).

There is a lot of fuss about Dewdney. But I've heard DRG, himself, refer to the tests Dewdney performed. Maybe that's where they got the idea to focus on Dewdney. Nobody made him utter his unsubstantiated claims, yet I guess you feel "those" comments should have been left on the editing room floor, no? Wouldn't that be cherry picking, too? What exactly is your definition of fair and balanced?

I guess in the final analysis it all depends on what you expect from mainstream media. Knowing that their only real value for us is that they reach millions of people in an instant, I only pray that they allow our points (however many) to be expressed without dismissing us out of hand, so that the viewer can make his/her own evaluation. So do we win or do we lose on this one? You know how I feel. Are you saying we lose? If you think the net result is that we win on this one, then celebrate that and stop your whining.

It will be interesting to hear the reactions from Zwicker, Gage and Griffin, people whose opinions I value far more than anyone here, including my own.

Yes you are right it could of been much worse:)

You made some good points there...it could of been a lot worse!

Thanks for for filling my class a little:)

Kind regards John

9/11 24/7 UNTIL JUSTICE!!

I don't know ...

I can agree with Danse and John Bursill that, from the perspective of someone who is well-versed in the evidence and is free of ideological blinders, this CBC documentary might appear to be little more than an appalling hit piece, but from the point of view of the wider public, heretofore ignorent of much of the evidence relating to 9/11, the doco is informative, comparatively fair and balanced.

Given the standard we've come to expect from mainstream media, I'm prepared to give the producers a little credit for at least raising the subject in a fairly impartial manner.

The Eyes Don't Lie


Popular Mechanic's twit Meigs actually said that NORAD only tracked aircraft over American skies that originated from the outside. That is, NORAD didn't track domestic flights over the mainland. Meigs' statement contradicts NORAD's assertion that the defense organization monitored nothing over American air space on 9/11! The bastards can't get their stories to match!

By the way, did you notice how Meigs' eyes shift just before he tries to explain NORAD's weird monitoring mission?

Dean Jackson/Editor-in-Chief DNotice.org
Washington, DC

It's a giant step forward...

IMHO anyway, I felt that this piece has broken ranks and breached a palpable and highly defended taboo as it actually allowed the people and events to speak out loud and clear without cutting in as they spoke and without demeaning and derogatory personal remarks. !
The demolition "expert" for the official story seemed about 20 years old and in way over his head. He lacked real conviction and looked terrified. Is this the only "professional" who would come forward and speak on behalf of the government story....if so, they must be sweating bullets.
True they did not mention the likes of Neil Harrit and his peer reviewed paper or Kevin Ryan and the all other scientists who have been making slow but relentless progress and spending untold hours with no financial reward in order to build a case that would stand up in any fair court in the world.....
But this was MAINSTREAM MEDIA....folks! They never promised us a rose garden.....
I'm very encouraged and I do believe that other media exposure will follow. Where it could lead....who knows?

The demolition "expert" ...

in way over his head... lacked real conviction and looked terrified. Is this the only "professional" who would come forward and speak on behalf of the government story....if so, they must be sweating bullets."

That's exactly what I thought... sure does look bad for the official story, if this poor fellow is the best they can muster to champion their "collapse" theory in the face of all the evidence presented against that theory by Gage, Griffin et. al.

Planted explosives

in the impact area?.......Are you kidding me?! The truth movement never said this. Try this. In the sub levels, above and below the impact area.
For example the 23 degree tilt of the south tower before it turns to dust. 9/11 Hero William Rodriguez
describing the explosion below him before the plane impact.
What was this boneheads explanation about WTC#7?

50% real numbers?

At the beginning of the report Bob Mckeown states that 50% of Americans and 30% 0f Canadians don't believe the official story or something similar to this.
Are these real numbers and if so, why does it feel more like 10% or less? Are 40% of us just silent and complacent?
And what percent will it take before before we can affect some sort of change?
It seems to me that 50% support for any idea is a clear majority especially since 30% of the population supporting a political party can win an election.
How to mobilize or motivate the 50% to make some sort of difference?

Inward doubts, outward conformity

I'm not certain where he got his figures either. But I do recall hearing about a poll of US opinion a few years ago (cited by Griffin in his intro to 'Debunking 9/11 Debunking') showing that fewer than 50% were satisfied with the official story. The remainder included many who did not necessarily believe in US government complicity, but they knew they had questions which they wanted answered.

Still, with that many people doubting the OCT, why isn't it more obvious? I think in a lot of cases it may just be that it takes the anonymity of an opinion poll for them to relax and be honest about the doubts they have with the official story. The rest of the time--in public, at work, with friends, with family--the tendency is one of suppressing those doubts and conforming. They do not wish to appear strange or crazy, and with mass media continuing to shape so much of what people are babbling about, people are reluctant about openly stepping outside the established boundaries set by those same media, especially about a topic as heavy as 9/11. By now, you not only have to deal with the truth of the event itself, but also with the implications of the years of cover-up since, and what that says about all our institutions. Not just one branch of government or one administration, and not just the government but media and educational institutions as well. The depth of the problem, the enormity of the task of setting things right--we of course know that this situation is made even worse by ongoing mass denial, and that the problems which people find so intimidating become even more so the more people continue to look the other way. But I am inclinded to believe that this is the tendency--to rationalize and to fail to make such connections between one's attitude as an individual and the overall political situation.

Perhaps I should clarify what I mean by 'conformity.' I should say, the tendency is to do what they THINK is conforming. They are not aware of how many around them (possibly about 50%?) may also be having doubts--and who is willing to take it upon him or herself to break the ice and try to find out what people are thinking for real?; and with everyone playing along, the effect is much the same as it would be if everyone actually DID believe the OCT without question.

Faith based reality.

I think you also have to take into consideration that most of us have been conditioned from birth to accept a faith based reality as opposed to an evidence based reality.
I'm not sure what the numbers are but I'd hazard a guess that over 80% of all people believe in one or another religion, all of which demand faith over critical thinking.

Public opinion on 9/11

do we have "real numbers"????

We live in an artificial reality constructed for our control via our media and entertainment industry which now have become synonymous....The question should be asking ourselves is do we have "real" anything from these polls and public surveys that claim to tell us what we believe....
Uh...I don't think so...
From what I have seen as a population we have become very polarized. Those who have fused their minds to the information control distribution complex known as our "media" and those who search and question and look for the truth. The gulf continues to widen between the two camps.
Our job is to try and reach through the alcoholic haze of football, celebrities and "reality" shows and try to show those entrenched in the other camp some stuff that cracks the "official" paradigm in half and let's the light in.
It is a work of education and of public relations and a study in group psychology...

Richard Gage knocks it out of the park...

...at the end when he refuses to speculate. THAT IS EXACTLY HOW IT NEEDS TO BE DONE EVERY TIME! BRAVO RICHARD!

"Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. Whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government." -The Declaration of Independence

He Stuck to his Guns---

and refused to speculate. That was a real credibility booster,

The low point was Dewdney speculating and the high point was Gage refusing to. It forced the viewer to deal with the evidence.

Not only did he refuse to speculate ...

but he also explained exactly why he wouldn't be drawn into speculation, a very important consideration in itself.

We all know there's nothing inherently wrong with speculation, we all do it, we're forced to, really, by the govts refusal to come clean and divulge the truth. And those of us who don't believe the official story, know that it too, is purely speculative, based on media driven speculation about who attacked us and why. Believers of the official story may consider it to be accurate and factual, but what they know is merely speculation.

But rather than acknowledge this flaw in their own belief system, they project that flaw outward and onto people who threatened those cherished beliefs. Hence, speculation becomes a trap for any who wish to disabuse the masses of their dearly held delusions.

Seismograph data

I am surprised they interviewed that CD guy when they could have easily interviewed Sunder or Gross.

This guy said there would be a spike a few seconds before the collapses. It occurred to me there would be such a spike much earlier when William reported the explosion just before the plane impact.

Does the data go back that far?

Since the embarrassing admission

of freefall by NIST, I think Sunder and Gross are properly perceived as having compromised the credibility of government experts... from the official storytellers point of view, to achieve maximum credibility with the public, probably better to go with a complete unknown, preferably not associated with official government agency.

seismic evidence supports rodriguez explosion evidence

according to the 9/11 truth proclamation by don meserlian, which was endorsed by richard gage..


Whereas the 9-11 commission interviewed William Rodriguez , WTC janitor, who stated, in secret testimony, that he and 14 other people were in a WTC 1 basement office when, without warning, "the group felt a tremendous explosion emanating from somewhere below them in one of the five WTC sub levels and felt the floors tremble and saw the walls crack just seconds before the group heard another distant explosion coming from high above." and

Whereas seismographic evidence, 21 miles north of ground zero, and the Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA) stated time when the planes struck the twin towers (see table) prove that basement explosions occurred 14 and 17 seconds respectively for WTC 1 and 2 before the planes struck the towers, and

the Twin Towers and WTC 7, which was not struck by an airplane, all fell down in the same time as a freely falling object , and

for more and charts, see:


Fit to transmit in post Cassini flyby era
<>~<> www.FlybyNews.com <>~<>
for life's survival in the 21st Century

I noticed

that as well. No it doesn't. It starts as the building collapses. I am sure seismic data showed the evidence of spikes well before the collapse.

A big step forward

I have never seen a mainstream presentation that covered so many of the plausible questions raised by the 911 Truth movement as this piece. Perfect? Not by a long shot. But simply presenting some of the information to, we must remember, a large portion of the public, many of whom have never heard of ANY of this stuff, is a great leap forward. I stumbled upon The New Pearl Harbor completely by accident in '08-and have studied 9/11 extensively since. This piece will encourage study by the public. We need a piece like this in the U.S.

Good luck with that.

The CBC is for the most part, a first class tax payer funded public broadcaster that has almost universal popular support across the country.
I simply can't imagine such a thing existing in a country in which publicly funded anything would be considered socialist or communist, both of which are thought to be worse than devil worship.




Bobby admitted WE are "the majority" ....we need to call a spade a spade... Bob is part of the minority and he needs to be called the fringe conspiracy theorist that he is.

I love how they danced around William Rodriguez ....a quick b-roll clip without naming him. The Fifth Estate is scared of William Rodriguez and the pre-plane basement explosions!!!!

PM's lead weasel answers scientifically with... "hundred's of thousands of people would be keeping a secret....how credible is that?" .... it's as credible as your "team" having thermite experts and not addressing the thermite found on site!

The editor did a nice switcharoo when the method of WTC 7 was being explained... the editor does a quick cut to their CD expert talking about how WTC 1 & 2 came down as if it's discrediting Gage's previous comments on 7 ....Their CD expert then admitted he wasn't an expert and went on to speculate...

The editor used the same Bobby smirk clip 3 times... I was laughing at how obvious it was

Bobby who?


BOB McKEOWN ...the fringe

BOB McKEOWN ...the fringe conspiracy theorist who hosted the show

post above on 'seismic' recording

error.. posted above in a prior comment.

This docu together with the MSM exposure in NZ

could signal a watershed moment for the Truth Movement....All of this has happened in just one week. Really I can't understand the anger and gloom of many who have posted here concerning this gigantic breakthrough for us right here in North America! This will not be stopped
..I agree with the poster above who said we must "keep their feet to the fire!" We should keep our comments and thoughts flowing into the CBC page and we should keep on demanding media coverage in this darkest of all backwaters of total media control now known as the United States...We need to keep on talking to those nearest and dearest to us and showing them the constant stream of new scientific evidence that has now risen beyond what anyone could catagorize as "conspiracy based" drivel....I find it hard often to keep bringing the topic up to people who have already blown it off, but it must be done.
Remember, right now, we ARE the media here in the head quarters of corporate population dumbing/numbing and abysmal government hypocrisy

Use the momentum

So... CBC could (and SHOULD) have done a better job. No great surprise.

How about a thorough, fact-filled video response? For YouTube, and DVD handouts in Canada. "9/11: The Untold Story", or "9/11: The Impossible Story". Use the momentum from the program and redirect it.

9/11 Truth booklet PDFs: http://www.mediafire.com/?sharekey=ac1039fd00817eecd2db6fb9a8902bda

I am reminded of how my

I am reminded of how my "latent skepticism" was piqued back in December 2004 by a five minute hit piece on Fox News, where Geraldo shouted down early activist Jimmy Walter.

I didn't INSTANTLY start researching. That happened a few months later. But between watching that hit piece, and the moment I started serious research, the back of my mind started gnawing over the issue, as I went about my life. Eventually, like being sucked into quicksand, I couldn't hold back any longer from researching the heck out of the subject after the "back of my mind" ended up becoming front and center.

My point being: if a five minute hit piece could pry my mind open, what the CBC did this weekend will wake up many people.

And even newbies, if they're remotely intelligent, will realize that we don't know the truth and that speculation is natural. I can't imagine that a newbie would think: "Well, I was hardly convinced by Dewdney's plane theories, therefore Richard Gage must be wrong about controlled demolition." Do you see what I mean?

My criticism of the piece: first of all, I agree that Dewdney was given too much "speculation time." I've noticed that a few on here who don't like CIT were upset that Craig Ranke was on at all, but in reality he was only on for about one minute, and the word "flyover" was never mentioned. However, Dewdney was given an umpteen number of minutes, and he speculated with no basis in fact (shooting down planes over the Atlantic). It's unfortunate, because his experiments with cell phones in airplanes are indeed rooted in empiricism and fact finding.

The part that really got my goat was when James Meigs tried to reinforce the "incomeptence" theory with our Air Force, saying that they weren't trained to handle such a scenario and that "conspiracy theorists have watched too many movies." At first, the host DID challenge him, saying "BUT THEY ARE trained for scenarios like this!" At that point, I was rooting for the host to keep holding Meigs' feet to the fire. But then when Meigs came back with the "donut hole" or "looking outward" excuse/lie, it was left unchallenged and was the last word before commercial. UGHHH!!!

Overall, though, I think this particular piece, though by no means perfect, will yield more positive results than negative. People's dormant skepticism will be awakened, they'll start going down the rabbit hole. The more sincere and thorough of our new batch of researchers will read Debunking 9/11 Debunking and see James Meigs exposed as a liar.

Not a "hit piece"

This is by far the fairest coverage of the 9-11 truth movement I have seen in the MSM. This really gives me hope.

Enjoyable piece

My impression was that 9-11 truth proponents made a strong showing. This program interviewed among the most credible individuals of the movement, and gave them enough airtime to make their points. Footage of the collapses was terrific. OCT proponents came over as weak. There were a few technical problems, such as talking about thermite, then nanothermite, yet showing the same chips, even for the iron spherules. Also, as someone mentioned above, comments referring to the twin towers were applied to building 7. However, while such details are important to investigators, they will have little impact on a first-time viewer. In seeing this piece, people will at least come to understand that credible individuals are attacking the OCT, and mean business.

More showings.

If you liked the program, there's lots more where that came from.
Looks like the CBC plan to make it easy for all Canadians to see the show.
Edit. BTW overwhelming support for both the CBC treatment of the issue and the call for a new investigation.

Oh, and regarding the phone calls...

For all of Kee Dewdney's speculation, I was pleasantly surprised to see the CBC report that even the FBI admits that the Barbara Olson phone call lasted "zero seconds." That should make some heads turn.

CBC-TV Documentary about Toxic Dust & Health of 1st Responders

CBC-TV's "9/11: TOXIC LEGACY" - http://www.cbc.ca/documentaries/toxiclegacy/
YouTube and other health links at 911healthnow.org - http://www.911healthnow.org/911healthnow/Documentaries.html
(Many celebrities support efforts to help the First Responders. Example: Eva Longoria-Parker (Desperate Housewives) Raises Money For 9/11 Workers... http://www.starpulse.com/news/index.php/2009/03/07/eva_longoria_parker_r... )

the consequences of the truth

many would prefer not to consider the consequences of what most of know as reality..

the consequences of this collaboration with media and government officials is too scary to consider..

so they prefer distractions.. monday night football or whatever..

like frogs in slowly heated water..

this program helps illustrate this.. and it is all over youtube..

the main site for the fifth estate will not let folks outside of canada watch it..

so am linking here.. where people are not afraid to look at the consequences of a reality..
and maintain dignity.. and caring for those innocent lives pushed under the rug..

Fit to transmit in post Cassini flyby era
<>~<> www.FlybyNews.com <>~<>
for life's survival in the 21st Century

Okay, but far from fair

I agree with the idea that this will open eyes and ultimately more minds to the truth, but the editing and interviews still make those of us who dare to question the official story look like crackpots with nothing better to do than just speculate on some of the more seminal events in history. I was really upset when they started in with all the JFK, moon landing crap, and stated that "9-11 truthers continue in that lineage" - What nonsense. I am not surprised, maybe I am beginning to become quite jaded, but it seems that no matter how intelligently or slickly you present clear evidence, people WANT to believe that we are exacting revenge on "Islamic extremists" by fighting wars overseas and buying their little ribbons "Supporting our Troops" - We all know that the best way to support our troops is not to send them to die for no reason in the first place. I go through phases of feeling very angry and it festers and grow until eventually, I have a burst of actrivity and make tons of DVD's and post videos on Facebook and just basically try to saturate my surroundings with evidence of a cover up. It drives me crazy, has for years, and I can already feel my frustration growing over this "journalism" - this is the cycle - now we all must redouble and push even harder because it only reinforces what we already knew - THEY LIE and will always LIE until we make them ADMIT the TRUTH!!!

The love that you withhold is the pain that you carry

Scurrilous hit piece

Those who fail to recognize this scurrilous hit piece for what it is do so because they cannot divorce themselves from the knowledge they have and see it as a newcomer does. They also fail to see the subtle editing that makes Richard Gage out to be a liar. You know better but the newcomer does not.

John Bursill said:
"They splice Gage's testimony to confuse WTC 7 and the Towers which discredits what he says about free fall."

The 5th Estate video has Richard Gage AIA talking about the free fall of WTC 7 while showing the south tower collapse. Later they show Mr. Gage talking about the free fall acceleration of WTC 7 and then cut to Brent Blanchard saying the trade Towers did not fall at free fall speed. This is intended to make people think Mr. Gage is talking about the Trade Towers and an internationally recognized demolitions expert is refuting what Richard Gage AIA has just said.

That is FRAUD!
Fraud: something that is intended to deceive people

Like all MSM hit pieces, it is another win for the Truth Movement as it discusses 9/11 and allows some of the truth to be heard. Many people will see thru the BS and start investigating for themselves.

Many people will see thru the BS and start investigating for the

That really is what it comes down to....they did their best to really discredit the movement and yet at the same time maintain the perception of "fair and balanced" As more and more information about the "official story" is leaked, discovered, revealed and proven to be false, this is getting harder and harder to pull off.
So though they tried to dissuade and deceive while maintaining an "objective" stance, they couldn't achieve a believable mix....
Therefore WE WON. This will serve only to fuel interest and research. It is just a matter of time before similar "hit pieces" are released here. Hence--the KSM show trial and the need to further consolidate and reinforce the subconscious guilt/Stockholm Syndrome and complicity of the population through a clearly disgraceful exhibit of torture induced testimony and obviously set up fall guys. Will this work? It certainly did with the Iraq War issue and Saddam Hussein....