Tuesday, December 1, 2009

The Unofficial Story

I've just watched CBC's The Fifth Estate - "The Unofficial Story" and I'm unsure what to think of it. At first glance it appears to be a fair piece, at least compared to the History Channel, BBC and National Geographic propaganda pieces, but I can't help but feel it may have been a very subtle hitpiece.

The first thing I noticed was that they spliced Richard Gage's speech incorrectly. When he talks about a building falling at freefall for two and a quarter seconds, he is obviously talking about WTC7, but they use that snippet while talking about the South Tower. From that point on I was carefully analysing the piece from a video editor's perspective and noticed alot of splicing. Maybe it was harmless condensing but it was something I couldn't help but notice.

Next they get into the air defence timeline and stand down theories. They make no mention of the fact that the timeline has been revised several times and simply state the newest timeline as fact. They then whitewashed the concern that the skies of America were undefended for eighty minutes by cutting to James "[Loose Change is] Very Compelling Propaganda" Meigs, who for some reason always makes me think of Bill Hicks' "Suck Satan's C**k!" routine, who repeats his usual drivel about us watching too many films and believing in hyper competance and vast conspiracies. To be honest, if you believe the official story of 9/11, then it is you who has been watching too many films, because as Barrie Zwicker pointed out, the official fairytale is somewhat reminiscent of a Hollywood movie.

Next they briefly talk Pentagon no-plane theories with Craig Ranke. Now I'm no fan of CIT's work and I'm glad they didn't spend much time on it but when the narrator mockingly said "So many conspiracy theories, so little time" that really pissed me off. This isn't something to joke about. If it was something like the moon landing hoax theory (which they later brought up), then fair enough, joke all you want , it isn't really that important. But when you're talking about the defining moment of the 21st century, remarks like that are totally inappropriate.

Next they talked to John Farmer who said there was no basis for controlled demolition theories (which is a blatant lie), however he did admit that the official government version "doesn't square with reality". This is a heck of a statement coming from the Former Senior Counsel to the 9/11 Commission and by itself should warrant a new investigation. However it was talked about as if it was no big deal.

In part three they spent alot of time on the controversial fake phone call theories. Now I'm neutral on that issue and I don't like to flat out say they were all fake because it's such a sensitive area and can't really be proven either way. Professor Dewdney however did not share my reservation and was willing to say without a doubt that the emotional calls were fake. He also repeated the claim that Mark Bingham's "imposter" screwed up by saying "Hi mom this is Mark Bingham", a claim which I have always known was incorrect, since the first 9/11 documentary I ever saw was The Flight That Fought Back, which features his mother explaining what that was about. Dewdney at first incorrectly called him "Bob Bringham" and was the only person in the piece to put forward an alternative narrative. All of his baseless assertions, factual errors and fringe speculation was used to whitewash the genuine concern surrounding Barbara Olsen's alleged calls, which was glossed over.

Lastly they discussed Building 7, but did not make a big enough deal over the fact that it admittedly fell at freefall. Once again Brent Blanchard makes an appearance, and he's in just as much denial as ever. The red chips were brought up briefly. Well actually, photos of them were shown on screen while Gage was talking about the microspheres. The interviewer was obviously trying very hard to get Gage to speculate but thankfully he didn't. The piece then ended on some powerful words by Daniel Sunjata.

All in all, it could have been worse I suppose. At least they didn't bring on some token family member and have them say how much they hate us. Then again, they also didn't talk to any family members on our side. I really am getting tired of these whitewashes/hitpieces. And I'm equally tired of the "conspiracy theorist" label. Alex Jones was talking to Jon Ronson a few weeks ago and Ronson (about 9 minutes into this clip) said that the truth about 9/11 would be the biggest news story ever and he finds it hard to believe any reporter would turn down such a story if it had any truth to it. The reason few reporters are interested is simply because of the term "conspiracy theory". The stereotype associated with that term has been implanted so much into popular culture that most reporters will simply dismiss us and our theories as crazy. And those reporters that have done fair pieces on us still use the term conspiracy theory because they don't know what else to call it. And because they label it a conspiracy theory, few people will take any interest. As long as the media continues to portray 9/11 truth as a conspiracy theory, instead of a serious search for truth by family members, survivors, first responders and concerned citizens of planet Earth, the dumbed down, drugged and distracted masses will never take it seriously.