CBC Sunday Covers Alternative 9/11 Theories in Detail
dz Sun, 09/10/2006 - 10:58am
CBC Sunday covered in great detail 9/11 alternative theories. They referenced Scholars for 9/11 Truth, Loose Change, and the standard range of 'conspiracy theory' topics. The show featured interviews with Bob McIlvaine, Dr. David Ray Griffin, Dylan Avery, Lee Hamilton, and Jim Meigs (Popular Mechanics). Download it, check it out, post some comments, and send in some feedback to the CBC. You can also check out a tiny bit on CBC's website at the moment here. Big Thanks to Neil from stoplying.ca for the video rip and heads up!
- Login to post comments
You can find a photo of the
You can find a photo of the guys from stoplying.ca protesting outside the CDC here:
http://www.911blogger.com/files/images/cbc.jpg
I really appreciate them getting that clip recorded and to us, thanks guys!
We are being discredited in the MSM by these NPT clowns
Popular Mechanics is so full shit that it's disgusting.
______________
Stop giving attention to the "no plane theory" disinfo agents like Nico Haupt, Morgan Reynolds, Shayler, killtown, CB_Brooklyn, webfairy, Holmgren, and others who are sabotaging this movement, either by sheer stupidity or intentionally.
RIP PM Watch Your TV's Tomorrow 8AM Eastern
Re-classify the PM Book as fiction which is the only way you can sell. The publisher should do a children's story hour sometime . . . . I still wouldn't watch (don't want to hurt my TV). Until each and every scientific issue is addressed, until every single frame of Pentagon video is released - stay the course!
A few other screen names to
A few other screen names to add to the signature.
Peggy Carter
brianv
ewing <-- Nico. But worth the mention so there's no confusion that they are the same person.
The CBC should be lauded and applauded, not protested!
This is THE most fair and balanced coverage of the 9/11 myth to date!!! It also happens to contain THE ONLY real footage of the collapse of WTC Building 7, EVER! That kind of footage is simply never shown, and for very good reason. I made up a list of the mainstream media's MO in terms of covering 9/11 skepticism, and the omission of WTC 7 is point #1. Please check it out here and make sure you comment on it- http://www.911blogger.com/node/2672
Also, the way the piece was shot, the skeptics were essentially put on the same ground as the official shills and storytellers. Has anyone else even come close to NOT launching at least one ad hominem attack on the skeptics portrayed in their story? I'd give credit to the anchor, Evan Solomon, more than anyone else for this kind of coverage. And I'd certainly thank George Stroumboulopoulos for having Dylan Avery on his show in the first place a few months ago, in another fairly balanced piece- sans footage of WTC 7, of course. It's Dylan's appearance on The Hour which made this all possible, IMHO.
Lastly, David Ray Griffin, who's been perennially absent from the MSM airwaves- and again, for good reason- was included in this coverage. He could have been more effectively used, true, but just his presence adds credibility to the 9/11 Truth Movement. Call it the "grey hair factor", if you will.
FYI, according to the polling statistics, the higher up in age that someone is, the more likely they are to buy into the official myth. If one of their peers, such as Griffin, is present to argue the case against that myth, they're much more likely to question it. Otherwise all you get is a mumbled response of, "Fucking kid wacko...", before they change the channel.
Everyone should contact Evan Solomon and the CBC, praising them for showing the collapse of WTC 7 and letting them know that no MSM outlet has ever showed it before now. They may not be aware of that fact. And, of course, please tell them they did a spectacular job with their coverage. ;)
My only wish is that this piece is broadcast again and again over the coming months, and even years, instead of being only a one-time event. Again, CBC, Evan Solomon and everyone else at CBC News: Sunday who put this thing together, get the most heartfelt thanks that I can possibly muster!
_______________
http://tinyurl.com/q9wdl A must-see for the uninitiated: this video will awaken them from their long slumber
http://tinyurl.com/s8rrp A must-read for believers of the official story: David Ray Griffin administers the red pill
Other CBC 9/11 Documentaries
I wasn't aware that The Hour had covered 9/11 previously - thanks for pointing that out. Also, CBC aired two original 9/11 documentaries yesterday evening (Sep. 10), called "The Secret History of 9/11" and "9/11: Toxic Legacy". I didn't catch either of these, but from what I saw in the promotions the former looked like official story crap while the latter looked potentially informative. Did anyone watch these?
Related: The CBC show The Fifth Estate broadcasted an investigative piece titled "Conspiracy Theories" on Oct. 29, 2003. Also, more loosely related to 9/11, they aired an episode called "The Unauthorized Biography of Dick Cheney" on Oct. 6, 2004.
I am a regular viewer of the CBC National News, and unfortunately I've never heard anything come out of Peter Mansbridge's mouth questioning the official 9/11 narrative... Correct me if I'm wrong. A debate of the issues during prime-time would be enough to convince me that the CBC really wants to get the truth out in the open.
be sure to digg
be sure to digg it:
http://digg.com/politics/CBC_Sunday_Covers_Alternative_9_11_Theories_in_...
Sorry for the repeat comment and link, but has anybody ....
ever seen this picture and article? Could it debunk the NPT? This article supports "switched planes", which could possibly answer some questions. Makes ya wonder. http://www.thehandstand.org/archive/may2005/articles/911.htm
I think they may well have swapped airliners with drones...
I think they may well have swapped airliners for drones because it seems far less risky for them to have had carefully modified drones, fully under their control, hit the towers. Much more could've gone wrong with a commercial airliner with real pilots, crew, passengers inside. (For example, what if the airliner made a crash landing somewhere & some people survived? They could've revealed many facts of the inside job. Also, what if pilot, crew, passengers actually got out some real radio or air-phone calls?) All these problems & more are avoided by having drones fly up from nearby air bases.
Plane switching
seems the most likely scenario for several reasons:
-The Northwoods documents
-The unusually low occupancy of the flights (1/4th?!)
-The flight paths, every single of which went out of their way to approach military airfields
-Increased control over drones compared to patsies
-The backgrounds of the passengers (Military Industrial Complex types, mostly)
-The apparent lack of "victims" relatives. There's Olson...and?
They didn't switch planes.
They didn't switch planes. Those people are dead. If they switched planes, then you really do get into this "leak implausability." This is garbage. It's a punchline to a 911 truther joke. We don't need this garbage. There is enough evidence without this stuff that could be. It's fun to say what could be, but msm grabs this stuff and presents it like it's all we are trying to say. Think about someone else saying what you present to try to make us look stupid before you repeat it. It's part of responisbility to the truth.
YAHOO BREAKS LINKS WHEN SENT
For years now I have been sending the best TRUTH I find to a variety of recipients. I just sent the LINK to the CBC Video.
My SBCGLOBAL (ATT/NSA) ISP breaks up the links in two or three places when I send them so they are useless unless reconstructed. Has anyone else had this problem?
We must be the change we wish to see in the world. M Gandhi
Tiny URL
Joe,
Try http://tinyurl.com
I think it will solve your problem. :)
Attention, please!
The MSM seem to be collectively opening the floodgates shielding 9/11 these days.
As this is probably no benevolent move, it should warrant some discussion, I believe. 9/11 Truth can't be effectively contained any longer by means of ridicule and doing so would only undermine the MSM's credibility, and thus its very power. It's well possible that the Bush admin is now being set up to take the fall, in order to protect the higher echelon. While this is not a bad thing per se, it might be wise to prepare for the aftermath - the monumental blunders that have been made in 9/11's execution have offered us the single most promising opportunity to blow the whole NWO scheme wide open, or so I see it.
Anyone agrees?
Yes
It's very possible that someone are trying to pull the rug under the Bush admin. OTOH, it is very unlikely that the masterminds behind the attacks would go ahead without a contingency plan for the eventuality of the truth comming out. Perhaps they can still manage to wrestle Bush & co out of it. And even IF they are pulling the rug, you can bet that the real people in power will remain untouched.
Therefore it is important that we keep spreading the truth OURSELVES, no matter how much "help" we get elsewhere. Don't let them set the agenda.
Covered WTC7 collapse...
This is a pretty good and balanced piece of reporting. Did not expect something like this from the CBC.
Give positive feedback to CBC
This was a very good step in the right direction for CBC. I have sent them an email and 30 second phone message of feedback. I recommend you all do the same both by email and by phone. On weekdays you can get a live person, off hours you can leave a 30 second comment.
My comment in summary was appreciation for them airing this controversy, stressing the importance of this issue, and encouraging them to devote more time in the future towards investigating, producing, and airing more programming relating to the evidence contradicting the official story of 9/11.
Below are their contact phones (that can be reached from oustide Canada) and the URL for the web feedback.
Canadian Broadcasting Corporation - 416-205-3311
General Information
250 Front Street West, Toronto, ON M5V 3G5
> Canadian Broadcasting Corporation - 416-205-5555
Glenn Gould Studio
Toronto, ON
http://www.cbc.ca/contact/index.jsp
-----------
Stop giving attention to the "no plane theories" disinfo agents like Nico Haupt, Morgan Reynolds, David Shayler, killtown, CB_Brooklyn, and others who are sabotaging this movement,, either by sheer stupidity or intentionally as government moles.
Great start...
McIlvaine, Zogby, Griffin, Commission omissions, very respectful and serious tone throughout.
Followed however in its bulk by a most dubious and subtle approach to the "evidence".
9/11 crown suddenly given to LC2 alone.
The movement defined as having 3 claims only:
1) demolition - but no mention of Building 7? Rather than show Griffin or Jones v. NIST, we get Dylan v. Popular Mechanics.
2) no plane at Pentagon - a.k.a. easily mocked bullshit with a veneer of evidence behind it.
3) U93 a complete hoax - a.k.a. totally laughable bullshit with no evidence behind it.
On the latter, here's a well-done hit piece that uses real investigation to terminate the no-planes in Shanksville nonsense, then uses the last three paragraphs to quickly touch upon and mock the shootdown scenario (ignoring the crucial evidence of the seismic report and using the strawman of, if NORAD didn't do it, no one else could have). This is what you get when amateurs run the show I guess.
http://www.freetimes.com/story/681
As for one take on what a lot of cheerleaders are now blind to within the 9/11 truth movement, here's Emanuel Sferios today, I don't agree with all he says but he's certainly bringing substance to the currently dominant fluff:
http://www.septembereleventh.org/five_years_later.php
9/11 FIVE YEARS LATER: WHAT HAVE WE ACCOMPLISHED?
An Assessment of the 9/11 Truth Movement
2) no plane at Pentagon -
2) no plane at Pentagon - a.k.a. easily mocked bullshit with a veneer of evidence behind it.
I always wonder why 'no plane at Pentagon' means only a missle.
A plane likely was used, tho it may be a missle. To say 'no plane' sounds like one is on the 'no plane' boat
some like Reynolds and Haupt are on with the WTC attacks. THAT is absurd. But no flight 77 at the Pentagon would emore accurately explain the lack of 3 holes at the Pentagram (two engines, one fuselage), prior to its collapse, there only being one hole visible, and not even a dent from the engines, weighing 9 tons? come on you no plane freaks. knock off your disinfo.
This was quite fair
This was quite fair reporting, good on CBC.
Lee Hamilton
Near the end, he says "we provided a first draft of history." Hmm.
How about that quote from NIST?
"NIST is also considering whether hypothetical blast events could have played a role in initiating the collapse [of World Trade Center #7 on 9/11]."
Funny how Lee Hamilton "can't recall" whether or not WTC7 was included in the Commission Report. And "if" it wasn't his weak ass presumptions on why it may not have been included.
Then Meigs jumping in with "the conspiracy theorist" jumping on this as damining evidence of a coverup.
YA THINK!?!?! God I hope Dylan rips these guys a new one on Amy Goodman tomorrow. Is that still on?
Jim Meigs is liar.
Jim Meigs is a liar, and he is constantly lying and lying in this documentary and surely he must hang for it.
He lied about the pentagon, he said the entry hole was 90 feet, yeah sure, after the roof collapsed, initially it was only about 20 ft..
This is unreal.. Anyone with half a functioning brain cell can see that the offical myth is fantasy.
Yeah, Jim Meigs is quite the Shill...
There was a part where Jim Meigs tried to debunk the Squibs (at 17:10 in video) and said something along the lines of them interviewing controlled demolition companies, and they said that these types of squibs are very typical of building collapses!!!
What types of building collapses are typical to controlled demolition companies?
He says that "some of the squibs were even visible below the collapse points"?
What an astounding revelation...double-think?
no, the best was when he
no, the best was when he said that cell phones work quite well above 30,000 ft.
uh, ive tried 4-5 times, never worked, is that 'quite well'? let alone the fact that my phone is 5 years newer..
You're right... Meigs really, REALLY screwed up!
I noticed that immediately, too. Earlier in the broadcast, David Ray Griffin says that at no point in history has even one modern skyscraper collapsed due to fire- but on 9/11 three buildings collapsed. Then that genius we all love, James Meigs, uses the squibs argument to try to debunk the existence of pre-planted explosives by asking- you got it- demolition experts what they thought about the squibs. His answer? The experts said that squibs were common in building collapses. Duh! If you tie the earlier comments by DRG into this claim, the absurdity of what Meigs said couldn't be more apparent. What a joke!!! Get a clue, Jimmy-boy!
_______________
http://tinyurl.com/q9wdl A must-see for the uninitiated: this video will awaken them from their long slumber
http://tinyurl.com/s8rrp A must-read for believers of the official story: David Ray Griffin administers the red pill
editor of Popular Mechanics - a good citizen of the NWO
What arrogance on the part of the pseudo scientist editor. What a lack of understanding of what really happened.
1. There were explosives going off in WTC 1 and 2. Ask Wiliam Rodriguez, William talked about a huge explosion in the basement before the plane hit the building he was in, WTC 1. What about the 2.1 and 2.3 seismic events of the explosions before the WTC 1 and 2 came down. What about the eyewitness firemen who said explosions were going off floor by floor as WTC 1 collapsed. Apparently, Mr PM editor knows more than the eyewitnesses. What about the pulverization of all the concrete. What about the explosion outward and upward when the WTC 1 and 2 collapsed. A lot more than just gravity there.
2. He actually said that flight 93 would completely disintegrate when it hit the ground. He said airplanes disappear when they nose dive into the earth at 500 mph. But that counters the article I read where there are many parts which are indestructible on those planes and each of those parts has the plane registration number and other numbers on it which could identify them. But in this flight 93 hole nothing was found. The engines could never disintegrate. Where were the engines.
3. This earthworm ignores all the other evidence. What about Lieutenant Colonel Ahmed (from the ISI) giving Sheik 100,000 ¨dollars which he wired to Mohammad Atta on September 9th. And the Lieut. Col. Ahmed showing up at the white house on September 10th. Look at the Press for truth movie by the Jersey girls.
NEver trust the opinion of a man who can lose his job if he tells the truth.
If he told the truth he would be banished from being an idioter for the rest of his life.
Seismic spikes do not prove explosives
Although all your other points are sound, your one about the seismic spikes was debunked long ago. Please see a detailed analysis here by fellow skeptics- http://www.911review.com/errors/wtc/seismic.html
_______________
http://tinyurl.com/q9wdl A must-see for the uninitiated: this video will awaken them from their long slumber
http://tinyurl.com/s8rrp A must-read for believers of the official story: David Ray Griffin administers the red pill
There Was NO "fake planes"
I am a no "fake" planer...I fully believe Flights 11, 175 and 77 hit their target. I do not believe the swapped planes thing has any validity. First off we have personal items people on those planes had, that were found.
We have the fact no US government official could be "compartmentalized" to take passengers off a plane and gas em, then send up fake planes. Sorry, this isnt 1962 with General Lemnitzer on board, these are calculated guys who know the crazier the plot the bigger the risk.
Planes
These so-called arab pilots could NOT of hit there targets with that type of
precision, some of the high-jackers minus the others popping up alive
in Saudia Arabia did'nt have that kind of commercial skill, they were
obviously flown into the towers via remote control.
Why people believe these flights were just wondering across states
without any ground support and just hit ALL there targets with bulls
eye precision is beyond people with simple common sense.
Why the destruciton of Bldg 7, obviously a temporary control center.
re.Seismic spikes do not prove explosives
I don't see how this article debunks anything to do with the seismic spikes.
As the article states, "The strongest jolts were all registered at the beginning of the collapses, well before the falling debris struck the earth". Arthur Lerner-Lam, director of Columbia University's Center for Hazards and Risk Research is quoted: "Only a small fraction of the energy from the collapsing towers was converted into ground motion. The ground shaking that resulted from the collapse of the towers was extremely small." And again, "During the collapse, most of the energy of the falling debris was absorbed by the towers and the neighboring structures, converting them into rubble and dust or causing other damage -- but not causing significant ground shaking,"
The author of the article then states that the rubble clouds "could certainly be expected to produce pronounced seismic waves. " Is he more qualified than Arthur Lerner-Lam?
The author also states that, "there is strong evidence contradicting the idea that the seismic spikes indicated underground explosions ", presenting as evidence the statements, "there is no support in the large body of photographic and video collapse evidence for the idea of powerful explosions in the towers' basements at the onset of the collapses", and "underground explosions would have produced strong P waves, but the seismic stations registered only strong S waves".
However, there is evidence of explosions in the testimonies of witnesses who were in the buildings at the time and who reported hearing and seeing evidence of explosions - ie. William Rodrigues.
And although we could bandy about P and S waves, we again have the opinions of experts: " "The seismic effects of the collapses are comparable to the explosions at a gasoline tank farm near Newark on January 7, 1983," the Palisades Seismology Group reported on Sept. 14, 2001."
Good on the CBC for at least
Good on the CBC for at least airing some of the concerns of 9/11 Truth. Naturally, they had to give Popular Mechanics the last word on each issue, and didn't allow for a rebuttal, but the program was nonetheless the fairest I've seen on mainstream television.
Now tomorrow night Stephen Harper, the Canadian Fuhrer, is going to address the nation, as the bitch of GWB and the NWO.
MSM Shielding cover up
Ladies and Gents,
All of this attention to 9/11 truth shows how far we have come. For the longest time the media simply ignored us. Now that they can no longer do so, they try to discredit us as looney conspiracy theorist. But my point is, we have gotten this far because we are persistent in seeking the truth. Yes, to the media's dismay, we just won't go away. So I say don't panic if we lose a round or two. Because in the long run the truth will prevail. And hopefully justice will be done!
They should be commended for
They should be commended for allowing Griffin to say a few words and showing building 7 and not being derisive. CBC has always been a notch above most other mainstream media organs.
However, the CBC doc follows the familiar pattern of exploring 911 theories based on physical evidence (which, however compelling, can be argued by peudo-scientists all day long, muddying the waters and confusing people with techno-jargin) while ignoring the most damning evidence:
War games, Norad stand-down, Minetta, Able Danger, put-options, Dancing Israelis, FBI informants living with "hijackers", Atta and Abramoff, pre-911 invasion plans, PNAC and a "new pearl harbor", Anthrax, Northwoods, the history of false flags, the Israeli "Al-Qaeda" cell, and so on.
These are points we should be focussing on; the physical evidence, though essential, should take a back seat.
As for why they used Saudis as patsies instead of Iraqis, the answer is obvious: the "war on terra" is not just about securing Iraqi oil; PNAC had a much grander goal in mind; control of the entire middle east and the fragmentation thereof; demostic police state; redistrubtion of capital to the upper 1%; the weaponization of space. TWAT relies on a shadowy, omniprescient nemesis with links to Islam; Iraqi national guardsman wouldn't have cut it. I'm suprised Griffin didn't offer an explanation such as this.
Also, using Iraqis as perps
Also, using Iraqis as perps might have appeared a tad too obvious. And it would have focussed attention on one country only. "Al-Qaeda" is an INTERNATIONAL organization (or US intelligence operation, I should say). It was already set up long before 911. Its agents run drugs and are protected from on high (see Ali Mohommed). They are the perfect fake "enemy".
I agree. The guys from Loose
I agree. The guys from Loose Change should have answered tha having IRAQ's would have made the "war on terror" to simplistic. We would have bombed IRAQ, and that would have been the end of it.
Having a terrorist mastermind, who can jump from any country and lurk the shadows is a much more formidable oppenent for a country who wants to have a blank slate to premptively strike down anybody in the world, or at least in the middle east.
Well done, CBC
Evan Soloman did a stand-out job laying out the facts on behalf of both sides. His only stumble occurred at the end when he commented on David Ray's response to his question about Iraqi hijackers versus the Saudis as 'not a very good answer'. Not quite sure what side Mr. Soloman was serving on that one,but anyone with half a brain would know that the Saudi boys we're merely movie extras 'loaned out' to participate in this historical epic.
The Kevin Spacey clone from Popular Mechanics (Jim Meigs), bordered on the hilarious. If PM is going to parrot the Government line, they really need to start using a better script (and a better mouthpiece).
If there was ever a moment in which Evan Soloman became aware that he may be tapping on a very dangerous door, it came in the last segment with Lee Hamilton. Just catching that brief glimpse of Mr. Hamilton suddenly turn on our reporter friend was enough to send shivers down one's spine. Forget the X-Files, these dudes are serious mothers.
I"m from Canada, and the CBC has been a part of our lives forever. They've always been a 'serious' news network and never shied away from uncomfortable issues. However, it isn't difficult to notice how the 'long arm' of global MSM has managed to infilitrate even the most stoic branch of news reporting. It defy's me to think of how some of these well known journalists spend countless years honing their skills to garner acceptance and respect from their collective peers, only to throw it away to become bureacratic shills for Big Government.
Griffin should have said,
Griffin should have said, "What matters about the alleged hijackers, according to the government version, is that they are AL QAEDA, not that they came from Saudi Arabia. By pinning 9/11 on Al Qaeda, an ephemeral network that can be accused of being ANYWHERE (see the recent claim that West Africa is next...), the US government can FIND Al Qaeda wherever they want to. And isn't it funny how Al Qaeda always shows up wherever large oil deposits are."
I cant believe Jim Meigs
I cant believe Jim Meigs kept a straight face. Oh well, when the shit hits the fan he will also go to prison for the cover up. 90ft my ASS!
Thank God Canada has the guts and true jounalism! (sometimes)
________________________________________
Stand for SOMETHING...or you'll fall for ANYTHING!!
Definitely worth watching and sharing w/ the zombies
Megis reminded me of this Martin Short SNL character:
http://snl.jt.org/arc/char/MaSh-Nathan%20Thurm.jpg
This is the best they got? Mwahahahahahahaha!
"I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man." -Thomas Jefferson
That was actually a pretty
That was actually a pretty decent report for a mainstream media source. It also goes to show once again how really lousy the reporting on this issue is here in the "United States of Propaganda"...
This is actually pretty good
This is actually pretty good reporting. The kind of reporting I would like to see in the U.S. Too bad I live in the U.S.
The best part is the reporter actually took the time to tell people to go do some research of your own, to read books. That certainly what Americans don't do is read books. If more than half actually read instead of just watching TV, we would already be beyond this point right now.