I published a commentary on a CBC (Canadian Broadcasting Corporation) program aired last night called “The Third Tower.” I thought it was a new program but Kau’ila has shown me that it was a reworking of an earlier (2008) BBC program.
Since the CBC program is not available as a video I can mount, I’m posting the BBC version instead, which is available in Youtube format. I’ve only watched the first part of the BBC’s broadcast but the content looks identical. Only the presenters seem to be different.
I think the CBC/BBC program is very significant and I give my (revised) analysis in the commentary below the video. Doubleclick to go to Youtube and watch the rest of the show.
I’ve just finished watching a hard-hitting program on the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation’s “The Passionate Eye.” It was called “9/11 – The Third Tower” and was done from the point of view of demonstrating that Building 7 collapsed in a controlled demolition. Apparently it is a reworking of an earlier BBC broadcast.
To clarify its significance, as far as I’m concerned: it didn’t relate what a few “crackpot” conspiracy theorists said. There was no equivalent of Bill Nye the Science Guy (from CNN) attacking their case with a sneer and a smile.
It also didn’t assess in an even-handed way the evidence from both sides. It wasn’t equal time for both views, with no suggestion from the makers of the show where their sympathies lie. I’m not saying that that’s a desirable thing. I’m only reporting what they did and did not do.
As I’ll discuss later, the CBC (BBC) blinked in the wrap-up, but by then, I think, the damage was done. The edifice of the official version’s evidence had been weakened and was ready to collapse, to borrow a metaphor from the official version of 9/11.
For the first time that I’ve seen on mainstream TV, the program focused on things like who the tenants of WTC 7 were (CIA, Secret Service, Office of Emergency Management, etc., what was lost in WTC 7’s collapse (investigatory files on Main Street firms like Enron, any evidence of the use of Tower 7 to control the demolition of the other towers, etc.), Silverstein’s purchase of insurance against terrorist attack just weeks before 9/11, and Silverstein’s remark about “pulling it” (i.e., blowing up the building).
They didn’t bring in the NESARA connection. NESARA was due to be signed in the World Trade Center at 9:00 a.m. on September 11, 2001. The NESARA gold was in one of the WTC Towers. 9/11 was in part engineered to defeat NESARA, in part to kick off wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
The makers of the show didn’t mention that the NESARA gold was recovered. They did say that the WTC demolition was probably controlled from Building 7. (In my opinion, part of it was also controlled from the USS George Washington, anchored in Long Island Sound.)
They showed perhaps ten controlled demolitions side by side with the collapse of Building 7. They reported the suspicious way the steel from 9/11 looked after the explosion (oops, I mean, fire). They discussed how the dust from Building 7 contained thermite and how metal in the debris remained molten days after 9/11, another sign of thermite’s use.
They featured a clip from a European architect who was shown the collapse of the building and asked what had just happened. “A controlled demolition,” he said, and was startled when told it was WTC 7 on 9/11, responding that it didn’t matter – it was still a controlled demolition.
They looked at the background of the people who made the case for the official version and showed Truthers saying that these people were bought and paid for. Usually it is official-version people who criticize the Truthers, their audience being left with their words as the final verdict, but not here.
All the tricks and tactics that have been used against conspiracy theorists were now being used against the proponents of the official version. I’d call that a radical shift in opinion.
For the greatest part (with one exception which I’ll get to), Truthers were offered the last word on things. That in itself shows which side of the question the show’s makers were coming down on.
The people defending the proposition that Building 7 collapsed in a fire still presented their case as if they had confidence that they would be vindicated, but the Truthers were also now portrayed as people who also had credible evidence to present.
So far, this seemed like a huge transformation in the media’s willingness to look at 9/11.
Then, the CBC blinked. In the last few minutes of the program, they focused on the reactions of firemen, talk show hosts, and others to the Truthers’ views. Their reactions, many of which I’m sure were quite sincere, became the show’s last word. The wrap-up often determines what viewers will take away and the CBC seemed to want to leave viewers in their comfort zone.
It was as if the CBC had returned to the fold. The official version won out in the end. Some would say the CBC sold out. Others would say they went as far as funding considerations and estimations of what the public could take prevailed. If they went a great deal further, there might be rioting in the street, proponents of this view might say.
I was disappointed that the CBC didn’t see their close scrutiny of the official version through to the end, but we might not be there yet.
I still think the point was driven home They put a tremendous dent in the credibility of the official version. I think the questions they raised will percolate back into viewers’ minds eventually.
Of course one major problem is that all this contesting is being done in countries outside the U.S. The real nut to crack is the American media. And I don’t think the American media is quite ready yet to carry out this kind of in-depth questioning of the official version.
As our sources might say, hopefully we’ll be there “soon.”