CBC Newsworld - 9pm - Conspiracy Theories

[dutchdemocrat]

Continued from Locked Thread at http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=190533

CBC Newsworld - 9pm - Conspiracy Theories


Not sure who in the US can get CBC Newsworld but this should be of interest.

<http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/conspiracytheories/index.html>

<http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/conspiracytheories/index.html>
Conspiracy Theories


On September 11, 2001, pilotless airplanes were guided into the World Trade Center by homing beacons. It wasn't a plane that hit the Pentagon, but a missile. U.S. Air Force planes weren't scrambled to intercept the hijacked planes that morning because the White House was behind the events of that tragic day. Incredible? Definitely. Outlandish? Absolutely. But, there are lots of people who believe that at least some parts of these stories are true.

In a special season premiere investigation the fifth estate's Bob McKeown finds that even the most outlandish conspiracy theory may have its basis in a legitimate question. In the course of separating fact from fiction, Bob delves into the labyrinthine and surprising ties between the Bushes and the Bin Ladens. What he finds out may startle you as much as any conspiracy theory.

VISIT OUR WEB FEATURE <http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/conspiracytheories/index.html>

[VolcanoJen]

1. Thanks for reposting, dutchdemocrat - very good stuff here.

:-)

[Wonk]

2. I have a quicktime video of it. Looking for a good free webhost for it.

~150M.

PM me for contact info to get it on your server.

bpilgrim is having some minor troubles with http://www.globalfreepress.com this week... He's working on it.

[bpilgrim]

4. check your mail

new account :hi:

peace

[Wonk]

5. I'd already replied before you posted that. Please check yours.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=619618

[Phyl]

3. I saw it last night

I was prepared to be disappointed when I knew they were starting with some supposed weirdos, but I actually thought that was a bit of a strategy. First, a strategy to get the documentary past any of the overlords of the CBC who seem to be extra-sensitive to right wing concerns this year (the right wing parties are always threatening to abolish the CBC altogether if they ever get power, the vicious nasties).

But I also thought it was a strategy to start the audience thinking they were about to enjoy some light-weight laugh at the tinfoil hat crowd, and then -- BAM. Hit with fact after fact after fact after fact showing how cosy the Bushes and bin Ladens have been for years and years.

I think, given that it was a documentary that had to cover the material in about 40 minutes, it did immensely well. They didn't remotely have enough time to cover every aspect of 9/11. The only way they could be effective at all would be to focus on one or two things and really do them well.

And frankly, after watching fact after fact after fact connecting the two families and the Saudi royal family, I found myself thinking, "If anyone can hear all this and NOT come away thinking there is something very very wrong if not outright sinister where Bush and 9/11 is concerned, they simply aren't really watching."

I liked that it was almost understated -- the heavy weight of all those facts almost forced the conclusions on you by themselves. I think it would actually have been less effective with the general populace if they had really pushed it at them.

These are the guys who, last season, demonstrated what utter failures the Patriot missiles are. I was very impressed then, and I think this effort, directed at the general populace, is going to carry similar weight.

[Lisa]

6. a classic technique ...

My philosophy prof in my freshman year was really keen on constructing arguments (a wannabee lawyer?) Anyway, he clued us in on a number of rhetorical tactics, e.g. "straw man" and "slippery slope". Another time he noted that if you sweep up a whole bunch of opinions and then start working your way through, discarding ones you feel are less than convincing ... if you're careful about how you do it, the ones that are left can seem that much stronger (and you at least give the appearance of being rigorous and fair-minded). Partway through the programme, I got the feeling that they included (and then dismissed) some of the controversial MIHOP theories so as to get their foot in the door. (If they had only looked at the Bush/Binladen connection, it would have seemed a bit obsessive -- but this way it came across as more plausible by comparison.) And the very fact that the theories were mentioned does plant a seed, doesn't it. (as you said -- anyone who would NOT come away thinking that something was going on ...)

Michael Moore also does this in his latest book -- the chapter on "how to talk to moderate Republicans" where he yields ground on a number of leftist issues, but comes out swinging on some others which he views as key.

Remembering how high emotions were running a couple of years ago .... even in Canada (I can't even imagine how polarized things were in the US and in many cases, still are!) -- any insinuation that the US had somehow not anticipated something like this, or had in any way "helped" the attackers, brought down shrieks of outrage. The right-wingers even went after the Governor-General's husband after he observed that Bush seemed scared and uncertain the day of the attacks. So this may be an elaborate way of doing an end-run around some critics. It increases the chance that someday it may be shown in the US.

[JohnyCanuck]

8. I agree

They let Ruppert plainly state his conviction in LIHOP without really providing any opposing argument and they mentioned the delay in response to the hijackings by the USAF to order fighters in the air as being one of the unanswered questions that provides the foundation for conspiracy theories to develop. It was only when they had the French guy on talking about a missile strike on the Pentagon and MIHOP that they came out and gave a sort of half assed denial that this could be true. They did nothing to pick apart the LIHOP or even the MIHOP arguements and provide any detailed refutation.

After letting Ruppert make a statement in support of LIHOP, they had the MIHOP guy on and then they made a somewhat half assed denial of MIHOP, and then they seque right into the Bush, Bin Laden, Saudi financial connections and what the implications were re. the fight against terrorism.

I wouldn't be surprised if they are really thinking at least LIHOP themselves but know that it wouldn't do to rock the boat by coming out and stating that upfront. It would be too traumatic even for many Canadians to entertain that possibility right off the bat. So they just drop a broad hint (Ruppert's little speech) and concentrate on nailing Bush's ass to the wall where the facts are undeniable.

[Corgigal]

7. I would really like to see this

If anyone knows of a way to catch this please let me know. I checked my dish and they don't carry CBC.

[Lisa]

9. PM me ... I made a tape

Can send it along to you (once my neighbours finish viewing it).

[Wonk]

10. I'm working on getting a quicktime video version onto a good server

for broadband users to be able to watch online.

If anyone out there has a suitable server to use for this PM me and I'll send you the file (150 M).

[JohnyCanuck]

11. You can order a video tape

If you really want to see this you can order a video tape for $55 Canadian which would be around $40 US. Check the link below.

http://www.cbc.ca/shop/tapes_tr.html

The program is called The Fifth Estate and the episode aired on Oct 29 and was titled "Conspiracy Theories."

If you wait, I am pretty sure it's likely someone will probably record it and put it on a web site for veiwing over the net.

[Corgigal]

12. Thank you

I'm really curious to find out if they talked about NORADS non response. That's the part I know we can find the answer to if can get around Bush protecting them for National Security reasons. Actually it's the opposite, we had no National Security that day.

I'll try to wait to see it on the computer.

[JohnyCanuck]

13. They did mention the NORAD thing, but just in passing.

They had Mike Ruppert on and he made a statement basically laying out his position that the Bush adminstration knew in advance that the attack was coming, and they mentioned that the reason conspiracy theories had developed was because they were some troubling questions surrounding 9/11 that were still waiting to be answered. One of these questions was why was there such a slow response in scrambling fighters to protect the air space over Washington. However, they did not examine the question in any detail or go into it at any length. They just mentioned that this was one of several issues that some people grabbed onto and used as a basis for developing what might be considered by many as "crazy" conspiracy theories.

[Lisa]

14. something else they should have mentioned-- Bush repeating his story ...

... about how he saw the first plane crash into the tower.

They called him on the fact that he could not have seen this on TV at the school, but just left the impression that it was one of his usual slips of the tongue. Telling us about the repeat would at least indicate that Bush is so used to repeating lies that he can't bear to correct himself ... or that he's so confused about events in stressful times, his memory is playing tricks on him-- is this affecting his judgement, e.g. convincing himself that Iraq had WMDs?