One of the reasons I like Fabled Enemies more than many (probably most) of its predecessors is that it avoids the towers and goes into other aspects that really have not received the attention they deserve in documentaries on 9/11. I think that in itself makes it more accessible to a wider audience. Unfortunately, Bermas’s narration detracts from the film and its credibility. But it’s jam packed with news articles and news footage that show that this isn’t just a bunch of whacko conspiracy theory delusions; it’s been reported in the mainstream media — people just haven’t heard about it.

Rowan Berkeley,

It’s not accurate to say I said the five dancing Israelis warned the hijackers. But Bermas does indeed suggest the hijackers were warned by Israelis involved in spying in the U.S.:

“Somehow, suspected terrorists who were being surveilled by these very Israelis were able to change their behavior to elude the FBI.”

But that’s a distortion of the FOX News report. However, you are right that I was wrong in saying he asserted it “as fact”. He merely implied it. My memory was faulty.

http://www.davidraygriffin.com

In any case, readers can watch a lo-fi version of the film, provided by Bermas and Alex Jones productions free, on Googlevideo:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2144933190875239407

The very fact that we are able to be critical of some 9/11 documentaries and less so of others, or even that we are able to pick out those elements of a single documentary that are more or less successful in contributing to the achievement of the film’s goal, points to the necessity for conspiracy documentaries to strike a balance between “the facts” and a believable narrative arrangement thereof. This is nothing new. My question, however, has to do with the nature of the intended audience for such documentaries and the possibility of “converting” people from a position of absolute doubt (as to the idea of there having been a conspiracy at all) to one of skepticism of the official story coupled with a desire for more information. It sounds like this film, for instance, is going to be useful to those of us who’ve already had our suspicions raised, but how effective do you think it would be as a first exposure to the events and relationships that appear to us so strongly as evidence of a cover-up? What would my republican grandmother think if she watched this documentary?

I bring this up because I think it is always important for Truth-ers to remind themselves of how far removed their own worldviews really are from those of some Americans (and because I’d love to know how to open the eyes of my republican grandmother!), thus also of how far from our own premises so many people stand when this kind of evidence is presented to them. We need a narrative that lucidly strings together the strongest points of the argument in such a way as to make unequivocal meaning of the evidence. If “unequivocal meaning” is an impossible goal–which it surely is–then we need the next best thing, and the task of creating it needs to be an ongoing project high on the agenda of the 9/11 Truth community.

What do you (and DV’s readers) think are those elements of the 9/11 story that should receive the strongest emphasis when trying to shake up the perspective of someone who’s not already inclined to doubt the official story? And how–since we don’t yet have “the truth” to simply tell–can we connect these things so that they should present a compelling case to ANYONE? There are those who will refuse to take any amount of evidence seriously because they have already decided that there was not and couldn’t have been a conspiracy, and even if there was a conspiracy, they either don’t care or don’t want to know. But there are countless others out there who might be swayed if we could break through their initial disbelief and call into question the integrity of the “debunking” efforts of Popular Mechanics/etc., should that also prove necessary. It seems we are getting to the point where a mountain of circumstantial evidence has been accumulated, but even direct evidence can be ignored by a person determined enough not to believe something. What, at this point, can our sound-bitten story about 9/11 be?