And what makes you think that 'those in the know' don't already know what has been put forward in those various films and documentaries? They probably know even more than those that researched and made the films, as the higher echelons in power both here and across the world are privy to a hell of a lot more information and data that is kept from the public and the media on the 'grounds of national security.'
Also, you have to take into context film as a form of medium put forward by the film-maker; what are they trying to say? Do they have an agenda? It may look like a very well-argued case study, but never take anything at face-value (that's the historian in me coming out; beward bias!)
True, there is more than meets the eye to this, but there is to everything in the world if you start picking away the layers.
And throwing mud at each other certainly doesn't get you any answers or positive comments. Octavius was right to point out that the two words do cancel each other out, thus making the comment null and void. Water-tight = absolutely no uncertainty, whereas defenceless = weak to any argument against. Your response was puerile and childish, amd after such a promising first post too.