It was a story waiting to be told for more than 3 years. And for some reason, the major networks – ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, FOX - all gave it a pass.

That’s not to say that each of those networks hasn’t done their own “Special” on the 9/11 attack. CNN in particular, had a retrospective of that day that’s quite powerful. And CBS’s show “9/11” which tells the incredible story of two brothers, Jules and Gedeon Naudet, who were doing a documentary on a New York Fire Department rookie’s probation period when they turned their camera skyward to catch American Airlines Flight 11 crashing into the World Trade Center North Tower is some of the most powerful TV you’ll ever see.

Similar shows have been on the other networks. But “Inside 9/11” is different. I’ve had some bones to pick in the past with National Geographic magazine’s coverage of some issues, most notably their uncritical look at global warming and their wholesale adoption of Kyoto talking points. But the job done by everyone involved with the National Geographic’s searing and honest production of “Inside 9/11” was, in this reviewer’s opinion, without parallel in television history.

The story of how we ended up at war with fanatical jihadists is extraordinarily convoluted. The barriers to making a documentary of the Islamist’s war on America beginning with the first World Trade Center bombing through the present day are staggering. You have a dizzying array of characters who leapt from place to place over that period so that under ordinary circumstances – reading the Final Report of the 9/11 Commission for example – it’s easy to get lost in the minutiae of trying to follow a coherent story line.

Using an absolutely brilliant set of conventions, the documentary told the story using three basic rules; reorient, repeat, and review:

1. Every single scene would orient the viewer as to where one was geographically by flashing an attractive high altitude photo which would zero in on where the action would take place and then move in for a closeup of that spot on the photo. Absolutely brilliant device in that it made it easy to keep track of where one was at any given point in the story.

2. The names of the Islamists along with a short phrase that described him when we were first introduced were repeated every time they appeared in a new scene. Mohamed Atta was “the engineering student.” He was identified as such, along with his name of course, every time he came back into the story. It made it so much easier to follow the course of events when one could recall the character and what he had been doing previously.

3. Every once in a while, the documentary would review a segment by summing up what was known to that point. This was especially effective the closer we got to 9/11 and the number of hijackers and “muscle hijackers” increased substantially. After repeating, the documentary would lay another layer of the conspiracy on top of what had already been shown. Far from getting repetitive or boring, it made it easier to watch.

This was the key to why the documentary was so powerful. By basically freeing the viewer from having to keep track of the timeline, the locations, even the names of the characters, the story itself hit home in a series of sledgehammer blows that left the viewer alternately shaking one’s head and shaking with rage at the incompetent fools who failed to protect us.

The “might have beens” with regard to 9/11 are also extremely well presented and done so in as apolitical fashion as possible. It helped that the people they had presenting expert commentary had no ax to grind – usually. 9/11 Commission staffer Deitrich Snell was really the only “expert” who could have been accused of that and his face time was limited. And the al Jazeera reporter was insufferably smug. Aside from that, the producer let the story take center stage and kept the expert’s commentary to a minimum.

The documentary would have been a triumph if all it had set out to do was tell the story of the hijackers and how they planned the attack as well as showing what radical Islam was and how it grew. But the producer didn’t stop there. The hijacker story made for fascinating television. But when the documentary began to tell the story of the victims and the heroes of that horrible day, the show entered a whole new realm, a place that television rarely goes; the sublime world of first person history.

Simply put, the producer puts you in the airplanes, in the towers, in the Pentagon and lets you watch as events unfold. It makes for some of the most searing, poignant, and startling television imaginable. In fact, I can’t imagine how it could have been done better.

There was less voice over narration and more first person accounts in this segment of the show. Stories told by survivors, by victim’s relatives, by eyewitness reporters who both reported on and became part of history that awful day all contributed to a viewing experience unlike anything shown on TV before. The stories of heroism were told matter of factly and with little embellishment thus allowing the deeds themselves to make one stand back and be in awe of the unselfishness and bravery of ordinary people.

The one discordant note I might sound – and I haven’t seen any reviews or other commentary yet – was what I considered the short shrift given to the firefighters and policemen whose acts of courage were brought out much better in CBS’s “9/11.” Of course, that documentary was about the firefighters actions that day. But it just seemed a little incomplete to have so few stories told of the 300 plus firemen who trudged up those stairs carrying nearly 100 pounds of equipment past thousands of people and never made it back down.

There will be other documentaries of 9/11 made. It’s hard to imagine anybody doing a better job. Perhaps a Hollywood film will be able to put more emotional context into the story. But I doubt it will give us such a broad overview of what the world was like and what we were like in the lead up to that terrible day. Nor will any Hollywood film be able to capture the immediacy and realism that “Inside 9/11” was able to show us.

This is a documentary that will age well. It will have something to say to our children, to their children, and to children 100 years from now who wish to know how and where the war on terror started. Let’s hope that at that point, they will be looking at the conflict in the rear view mirror of history rather than living it every day like those of us who are survivors of that fateful day.