history channel debunks itself on 911

Discussion in 'Politics & Religion' started by antitrust, Sep 16, 2010.

  1. The first 25 minutes was just a demonetization of conspiracy theorists. promoting some of the more radical ideas from the fringe , in a crazy by association effort. Claiming that loose change was the most compelling evidence. Even though a group of architects engineers and physicist is obviously more credible. This part offers no science or physics, but effective in creating an emotional biased against them. An easy way to set the tone for the masses who let emotions control their critical thinking.

    Finally around 25 the molten metal question comes up.

    “Experts” Admitting that steel could not melt from Hydrocarbon or office fires turn to the weakening of steel theory. But not supported by someone looking at the evidence. Which is ignored all together

    <object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/fs_ogSbQFbM?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/fs_ogSbQFbM?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

    ]even the history channel itself provides evidence for molten steel

    <object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/3Ogrupgt4mI?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/3Ogrupgt4mI?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>


    anyone looking for molten steel could find it.

    Then at 43 minutes in an effort to explain away the pentagon missing black box. An eyewitness said he seen pieces of it that were melted. An obvious contradictory statement 15 minutes after the “experts” established that jet fuel doesn't melt steel. (BB made with outer stainless steel shell.)

    next we have free fall which they present as "the buildings came down too fast", with some woman saying cluckaty clunck a lot. Trying to make free fall argument look weak. unemotional, unbiased research would have brought up that nist finally admits free fall. Of course without explosives free fall is a impossibility.

    <object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/eDvNS9iMjzA?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/eDvNS9iMjzA?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object><object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/iXTlaqXsm4k?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/iXTlaqXsm4k?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object><object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/v3mudruFzNw?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/v3mudruFzNw?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>






    Later one of the most ridiculous statements. Regarding building 7 was that the collapse was predictable. Even though for the first time in history a steel building collapsed due to fires. Apparently first time occurrences are predictable. More double speak.

    Adding that buildings that fall without demolition, look like ones with demolition. Lets take a look how non rigged building fall

    <object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/vm9uNfAJ9G4?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/vm9uNfAJ9G4?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

    <object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/NqRN63iDTqA?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/NqRN63iDTqA?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>




    Even buildings that aren't rigged right can't seem to fall into their own footprint.(the path of greatest resistance)


    <object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/x5T6hz1XsVU?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/x5T6hz1XsVU?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

    So clearly the statements by “experts” are not based on reality and meant to mislead.

    Of course no mention of the smoking gun of termite and the peer review paper.

    http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCPJ/2009/00000002/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM


    The last 15 minuets is another emotional piece, parading sorrowful family members of the victims telling you how much it hurts every time somebody asks questions. An honest piece would mention the number of firefighters and victims family members who demand the truth

    http://firefightersfor911truth.org/
    http://www.911pressfortruth.com/

    typical propaganda ignore the evidence you can't explain. Focus on what you can explain. Provide only the weakest contrary argument even though more credible evidence and people exist. And most of all keep it as emotional as possible.
     
  2. Arnie

    Arnie

    What the hell is that..........

    "demonetization of conspiracy theorists"

    I think you just debunked yourself. :D