ROCKSTEADY Posted September 4, 2008 Share Posted September 4, 2008 More proof that the discovery networks are nothing more than entertainment and propaganda. Link to comment
Galkar Posted September 4, 2008 Share Posted September 4, 2008 You know what makes for a believable article? Tons of spelling, grammar, and punctuation errors. Link to comment
ROCKSTEADY Posted September 4, 2008 Author Share Posted September 4, 2008 yeah the article sucks, I really just used it to point out what the discovery channel is saying. Link to comment
margot Posted September 4, 2008 Share Posted September 4, 2008 more like lulz at "9/11 Truth" types. Link to comment
darkon Posted September 4, 2008 Share Posted September 4, 2008 That 9/11 conspiracy episode of South Park was on last night. It was the smartest summary of what really happened that I have ever heard. Link to comment
GummyBearOfDoom Posted September 4, 2008 Share Posted September 4, 2008 That 9/11 conspiracy episode of South Park was on last night. It was the smartest summary of what really happened that I have ever heard. What did it say? Link to comment
ROCKSTEADY Posted September 5, 2008 Author Share Posted September 5, 2008 I hate Truthers. They make alot of people close minded to evidence, and probable causes. Link to comment
GummyBearOfDoom Posted September 5, 2008 Share Posted September 5, 2008 I hate Truthers. They make alot of people close minded to evidence, and probable causes. You mean logical people? Link to comment
Crube Posted September 5, 2008 Share Posted September 5, 2008 more like lulz at "9/11 Truth" types. I agree. Link to comment
Samurai Drifter Posted September 5, 2008 Share Posted September 5, 2008 The History Channel report on the attack on the WTC towers was ridiculously biased also, and only had the same guy from Popular Science refuting all of the engineers and construction managers pointing out the flaws in the official story. Unsurprisingly when the "Thanks to Our Sponsors" screen came up, the US Army logo was prominently displayed. I'm not saying the government necessarily committed the attacks, just that there are a LOT of unanswered questions and evidence indicating deception on the part of the administration. Link to comment
Cleese Posted September 5, 2008 Share Posted September 5, 2008 so the only way people will be happy is if the Mythbusters do a 9/11 myth episode? Link to comment
Ceraziefish Posted September 5, 2008 Share Posted September 5, 2008 I'm not saying the government necessarily committed the attacks, just that there are a LOT of unanswered questions and evidence indicating deception on the part of the administration. Link to comment
ROCKSTEADY Posted September 6, 2008 Author Share Posted September 6, 2008 I'm not saying the government necessarily committed the attacks, just that there are a LOT of unanswered questions and evidence indicating deception on the part of the administration. Right. Im not saying the government did do it (however i would not be surprised if they did, given the current corruption and such.) But they are still covering up alot of specific information. It just seems to me they are conducting a cover up to save themselves some grief (,for whatever reason.) I think it is a little silly that the Discovery channel will state things that are in direct contradiction with common sense. Link to comment
GummyBearOfDoom Posted September 6, 2008 Share Posted September 6, 2008 I think it is a little silly that the Discovery channel will state things that are in direct contradiction with common sense. Like what? Link to comment
Battle_Pope Posted September 6, 2008 Share Posted September 6, 2008 I like how the History Channel one time had a biography of Abe Lincoln, and at least half the hour was devoted to the speculation of "Was he gay?" Link to comment
darkon Posted September 6, 2008 Share Posted September 6, 2008 I like how the History Channel one time had a biography of Abe Lincoln, and at least half the hour was devoted to the speculation of "Was he gay?" Hahahah, I can never forget that. Link to comment
Ceraziefish Posted September 7, 2008 Share Posted September 7, 2008 Like what? Did you read the article? Quite simply, the official story requires a Boeing 757 to do things that I'm pretty sure a Boeing 757 is incapable of, especially with a pilot who has never flown one before. (flying fifteen feet off the ground, not wrecking the surrounding area with jet blasts, banking left at the last minute, and not leaving parts strewn all over Washington D.C.) Link to comment
stranger Posted September 8, 2008 Share Posted September 8, 2008 Interesting read, I was never fully convinced about 9/11 and what really did happen ... I'm gonna agree with SD - - I'm not saying that the government did do it, but goddamn have they not convinced me otherwise... Link to comment
Ceraziefish Posted September 8, 2008 Share Posted September 8, 2008 Interesting read, I was never fully convinced about 9/11 and what really did happen ... I'm gonna agree with SD - - I'm not saying that the government did do it, but goddamn have they not convinced me otherwise... Yeah, plus it's not like the U.S. government has a great track record with this kind of thing; as examples, this and [urlhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Maine_(ACR-1)#Causes_of_the_sinking]this. I'm sure one could find more examples, this is just what comes to mind immediately. Link to comment
ROCKSTEADY Posted September 8, 2008 Author Share Posted September 8, 2008 I'm not saying that the government did do it, but goddamn have they not convinced me otherwise... Link to comment
Ceraziefish Posted September 12, 2008 Share Posted September 12, 2008 How perfect... that was exactly what I thought when I saw that James_xeno had posted. How's things, James? Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now