Perhaps now the "movement" will focus more on reliable issues and less on angry slogan shouting and tenuous points that require leaps of faith.
This "documentary" focused more on "fantastic" conspiracy ideas that are indeed easily countered with a calm credentialed personality speaking
with a slight smirk and nod.
I see two short-term outcomes:
1) Those who purposefully injected fanciful theories into the "9/11 Truth" mix will now be proud, as this two-hour show represents the pinnacle of
2) Those who have faith in the theories attacked on the show will be angry and shout claims of shill, disinformation, and History Channel complicity.
(I'm sure poor Lester is getting a slew of hate mail right now.)
Hopefully, we see a long term result of less reliance on angry street corner shouting from activists in black shirts and more of a reliance on
fact-checking and provable hypothesis.
Originally posted by PriapismJoe
So you think it was such a precision operation, that the planes hit the exact collapse points on both towers?
This has been one of the (many) "Achilles heels" of the mix of theories embraced by the "movement."
All of the pro's said a controlled demolition would have been a monumental undertaking taking months and requiring dozens of
Similarly, there are pros on record saying a small number of charges, in the right location, could have been useful in assisting the collapse after
the buildings were significantly weakened by the kinetic energy of impact. This "demolition assistance" idea was a popular point in 2002 conspiracy
speculation, and eventually overwhelmed by discussion of wholesale CD.
Plus, the building didn't look anything like CD, it fell from the top (impact point), not from the bottom like every controlled demolition
It didn't look anything like the demolitions shown within the few seconds on the 2-hour show. There are plenty of experts who have described that,
when planning the demolition of tall structures, you need to "break the top" first to begin the appropriate momentum.
Too bad they didn't focus on the questions or issues for which responses are difficult:
1) Osama's history with the CIA (and our abandonment of the hunt for him).
2) The complex financial transactions indicating foreknowledge.
3) The sequence and timing of the President's odd morning responses.
4) The unlikely coincidence of a broad-scale military exercise that morning.
5) The illogical post-9/11 spending of the Homeland Security budget.
A critical examination of these issues would certainly raise conspiracy flags without the need to discuss remotely controlled passenger airlines,
missiles, or controlled demotions.