posted on Jul, 24 2013 @ 11:43 PM
I watched the first 10 mins. And wow, what a bunch of crappy arguments. Just some points from those 1st 10 mins.
1st argument: PNAC called for "new pearl harbor". That’s a lie. They didn't call for it, they explain in a document that it would decrease the time
it would take to execute certain plans. Which is of course, very obviously, a correct analysis. Secondly, if they were really behind it, does it make
sense whatsoever that they go write about it in advance? No. This argument is pure rubbish from any perspective.
2nd argument: A member of the family that built the twin towers told a film producer some fantastic stuff of which this film producer has no evidence
whatsoever that it ever happened. But at least he has a YouTube video. Excellent investigative journalism. Tabloids do better most of the time. And
besides, nothing of that so called plan he was told ever came true.
3rd argument: Then she claims that Rumsfeld handed out books about Pearl Harbor. Without any source to back the claim up. Even if true, so what. Then
there is some unrelated talk about a movie. With a suggestive image that compares a single frame of the movie to a frame of 911 videos. Associations
that make sense is not this woman’s strongest point.
4rth argument: The pentagon had to be attacked too, as without an attack on a military target, they could never have justified any war. Right.... as
if the total mayhem in new york would not be enough. As if the pentagon attack really made the difference. Really, what a bunch of nonsense does this
It’s really a painful rehash of all the old truther nonsense. Not going to waste my time on the rest. If anyone is going to watch it all and finds a
refreshing argument that isn’t as bad as the ones above, I would be interested to hear it.
edit on 24-7-2013 by -PLB- because: (no reason given)