Posted on 09/11/2005 1:39:12 PM PDT by Iam1ru1-2
The History channel is regirgitating a slanted viewpoint of the 9-11 terrorist attack on America. A coverage that the DNC would be proud to endorse. I wrote them an email just before this posting:
Your programming of the events of 9-11 is dispicably slanted to the extreme left. It's as if the Democratic National Committee made this footage in preparing for the upcoming national elections by denigrating the President of the United States, placing in your interviews known extreme leftest, liberal wackos on this disgusting program. I will let the whitehouse, and news stations of this dispicable anti-Bush slanted coverage of the 911 disaster and will show them this slanted coverage of 9-11 to all my friends and relatives so that they will know what kind of "history" you people really want to report. The leftwing, licentious, ludicrous, luciferian, lying, liberal view of all of our history. I for one will NEVER AGAIN WATCH THIS CHANNEL BECAUSE OF IT'S BIASED, SLANTED, LYING, VIEW OF YOUR SO-CALLED "REPORTING" OF HISTORY. YOU MAKE ME SICK!!!!!!!!
They mentioned Able Danger in "The Cell from Hamburgh" last night. Just two lines though.
This is a knee-jerk reaction; the History Channel beats the hell out of just about anything on NBC, ABC, CBS. History has always been written by the winners, so instead of whining about what you don't like, why don't you provide specific rebuttals of what you do not think are "facts?" Hysteria, and declarations of Christian broadcasting "accuracy" do nothing for the discussion except make you appear to be a disgruntled loser.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1482043/posts
9-11 PHOTO REMEMBRANCE THREAD (slow: many photos)
RememberThe11th.com ^ | 9-10-2005 | TheOtherOne
This is a great substitute.
I'm sorry I don't know who this Seinfeld is. Is he your Islamic Hero?
Your comments tell me where you're coming from. If the history channel, in YOUR opinion, are "winners" then that tells me that you are a "LOSER".
Sienfeld was a sitcom dubbed as a show about nothing. Much like this post.
I see you act like a Democrat when you get angry. Why don't you instead post some details. I guess you'd rather b!tch about it instead of produce some reasoning. Again, much like a Democrat.
The program that may be raising your ire is the two-hour program on "The 9-11 Commission Report" which gives a big portion of its "talking head time" to Democratic commissioners, with predicable results. Because it is summarizing the 9-11 Commission report, it has all of the atrocious weaknesses of that document.
Other programming to think about is the "Inside 9-11" series by National Geographic which appeared only a few weeks ago. I only saw a little bit of that (I think it's something like 3 hours), but I was startled by some of the apparently new info in there (they may have mentioned Able Danger). There is also an upcoming dramatization called "The Flight that Fought Back" on the Discovery channel which talks about events leading up to the crash of the plane in Pennsylvania.
I think there is good stuff on the History channel, but you have to use your brain in evaluating their material. Best of luck.
This is a knee-jerk reaction; the History Channel beats the hell out of just about anything on NBC, ABC, CBS. History has always been written by the winners, so instead of whining about what you don't like, why don't you provide specific rebuttals of what you do not think are "facts?" Hysteria, and declarations of Christian broadcasting "accuracy" do nothing for the discussion except make you appear to be a disgruntled loser.
Seinfeld is a dreaded Joo. </sarc
Discovery channel program on reasons the towers fell as quickly as they did yesterday was outstanding.
They provided detailed analysis from structural engineers who worked on the building and even displayed the original architecture documents. The WTC towers weren't constructed using standard building practices at the time.
They did a lot of unorthodox things to make the project work.
What many believe now is that the trus system that they used to construct the floors was easily compromised by the impact of the jet and fire. An MIT professor did a demonstration using a model. Showed how if any area of the trus system didn't have fire protection as the fire burned, it would weaken greatly. They used this trus system because a lot of the prefab could be done on the ground and the sections of flooring put into place by cranes. They also used this system because due to the elevator system implemented, the trus system allowed much more open floor space on each floor.
They also showed how the stairways were built too close to each other and provided no redunancy and thats why all the people above where the planes impacted couldn't get out.
This design is considered a major no-no by todays standards.
Sorry, I did not mean to call you a Loser...I simply said that kind of response was indicative of the response one might expect from someone who doesn't have credibility because facts are not the basis of a disgruntled, shrill posting.
The History Channel is simply a successful business enterprise. They need people like you to galvanize their position with those (majority) people who are interested in forming their opinions based on facts.
Which show? I have them tivo'ed for later on.
What are they saying?
FMCDH(BITS)
Until I watched those shows on National Geographic, I didn't know that much information was available about the murderers who skyjacked the planes on 9-11 and murdered those people. I thought I already knew all that there was to know about 9-11. Those shows on NGC took me to school.
Ping to #17 :)
Wow, you are obviously a kind person, calling those piece of cr@#@ plans for the IFC disgraceful. I probably would have used more forceful language :)
Did you want them to take out a billboard?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.