Reply With QuoteThe preview I saw made it sound like it won't find in their favour. Just starting to watch it now though.Originally Posted by LucaAltieri
On BBC2 now. Some may find it interesting.
So far its been much on the side of the troofers in the way it's presenting the story.
"Look at life from our perspective, and you eukaryotes will soon cease giving yourself such airs. You bipedal apes, you stump-tailed tree-shrews, you desiccated lobe-fins, you vertebrated worms, you Hoxed-up sponges, you newcomers on the block, you eukaryotes, you barely distinguishable congregations of a monotonously narrow parish, you are little more than fancy froth on the surface of bacterial life."
Watch out, the bacteria are pissed off.
The preview I saw made it sound like it won't find in their favour. Just starting to watch it now though.
Mousse from a bowl is very nice, but to put it on a person is demented!
Yeah, it didn't turn out too bad.
"Look at life from our perspective, and you eukaryotes will soon cease giving yourself such airs. You bipedal apes, you stump-tailed tree-shrews, you desiccated lobe-fins, you vertebrated worms, you Hoxed-up sponges, you newcomers on the block, you eukaryotes, you barely distinguishable congregations of a monotonously narrow parish, you are little more than fancy froth on the surface of bacterial life."
Watch out, the bacteria are pissed off.
I'm only half way through, wife wanted to watch Big Brother
Mousse from a bowl is very nice, but to put it on a person is demented!
It didn't end well.
The summary at the end was shocking:
"The big questions remain unanswered:-
Was there a conspiracy?
If so, who was behind it?
How did they keep it secret?
How did they pull off the demolition?"
That kind of thing.
Technically, they didn't make any accusations, but the way they phrased it was terribly unclear and would have left many casual watchers confused at best.
Dylan's swearing rant near the end was incredible though: he fell into a raging fury and just kept swearing and saying how he "didn't care" about evidence and expert opinion. Nil Points!
I haven't seen the program, so I can't really comment on that. However, I do have a problem with its name. Five buildings collapsed, as well as several others suffering partial collapse. Which one is supposed to be considered the third?
This is one of the biggest holes in the truthers' nonsense. Most of them don't even seem to know that more than three buildings collapsed, let alone care. It causes some big problems for their claims that WTC7 couldn't have collpased due to damage and fire when there were two buildings next door which collapsed due to damage and fire.
Better sorry than safe.
Indeed.
They showed images from nearby buildings that suffered partial collapse with exactly the pattern of girder stress, bowing and joint failure that was predicted by NIST's simulations of WTC7.
And then they still have the nerve to wrap up with that garbage.
Made me rather angry.
I watched it too and thought it wasn't too bad for the type of programme it was.
The main problem with these sort of things is that they take a 50:50 stance on them (the BBC do this most of the time IMO). i.e. 'some people' believe it was all a conspiracy and 'some other people' don't, therefore there's equal weight to both sides of the argument.
At least we did get to see the rational side to the argument.
.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks