you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]LarrySwinger2[S] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Part 2 can be found here. This one is a bit of a waste of time. The speaker is a lawyer who isn't qualified to go into details about the subject, and just uses a lot of rhetoric without proving anything. It's rather curious: couldn't they find any scientists who are willing to defend the official story? Of course not; they'd put their careers in jeopardy. Just think of all the bounties put on defending the official story that have never been claimed.

Part 3, on the other hand, is one that I do recommend. It's a free-form debate, and the lawyer is actually better in this part than in his presentation. It's too bad that he has to start off with playing the antisemitism card, though.