Interview with Syrian Girl

This text will be replaced

Broadcast of September 3, 2012. Part 1 of 2 » Download mp3: click here

This text will be replaced

Broadcast of September 3, 2012. Part 2 of 2 » Download mp3: click here

09 September 2012 | Permalink | comments: 2
By Hereward Fenton

Share |

Categories: [ Apollo Moon Missions, Syria ]

Syrian Girl

My guest in the 2nd hour of today's show is activist and vlogger Mimi Al-Laham, better known as "Syrian Girl" on youtube. Mimi has been posting videos for some time highlighting the deceptions in the mainstream media coverage of the Syrian conflict.

Our conversation ranges from questions about the true causes of the insurgency which is now tearing Syria apart, and the bigger picture of the relations between Syria, Iran and Russia and the aggressive agenda of domination and exploitation being conducted across the Middle East by Western powers under the cover of "humanitarian intervention".

My guest in the first hour is Damon Crowe and our topic is the Apollo Moon landings - real or faked? Damon has done extensive research into some of the unanswered questions about the Apollo Moon missions which I am sure you will find stimulating.

Related Links

Comments

Whilst I thought your interview with the Syrian Girl was outstanding, I cannot say the same of your earlier interview in which your guest claimed that the Apollo 11 and subsequent moon landings never occurred.

I truth, I was momentarily persuaded that there may have been some rational grounds for this claim and gave it some consideration, but only a small amount of research on the Internet revealed to me that the claim was completely baseless. You really must further investigate the claim as I did and revisit this issue in a subsequent program. I would be happy to be interviewed if that would help.

A good place to start would be of 2001 by Jim Scotti.

By James Sinnamon on 2012 09 11 - 23:42:00

James, while I appreciate your comments, I have to correct you on some points, and I suggest you go back and LISTEN to the show again, without the distortions of your assumptions about WHAT is being said.

1) I am not “making claims” about the moon landings. Accusing people of “making claims” is a type of tactic that is often used by professional debunkers to make the opponent’s position vulnernable to attack. It is purely a rhetorical style and ads NOTHING to the discussion.

2)You refered to Jim Scotti but you provided no link. So I did a search and came up with this page. This page uses some classic, text-book STRAW MAN tactics to make the opposing viewpoint look STUPID, by focusing on easily debunked arguments, while studiously ignoring the REAL EVIDENCE. The writer also uses misdirection and outright lies to further prop up his case. I see no BLAST CRATER in those photos, DO YOU?

3) Both you and Jim Scotti STUDIOUSLY ignore the main arguments put forth in this show. In doing so you expose the true weakness of your position. If you were truly confident and strong in your knowledge you would directly address the points we made, which again are not “CLAIMS” but questions, reflections and hypotheses.

Have a good day.

By Hereward Fenton on 2012 09 12 - 02:48:51

In order to leave a comment you may need to register and sign in.

Recent Comments

http://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/dane-wigington-on-infowars-4-4-13/#comment-33658

By Leonard Clampett on 2013 04 11 - 09:31:03
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

http://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/

By Leonard Clampett on 2013 04 11 - 09:28:20
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

http://www.soldierhugs.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Geoengineering.pdf

By Leonard Clampett on 2013 04 11 - 09:19:23
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

Leonard Clampett,

the video you linked is a really old conglomerate of all sorts of claims that have been debunked ad nauseam.

What do you think is the ultimate proof for the existence of chemtrails?

Why should we have to assume there is such a thing like chemtrails? How are they different from contrails?

By Josh on 2013 04 10 - 06:59:34
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

http://realnewsworldwide.com/2008/09/10/chemtrails-ultimate-proof/

By Leonard Clampett on 2013 04 09 - 16:31:36
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

If you open the link you will see the reference to chemtrail area forecasts. The other link I wish to post is refused by the “Truth news” which claims it may be SPAM and “will be moderated”, probably because it mentions chemtrails in the link. However, I will try again by separating the words. http://www.chemtrail forecast.com/main.html

By Leonard Clampett on 2013 03 13 - 09:02:16
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

about the link you posted - where is the relevance in the discussion about persistent contrails?

By Josh on 2013 03 13 - 08:50:08
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

http://www.haarpstatus.com/status.html

By Leonard Clampett on 2013 03 13 - 08:44:15
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

after you consistently refused to accept the fact that fuel combustion generates more water than the equivalent of fuel burnt - even when a Qantas pilot confirmed this - I am highly skeptical of your “aviation life experience”. I hope you understand that.

So there are more explanations needed before your claims can be taken seriously.

1. How did you determine that the ambient conditions at the upper troposphere were not conducive to the formation of contrails this summer?

2. How did you determine the causal connection between trails and lack of rain?

3. How did you determine the altitude of the low trail that you saw? How can you be sure it was below the cumulus? Why not above (remember: 3D viewing up to 160m max)? Any pictures maybe?

If you want to do REAL research on the Internet, I strongly suggest to repeat every search query that you issue with the word “debunked” appended. That is the way to do proper research because you see both sides and their arguments. Don’t just fall for sensational claims.

Unfortunately, the Internet is loaded with bunk.

By Josh on 2013 03 02 - 18:06:10
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

Josh Anonymous,

You apparently do not do much research. Notice how, over the Eastern Australian summer, there have been many chemtrails coincident with usual weather patterns where obvious rain should have been the outcome had the chemtrails not been laid, and it was not, and this during the season when ambient conditions are not conducive to the formation of contrails. Chemtrails are entirely different to what you term “persistent contrails” as you would know if you had sufficient aviation life experience. You may try to explain how there was recently, and I have observed the same many times before, a chemtrail below a layer of fair weather Cu at 8,000 ft and how this could possibly occur without the laws of physics and thermodynamics being turned on their head. I suggest that you do an Internet search for the activities of Bill Gates and geoengineering.

By Leonard Clampett on 2013 03 02 - 13:51:00
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.