Just watched the "Loose change" 9/11 documentary and am 100% convinced that it was an inside job. Just curious what Q said about it?
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (12)
sorted by:
The no planes theory requires many leaps of logic. And explanations for eyewitnesses as well as pyrotechnics.
It's plausible, but not the most realistic IMO.
When it first came out there were many other 9/11 documentaries coming out at the same time questioning various aspects of the event.
September clues was roundly lauded as disinformation since it left many questions unanswered in a time when the 'truth' movement was trying to gain credibility and look serious by trying to prove what the public may accept in order to get a better investigation. This was the idea of architects and engineers for 9/11 truth. It was meant to sit on concrete facts that could be proven.
Video forensics as well as special effects has come a long way in a lot of ways since 2001. It's possible it was faked using different techniques available at the time. And would explain why it took several days before video came out, (creating, editing, perfecting footage) however this was also before camera phones were prevalent so it's not that abnormal for there to be not very much video.
I guess I was always just wary of September clues and remember reacting to it in a negative way.
That's why I suggested using discernment.
I completely agree with you. It's highly suspicious though when you synchronize the time the "planes" hit from multiple angles, and see two completely different trajectories, one being a straight path, the other being the "dive bomber" path.
And yeah, special effects most certainly have come a long way, but there's of course tech that the government has that we don't know about. Great effects plus mediocre person using it won't give you a great outcome.
It is good though to try to seek the truth using all available avenues. And the mainstream media networks using the same origin feed, then they just so happen to use their own high ups to give credibility to the lie? I don't understand why I didn't see that at the time.
Now all thatsaid there are certain things it points out, like you said, the plane trajectory, but also the nose out the other side of the building, the missing wing on one plane going 'behind' a building, other graphical oddities do keep me wondering if they did do something like superimpose a plane over a missile, but again it brings up many other questions that start requiring complex explanations.