Prole said:
Very helpful ... 1hr 21 minutes of my life and still no convincing anything. Nice production though!
Just a few random points:
1. Almost everything was hearsay
2. May of the displayed sources were themselves media reports of some sort, so second-hand hearsay
3. Witnesses were trusted as absolute gospel when it suited (e.g. they saw a silvery flash (explosives) not a yellowy one (jet fuel)) but dismissed as useless when it didn't (e.g. that it was a large passenger jet which hit the Pentagon)
4. It was FULL of "it must have been" type statements (e.g. the uprooted lampposts MUST have been caused by some other cause than a crashing jet)
5. There was virtually no definitive source information on which the statements of fact were based (e.g. the descriptions of the dimensions of the hole in the Pentagon were accompanied by unclear, smoke and flame filled video footage which did not appear to show any detail about the damage caused)
6. The lack of big plane bits o/s The Pentagon is a massive problem and obviously means a big plane didn't actually hit it ... but there weren't any big plane bits o/s the WTC towers either were there? And there is clear film of a big plane hitting them (and I don't remember that fact being challenged in the film anyway).
7. So the old US Government staged it all for it's own nefarious reasons. Why so many then? Wouldn't the US people have been just as outraged by one plane into one tower? Or even just one into the Pentagon?
8. WTC7 must have been blown up for some other reason (e.g. fraud files held there). Why not fly one of the planes into then? Rather than just have it suspiciously fall down a bit later?
9. There was a huge chunk dedicated to how the towers must have been brought down in a controlled demolition as the planes and fire "couldn't" have done it. It even referred to standard demolition practices like setting explosives at the bottom. It had footage of lots of such demolitions. And they all clearly come down from the bottom, so you have a clear roof falling / folding down into a dust bowl at the base ... whereas the oft-repeated footage of the WTC towers shows ... er ... a dust bowl at the top falling down into a clear base area. So it doesn't even look like a standard demolition then.
10. If it was staged at such great expense and effort, why not do it properly? (e.g. if you are going to say it was a 757 that hit the Pentagon, why not have a 757 do it? Or if you can't and have to use a smaller plane, why not have a story which says it was a smaller plane?)
11. The lobby damage at the WTC towers is used as "proof" that explosions took place there which were part of the planned demolition ... but the damage there was witnessed immediately after the planes hit, ages before the towers collapsed. Must have been the slowest controlled demolition in history then ...
12. Footage of other crashed planes are used to compare and contrast the damage seen on 11 September ... but don't forget the average crashed plane is actually trying NOT to crash, so may be flatter, pulled up at last minute, lower speed or whatever the pilots can try to do, whereas the planes on 11 September were deliberately crashed (pointed down, high speeds or whatever). So maybe the outcome would look different.
13. Why stage Flight 93? If it was part of the plan why let the Whiite House off? If it wasn't, why pretend it's crashed at all?
14. If the phone calls from Flight 93 were stage, why make them so shite? So far as I know shitty actors can still find work in The Bill and Eastenders ...
15. None of the "evidence" presented had anything approaching a reliable chain of continuity / integrity and, hence, could not be relied upon as being what it appeared to be.
And finally:
16. Despite the occasional inclusion of the official report into the events of that day there was NOT ONE attempt to link anything in that report with any of the outstanding issues, as either an explanation or yet more confusion. Why not? Surely there must be SOMETHING in there, relevant to at least SOME of the points raised in the film?
