The moon landing was done on a sound stage.
I'd prefer an on point insightful response if you've got one.
Why people respond with automatic/kneejerk denial is fully addressed in the video .
Well, I just watched the video. I have to say that I am stunned. I don't really know what to think after watching, and after being shown something that challenges the story.
Some of the first conspiracy videos that came out tried way too hard to explain certain aspects of how everything was accomplished, so they lost me. This video was compelling from a scientific perspective.
The thing that enters my mind, is motivation, and who would be involved in such a thing.
jets, this is old news now obviously, and the considered voices of the vid have more legitimacy than the rushed blizzard of wild conjecture that first stormed the web re this topic.
However, amidst the years of crazy conspiracies, much pertinent questioning was drowned out.
It always seemed to me that the most automatic ploy (if this is a conspiracy) would be to minimise the chance of accurate voices (accurate by considered analysis or wildest guess ....doesn't matter) being heard, by filling the world with as much bizarre and ridiculous noise (read truly stupid conspiracy ideas) as possible.
I have watched (as a hobby) this entire thing unfold on the web since the event.
Some vids that I have seen raising some questions certainly raised issues that I've had to reward with a "interesting that that has not been answered" point or two.
Regarding who benefits jets, there were early vids discussing this very question. They in themselves were compelling.
What I've found most compelling is the sheer volume of circumstantial evidence, of conflict of interests, of suspiciously fortuitous outcomes, of improbabilities, and now with the OP vid re-visiting and re-assessing and fundamentally questioning the governments' story regarding the real-world physics/chemistry of the event, I find myself yet again wondering why these questions were not fully addressed and laid to bed by the official inquiries.
I have not kept the early links, but web trawling will find you innumerable "questions" regarding motive, beneficiaries, etc etc
here's the 9-11 conspiracy in under 5 minutes (barely scratches the surface)
Another thing that I am not surprised at is the abuse to which those who ask questions about this are subjected. It only serves the purpose of the proposed conspirators to establish the automatic condemnation and belittlement of anyone asking questions.
Of course conspiracy is part of our monkey nature, and to make "conspiracy theorist" a pejorative is absolutely classic 1984.
Anyway, the enthusiasm, zeal and the inaccuracies and manipulation of information to labour a point are pathetic sins that the theorists are every bit as guilty of as the best propagandists, but the sheer volume of WTF illogics, inconsistencies, staggering coincidences, just wont disappear.
I remember an early series of questions that asked about where supposedly "actual" footage was shot on the day.
The POV was traced to where the camera person must have been to capture the images, and some image captures were completely inexplicable, in that you would've needed to be X-feet up in the air mid-lake to actually get the shot.
Also a particular NY building seemed to be missing from the shot, and the research showed that just "coincidentally" that particular building was incorrectly coded in google world map and thusly showed only a flat footprint (no height), not the required 3D form to include it in the footage.
Or the audio visual amateur footage that supposedly showed the visual explosives impact from X miles away, where the visual impact moment is simultaneous to the sound. Fuck the laws of physics.
I remember agreeing that the simplest way to debunk these quandaries is for the TV studio's to name the camera persons involved. Those persons could then hose down the stupid doubts.
Was any camera person revealed? .....No.
Who benefitted ? http://www.globalresearch.ca/9-11-who-really-benefited