I used to think the official story on 9/11 was solid, then I watched the 'Loose Change' cut next to the NIST report

For years, I just went with what the news said about the towers. It made sense on the surface. Then my buddy made me sit down and watch the 'Loose Change' documentary, the final cut from 2009. Right after, I pulled up the actual NIST report on my laptop. The difference was huge. The film throws out a lot of questions fast, like about free fall speed and the third building. But the NIST doc, all 10,000 pages of it, goes step by step with the fire tests and steel samples. One says 'look at this weird thing,' the other shows the math on why the beams failed. After 3 hours of comparing, I saw how the first one picks facts to fit a story, and the other builds the story from the facts. Has anyone else done a side by side like this and come away thinking one method was way more convincing?

2 comments

2 Comments

wren3013d ago

Oh man, my cousin went through the exact same thing last year. He got super into those videos, then actually read the NIST summary. He said the biggest thing was how the film talks about molten metal but the report shows the aluminum from the planes mixed with stuff from the offices made a much lower temp pool. Totally changed his mind.

alicebarnes3d ago

Yeah, that side by side comparison is a real trip. I mean, it's so easy to get swept up in the fast cuts and the questions in those films. But actually putting the NIST stuff next to it, all the slow boring details, makes you see how they leave so much out. It's like one is trying to sell you something and the other is just showing their work. Kinda makes you feel silly for ever buying the first one, but also relieved to have the full picture.