jangbones - 2011-09-21
1. The host-slash-narrator is awful.
2. The first five minutes and twenty seconds of this thing is nothing but a trailer for the rest of the film. Get to the fucking point faster morons.
3. If I or any half-competent editor got a hold of this thing it would be sixty minutes long, without losing any content or context.
4. This film offers no evidence of anything. Not one piece of actual, confirmed evidence that refutes the official explanation is presented in this entire film.
P.S. FOR IDIOTS; "I don't understand why the building collapsed that way" is not evidence, its either ignorance or empty skepticism.
5. A first year investigator could find evidence of a demolition of any building, even if there were an active, well-financed cover-up undertaken. Yet none of these geniuses can find a thing.
6. Flash frame at 0:22:50.
|
|
Old_Zircon - 2011-09-21 Though on the other hand, one of them is an award winning geneticist. Surely that must count for something!
|
jangbones - 2011-09-21 I love how half the time the interview subjects desperately list their qualifications. "I'm a serious person! There are serious opinions! I mean it!!"
Really, skepticism by experts is the beginning of a meaningful conversation. Where's the rest of it?
|
|
|
| Register or login To Post a Comment |
Reddit
Digg
Stumble
Facebook