Personally I find the oddities about the planes and the crash physics of those planes in New York on 9/11 utterly compelling. I think there is definitely something up. I don't believe it is straight forward. I don't believe they were the planes we were told that they were. The transcripts of the phone calls made from those planes reveal those people were knowingly taking part in a drill, the testimony of witnesses present at the airport from which those planes departed reveal it was not those planes the crashed in New York, the astounding flying capabilities of both the pilots and the planes themselves reveal nothing about the official story regarding either is true... etc, etc. Like I said, many oddities. Very compelling ones.
I don't know the answer, but I entertain different theories: from the seemingly simple to the seemingly "sci-fi". However, there is one set of theories I no longer entertain - (though I did for a time) - those theories laid out in the film (and it's addendums) September's Clues. I bring it up because I see people mentioning it here.
Anyone who uses these films as evidence of the oddities of the planes (and events in general) in New York on 9/11 should be warned - those theories are fraught with blatantly false info, both accidental mistakes and what can only be described as intentionally misleading.
Granted, there are some interesting points made, and even one or two genuine new insights of note - but they are actually in the film's small asides - the main thesis of the films - that the planes in all the videos were added by chroma-key or other special effects methods - that none of the live footage from television or recorded footage from witnesses is true or accurate or real - that all this footage has been interfered with either live or in post-production - those theories completely fail under analysis.
Anyone who still subscribes to September's Clues / Simon Shack's theories should spend some time watching these videos listed below, made by other 9/11 truth researchers who saw the flaws in Simon Shacks work and decided to call him out on them. They even point out that Shack/Hytten was aware of some of the issues before hand (parallax distortion for example) as evidenced in his youtube comments, and yet chose to ignore when he came to make his videos.
Simon Shack BUSTED!!! Parallax 4U - By Eugene Debs
"Pat The helicopter" Is Visible In The Chopper 4 Video - Simon Shack Debunked!!!!
Analysis of Simon Shack's September Clues Addendum "PAT the Helicopter" Missing In The News Footage
September Clues "BUSTED" By Anthony Lawson Nov 2007
September Clues Addendum DEBUNKED!
I also highly recommend following this Bitchute channel and watching all the videos that get archived there:
I found all the above videos there, which have all been nuked from youtube for many years - and yet I believe September Clues is still up there... that ought to tell you something. Personally I believe Simon Shack/Hytten is either a sponsored disinfo person tasked with hijacking the thought process of people who see oddities with the planes - he certainly has dubious familial connections with the UN and the European Space Agency for starters - either that or he is just a shallow person who was more focused on making a shocking and entertaining film series rather than attempting to reveal the truth.
This video doesn't put any of the existing doubts about the planes to rest. There's no new info in this video, just a different angle on the same action that's seen in every other video. In fact the plane isn't even seen in as great detail as in multiple other pieces of footage I can think of.
This started for me from doubting the planes we saw were the planes we were told that they were.. I now think the more sensible researchers dismissed absolutely everything that was told by authorities on 9/11 and start from scratch. Such as the planes. We have no way to tell, aside from authority telling us, and planted "evidence", that those 2 planes that hit the towers are the passenger planes they say they were. "no planes" is a stupid term - better I think is a label like "weird planes" or even "fake planes".
There are documents going back years prior to 9/11 that show there has been enormous military interest and investment in finding away to make eye witnesses believe they are seeing something which is either not there or its appearance is enhanced or partly faked. Some of that research was concerned explicitly with faking some aspect of the appearance of planes in the sky.