reply to post by magickmaster
Since my area of expertise is psychology/sociology, I will address the actor. Others with far better technical knowledge of photography, flight, and
engineering are members and can address the issues in their respective fields.
In looking at Gary Welz many things spring to mind. For example, in his interviews he says that he was in his apartment and heard
overhead. After that point there is a twist of logic done, by the purveyors of this theory, and they begin addressing the fact that he admits to
having not seen
an airplane. This is a total distortion of fact. Hearing and seeing are two different things.
But, for the sake of argument, let's go ahead and assume that Mr Welz has told more than one version of the story on public record. Even this
would not be evidence of conspiracy or wrongdoing - as it is a known fact that memories are notoriously bad record keepers, particularly when highly
stressful events are involved. We have a predisposition towards replaying traumatic moments in our minds over and over again... a process that leads
to embellishment and alteration of the memory. Ask anyone with PTSD and they'll probably tell you what I tell you - my memory of the event that
caused mine has changed drastically in the 28 years since it happened. I know this because I journal. And when I compare journal entries from
different periods of my life, I can actually see the progression and change in the memory itself. So a man giving more than one version of a
traumatizing event is normal. It just means he's been over analyzing it in his own thoughts.
Now, let's go one step further, and table the notion that Mr Welz is a flat out liar. Let's say that nothing he has said at all is true. What motive
could he possible have? I can think of at least one, off the top of my head, that differs from your OP's version, and which makes more sense. He is
an opportunistic sub-D-list actor who saw a shot at getting some media time. All exposure is good exposure... no such thing as bad press. Paydays are
paydays. So - even if he's the spawn of Satan and the most vile person to ever live, that evil does not support your theory any more than it supports
the one I just offered.
Critical thinking tells me that the most reasonable answer is the most likely answer. What's more reasonable? That:
1) A nobody D-list, video game actor is actually a holographic and CGI mastermind who helped to kill 3,000 people - and then actually risked it all by
giving television and radio interviews???
2) He's a slightly opportunistic guy who was there on 9/11 and sought out press coverage - even as his own memories were shifting and maybe he spoke
out line, deliberately or otherwise - in his pursuit to get some free publicity.
3) He's a total jerk who lied out of both sides of his mouth to try and further his career on the backs of 3,000 dead innocents.
My money says numbers 2 and 3 are far more likely than number one.
There's my modest, but fairly well informed and educated analysis of that aspect of your OP.