Perhaps you keyed into this: It would have been impossible to get a good version LIVE and close up.

I remember it as you saying it would've been ridiculously difficult to fake the live footage that we saw, and that therefore the objects were probably real. You also mentioned your background as a professional animator. So when I started reading the above post, it seemed like a reiteration of the same point, but then instead you're saying that (some type of) fakery is "VERY possible". So maybe I misread your post in the past. I know your stance is that there were real objects, but does it sound like you to have emphasized the impossibility of live fakery in conjunction with your background in animation?

Obviously the animation teems would need a direct interception feed, all the proper gear, setups, etc, and a slight delay to render and re-feed. People watching on TV wouldn't notice a minute long delay.

Oh yeah, that's a good point. I never thought of that.

They would have the luxury of time to get it reasonable correct.

It's important to note that they didn't just get it reasonably correct, but entirely. The trajectory of the "plane" matches up completely between all the footage.

I also have serious doubts about how realistic this scenario is, but it's not just whether or not they could 'pull it off'. I also have doubts about the idea of a group of people employed by news corporations who are in on it and would come together to produce fake live footage. The news is, of course, 100% compromised and a key part of these psyops, but it's more subtle than this and it's always a matter of being selective in what subjects or perspectives are covered, presenting it in a manipulative way, not being critical, omitting certain details, etc. People deliberately airing footage which they know is being manipulated is something entirely different. It's a tough call, because they have most certainly done the most outrageous things. Here's the thing, though. When I first learnt that BBC World News covered the collapse of Building 7 a half hour beforehand as if it had already happened, I jumped to the conclusion that the news anchors were literally in on it. It was only later that I discovered that the woman who was covering that would later learn that WTC7 was there in the background, and that she had to be institutionalized because of the shock she underwent. It appears that she became conspiracy aware during that period, and that she had no idea what she was covering back in 2001; she was just reading from a script. (On a sidenote: her being institutionalized is suspicious. Was the shock really that big, or was this used to silence her?)

And beside that particular anchor: I also assumed the existence of that script beforehand implicated BBC World News, but then I learnt that local feds had evacuated the area, saying "they have to pull down the building", and that the BBC had simply picked up on that rumour which was already spreading around. (They picked it up falsely, thinking it had already been pulled, but such a mistake is completely natural.)

I'll give you my impression overall impression of the event, by the way. I think there were definitely objects flown into the buildings, but that they weren't passenger airliners. Rather, they were both either homing missiles surrounded by a hull that makes them look like passenger airliners, or drones that resembled them. The case for homing missiles is that both "planes" flew a trajectory consistent with a 'calling station' (not sure about the proper terminology) inside WTC7. One of them flew toward that point, the other flew over it. The evidence for that would've been destroyed alongside WTC7 later during that day, so it would've been save for them to apply this method. (Those objects had nothing to do with the collapse of the buildings, of course; it was a controlled demolition in all three cases.)