you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]LarrySwinger2[S] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

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.)

[–]JasonCarswell 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

it would've been ridiculously difficult to fake the live footage that we saw

True (impossible live) for the closer RECORDED shots (but could have been faked with time). Completely opposite (easy for a pro-team with proper setup) for the distant LIVE shots.

You remember very wrong. I've never changed my stance on this. IMO it IS technically possible that there were no planes and the video was faked - but I really really doubt it with so many eye witnesses, no convincing obvious giveaways in the video, etc. Special effects have a tendency to be amazing in the moment but often age poorly - that's a HUUUUGE risk, even among pros. So far the 9/11 footage holds up. The moon landing photos and footage do not.

The trajectory of the "plane" matches up completely between all the footage.

This is simple. Use a single animation setup with several cameras matched to their angle and optics. You'll never have a fuckup, ever. If the plane doesn't show up in frame due to the perspective angle, that's too bad, the physics must not lie, even if you want a "beautiful shot" or as a hoaxer-documentarian you'd be setting yourself up for failure when people analyze your work. Which leads us to another point...

(((They))) don't give a fuck. They lie and get caught all the time. They don't care. If it was faked and they got caught they would not care at all. So, back to the original premise: they would not be taking all the effort that I know it would take to get it so perfectly nailed down to reality, physics, flight paths, etc. They don't care. This professional animation team, their gear, the connections to the LIVE feeds, etc - might cost less than a couple airplanes, but you'd have to keep the secret, be 1,000,000% certain your CGI doesn't fuck up when live, etc. Not worth the risk, time, effort, etc. Just blow up the fuckers with a plane/drone and advance your military's real-world experience.

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.

They do that on the regular. Wag The Dog. But when you have so many, and animators too, it gets excessive - especially with the alleged 3k deaths and the start of the Global War Of Terror.

her being institutionalized is suspicious.

TIL about that after-event-story. I'd like to see more on that, but don't have time to research or read now. Further, if that story is out there, I wonder if it's even true. They could have 1) locked her up because she's crazy or might talk, 2) killed her and said she's locked up, or 3) said she's locked up but maybe she's just living a quiet life or even gotten plastic surgery to live another life.

my impression

Sound, rational, and agreed.

[–]LarrySwinger2[S] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

TIL about that after-event-story. I'd like to see more on that, but don't have time to research or read now. Further, if that story is out there, I wonder if it's even true. They could have 1) locked her up because she's crazy or might talk, 2) killed her and said she's locked up, or 3) said she's locked up but maybe she's just living a quiet life or even gotten plastic surgery to live another life.

And neither do I have the time to find my sources and you know why. ;) I think she was only locked up temporarily, by the way. I remember it as a few weeks, but of course I may remember wrong.