yankee451, please address the comments I made about this article, earlier:

Importantly, this document only lists one thing that could go wrong if they don't use planes. There are, in fact, MANY things that could go wrong:

2) The people who did the CG artistry would show the world how they did it. If they couldn't take home the actual work files, they could re-create them if they are really that talented. (And, many in the industry are freakin' show-offs, you know!)

3) The staff of the TV production companies could alert everyone else that they were instructed to rehearse, then fake the disaster. There are thousands upon thousands of them, you know.

4) The timing of releasing the faked footage would be extremely tight, for something that needs to be rushed out in perfect visual order. Workflows and pipelines would need to be extremely refined and optimized across many departments for something like that to happen. A LOT could go wrong in that chain, to throw the whole thing off.

5) They would need to insert fake plane parts into the wreckage without being noticed, after the buildings came down, for clean up crew to find; adding another complication.

6) What if the volunteer staff of the clean up crew starts finding missile fragments? You have to clean up the mess, to remove all of those, before you have people cleaning up the mess!

7) You have to fake the identities of ALL of the passengers who were killed, and hire actors to play their distraught friends, family members, and co-workers. Without arousing any suspicion.

Etc. I think others on this thread could come up with even more.

This makes no sense to me.

Why would the perps care if any passengers survived, to tell the world what they saw?! They saw their plane being hijacked... which is exactly the story the perps wanted to convey!


The REAL problem with using planes is that the passengers might protest, and take the hijackers down before the plane reaches their target... which did happen to one of them, in fact.

But, that was only after the first three crashed into their targets. Before that, it was plausible for the passengers to think that the hijackers weren't on a suicide mission.

Thank You.

Also, how were they expecting any passenger to survive? Just step out into a hallway from the plane? It's not a crash landing. It's just a crash. It's not a horrible parking job.

While someone walking away from Shanksville could happen, but flying into a building at top speed?

So worrying about passengers is just stupid, for more than you explain.

There is a fascinating underlying issue here: The Rapid Advance of Technology.


Steve's fantasy would - technically - be easier to pull off in 2020, but back on 2001 that software was still mostly exotic and lived at very few production houses in the US, Europe, India, Japan, and Korea. We're talking terabits of data on dedicated servers, almost always Apple products.

The CGI world back then was a tight-knit community, many artists knew or knew of one another, and often could spot one another's handiwork. If Steve's theory was real someone would have spotted it and pointed it out. None of the 9-11 videos show CGI enhancement, which can easily be detected going frame-by-frame.

By 2010 you could download apps on your iPhone that would allow you to crash a tank through whatever wall you pointed your camera phone at and then share the footage with friends for a good laugh. It's good enough to fool people for a few seconds. I think they even did a plane crash at one point. Point being that the iPhone has only been around since 2007. Think about your desktop or laptop computer you had on 9-11-2001 and then compare it with the one you're reading this on now...assuming you're even using a computer and not your phone or tablet or Chomebook. The danger we all face when assessing technical issues of our recent past is to assume that something that is possible on a 2020 computer was possible on a 2001 computer.

I predict that Technical Archaeology will be the next growth industry as the legal and law enforcement worlds work to solve mysteries of high-tech wrong doings. Just as people have incorrect assumptions about Crime Scene Investigations due to popular TV, Movies, and books juries will wrestle with their assumptions about what was possible and impossible only ten years ago.

And don't even get me started on Deep Fakes...:thumbsup:

Which is why they had to kill Steve Jobs. Not right away, but slowly, and almost a decade later.

This always amuses me, to some degree. Kill thousands of people to enact some secret policy? Yeah, no problem. We'll get right on that. Lone crackpot on the internet exposing us? Doesn't disappear? Not buying it.

Evidently the industry isn’t as independent as you think it is. It was a military operation run from the top of the global power structure. Who would you blow the whistle to if you had a change of heart? These are people who own nations. They have armies and navies, unlimited resources and intelligence services. They all keep quiet about their nefarious activities, but let’s say 9/11 was somehow different. Who would you turn to if you wanted to blow the whistle?

Why would any of them alert anyone? They were just as duped as the rest of us. It’s not like a camera man is going to know the news reader he’s filming is reading from a false script. Even the news reader wouldn’t know. By the time anyone got it figured out it, as Holmgren said, the Sheeple factor had already set in. No one wants to go against the crowd. Anyone who has actual proof will know that to speak out would be the last thing they do.

The timing would have been simple. As explained in the OP, the handful of shots that were broadcast live would only require a matter of seconds to edit. They already had a CGI animation of a plane with a transparent background that they overlaid on the “live” footage of the explosion. Only those people who needed to be involved in the editing would need to know everything, everyone else would just do as they were told, read the scripts, and react accordingly. The independent media aren’t as independent as you think.
It was a huge operation being run from the top of the global power structure. Finding a few guys to pose as FBI or NYPD (or real, corrupt ones) to plant plane parts would be no sweat. No one questions a man in uniform.
Who would recognize a missile fragment over a jet fragment? If they did, what do you think they would do, sneak it out in their backpack? Do you think they let volunteers wander in and out at will?

Golly, faking a few dozen identities and backstories would require the help of an agency of spies or something.


I’m sure they couldn’t care less.
If planes could do such a thing, then surely they would have used them. If planes did do such a thing, then the damage would be consistent with it. This is why the damage evidence trumps your incredulity.

Can't do physics, so you make up stupid stuff?
 

Oh? This is dumber than dirt. Why do you make up real stupid stuff?

What does this load of delusional fantasy and lies have to do with the videos you failed to prove were fake with your silly tripod plot of woo.

You have failed to provide evidence the videos were fake and you have no clue what a 767 impact at the WTC would look like, or a missile impact would look like. A triple fail born in fantasy based on paranoia and hate of your fellow Americans as you continue to mock the murder of thousands by 19 terrorists on 9/11.

Finding some corrupt and yet completely trustworthy people. Yes, that would be easy. Corrupt and trustworthy always go together

They also need to find a team of missile experts who are prepared to commit a serious crime against their country and never, ever mention it.

A team of CGI artists who are prepared to commit a serious crime against their country and never, ever mention it.

Two major airlines and a large section of their employees who are prepared to commit a serious crime against their country and never ever mention it.

It adds up. Hundreds of people from different walks of life who have no morals and yet can be completely trusted to keep a secret. Real easy to find them. And don't forget if they ask someone to do this and they refuse, they would have to trust them to never mention the fact (or kill them).

It would be much easier for this global power structure to find a handful of Islamic fanatics to hijack a plane and crash it into a building and have no loose ends.
Another difference between Americans and Australians I suppose. You don't paint a very prepossessing picture of Americans, do you?
And then hiring a bunch of actors to pose as their relatives and maintain this fiction for the rest of their lives and hope no-one recognises them.
And, as I said, it is.

Remember you are basing this entire improbable tale of yours on your personal incredulity that a piece of cladding would be cut almost all the way through, rather than all the way through.

Even though you can't say why you don't think this can happen.

Even though you have been shown over and over again how it can happen.

I think you don't quite understand how Conspiracy Theory works.

When irrefutable evidence is provided that debunks the Theory, the correct response is, not to acknowledge that the theory is wrong, its to expand the theory to ever greater stretches of credibility and complexity, involving more and more people, to effectively debunk the evidence, and then lie about that evidence in an attempt to use it to try to debunk the debunkers.

That last part is precisely what yanke451 has done here

"If planes did do such a thing, then the damage would be consistent with it. This is why the damage evidence trumps your incredulity. "

This is pure, unadulterated bollocks. The damage evidence is overwhelming, clearly shows beyond any doubt whatsoever that it was not just planes, but Boeing 767s that slammed into the towers....

https://www.dropbox.com/s/9ye6lsop9n...rlay.gif?raw=1

... the trick for the CT is to not only deny that the evidence shows what it does, but to actually lie about it, and claim this evidence shows the opposite of what it actually shows. Then, against all objections, keep repeating the lie over and over until opponents give up.

Oh here we go.

Who are "These People"? Do they have a name? Do they have a mailing address? Where are their "Armies" and "Navies" based? Why don't they have an air force?

What are their nefarious activities? Is there a list (guys like you always have a list)?


Not everyone waits fifteen years to let some moron on a conspiracy website to tell them what they think.

Based on what? How many hours have you spent in the newsroom of any TV or Newspaper, Steve?

Those TV anchors have directors and producers and editors who were all on the phone with their beat reporters downtown, and receiving calls from hundreds of independent sources on 9-11.

Holmgren doesn't believe in evolution. Just because some clown in Australia can't figure NYC out doesn't make him right, it makes him a potential 12-step candidate.

And when was the last time someone who had proof of some government wrong-doing was taken out? Did Bradley Manning die in custody? What about Snowden? Why is he still alive?

Give us a break.

That's not how it works.

And there would have been close to 100 people.

More independent than you are.

Then why not minimize risk and just get some guys to hijack commercial jetliners? How would morons rise to become a global power if 9-11 was anything like the clown-show you've described?


Proof you've never been to New York.

Clearly not you.

I'd love to meet the man who can lug a Pratt & Whitney engine away on his back and I'd love to see that backpack.



Well they did...so you fail...


And which spy agency would that be exactly?


And it was.

No, just your inept interpretation of the damage. The real world is still safe from Steve Science.

Still, I love it that my sister is a henchman (henchperson?) of the global power structure. I wonder what the salary is.

What you are proposing requires TOP talented computer graphics artists!

If it was solely a military operation, there is a significant risk that the effects won't look real.

It is something that could go wrong, that was omitted on your list.

According to your plan, the TV crews are explicitly being told to rehearse camera shots for an epic disaster of some sort.

You mean the hundreds of crew members and their managers? With material evidence that they went out to rehearse shots?! You don't recognize that as a substantial exposure risk?

The article is going to sweep this whole aspect of something that could go wrong, by simply saying "nah, they won't tell anyone"?!

Would a criminal mastermind take that kind of risk?!

Making it look real enough to fool the world would require much more than a few seconds, you know. Even if they had the ingredients in front of them.

Plus, the time it takes to deliver the finished product to a live broadcast. It would require syncing several teams, which is NOT impossible....

...but, there is a risk that something that could go wrong along the way. Live TV is very easy to flub.


The larger it is, the more exposure risk there is.

Isn't there a risk that witnesses would see them planting pretty obvious evidence of airplane parts into the wreckage?! Would a true criminal mastermind be dumb enough to take it?

Why leave open the possibility that something could go wrong, here?!

Apparently, it's easy enough that conspiracy theorists, like the ones you follow, can claim to do so!

You would have lots of volunteer clean up crews reporting to everyone they knew that they saw missile fragments in there, at the very least.

Why take the risk that something like this could go wrong?


There were 265 passengers on those planes. You would also need hundreds or thousands more to fake the grief they felt at losing their loved ones on those planes.

That is a LOT of people, and it's weird to assume nothing could go wrong with that.

Then why did the article bring it up?

So, you're saying it's not even possible for planes to hit buildings?

But, it is more likely that literally thousands of people were involved in rehearsing shots, producing expert CG effects, running them through live TV, planting plane parts, and faking the grief of all those who lost loved ones on the planes, without ever anything at all going wrong in any of those steps?!


The damage evidence looks a lot like a plane collision, though, doesn't it? Why is that?

How does that compare to the quality of evidence you can provide for the outline of steps you proposed? Can you show me specific documents for how a TV studio could prepare for such a conspiracy? How they would organize all of their teams so that no one is the wiser that something sinister is going on? Has anyone come forward with such evidence, perhaps?

I suppose I should have guessed from those bad-tempered sea bass in her swimming pool.

Wait... So the newsrooms are an arm of the military, but only some people in the newsroom know that they are an arm of the military?

As I said before, if someone had said on the 10th September 2001 "Tomorrow you will hear on the news that both of the WTC towers have been hit by 767-200 jet liners" and on the 11th September 2001 they hear on the news that both of the WTC towers have been hit by 767-200 jet liners then everyone would know that the person was telling the truth and not insane.

The people who allegedly faked the videos would have to know exactly what kind of event they were to fake well beforehand and what kind of aeroplanes would be used. The people who allegedly planned the missile attach would have to know exactly what they were to fake well beforehand and what kind of aeroplanes would be used.

So hundreds of people would have had a reliable way of exposing the plot if they wished.

All of this we are expected to believe on nothing else than Steve's personal incredulity that a piece of cladding was only mostly cut, or that some pieces of cladding were knocked a certain way.

Honestly, of all the 9/11 twoofer nutjobbery, no-planers take the prize for the most stupid.

It takes a breathtaking level of cognitive dissonance and and sheer stupidity to believe that it was anything other than airliners that hit the towers.... FFS, this happened in the middle of one of the world's biggest cities, during rush hour - tens of thousands of people saw planes - not on TV, not in a later broadcast, but live, at the time and in person. They were eye-witnesses.

No-planer Kryptonite. Avoid or downplay, but never, ever, adequately address.

Asserted without evidence.

Oh, I don't know. Maybe they could set up their own website, and then go on skeptics' forums? No, that's too crazy. No-one would think of doing that. :rolleyes:

Which nations do you claim are 'owned' by this group?

Been asked before, but where are these resources? Where are these armies and navies based?
Not quiet enough, apparently, as you seem to know all about them.
How do you know what you claim you know? Where did you get this information?

The 'sheeple factor' is an invention of conspiracy theorists. No such thing actually exists. Plenty of people have spoken out against oppressive regimes, and this is still going on today. Tibet, Iran and Hong Kong are some obvious examples.
That said, perhaps they are scared. Have you contacted any of them?

Apart from you, that is. And all the other truthers, whose theories you may reject, but who are still speaking out. How strange. It's almost as if that's yet another unfounded assertion.
Oh, wait- it is.

Please quote a qualified expert in this CGI technology, saying that what you are claiming was at least technically possible in 2001. Otherwise, this is yet another unsupported assertion.


Well, it seems that unqualified amateurs like you can differentiate missile damage from plane damage, so perhaps it's not so hard.

So they faked a method that was totally impossible, in order to construct a plausible scenario to cover their real actions.
Ridiculous.
Any luck with that explanation about the relative sizes of the missiles and the gaps, yet? Still waiting...

Well, despite the threat of all the world's armies and navies arrayed against you by the Global Power Structure, here you are spilling the beans on the internet without so much as a drone strike on your house. So I'm going to say whistleblowers would use the internet.

But just to unpack your paranoid fantasy a little, if the world is not as we imagine and there really is someone in charge directing it all, why do we have all those armies and navies at all? They're designed for fighting each other, as surely as form follows function. So, how does that work in your delusionary world, where countries do not act independently but are puppets for some hidden overarching authority?

Also I'd be eager to learn more of the history of this Global Power Structure. When was it created and how? Was it around throughout the 20th century, so all those millions who perished in "wars" were just unwittingly playing a game to entertain their secret overlords? Was it in control of the 19th century too? How about the 18th century? Is there one supervillain in charge with a cool secret base, or a (what's a good word?) cabal of sinister guys in hoods, with flaming torches on the walls? Or do they just meet up by secret submarine at Jeffrey Epstein's island for the occasional week of coke and hookers to see who can come up with the funniest, dumbest thing to make the human race do?

I am eager to know. The world deserves to know. You can blow the lid off the whole thing right now. Let us rise up against our imaginary overlords who taunt us by making the world look as if nobody is in control. Tear down this evil edifice, and let's get back to a world in which there's genuinely nobody in control.

But would they have what it takes to dispose of a single crank on the internet? A coverup like that would be impossible. Do you know how hard it is to make it look a drone strike look like a gas leak? The CGI costs alone are staggering. And to get the local news to read the right scripts. And the local fire marshal to cover up the investigation? It would be an expensive operation to say the least. Sure, we could put some C4 on the gas line, but where is the fun in that. We need hundreds of moving parts that would expose us all if just one of them failed. Compared to bringing in some outside Mercs to dress up like a local utility and plant a bomb. Nope, drone strike and cover-up. That is how we roll.

The fact that Yankee can "expose" the entire operation without fear of actual reprisal, but those who took part would be so hamstrung that can't utter a peep defies logic. They could do exactly what he is doing, but with facts and some actual knowledge.

Your mistake is in assuming wars are ever fought for the stated geopolitical reasons.

The real reason we have wars is nothing more than to justify the existence of standing armies. We are sold on them to defend us from foreign invasion, but in reality it's to maintain the means of control; standing armies that can be turned on their populations to keep them in line. It's also why jingoistic worship of the troops themselves is encouraged. Support the troops and you're 90% there to supporting whatever they're doing, even when it's putting you and your neighbors under martial law.

There are other reasons too. Wars make it easy to transfer wealth around and to punish people who don't get with the program. They're also good for advancing new technologies when the private sector can't quite do it on its own. We went from purely military GPS to ubiquitous cell phones where we all voluntarily have all of our movements and communications monitored by a central authority in just a few decades. Could that have been done without the universal threat of war?

The point is it doesn't necessarily serve our masters interests to be efficient on our governing.

Well, they probably regard people like Yankee as just some fringe, crackpot nutjobs on the internet who nobody believes or takes much notice of anyway.

....Oh, hang on!

They dispose of 'em down a disused mine, colloquially known as the crank shaft.

Where did he assume that?

I can't find that assumption anywhere in what he wrote.

I''m reminded a bit here of Thomas Pynchon, one of the great literary inventors of conspiracies, who, as I recall, in Gravity's Rainbow, suggested that wars are fought largely to reallocate resources among powerful corporations. In other words, the wreckage is the object.

If this was true, then why the need for the elaborate plot?
If the purpose was to drum up public support for an invasion of Iraq, why would they need public support? Having armies, navies, unlimited resources, and owning entire nations, surely they could just invade without having to jump through all these hoops?

But yankee451 has already told us that Iraq was also controlled by the Global Power Structure, so a bigger question might be what was the point of making one controlled nation invade another controlled nation?

In the end it just looks like moving game pieces around the board and smashing stuff up for fun. When you're the Global Power Structure, you're not competing with anyone. It must be tough to retain any motivation. I wonder why they don't just come out in public and declare themselves Princes Of the World in Perpetuity and have us all worship them. What's the point of controlling the world if you can't enjoy it?

In their subvolcanic lairs they chortle creepily.

Well, quite. They're under a volcano and I'm up here enjoying the fresh air and a welcome bit of winter sunshine. Ruling the world seems like a bit of a gloomy chore, frankly.

And where's the joy in being in charge of everything when Rule 1 of being the Global Power Structure is that you must remain undiscovered so you always have to make it appear exactly as if nobody was in charge of everything?

It's almost as if the Global Power Structure was nothing more than somebody's seen-too-many-movies paranoid fantasy. If it wasn't for yankee451's selfless whistleblowing, we might well continue in our delusion that there's no sinister organisation really controlling the world.

Skulking tadpole to Head Chortler one: the plan is working perfectly, over



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I made this point earlier. There was a cease fire between Iraq and, well, most of the world. Generating violations of that cease fire would have been magnitudes easier than the fakery being alleged here. Planting weapons grade uranium and let the UN detectors discovery it, simple. Protest that the US planted it? Laughed off. Doesn't requires a magic missile, tech that doesn't exist or anything else.

Not only do you have to generate thousands of dead people, who never existed before, and you can't use real pictures since someone would notice good ol' Bob, who you went to HS with now listed as a passenger or stock trader under an assumed name, and then hire multiple thousands of actors to fill the roles of husbands, wives, kids of Good ol' Bob and not have them recognized as the relatives of someone who is still alive.

Also, skilled enough actors to fake grief, but no so they haven't been in any production found in IMDB, and never will. Or a playbill anywhere near Broadway. And then pay them enough, or dupe them hard enough that they won't let out a peep, even anonymously on the internet.

Seems legit. Much easier than just killing a few random thousand people.

Every time Iraq fired a missile at one of the planes enforcing the No-Fly Zone they risked an invasion. People forget that. And they shot at our planes for ten years. Clinton could have used an incident to invade Iraq during his impeachment but he didn't. Early in 2001 George W Bush made noise about going after Saddam after an incident in the No-Fly Zone and his father dragged him to Camp David along with James Baker and some of Bush Sr.'s olf NSC to explain that invading Iraq was a stupid idea. That shut him up until fall of 2001 when W's NSC - a bunch of 911 Truthers - decided Iraq was ultimately, but secretly behind the attack in some way.

Bottom Line: 911 Truth kills.

Well, they would have to actually down a plane, or, even better, a civilian airliner. But the no fly zones weren't strictly part of the cease fire. WMD production was, and Saddam was playing a dangerous game trying to show he both was (to his enemies) and wasn't (to the rest of the world) his chemical weapons compliance.

Planting some dirty bombs of some kind would be trivial, compared to flying non-existent cruise missiles at the towers, and side swipe them, to make it look like a plane flying directly into it. Also, it would be easier to convince a few US agents that they could do this because it's an action against an actual enemy. Hey could you go in and plant this chemical weapon into this factory on the day before the inspectors show up? Is a far easier sell than can you generate this CGI and remove those missiles and rotoscope in a plane?

One of the central failures of 911 Truth logic is the very question you ask. Why would they go to such dramatic lengths to fake an attack and then fail to plant incriminating evidence in Iraq?

We actually have that capability. We have a stockpile of chemical weapons waiting for destruction in Utah, we have an Air Force with its own Special Operations branch which practices landing on remote country roads to deliver all kinds of goodies, and we have a dedicated US Army Psy-Ops unit. We had almost two years from 9-11 until the invasion, more if you believe it was an inside job, to pull a frame job on Iraq. But this didn't happen. Why commit a capital offense while leaving a gaping hole in your sooper seekreht evil planz?

The other good question Truthers never answer is: Why wire the buildings with explosives and then stage a plane crash? Why not just wire the buildings with explosives and flatten them without warning instead?

I don't know about you but that would be much more frightening on multiple psychological levels. The idea that someone could secretly rig a building to collapse would have had people refusing to go to work or travel in downtown areas for months while forcing cities and property owners to ad layers of new security to high rise buildings across the country. All while blaming Al Qaeda. Plus blowing up the towers unannounced would have killed 50,000 people and the logical question based upon America's actual response to 911 is what other civil rights would citizens have willingly signed away with that kind of body count?

But no, we get CGI planes and phantom, silent explosives and planted aircraft parts and smoke generators.:thumbsup:

The wiring of explosives with nobody noticing has always been a troubles point for the truthers. That includes WT7 which is not part of this thread bit is in the minds for say MJ for one.

I was at work when some jackass crashed his plane into an office in Austin. Granted, not the same city (at the time) but damn, that was an eerie ass day. I was working at the federal building in Oakland, on the 12th floor. Looking out the windows, made me feel a bit uneasy, to say the least. Also, knowing what I know about controlling an airspace, there is nothing that can really be done to protect a building from such an attack. Unlike some people, I do know a fair bit about missiles, radars and the like.

I doubt they would have let me set up even a battery of Sparrows on the roof. Could have done it with a single launcher, a CWAR, the HPIR, and a laptop. Stuff that was in the process of being decommissioned. For Anti Aircraft missile fans out there, I'm talking about the proposed, but never deployed Sparrow HAWK. But, you know, budget. Despite the Sparrow coming in at half the cost of the HAWK. Forest for the trees. Also, getting clearance to enforce a no fly zone around Oakland wasn't likely to happen. Even if I promised to only shoot down planes over SF. Or the bay.

No, I'm not in the pocket of Raytheon. Just trained on their products.

Plus with California gun laws there's no way they'd let you mount a pair of M-167 Vulcans on the roof either.

Everything is better with Vulcans.:D

Well, It would have been a federal installation. Could have gotten the radars and launcher system from Hayward, and a quick call down to Barstow for the ordnance. But, yes, that would have worked too. I do remember stories back in the day they put quad 50 cals on the HPIR, but I think the recoil would have compromised targeting effectiveness over time.

Time line would have worked, since it was being deprecated at the time of need. As we were switching to a Stinger platform. More missiles!
But a cannon system would be better for building protection. Missiles, while cool, are really for range. Also, as a missile trained AA guy I'd go with what I know. I'm fairly certain that I'd have to replace every window for a number of floors if they gave me my missile of choice (HAWK). It breaks the sound barrier in a hurry.

My point is that I've actual experience with missiles and am kinda familiar with how they work and how they could work. The notion that a missile would sideswipe a building is so ludicrous to anyone who knows anything is all but self debunking. They just don't work that way. And making them to work that way would be a challenge. Could one still in the design / shake out phase do it? No way. It would have to be already a solid product to be altered to work out of spec. Since it's not working in spec, this is a problem.

Oh do tell. I missed it. Did she witness the impossible with her very own eyes?