First up, anon from the previous comments section. I follow on.
"Let's take 9/11 one step further.
For starters, I have seen live video proving that no airliners hit the WTC towers, taken by a live NBC affiliate on that date.
When a person pulls their head out of their colon, and accepts the fact that the planes were photo-shopped on to the WTC videos (and rather crudely, in places) after the fact, and that there is a time delay between when things happen and when you see them on TV, it explains a number of things, such as:
1) Why there is no video of ANYBODY boarding any of the planes in question, at the boarding gates in question, at the airports in question, on the date in question. Additionally, the FBI stupidly claimed that 9 of the "Arabs" were sent to secondary security, due to "suspicion." If that's so, then why is there no secondary security video of any of them? Are they fucking vampires? And, if they went through this added security, then how could they have possibly taken all of the weapons and such on board that the government claims? And where are the private and federal lawsuits against the airports, airlines, and/or security company(ies) for allowing it to happen? Simple. There are no lawsuits because there is no video of them, and they didn't get those weapons on the planes, because they didn't get on the planes. This also explains why a number of the accused “hijackers” were subsequently found to be alive and living in other countries – quite a trick for a “suicide” pilot/hijacker.
2) Why they have never recovered any tail sections, any of the huge, 6-ton tempered-steel outboard engines (including the struts), any of the tubular steel seat frames, any of the passengers' corpses, any of their luggage, fuselages, the basically indestructible black boxes (which have ALWAYS been recovered before and since 9/11), etc. When planes of that type crash, they leave wreckage.
3) Why a woman who still lives in New York spent 5 years searching for relatives of 64 people on one of the obviously phony passenger lists, and even after hiring detectives, never found a single one.
4) Why Willie Brown and a number of clergy left San Francisco International Airport after a number of hours on that date, because not one family member/relative/friend ever showed up to inquire after any of the alleged passengers on "Flight 93."
5) Why NORAD never intercepted any of these "hijacked" airliners -- because there were none to intercept.
6) Why neither United nor American airlines has ever filed a loss claim for any one of those four flights.
7) Why there is no video of a 757 hitting the Pentagon.
8) Why, up until late 2004, as pointed out by a noted 9/11 researcher, the BTS web site showed that neither of the American flights were even scheduled to fly on that date. The BTS pulled the pages off-line and doctored them, later reposting them, but unfortunately for them, by that time, the original pages had been backed up and widely distributed over the Internet.
9) Why the FAA had the tail numbers of the 2 United flights registered as "valid," meaning that the planes were still in service, until September 28, 2005. The FAA only de-registered them after two other 9/11 researchers kept demanding to know why the planes were still registered as being in service, four years after both the federal government and the airlines had stated for the record that they were destroyed in a “terrorist” attack.
10) Why the FAA's own directory of pilots and their qualifications showed (at least a while ago; they've probably doctored that by now, just as they doctored the BTS web pages after the criminal implications were pointed out) that on 9/11, not one of the eight pilots alleged to have been in the cockpits upon takeoff had a current, valid commercial pilot's license."
Hullo again anon. Will you forgive me for declaring myself dubious on the no-planes thing? Perhaps it's the curious take-no-prisoners, fuck-the-lot-of-yers attitude of the no-planers? They remind me of Tasmanian Devils - they'll pick a fight anywhere, for any reason, and even amongst their own family (if you can dig it). I've yet to see one of them convince anyone of anything. Or even try really...
Furthermore I'm not quite sure what utility might be gained by dispensing with planes and utilising doctored footage that would necessarily be at odds with the numerous witnesses, particularly given that the remote control of civilian jetliners has been a simple reality since the late sixties. It's like the Apollo photos with the alleged mismatched shadows that supposedly have two light sources. Why bother using two when one would suffice and two would offer no perceptible advantage? This scores big in the what's the point? department.
I will concede some aspects of the no-plane case. Dave McGowan turned me around on the Pentagon. Prior to that I'd gone along with Mike Rivero and his numerous witnesses. McGowan did a number on the lot of them. And obviously there was no plane in that field in Shanksville (but there does seem to have been a debris field leading up to it). But as for the twin towers I've yet to see anything that made me think twice.
What does everyone else think? Are there any non-tasmanian no-planers out there?
Disinfo and psyops aside, here are my technical thoughts on the matter:
In Anon's spray, photoshop is the wrong word. Photoshop is for the manipulation of still images only. Moving footage would require a far more elaborate process. I can see two options.
Option 1 - A 3D plane comped into footage of an empty sky. Given the simplicity of a render involving a simple metallic object like a jet-liner (a render is the conversion of sundry algorithms and data into shiny complete footage), and given the grunt of computers nowadays (even in 2001), this is just feasible. It used to be that renders would take an hour a frame (and there's 25 frames in a second don't forget) but we've come a long way since then. Rendering gets closer and closer to real-time every day. Anyone who's played one of those new car-racing games and marvelled at how good it looks, you're looking at real-time rendering. It's not quite photo-real but it's not bad neither. Also in televised sports games, horse races, and swimming competitions it's possible to see various graphics comped real-time onto the field, or pool, or whatever. The camera pans to and fro but the graphics stick to the environment. Mind you, the 2D graphics that sports require is way simpler than any fully 3D jet liners. And the computer games involve their own series of cheats not available to people with real cameras in a real city. The problem with this option is the fact that eye-witnesses would have nothing to see. The planes would only exist on TV.
Hmm, thinks: Would a separate team be required for each separate shot? Or would each camera be able to plug into a central computer supporting a single 3D model that would be automatically comped into each camera's output? Nightmarish! And how to avoid having the plane appear over the various foreground elements of smoke etc? In the regular post-production world this would involve the manipulation of soft-edged mattes that would involve hours of work and absolutely smash the possibility of real time rendering. Furthermore, the requirements of coordinating CG animation with real world pyro is so fraught (certainly in real time) as to be, well... frankly impossible.
Option 2 - Some variety of projection with no comping necessary. God knows how this would work: an insanely powerful 3D projector (or a series of them) would throw a solid non-transparent image of the jetliner into the sky that would not only convince witnesses, but also cleanly transfer to film and television. It is true that were this possible it would simplify the whole process. One camera, a hundred cameras, witnesses in their thousands, who gives a shit? Mind you the problems I outlined above in regards to coordinating the timing of holographic plane with the non-holographic kerosene explosions are identical. Of course above all this lies not only the fact that no such thing is known to exist but I can't even imagine how it would work. Further, in some ways it reminds of that old chestnut you see in superhero movies - unbelieveable innovations that would make their inventor rich if only he thought of selling it. Like Spider-man's web shooters. Honestly, the guy is perpetually poor and it never occurs to him to sell these things? Okay, same-same for massive projectors that can mimic reality in 3D without a screen or anything. Never mind Mahathir saying that if they can make Avatar they can make anything: Avatar is a kind of false z-depth 3D (ie. if you go closer to the screen you won't see around the corner) and you have to wear special specs to even see it at all. A massive projector capable of fooling a city would be to Avatar what Avatar is to Indonesian shadow puppets.
But to hell with me! Pile in folks! Has anyone got any time for the no-plane gig?