Why They Didn't Use Planes To Hit The WTC

May 31, 2007

Why They Didn't Use Planes To Hit The WTC

For those who ask:

(Video: Hezarkhani)

Here is why they didn't use real planes to crash into the WTC and used TV fakery instead:

GUARANTEED PENETRATION

Why do most of Americans still think planes brought down the Twin Towers? Because to them, the official story of why the Towers collapsed was believable. Large aircraft loaded with lots of fuel crashed into the Towers at high speeds and penetrated inside before exploding thereby causing extensive internal damage. Then the resulting fire weakened the steel causing the top sections to collapse down thereby pulverizing the rest of the buildings. Then debris from the falling North Tower pelted the WTC 7 causing massive structural damage and causing it to catch fire and eventually collapse.

A Boeing 767 allegedly crashing and causing this massive explosion in the South Tower.

North Tower collapsing partially on the WTC 7.

Most people who believe 9/11 was an inside job probably believe that the WTC 1, 2, and 7 were pulled (i.e. brought down by some kind of controlled demolition method) and therefore should also agree that the collapse of all three of these buildings was arguably the most important goal of the perps that day.

All seven buildings of the WTC lie in ruins.

For 9/11 conspiracists who believe planes hit the towers, I would say that almost all of them believe these planes were flown by some kind of remote control or on-board computer guidance system and they either believe it was Flight 175 with all the passengers that was electronically hijacked similar to the Lone Gunmen 'Pilot' episode, or it was some kind of empty Boeing 767 drone painted in United Airlines colors.

So if crashing large aircraft loaded with fuel into the WTC was enough to make most people believe that planes crashing and fire caused the Twin Towers to collapse, what logic is there to argue no planes crashed there? It's quite simple actually.

'Penetration' is the Key

Look at some of the WTC crash videos. Observe not just that we see a plane crashing into the Twin Towers, but how these planes crashed into the towers:

Flight 11 supposedly crashing and penetrating all the way into the North Tower before exploding.

Flight 175 supposedly crashing and penetrating all the way into the South Tower before exploding. (Top video: Naudet Brothers. Middle: Evan Fairbanks. Bottom: Jennifer Spell. See all WTC crash videos here.)

The videos show that these planes that hit the towers supposedly at 470mph (Flight 11/North Tower) and 590mph (Flight 175/South Tower) penetrated all the way into the buildings which gave the perception that these planes were able to cause enough internal damage to cause both towers to collapse because the videos showed the world that these planes had penetrated all the way into the buildings before their fuel tanks exploded.

With the following questions, you'll understand why the perps could not have used real planes to make the official collapse theory believable:

• What if any of the planes missed hitting the towers? Do you think the perps would have pulled both towers? What if the plane aiming for the North Tower missed, you think the perps would still have pulled the WTC 7?

• What if the planes hit, but they mostly blew up on the outside? Would most reasonable people believe that planes mostly blowing up on the outside would be able to cause the towers to collapse? Just think of how many people at first questioned how the towers could have collapsed even though they saw the planes in the videos crash and penetrate all the way into the buildings. Imagine if the planes didn't penetrate enough of the way through? As one person accurately puts it, it is this penetration that the official story rests on and the perps had to use a method that would guarantee penetration into the towers.

• What if the perps used two drone 767's and any of them missed their targets or didn't completely penetrate all the way through the towers and pieces of it landed outside on the ground thereby exposing it as a drone? Game over for the perps.

• How could the perps be absolutely certain that Boeing 767's would not miss their targets and that their relatively delicate fuel tanks in the wings would be able to fully penetrate the steel facades and concrete encased floor slabs before exploding? Do you think the perps would trust that 767's would be able to penetrate through two buildings without doing a real world test run to see if they would be able to penetrate? Or do you think the perps actually built replicas of portions of the Twin Towers' facade and crashed 767's into them to see if they would actual penetrate inside before blowing up?

Only using computer generated imagery (CGI) of planes instead of real planes would guarantee penetration into the Twin Towers and since this operation would be done on a computer, the perps could rehearse their plan over and over and over again and the CGI plane would always penetrate through the WTC because you can make pixels do anything.

CGI planes "melting" into the WTC.

However, imagine the cost, time, complexity, and secrecy the perps would had to undertake from simulating real planes flown via remote control crashing into some kind of "WTC replica" over and over again until they could guarantee the planes would penetrate (if they ever could).Media Warned About TV FakeryAiring fake scenarios on TV is known as "TV fakery" (a term that has been used back since at least 1998). The concept of simulating a fake attack on computer and broadcasting it to the world is nothing new. The military had talked about using TV fakery well before 9/11:

INFORMATION WARFAREProf George J. Stein, AWCAirpower Journal - Spring 1995Let us take just one example of how current technologies could be used for strategic-level information warfare. If, say, the capabilities of already well-known Hollywood technologies to simulate reality were added to our arsenal, a genuinely revolutionary new form of warfare would become possible. Today, the techniques of combining live actors with computer-generated video graphics can easily create a "virtual" news conference, summit meeting, or perhaps even a battle that would exist in "effect" though not in physical fact. Stored video images can be recombined or "morphed" endlessly to produce any effect chosen. This moves well beyond traditional military deception, and now, perhaps, "pictures" will be worth a thousand tanks.

Digitally altering live TV events has been possible since at least 1998.

A winner of multiple Emmy Awards for technical achievement, the Virtual Yellow 1st and Ten Line makes use of Sportvision’s patented video overlay technology to create the illusion that a yellow first-down line is painted on the field, allowing players to cross over and stand on it. Invented by Sportvision and first introduced in 1998, 1st and Ten allows viewers to see the necessary distance for a first down as plays progress... - sportvision.com

The media has been informing us that the technical capabilities of using TV fakery in live broadcasts exist and have been warning the public about its use before 9/11:

When Seeing and Hearing Isn't BelievingBy William M. ArkinSpecial to washingtonpost.comMonday, Feb. 1, 1999A Box of Chocolates is Like WarMost Americans were introduced to the tricks of the digital age in the movie Forrest Gump [1994], when the character played by Tom Hanks appeared to shake hands with President Kennedy.For Hollywood, it is special effects. For covert operators in the U.S. military and intelligence agencies, it is a weapon of the future.

When TV brings you the news as it didn't happenBroadcasters are using virtual imaging technology to alter live broadcasts - and not even the news is safe from tamperingMonday, 24 January 2000independent.co.ukViewers tuning into American broadcaster CBS's recent news coverage of the millennium celebrations in New York witnessed a televisual sleight of hand which enabled CBS to alter the reality of what they saw. Using "virtual imaging" technology, the broadcaster seamlessly adjusted live video images to include an apparently real promotion for itself in Times Square. The move has sparked debate about the ethics of using advances in broadcast technology to alter reality without telling viewers that what they are seeing isn't really there.The technology to do this comes from the defence industry where, following the end of the Cold War, a number of companies have developed new ways of commercially exploiting their military navigation and tracking expertise.None of the companies will publicly discuss how their's works. But the principle is common: each alters the live video image in the split second before it is broadcast.

Lying With PixelsJuly/August 2000 (Updated)Seeing is no longer believing. The image you see on the evening news could well be a fake—a fabrication of fast new video-manipulation technology.By Ivan Amatotechnologyreview.comIn the fraction of a second between video frames, any person or object moving in the foreground can be edited out, and objects that aren’t there can be edited in and made to look real.~Compared to PVI’s job, the military’s technical task was more difficult—and the stakes were much higher... the TIGER team manipulated a live video feed from a Predator, an unmanned reconnaissance craft flying some 450 meters above Kosovo battlefields... the task was to overlay, in real time, “georegistered” images of Kosovo onto the corresponding scenes streaming in live from the Predator’s video camera. The terrain images had been previously captured with aerial photography and digitally stored.~It is perfectly possible now to insert sets of pixels into satellite imagery data that interpreters would view as battalions of tanks, or war planes, or burial sites, or lines of refugees, or dead cows that activists claim are victims of a biotech accident.~There’s a big difference now, says Haseltine: “What used to take an hour [per video frame], now can be done in a sixtieth of a second.” This dramatic speed-up means that manipulation can be done in real time, on the fly, as a camera records or broadcasts.~The combination of real-time virtual insertion, cyber-puppeteering, video rewriting and other video manipulation technologies with a mass-media infrastructure that instantly delivers news video worldwide has some analysts worried.“I’m amazed that we have not seen phony video,” he says, before backpedaling a bit: “Maybe we have. Who would know?”It’s just the sort of scenario played out in the 1998 movie Wag the Dog, in which top presidential aides conspire with a Hollywood producer to televise a virtually crafted war between the United States and Albania to deflect attention from a budding Presidential scandal. Haseltine and others wonder when reality will imitate art imitating reality.~Combine the potential erosion of faith in video authenticity with the so-called "CNN effect" and the stage is set for deception to move the world in new ways. Livingston describes the CNN effect as the ability of mass media to go beyond merely reporting what is happening to actually influencing decision-makers as they consider military, international assistance and other national and international issues. "The CNN effect is real," says James Currie, professor of political science at the National Defense University at Fort McNair in Washington. "Every office you go into at the Pentagon has CNN on." And that means, he says, that a government, terrorist or advocacy group could set geopolitical events in motion on the strength of a few hours' worth of credibility achieved by distributing a snippet of well-doctored video.~With experience as an army reservist, as a staffer with a top-secret clearance on the Senate’s Intelligence Committee, and as a legislative liaison for the Secretary of the Army, Currie has seen governmental decision-making and politicking up close. He is convinced that real-time video manipulation will be, or already is, in the hands of the military and intelligence communities.

Coincidentally, a mainstream network president had even warned in 2000 about fake plane crashes using CGI:

CBS Is Divided Over the Use Of False Images In BroadcastsPublished: January 13, 2000New York Times[Andrew Heyward, the president of CBS News,] said that he understood the argument against the use of the technology -- which is widely employed in sports and some entertainment shows -- on news programs. The danger is "that it looks too real and therefore it's wrong or potentially wrong," he said. "I certainly agree it's potentially subject to abuse."He noted that advances in computer-generated techniques had made things like missiles hitting Baghdad and airplanes crashing look so real that it was incumbent on networks to underscore that these were not real images.

Now we know that the military has talked about using TV fakery for psyop operations and that the technology to insert digital images into "live" TV broadcasts existed before 9/11. All the military had to do on 9/11 was control the TV airwaves and air a couple of videos showing an image of a plane looking like it crashed into the South Tower and if you need to control the media, what better way to do that than have your own people on the inside before 9/11:

Army 'psyops' at CNNNews giant employed military 'psychological operations' personnelPosted: March 03, 2000By Geoff Metcalfworldnetdaily.comCNN employed active duty U.S. Army psychological operations personnel last year, WorldNetDaily has confirmed through several sources at Fort Bragg and elsewhere.Maj. Thomas Collins, U.S. Information Service has confirmed that "psyops" (psychological operations) personnel, soldiers and officers, have worked in the CNN headquarters in Atlanta. The lend/lease exercise was part of an Army program called "Training With Industry." According to Collins, the soldiers and officers, "... worked as regular employees of CNN. Conceivably, they would have worked on stories during the Kosovo war. They helped in the production of news."~The CNN military personnel were members of the Airmobile Fourth Psychological Operations Group, stationed at Fort Bragg, North Carolina. One of the main tasks of this group of almost 1200 soldiers and officers is to spread 'selected information.' Critics say that means dissemination of propaganda.

TV TakeoverOn 9/11, the military took control of what would be shown on the major TV stations (ABC, BBC, CBS, CNN, FOX and MSNBC) and blacked out all the local NYC TV stations. Even though at least five national TV stations would be airing "live" footage, the military only aired footage showing a plane flying into the South Tower on three stations (ABC, CBS, and MSNBC) and only showed a total of four different clips showing a plane (the CBS footage showed two different clips of a plane).CNN just used part of the ABC feed.The BBC used all of the ABC feed.For FOX, the military didn't air any "live" footage showing a plane.This might have been because they were going to air this footage showing a plane crashing into the South Tower from the side, but they screwed up and the CGI plane went to far which showed the its "nose" exiting the other side of the building and the perps couldn't flip the switch fast enough to cut off the feed.

An analysis by Simon Shack shows that the object seen exiting the South Tower is the same shape as the nose of the "plane" about to hit the building:

(Full-length video)

If you notice on all of the four "live" clips (and even the fifth screw-up clip), none of these shots show the plane crashing into the side of the South Tower where the "crash" actually happened. They military simply aired views of the WTC which would show the plane disappearing behind the towers. The first videos showing a plane crashing into the "crash" side of the South Tower didn't air until much later.If the idea that the footage on 9/11 that you saw live on TV was faked still sounds absurd to you, such as the live shots taken from network helicopters, just look what happened recently at the past Olympics:

Beijing Olympic 2008 opening ceremony giant firework footprints 'faked'10 Aug 2008telegraph.co.ukWhat they did not realise was that what they were watching was in fact computer graphics, meticulously created over a period of months and inserted into the coverage electronically at exactly the right moment.~Meticulous efforts were made to ensure the sequence was as unnoticeable as possible: they sought advice from the Beijing meteorological office as to how to recreate the hazy effects of Beijing's smog at night, and inserted a slight camera shake effect to simulate the idea that it was filmed from a helicopter."Seeing how it worked out, it was still a bit too bright compared to the actual fireworks," he said. "But most of the audience thought it was filmed live - so that was mission accomplished."

Notice the "shake" in this live 9/11 MSNBC alleged helicopter shot.

Bewilderment from the PlanersFor the conspiracists who believe 767's hit the WTC, some even seem to agree that 767's could not have penetrated the Twin Towers and were baffled from what they saw on the videos (emphasis mine):

Then last on the list for the odyssey of Flight 175 is its peculiar entrance, and exit out of the world trade center. How does a plane which is 16 feet, 9 inches in diameter, made out of thin aluminum, tear through not just one set of tubular steel spandrel beams, spaced 39 inches apart, but two of them? Yet there is more. The floors of the WTC, are less than 12.5 feet between floor and ceiling. Which means this plane ripped through a minimum of TWO FLOORS of 209 feet of concrete, 4 inches thick, (with a 22 guage steel pan) and the planes cockpit and fuselage remained intact all the way back to the wing root, and made it clear through the building? Remarkable to say the least. Physically impossible to say the most.

To resolve their bewilderment, they had to created some elaborate theories of how these 767's could have fully and freely penetrated the tower's facades such as suggesting that the perps used thermite/explosives placed at the exact entry points the planes would hit to weaken the facade enough to allow to allow the planes to freely penetrate, saying that the perps used special 767 drones that fired a missile from its “pod” underneath it a fraction of a second before it hit to help the planes enter the facades, and some even suggest that these drones were specially made to cut through steel by being fortified with special materials, such as being lined with Depleted Uranium, or even, get this, fitted with explosive charges to help open the walls of the Towers.

Anthony Lawson, the 10% truther, thinks that the planes that allegedly penetrated through the Twin Towers could have been specially lined with Depleted Uranium and fitted with explosive charges.

Also, if the perps chose to use real planes, then only using the real Flight's 11 and 175 with all the alleged passengers on board would prevent the perps from being caught if one or both of the planes missed their targets, or didn't fully penetrate all the way into the building. However, they would still run the risk of not being able to pull the Twin Towers and WTC 7 if any of the two planes didn't crash the exact way they needed them to crash (i.e. penetrate all the way through so they blow up in the insides of both buildings) and that is something the perps could not afford to chance since collapsing the WTC 1, 2, and 7 was arguably the cornerstones of their diabolical plan.

Lastly, for conspiracists who believe the WTC was brought down with traditional explosives (i.e. bombs/thermite), do you really think crashing large planes loaded with fuel into two of some of the tallest buildings in the world you've just rigged with explosives for a controlled demolition would be a good idea? How would you know that crashing large planes into them wouldn't prematurely explode any of the critically placed bombs that might jeopardize the way you wanted the towers to fall or worse, might even prevent the towers from collapsing at all? Do you really think the perps wanted the towers to fall over like trees into the neighboring non-WTC skyscrapers? What if crashing a real plane into the North Tower caused it to collapse away from the WTC 7? Still think the perps would have pulled the 7?

Conclusion

Using real planes to crash into the towers and make it look believable that the planes crashed in such a way to cause enough internal damage to collapse the mighty Twin Towers and then shower debris onto the WTC 7 to give them an excuse as to why that huge skyscraper collapsed would be way too risky (if not impossible) and that's why they didn't use real planes to hit the WTC. On the other hand, if the perps simply made people on the ground and who were watching TV think that planes hit and penetrated into the Twin Towers, then they eliminated the risk of having to crash real planes into them.

Pulling off 9/11 has given the NeoCons/PNAC (or who ever you want to call the "powers that be") their ticket to continue the build-up of the military and create their never ending war on terrorism so they could invade the Middle-East (Afghanistan and Iraq) to further their quest for global domination by controlling the population and earth's vast resources. Using real planes left too much to chance. A missed target, or failed penetration would ruin all that 9/11 has given the perps. They had to use the least-risky viable option that would not only guarantee hitting their targets, but would also guarantee penetration into the buildings and that was TV fakery.

(Discuss this article at 911movement.org forum.)

See also:

• Why Use Real Planes? (video)
• Why They Didn't Use A 757 To Hit The Pentagon
• Why they didn't use planes - Gerard Holmgren

(Special thanks to The Quest for insights for this article.)

Posted by Killtown at 5/31/2007

moreless