yankee451 wrote:the only way to guarantee that all the eye witnesses and their analogue cameras saw the same thing that everyone else saw would be to use real video with CGI planes.
As said a million times: it is not a matter of this or that video or part of a video that could be real. Of course if we want to nitpick we can always find a piece of video that looks realer and decide to hold on to that one. A really fruitless exercise that can, nonetheless, make for many pages of amusing or less amusing trolling.
The point is to realize that it is possible, technically possible, to fake the whole thing
. And, working on this premise, to demonstrate that, in fact, to fake the whole thing was the safest, most logical thing to do.
"Look at this video! Isn't this persuasive?!"
"Possibly. But could it be faked?"
"Well, technically, sure, but..."
"There you go."
Sure, probably the towers must had real smoke pouring out of them, probably generated by some smoking device (after all the empty towers could contain as many burning tires as needed), and, at least in sync with the second plane as shown in TV, probably there was also some explosion that simulated such event to the eye of the people in Manhattan.
However, there is no reason to think that the imagery shown on TV or later the internet borrows in anyway from this theatrical reality staged for the people in NYC, because the latter was a "reduced" "seen from afar" version of it that the TV would later replace in anyone's mind, no matter which city they belonged to.
The fake imagery shown by TV and the internet had to contain a lot more elements to it. A lot more than reality could contain.
Falling people; collapsing towers; planes slamming; people waving; helicopters flying about and so on and so forth. The whole lot, even the weather, had to be somewhat consistent and somewhat under control so that all these elements could be injected in it according to the storyplot.
And you cannot have a "real" amateur video to which you add the elements you want such as planes or falling people, because the movements of the camera and the reaction of the people must reflect such events. The whole thing must be faked.
The ridiculous, astonishing, amazing thing with 9/11 is precisely that there is no real footage out there.
Not even of inconclusive nature: not even something as seen from so far that it proves nothing. For starters, there's not even remotely enough footage to begin with. There's too little, and this is precisely the sign of image control that you cannot ignore.
However such level of image control was achieved is anybody's guess. Some reasonable explanations have been given, but the lack of a definitive answer cannot be held against us. We are not insiders and cannot draw the whole picture in detail.
This is not a matter of "belief", but rather, the way I see it, of logic: once again, to fake the whole thing was technically possible, and safer
. This is why it has been done this way
. We don't pretend to have all the answers about how they solved all the obvious problems of control that this involved, but evidently they managed to do it.
control freaks after all, to aim to control is their curse and destiny. The devil being in the details and all that.