I think you've got it about right.
No planes were used because it would cause too many loose ends.. the security perimeter/ anti-video devices, and approach from the South for the second strike would guarantee, or minimize potential for someone just filming an explosion blowing out.
What would you do if the 'hijacker', or remote controlled plane missed/ something went wrong? Then you'd have a building full of explosives and a lot of investigators coming around. No real planes= way fewer loose ends (except for the people you employed to create the images, which are a big loose end). Less real family members= less people really looking into how their loved one died/ less people potentially not signing the lump sum payout.
Other benefits of using CGI instead of planes: you can make it more dramatic- a real hollywood blockbuster.- Where a real plane maybe would have logged itself halfway in the bulding, with chunks of tailsection/ cabin falling down the side of the tower, never creating the illusion of really damaging the support structure.
This would also run the risk of dislodging/ upsetting the connections the strategically placed explosives (although, I have a feeling directed energy was also used, case in point missing engine blocks/ door handles/ oxydation but no other damage from cars blocks and blocks away, but I digress).
The thing is, I don't get how people can realize the second plane was flying faster than is physically possible for a Boeing at sea-level, yet act like this isn't an issue... pisses me off a little bit.
Kentrailer, September Clues 31 Comments
[7/18/2010 1:38:33 PM]
Fundie Index: 27
Submitted By: Space Helicopter