posted on Oct, 25 2010 @ 11:34 PM
The plane in the video is CGI created by someone who flunked layering in video class; it looks just as cartoonish and fake as all the other videos of
"planes" the media hoodwinked the public with on 9/11.
It would not have taken much to superimpose a cartoonish looking commercial airliner over, say, a missile. Especially considering the poor CGI work
which is evident (airplane with unrealistic light reflection, sliding across the sky, wings disappearing, etc.). The clear blue sky also played a
factor since it is a lot easier to paste a layer of a fake airplane on a solid color than (blue sky) than it is on a complex multi-colored background.
If a missile did strike the Towers, I would place my bets on a Lockheed Martin AGM-158 JASSM. It would have easily been capable of penetrating the
exterior of the Towers (it actually went all the way through the second tower with a piece of the nose coming out the other side - remember the fade
to black on the TV broadcast?), it flies at subsonic speed (up to 0.9 mach), it looks like a small plane (which many witnesses reported seeing) and it
is air to surface so it could have been launched from any one of a number of military aircraft.
The AGM-158 also flies at low altitude and is dead on accurate. And one more thing: they were in very limited production at the time (according to
information which has been released), so very few people (outside of military personnel) knew what they looked like at the time.
The use of real commercial aircraft for such a precise and complex operation would have been way too risky. A number of things could have gone wrong,
since a commercial airliner would not have anywhere near the accuracy of a high-tech missile at the reported speed and altitude.
Sorry, but I prefer to go with common sense and good old analytical skills, instead of a disreputable media, an untruthful government, fake witnesses
and unscrupulous debunkers.