Fake vs. Real Events
By Frank Legge and Ken Jenkins
Put yourself in the shoes of the planners and perpetrators of 9/11. They had a hijacked plane, Flight 77, which we know they would be willing to crash, because they crashed three other planes that day. They had a choice: they could actually crash a plane, or they could pretend to do so. To fake it, they would have to fabricate a complete, intricate and complex illusion of a crash.
It would have been very difficult to create a convincing illusion of a plane crash however, because the damage trail was long and complex.
The first major damage included the severing and felling of five light poles. The first of these poles impaled a taxi through its windshield. It would be very difficult and risky to fake this achievement in real-time.
Taxi hit by felled light pole, pole 1
Next a fence was badly damaged in two separate places. Inside that fence, a massive diesel generator trailer was struck with such force that it was rotated and moved a considerable distance.
They would also have had to create the 96 foot entry hole in the outer wall of the Pentagon with additional damage of the façade to a total of 141 feet; then
bend and break the many dozens of building support columns inside the building, which were all bent in the direction of plane travel;
and somehow put in place TONS of plane wreckage found both inside and outside the Pentagon.
There is also the problem created by the testimonies of the many workers who sorted the debris and who located many body fragments and corpses – later identified by their DNA, much of which was matched to Flight 77 passengers.
The perpetrators would have had to fake all of this in a convincing manner while accepting the high likelihood that witnesses would notice, and perhaps even document, some of this elaborate faking of evidence.
What was there to gain from creating a deception rather than a real crash?
Surely a real crash would create the same effect on the public mind as a successful illusion. If they had gone to the trouble of creating all this complex damage with explosives or other methods, and then someone photographed some aspect of the evidence fabrication, the game would have been over. Crucial parts of the 9/11 event would have been exposed as evidence of a false flag attack. They had everything to lose and nothing to gain! Would these skilled operators have taken such a risk?
This is not a case where one can assess and compare the risks and benefits of two similar courses of action and come to a conclusion based on a careful analysis about which of similar courses is best, because there would be no benefit whatsoever from the preparation of an illusion compared to using an actual airliner. Also the risk of failure and detection would have been vastly greater. Why would these shrewd planners have been foolish enough to greatly increase the risk of exposure and indictment for treason for zero benefit?
It makes no sense to suggest that the perpetrators of 9/11 were so stupid or irrational that they would make such a mistake. These were clearly calculating, venal, psychopathic criminals, but they were neither stupid nor irrational. On the contrary, they proved themselves to be highly competent. So what is the likelihood that they would plan a weird, totally unnecessary deception rather than simply using an airliner? It must be vanishingly small.
This article was adapted from a section titled Probabilities in the Pentagon introduction page of Frank Legge’s Science of 9/11 website found here: http://scienceof911.com.au/pentagon
See a fully illustrated, downloadable PDF of this article here: Why Not Use a Plane?