CNN TV Fakery Proven: Terror Drills shown as 9/11 Coverage

Originally posted by shrunkensimon
THE TV/VIDEOS CONTAIN CGI PLANES... ITS NOT REAL. TV IS JUST AN IMAGE.

Why on Earth would you use TV video in an attempt to prove your point then? Could we not use the same logic in debunking your original video?

I am sorry, you couldn't be further from the truth. As another poster stated, there were hundreds , if not thousands of EYEwitnesses that observed the 2nd plane hitting.

Originally posted by nyarlathotep
Why on Earth would you use TV video in an attempt to prove your point then? Could we not use the same logic in debunking your original video?

I am sorry, you couldn't be further from the truth. As another poster stated, there were hundreds , if not thousands of EYEwitnesses that observed the 2nd plane hitting.

Because the videos are fake, there are signs of the forgery for us to pick up on. Any Hollywood movie ALWAYS has errors in the film.. they even pay people to pick out the errors!! Such as someone smoking a cigarette..it burning to the end, yet magically reappearing as a full one again a second later (after a camera change).

As i've said countless times now,

Saying "Thousands of eye witnessess saw the plane" is NOT EVIDENCE.

As bsreg pointed out in one of his recent videos, which i thought was a very valid point;

"How can the no-plane hitting the Pentagon idea get you praised, yet no-plane hitting the twin towers idea get you shouted at by the same person!"..

It is a major double standard, one i was part of until very recently, and im amazed that i didn't spot it myself.



[edit on 4-6-2007 by shrunkensimon]

Originally posted by shrunkensimon
Because the videos are fake, there are signs of the forgery for us to pick up on. Any Hollywood movie ALWAYS has errors in the film.. they even pay people to pick out the errors!! Such as someone smoking a cigarette..it burning to the end, yet magically reappearing as a full one again a second later (after a camera change).

As i've said countless times now,

Saying "Thousands of eye witnessess saw the plane" is NOT EVIDENCE.

As bsreg pointed out in one of his recent videos, which i thought was a very valid point;

"How can the no-plane hitting the Pentagon idea get you praised, yet no-plane hitting the twin towers idea get you shouted at by the same person!"..

It is a major double standard, one i was part of until very recently, and im amazed that i didn't spot it myself.



[edit on 4-6-2007 by shrunkensimon]

That statement makes no sense whatsoever. It is painfully obvious from your posts and BSregistration's that your minds are made up regardless of the evidence presented to you. With that said, I am moving on to the threads that present a little more of an intelligent approach to the 9/11 conspiracy. And for the record, I don't believe the official story.

Originally posted by shrunkensimon
As i've said countless times now,

Saying "Thousands of eye witnessess saw the plane" is NOT EVIDENCE.

Thousands of eye witness statements is evidence. In what sense is it not evidence? Not sure you understand the word "evidence" at all....

As bsreg pointed out in one of his recent videos, which i thought was a very valid point;

"How can the no-plane hitting the Pentagon idea get you praised, yet no-plane hitting the twin towers idea get you shouted at by the same person!"..

Well, planes clearly struck the towers and the Pentagon.

However in the case of the towers they struck enormous buildings in the middle of the most densely populated area in the world - while being filmed. The only way to fake this would be some kind of Lord of the Rings style sorcery, which I am ruling out for the moment - though I suspect you won't.

Claiming that no planes hit the towers is so dumb it actually induces a pain behind my eyes to think about it. I am typing this with one hand while the other tightly grips the bridge of my nose - thanks to you and the idiot OP.

The whole theory in it's self argh just think about it why bother making CGI planes and going to all the trouble of planting wreckage and disposing of the crew and passengers when it's easier to just set up the hijacking operation. Surely if they were CGI.. Out of every single person who works in the CGI field and in the movies one would actually be able to prove that it was, Experts in the field would be able to prove maybe not now but say as time unfolds because CGI does get outdated.

So what really would be the point in setting the whole thing up to be seriously and completely debunked in a few years anyway and unleashing a damn pandoras box on the world. Can anyone else see the actual problem with the logic of this theory.

Originally posted by nyarlathotepThat statement makes no sense whatsoever. It is painfully obvious from your posts and BSregistration's that your minds are made up regardless of the evidence presented to you. With that said, I am moving on to the threads that present a little more of an intelligent approach to the 9/11 conspiracy. And for the record, I don't believe the official story.

Dear nyarlathotep:

Had you asked me one year ago if I thought 9-11 was staged, I would have said no. I would have never dreamed it possible that we ourselves blew up the twin towers. Such madness was unimaginable to me.

But, the minute I started researching the issue (9-11) I began seeing things differently. Suddenly I was finding answers to all the questions which had been nagging me for years. It all started to make sense. Horrific sense, but still sense. So you’re wrong, at least in my case, my mind was never ‘made up’ regardless of the evidence. I make mental U-turns all the time if the facts warrant it.

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods

And, shrunkensimon makes plenty of sense.

Originally posted by shrunkensimon
THE TV/VIDEOS CONTAIN CGI PLANES... ITS NOT REAL. TV IS JUST AN IMAGE.

We've seen the Whitehouse blow up on Independance day..but it wasn't real. We've seen the Houses of Parliament blow up in V for Vendetta.. but it wasn't real.
We've seen the Taj Mahal blow up in Mars Attacks.. but it wasn't real.

You completely missed my point. i'm sure there were several New Yorkers outside with there home camcorders on 9/11. what about them. you mean to say not one of them videotaped the no-plane-explosion on their own camcorder. not one!? come on. as soon as someone got home and saw that it would have been everywhere.

Here is a video off youtube, user says it is a home video. you can see the plane at 2:39ish in the video:



another, appears to be home video, it's on the street:



another, 45 second comp:



[edit on 4-6-2007 by ebayitup]

Originally posted by Wizard_In_The_Woods
So you’re wrong, at least in my case, my mind was never ‘made up’ regardless of the evidence. I make mental U-turns all the time if the facts warrant it.

Well, my comment was directed at the bsregistration and shrunkensimon, so I am not sure why you directed that comment at me.

Originally posted by Wizard_In_The_Woods
And, shrunkensimon makes plenty of sense.

I'm sorry, this is where you lost me

Originally posted by shrunkensimon
What people. You know you have absolutely no evidence of people "seeing" the planes hit the towers.

What you do have is alot of confused people who have been the victims of the power of suggestion.

Yeah, I guess I don't work with a guy who was THERE on the morning of September 11th and watched with his own eyes the 2nd plane impact.

Of course I can't prove this, but he was there he witnessed it and gave us his account of it upon returning to our office later the next day.

The "thousands of eyewitnesses" WERE manipulated by the (fake) videos on the news and the information that was coming out immediately after the 1st attack of the (fake) hijacked UA flights. I believe the buildings were hit by missiles that looked like small planes, painted to look like United Airlines flights. (Not to mention the added confusion of the actual plane fly-by's) and obviously secondary explosives were planted in the buildings, I'm certainly not claiming that a cruise missiles singlehandedly brought down the buildings.

These "planes" (missiles) were going so fast that NOBODY during all the chaos and confusion at the time could have been completely certain that what they saw was a Boeing 767. However, once it was established by every news station in the country within minutes (or seconds); the people who saw the missile then come to the conclusion that what they actually saw MUST have been the hijacked planes; since it was captured on "live" tv (and supported by multiple fake news videos, fake amateur video, and planted news media witnesses who were absolutely certain they saw a United Airlines Boeing 767)

It really shouldn't be hard to understand for anyone that all it took was the (fake) information about the hijacked flights and the (fake) crash caught on video to cement in anyones mind that what they actually saw could have been nothing but a United Airlines jet.

But how do you people who are so convinced that planes hit explain the multiple reports after the first attack claiming the tower was hit by a "small plane" "not a commercial airliner" "small passenger plane" and even multiple people flat out saying they saw what looked and sounded like a MISSILE?

The majority of these "thousands of eyewitnesses who saw the planes" were not reported until after (usually a significant while) after the 2nd attack, the time between the attacks and the moments afterwards was more than enough time to bring the propaganda machine into full swing and begin convincing everyone that terrorist hijacked UA flights are what actually hit the towers, so thats what people reported. Too bad that's not what happened.

I advise EVERYONE to download all of the September Clues and simonshack's other videos in their HQ versions to fully come to terms with the obvious tv fakery that went on that day. IMO it is impossible to deny.


(yes i realize this thread is old but i was looking into some more information on the subject of no planes and and decided this would be a good place to post my explanation of the eyewitnesses)