CNN TV Fakery: Still Photos become "exclusive video"

page: 3
5
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 2 2007 @ 09:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Killtown

Link? Source? Evidence?


Well there are those videos of THOUSANDS of people standing on the streets watching,crying, and in all around shock.....but oh yeah the videos are fake




posted on Jun, 2 2007 @ 09:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by 12m8keall2c
C'mon KillTown !?

Hundreds? Thousands? ... Why argue semantics?

I just want them to back up their claims.



posted on Jun, 2 2007 @ 09:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Prove_it
Well there are those videos of THOUSANDS of people standing on the streets

Exactly which ones?



posted on Jun, 2 2007 @ 09:15 PM
link   
There are not thousands of eyewitnesses to the 2nd plane crash. There are lots of people who saw an explosion, and some people who saw some kind of aircraft fly by before or after the explosion.

I've never met anyone who had a view of the 2nd plane actually crashing, and I have never seen anyone who makes the claim that there are thousands of eyewitnesses actually post proof of that statement. There are many people who should have seen a plane and didn't, which I think is very interesting.

www.livevideo.com... check out his no plane eyewitnesses video.

Most people looked up when they heard the explosion, and even without eyewitnesses at all the audio and video have been proven fake. Check out the work Andrew Lowe Watson has done for example.

Saying "there are thousands of eyewitnesses" doesn't make it so. Seeing something on TV or seeing something whiz by overhead is not the same thing as being an eyewitness to a plane crash. Somehow the stories fall apart when one wants to get the exact details. The people who did see flying things tend to admit that what they saw wasn't what the TV showed, too.



posted on Jun, 2 2007 @ 09:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsregistration
The people who did see flying things tend to admit that what they saw wasn't what the TV showed, too.


Do you have information that would substantiate such? Names, Addresses, etc.?

Please understand that I do question various aspects of the "official story", to include the 9-11 Commission and NIST reports. It's just that I don't feel these types of speculative speculation do Anything to further said cause(s). (in our search for the truth)

Just my opinion.

 

[edit: to add - (in our search for the truth)]

[edit on 2-6-2007 by 12m8keall2c]



posted on Jun, 2 2007 @ 09:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsregistration
There are not thousands of eyewitnesses to the 2nd plane crash. There are lots of people who saw an explosion, and some people who saw some kind of aircraft fly by before or after the explosion.


bsregistration,
Just because you didn't see it doesn't mean that nobody else saw it.

www.youtube.com...

Get a grip, will ya?


Edit to add: Hey, how do I embed a YouTube video?!! bsr, help me out here...



[edit on 2-6-2007 by Tuning Spork]



posted on Jun, 2 2007 @ 10:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsregistration

Most people looked up when they heard the explosion, and even without eyewitnesses at all the audio and video have been proven fake. Check out the work Andrew Lowe Watson has done for example.



I'd like to just comment on the illogic of the concept of TV fakery.

At 8:46 am, WTC1 exploded. This drew the attention of a lot of people. In fact, every news camera, and every set of eyes in downtown NY were looking up at WTC1 on fire.

Next at about 9:02, WTC2 exploded. Now lets examine the common sense of the no-plane-hit-WTC2 theory.

If there truly was no plane that hit WTC2, how would the conspirators been able to prevent dozens, if not hundreds of amateurs with video cameras from capturing the explosion of WTC2 MINUS the plane?

Think about it. If there was no plane, and there were people videotaping WTC1 burning, wouldn't there be a lot of people with videos that show WTC2 exploding without a plane hitting it? And more importantly, how could there possibly have been a plan to pull off tv fakery when the hundreds of amateurs videotaping WTC1 couldn't be accounted for in the plan?

Just askin'...



posted on Jun, 2 2007 @ 10:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by 12m8keall2c

Originally posted by bsregistration
The people who did see flying things tend to admit that what they saw wasn't what the TV showed, too.


Do you have information that would substantiate such? Names, Addresses, etc.?

Please understand that I do question various aspects of the "official story", to include the 9-11 Commission and NIST reports. It's just that I don't feel these types of speculative speculation do Anything to further said cause(s). (in our search for the truth)

Just my opinion.



Sorry for popping in but hold on one second...

I've been checking into ATS for a short time and have been having a blast - really! And in this short period I think I've whitnessed the harshest skepticism in the UFO vids and photo threads. Put a digital shot on that stage and watch it get flamed... and for the little I know of digitial manipulation by the kids in the basement - its justly deserved.

But now when somebody feels that videos or photos shown to us on our trusty TV are possibly manipulated - they get what IMO smells like a hearty X2 standard?

We fall over ourselves to prove vid evidence for saucers and EBE's are bunk, and while I am not accusing anyone of toting any specific position here at all - as I am a noob, we instinctively defend what we know we all saw and heard that day?




posted on Jun, 3 2007 @ 01:30 AM
link   
So you think the logic of a caveman in Afghanistan using 19 Suicidial Hijackers to defeat the US Military and there being no video cameras around the pentagon and the radar didn't work and the black boxes disappeared and they couldn't produce a single part with a serial number and the planes weren't in the BTS database makes a lot more sense?

The video is fake whether or not it was "logical" to do it that way, that's how they did it. The still panning is there whether or not you think it's logical. The bridge is totally out-of-position whether you think it is logical or not.





Originally posted by nick7261

Originally posted by bsregistration

Most people looked up when they heard the explosion, and even without eyewitnesses at all the audio and video have been proven fake. Check out the work Andrew Lowe Watson has done for example.



I'd like to just comment on the illogic of the concept of TV fakery.

At 8:46 am, WTC1 exploded. This drew the attention of a lot of people. In fact, every news camera, and every set of eyes in downtown NY were looking up at WTC1 on fire.

Next at about 9:02, WTC2 exploded. Now lets examine the common sense of the no-plane-hit-WTC2 theory.

If there truly was no plane that hit WTC2, how would the conspirators been able to prevent dozens, if not hundreds of amateurs with video cameras from capturing the explosion of WTC2 MINUS the plane?

Think about it. If there was no plane, and there were people videotaping WTC1 burning, wouldn't there be a lot of people with videos that show WTC2 exploding without a plane hitting it? And more importantly, how could there possibly have been a plan to pull off tv fakery when the hundreds of amateurs videotaping WTC1 couldn't be accounted for in the plan?

Just askin'...



posted on Jun, 3 2007 @ 02:07 AM
link   
Okay, call me stupid, but wasn't there LIVE PEOPLE on the PLANES that hit the twin towers??? So if the video was "faked", AHEM, then WHERE are all those people?

And wasn't there phone calls made by the people on those planes to loved ones? AND wouldn't the people on those planes, at least some of them, be locals who would recognize where they were flying and tell they're loved ones where the plane was flying??? I don't know but this "Theory" is a bit thin. Please use some common sense here.



posted on Jun, 3 2007 @ 04:06 AM
link   
so, bsreg, did you yourself do the research and come up with the conclusions and create the videos then link them here? or did you just find them on youtube and felt the need to "enlighten us"?

cuz im sorry but personally im more inclined to be skeptical of what i see on youtube before i am of the live feeds we watched that day. not to mention, am i the only one who remembers cnn showing the footage from the guy on the streets camcorder that DISTINCTLY showed a plane hit one of the towers? lemme guess...that was faked by the govt too?

well yer entitled to your opinion of course, but i disagree with you.



posted on Jun, 3 2007 @ 08:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by scrapple
But now when somebody feels that videos or photos shown to us on our trusty TV are possibly manipulated - they get what IMO smells like a hearty X2 standard?


You have denied ignorance, 5 stars


What you said is absolutely correct. I can not elaborate on what you put, because you summed it up perfectly. Thats half the reason why i stayed away, and continue too, from the UFO area of research, because half of the evidence is crappy photos and video, easily manipulated.



posted on Jun, 3 2007 @ 08:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsregistration
So you think the logic of a caveman in Afghanistan using 19 Suicidial Hijackers to defeat the US Military and there being no video cameras around the pentagon and the radar didn't work and the black boxes disappeared and they couldn't produce a single part with a serial number and the planes weren't in the BTS database makes a lot more sense?

When we reject your "Conspiracy Fakery" contrivances, that does not automatically assume we reject the possibility of 9/11 conspiracies.

Nico, this is you Nico. This is the exact same rationale you use when the enraged spittle launches from your mouth as you yell at close range to those in 9/11 truth who also reject your "Conspiracy Fakery". I've seen you do it. You've done it to me.

We need not embrace your "Conspiracy Fakery" to reject the notion that "cave men" are the only parties responsible for an organized on the United States.



posted on Jun, 3 2007 @ 08:43 AM
link   
Dude, please stfu. If you want to rant at bs, send him a U2U, because NO ONE CARES about your personal tiffle with one "Nico".

By posting what you have you only give credence to the whole argument that people are negative towards this theory because thats what the perps of 9/11 intended from the very beginning.

Do i have to remind you that the BBC anc CNN have both been caught red handed with the WTC 7 still standing videos?...That clearly demonstrates media involvement to some degree!



posted on Jun, 3 2007 @ 08:49 AM
link   
Dear bsregistration:

You make me proud to be an American citizen. A big thank-you for your recent contributions here on the ATS 9-11 forum. You are absolutely, without-a-shadow-of-a-doubt, without any reservations whatsoever, CORRECT about your 9-11 film and image fakery analysis. And a another big statement of gratitude for your unwavering patience in responding to the stubborn critics. Few have that kind of endurance.

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods



posted on Jun, 3 2007 @ 09:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsregistration
I live in Manhattan and I can't find anyone who saw the 2nd plane crash.


There are hundreds of thousands of eyewitness' to the second hit.

I watched it happen LIVE on TV. I turned on the TV and saw that the first tower had been hit. My daughter and I stood there and watched as the second plane hit.


Originally posted by shrunkensimon
What about all those people who claim they saw the plane hit the Pentagon, even when evidence directly contradicts their claims..


There is no credible evidence to contradict their claims. The eyewitness' saw it happen. I actually spoke to one in DC - a cabbie.

Facts are facts. We got nailed by four planes on 9/11. It's just that simple.


Originally posted by bsregistration
I've never met anyone who had a view of the 2nd plane actually crashing,


Here I am.

I watched an AIRPLANE fly too low and crash into the tower. I saw it on TV LIVE as it happened. I'm sure hundreds of thousands of others did as well. And no .. there was no 'power of suggestion'. I saw the plane, thought to myself 'that's too low' and watched it hit.

the end.



posted on Jun, 3 2007 @ 09:08 AM
link   
I second the wizard. One day you will be laughing at people who actually believed a real plane hit the second tower.
If it did, how easy would it be to find thousand of eye witnesses on the day of the event? I have seen plenty of interviews that mention no planes, explosions, missile, planes passing by, military jet, and only 2 taped witnesses on that day which are at best ridiculous. Why would you plant an obvious Govt agent explaining the dynamic of the crash if the event really occurred?
There is not one, and I really mean one, footage that does not have some kind of weird things on it.
Everyone always says its youtube its bad compression etc... So I am asking; where are your high resolution videos. I would be glad if you can point them to me.
How many angles of approach did this airplane have? 2 3 4? How many missing wings? 1 2? What colour was the plane? Blue Black Grey? What shape did it have? What material was it made of? Titanium Aluminium?
I mean if it was a plane it was a plane point why on earth on 911 everything looks so unreal? And that is the tip of the iceberg, we should actually concentrate more on the morphing technology used on 911 rather than the plane no plane theory.



posted on Jun, 3 2007 @ 09:13 AM
link   
This is so idiotic...lol. Whether or not the government or Osama did this...the fact is planes did hit twin towers.I can't believe there are people out there who believe there weren't...they call the ones who don't believe to be brainwashed, but they are the ones that are brainwashed when they view footage from some nut and totally believe it. Nothing more to say because whoever came up with this "Idea" or " evidence" is gonna believe whatever they want. Oh yeah......going by this dudes logic, we cannot trust that anyone exists on TV maybe networks just create people on CGI.

[edit on 3-6-2007 by soulstealer2099]



posted on Jun, 3 2007 @ 09:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by soulstealer2099
the fact is planes did hit twin towers..


This is what you call an argument from ignorance..

You haven't even bothered to read the simple statements made already by many of us in this thread; Saying thousands of people saw the planes is NOT evidence.

Just to hammer another nail into the coffin;

The engine found on Murray Street, from the 2nd plane impact, does not even belong to the plane that supposedly hit the towers! The engine found was a CFM56, which is not the type of engine used in 767's.



posted on Jun, 3 2007 @ 09:32 AM
link   
I just have to pose this one question.

'How could anyone convince you?'

If we post a video of the plane crash, it's fake.
If we post a video of eyewitness testimony, it's fake. (But 1 apparent no plane testimony is trustworthy :up

If we post first hand/relative accounts of the event, we're disinfo agents or could be lying.
If you meet someone who witnessed exactly what was on the videos of that say, they're just pawns to the power of suggestion.





new topics
top topics
 
5
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join