Fake CNN video on 9-11
- Thread starter Logic 7
- Start date
We've all been fooled. This is what really happened. G. Bush has telepathicly made the nation beleive there are no towers there. Not only did planes not hit the towers neither did missles or anything for that matter.
Last edited:
1)You guys are still at the same point as we started the thread, why is that?, here is the link from CNN web site.
http://www.cnn.com/video/us/2001/09/12/2nd.plane.hits.cnn.med.html
2) I never said the video shot were on september 11 or not, before or after 9-11 doesnt matter, there is building missing in the background of CNN, that is the point.
3) no, the burning falmes arent identical in CNN videos, that is the pointl.
4) My point is , if cnn fake video on a tragic day like 9-11, is because they have a hand on it( which would explain why, there was so much publicity for the war in iraq, before it started) and does that mean also cnn shows fake videos all the times?,to promote their agenda? good credibility, especially when you think CNN is considered as left-wing liberal, quite funny those americans.
I am not talking about WTC towers that are missing, i am talking about those in the background.
Read the link.
http://www.cnn.com/video/us/2001/09/12/2nd.plane.hits.cnn.med.html
What Logic is trying to claim, in a roundabout way, is that a video taken on Nov 11 shows things (ie, a building) in the background that does not show up in the CNN video, and this, in Logic's mind, makes the CNN video a fake.
I have not seen any proof that this Nov video was taken from the exact same spot, facing in the exact same direction, by a cameraman of the exact same height, with the same lens. Therefore, Logic's argument is actually totally pointless, since it has not facts to back it up. The fact that the trees are different heights actually just proves that it's a different perspective, so the video disproves the point it's trying to make.
But that's not surprise.
I have not seen any proof that this Nov video was taken from the exact same spot, facing in the exact same direction, by a cameraman of the exact same height, with the same lens. Therefore, Logic's argument is actually totally pointless, since it has not facts to back it up. The fact that the trees are different heights actually just proves that it's a different perspective, so the video disproves the point it's trying to make.
But that's not surprise.
It is the exact same spot, there is only one place in new york, where there is those 2 buiding side by side, nice try.
So I gather that the CNN cameraman painted an 'X' on the ground, with full details on his height, etc?
The point is, cnn cameraman propably never went there, the whole scene in CNN is a mountage, too retarded to make all detail, because they knew peoples in general,( like you , kreskin, toro, ITN and others in here) will never be able to realize by themselves it is a mountage.
I don't know what a mountage is, sounds like having sex with a senior citizen.
You would do well to take your 'high school physics', of which you are so proud, and learn about angles and perspective. You don't seem to understand sightlines very well.
You are desperate to prove somehow that the WTC thing never happened. Just think of what could be accomplished if you spent your time and vast talents on something useful.
WTC-9-11 did happened, what are you talking about?
Who came in here and try to marginalize me? you and others, when you could have accomplish something if you would have spend your time on something useful, like proving me wrong.
Now what you guys have brought to prove me wrong?
nothing at all.
You could prove me wrong, new york is probably the best known city in the world, , everything that sorrounds Ground Zero is well documented on internet, that shows how you guys are lazy, and not credible.
And you haven't brought anything to prove you right.
See, as pointed out above, we aren't bothering to waste any energy proving you wrong.
You've already been proven wrong. If you wish to prove yourself right, then prove it. "Lo0kz guyz! I gotz intrnet photoz, I are Right!" is not proof. Which is what this has devolved into, with people becoming more and more exasperated trying to get that point accross to you, polite and civil at first but less and less so the more your respond with immaturity and anger.
See, as pointed out above, we aren't bothering to waste any energy proving you wrong.
You've already been proven wrong. If you wish to prove yourself right, then prove it. "Lo0kz guyz! I gotz intrnet photoz, I are Right!" is not proof. Which is what this has devolved into, with people becoming more and more exasperated trying to get that point accross to you, polite and civil at first but less and less so the more your respond with immaturity and anger.
Proving you wrong would be like proving that dog ****e smells. Easily done, pointless, and accomplishing nothing. Where would be the fun in that?