CNN TV Fakery: Still Photos become "exclusive video"

Originally posted by bsregistration
You can shill all day and all night and you can't suppress the TV Fakery evidence any longer.

Two questions for you:

1) is there a working link somewhere on the net which shows the jumping bridge towers - as covered in your clip - as someone would have recorded it off of the ABC(?) coverage that day.

2) Would the statue of Liberty be visible in any of those shots considering its placement between the bridge and towers? Has anyone done the visual trajectory?

Height of the towers (690')
S.O.L is 300' tall

S.O.L is 3/4 of the distance closer, but maybe too east to be in the field of vision?

Really I am too lazy to do the screen capture geometery and would settle for drinking my coffee and watching the towers jump from an "unedited" Network grab if there indeed is one.

Er, why go through the trouble of putting all this explosive in the towers, something disguised as a plane to hit them, spread wreckage in exactly the right places as would be expected from the impact, and fake all this footage, when it would be simpler to actually crash planes into the towers?

and..

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.

So, they aren't the engines that are used for electrical power on the ground then? The auxiliary power units?

Originally posted by apex
Er, why go through the trouble of putting all this explosive in the towers, something disguised as a plane to hit them, spread wreckage in exactly the right places as would be expected from the impact, and fake all this footage, when it would be simpler to actually crash planes into the towers?

and..

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.

So, they aren't the engines that are used for electrical power on the ground then? The auxiliary power units?

Even Wikipedia is a more reliable source than this guy it would seem:

'The CFM56 is one of the most prolific engine types in the world because of its long history starting with the Boeing 737-300'.

en.wikipedia.org...

By the way check out the official site for further proof if you don't trust wikipedia.

BTW there isn't a great difference between the two 737/ 767 to the untrained eye if anything it proves that planes were used just not the common perception that it was two 767's.

[edit on 3-6-2007 by SR]

Originally posted by shrunkensimon
The fact that NONE OF YOU have provided ANY evidence to counter the no-plane theory says it all..

Im done with this thread. Im not going to waste my time arguing with a bunch of arrogant little "truthers" who can not even back up their own statements.

Bsregistration, mail me when you post more/come up with more.

in this post, the burden of evidence falls on bsregistration. and what evidence have you provided.

you're done, how convenient. where is your evidence.

Originally posted by shrunkensimon
The fact that NONE OF YOU have provided ANY evidence to counter the no-plane theory says it all..

Im done with this thread. Im not going to waste my time arguing with a bunch of arrogant little "truthers" who can not even back up their own statements.

Bsregistration, mail me when you post more/come up with more.

When you have not proven nothing either and quit pouting like some little child. What did you expect...people who don't believe are going to post just as the believers are. By the way how is it in LA LA land....lol. I must visit because things seem so wierd over there...what with planes that don't exist landing in footage and getting 1000's of people that were there to suddenly disappear.

&



Which one is the 737 and which one is the 767. No great conspiracy here

I'm fairly sure that the top picture is the 737, but I may be wrong.

Though I wonder why the 737 could be used.

[edit on 3-6-2007 by apex]

Originally posted by apex
I'm fairy sure that the top picture is the 737, but I may be wrong.

Though I wonder why the 737 could be used.

Correct i don't know why it was reported that two 767's hit the towers but if it is the main user of the engine listed and clearly to the untrained eye is the closest to a 767 but then again maybe i should just accept that i'm a 'sheep' and that the 'truth' is that really no planes where used instead of offering explanations....

[edit on 3-6-2007 by SR]

I saw a plane hit the second tower with my naked eye. I was on the water near the towers, so there was no obstruction. Actually quite near the point where boats were ferrying firemen back and forth.

I happened to be in one of my merchant marine classes that day and was about a mile (or a little less) from the site.

I've yet to see anything that contradicts that a plane hit the building.

Originally posted by piacenza
I posted a thread a long time ago about the witnesses, I was challenging anyone to find me a credible witness on that day that saw a plane hit the building but guess what...No one was found other than the one I pointed out there are 2 interviews that are ridicolous but exept for those nothing

So there is at least one witness, but since he doesnt support your silly no-plane theory that interview is 'ridiculous.'

WHERE ARE THE WITNESSES??????

They are there. You just choose to ignore them because you disagree with them. Personally, i'll take the word of someone who was there over some keyboard warrior pushing an agenda.

I can provide you a good amount of No plane, missles, plane passing by witnesses.

Man. I can provide you a good amount of witnesses who claim there is a 6 mile high tower on the moon that catches souls.... or something like that.

Originally posted by mister.old.school
Nico Haupt, after nearly two years of failing to promote your Conspiracy Fakery, why have you not altered your tactics

I think your right MOS. Bsregistration does appear to be Nico Haupt. At least hes no longer screaming at people about 'Axotic Veponry.'

Originally posted by ebayitup

Originally posted by shrunkensimon
The fact that NONE OF YOU have provided ANY evidence to counter the no-plane theory says it all..

Im done with this thread. Im not going to waste my time arguing with a bunch of arrogant little "truthers" who can not even back up their own statements.

Bsregistration, mail me when you post more/come up with more.

in this post, the burden of evidence falls on bsregistration. and what evidence have you provided.

you're done, how convenient. where is your evidence.

I fully agree saying it doesnt make it true..
i've yet to see any PROOF that no planes hit or that there were no witnesses.

but i guess that would crap out his whole argument.

This is the reason i stay out of the 9/11 post's most of the posters (MOST)not all will just argue there agenda and are too stubborn to even accept the fact that they dont know it all.

they just keep there blinders on and head stuck in the sand.

with that kind of effort we will never know the truth.

[edit on 6/3/2007 by Prove_it]

Since there were no plane there is no proof we need to show. You say there was a plane so show us some proofs. Show us a good video of a real plane entering that building and some witnesses taped on 911... (there is a good amount of them correct? Can you please send us the interviews?) Good Luck with the task, you will soon realize that its quite a difficult one.

Again if it is a plane there should be no anomalies like the freaking nose cone.

Originally posted by piacenza
Since there were no plane there is no proof we need to show. You say there was a plane so show us some proofs. Show us a good video of a real plane entering that building and some witnesses taped on 911... (there is a good amount of them correct? Can you please send us the interviews?) Good Luck with the task, you will soon realize that its quite a difficult one.

Again if it is a plane there should be no anomalies like the freaking nose cone.

Strange, most videos that clearly show a plane are instantly declared to be fake as they contradict your theory. Instead why don't you show us proof of a missile or a setup on the towers. Maybe some proof of explosive residue taken from the towers, or some large lack of a Jet fuel fireball that everyone saw.

Originally posted by KrazyJethro
I saw a plane hit the second tower with my naked eye. I was on the water near the towers, so there was no obstruction. Actually quite near the point where boats were ferrying firemen back and forth.

I happened to be in one of my merchant marine classes that day and was about a mile (or a little less) from the site.

I've yet to see anything that contradicts that a plane hit the building.

What piacenza, you're just going to ignore this post? Or is it that you only accept taped witnesses? There are two or three others on ATS that I've talked to that live in NY that SAW the 2nd plane with their naked eyes. I guess you're calling all of them liars?

It's not worth it any video would of been faked by "THE MAN"

unless it supported the OP's theory.

if not it would be called BS. like this thread.

Originally posted by piacenza
Since there were no plane there is no proof we need to show. You say there was a plane so show us some proofs. Show us a good video of a real plane entering that building and some witnesses taped on 911... (there is a good amount of them correct? Can you please send us the interviews?) Good Luck with the task, you will soon realize that its quite a difficult one.

Again if it is a plane there should be no anomalies like the freaking nose cone.

So if you don't believe any videos or any people who show the plane what are we meant to do??? your first putting limits on the evidence then denying what is brought to you anyway it's an impossible task to change your mindset and your real agenda has been shown for what it really is.

Originally posted by piacenza
Again if it is a plane there should be no anomalies like the freaking nose cone.

piacenza, just because you haven't been able to figure out how something happened doesn't mean it's an "anomaly." After reading dozens of your posts, your entire argument basically comes down to this:

"I can't explain how X happened so that means the U.S. government did 9/11."

Just for fun, try working out how much energy would be released if a plane hit the WTCs. Then compare this amount of energy with the amount of energy released by various explosive devices, and see which releases more energy, a plane traveling at 500 mph or 200 pounds of TNT.

Next, calculate the momentum a plane would have traveling at 500 mph and describe using the concept of Conservation of Momentum what you would expect wouldd happen when such a plane hits a building.

By the way, I have one close friend and another business associate who tell me they saw the 2nd plane hit WTC2 with their own eyes. Of course I'm sure that people posting anonymously on the internet who never even stepped foot in NY are more credible to you than these people who were there that day, right?

P.S. Your posts are a perfect example of why the general public thinks the "Truth Movement" is a joke. All speculation, all allegations, all questions, no answers, all the time. Just sayin'...

I agree with the mob.

There has been nothing shown on this thread that has supported the presented 'dancing bridge' video as legit.

But I still ask - if I were to add a UFO photo with this post (granted it would be out of context) am I hearing that the topic of discussion is deemed over and final because somebody can post/state they 'saw' 'or did not see' the same UFO with their naked eyes? Id like to see this happen on the Saucer threads!

I am not doubting the stated ATS eyeball here either, but only asking why are we inclinded to do mental yoga over a photo showing John Lear in Billy Meier's suana, yet wring our hands over 4 buildings that fell to the ground on 911?

Originally posted by piacenza
Since there were no plane there is no proof we need to show. You say there was a plane so show us some proofs. Show us a good video of a real plane entering that building and some witnesses taped on 911... (there is a good amount of them correct? Can you please send us the interviews?) Good Luck with the task, you will soon realize that its quite a difficult one.

Again if it is a plane there should be no anomalies like the freaking nose cone.

show us a video of an explosion and no plane. and not the "from behind" shot. show us a video were a plane SHOULD be but isn't.

so i can make the claim that WTC 1 and 2 are still standing today, and you just can't see them, and just leave it at that and you have to prove that they aren't. yeah, you do that, prove to me beyond a shadow of a doubt that WTC 1 and 2 actually fell, cuz i don't believe they did. i think they are still there and 9/11 never happened. disprove that



[edit on 3-6-2007 by ebayitup]

Originally posted by scrapple
I agree with the mob.

There has been nothing shown on this thread that has supported the presented 'dancing bridge' video as legit.

But I still ask - if I were to add a UFO photo with this post (granted it would be out of context) am I hearing that the topic of discussion is deemed over and final because somebody can post/state they 'saw' 'or did not see' the same UFO with their naked eyes? Id like to see this happen on the Saucer threads!

I am not doubting the stated ATS eyeball here either, but only asking why are we inclinded to do mental yoga over a photo showing John Lear in Billy Meier's suana, yet wring our hands over 4 buildings that fell to the ground on 911?

ever seen "deadliest catch, beast of season 2" it opens with the host on a bunker on a hill standing all alone while a camera man on a helicopter fly in a circle around him. he remains centered, but the background around him spins by very very fast. its a mater of focusing on a object and seeing that background change in relation to the object being centered on. think of it as the hands on a clock, and the WTC buildings are the center pivot and the hands are moving at 100 mph (total guess) but they're 3 miles away. think of how fast the background would move wille the WTC stays in center focus.