1) It is dubious that the window is closed (at least for me)
2) It is dubious that the water is going into the window
3) Even assuming that it was indeed closed, the fireman probably didnt see it and sprayed anyway.
How can you possible state that this is complete evidence of fakery?
It's not a matter of lie (we know they lied), it's a matter of using tv-fakery. You don't do that without reason and I don't see the necessity of doing that here..to fake firemen action.
Sorry but this video does not proove anything really. The spraying looks completely normal to me. Yes the water is going inside so what's the point? You want to tell me that you are able to see drops of water going out, with the camera placed at that distance and with such low image quality?
So what is your point, why should they fake even firemen at work? Are you being serious? I dont believe everything was fakery.
So what a fireman cant make a mistake, maybe he didn't see it . I mean you're stating that everything is fake because of a mistake or an odd behaviour from the fireman??
How can you even see from the bad quality of the video if the water goes in, out, or mostly evaporates? It's not possible to form an opinion on this.
Also for every crime you need a motivation. Why would they fake firefighters? Why to risk? If they would do their job anyway?
Also you forgot that no fakery was used to cover the main event at the pentagon (the missile strike) so there would be no reason to use it for such an insignificant follow up.
1) The shape of the hole and internal damage looks like could have been made by a missile
2) There is a camera showing some object like a missile going very fast into the pentagon wall and causing an explosion. If they could fake it , why didn't they do it properly, by showing an airplane instead?
3) words slippery by Rumsfeld (interview Oct. 12, 2001 for Parade Magazine)
4) I am sure there are others but don't recall them right now
So what is your theory about the explosion at the pentagon?
It's much better evidence than your shit of video here is showing..
You have no theories then you are definitely a disinformation shill. Your videos try to ridiculize the "No-fakery" evidence, that people like Simon Shack and others have put together with so much sacrifice. You're really a shill.
Don't use vulgarity on my boards. I will leave this comment as it shows who is who quite well.
I have been criticized by far more competent than you. I have over 350,000 viewers who, like you, could find no errors in my videos.
Shills, like you, pretend not to see what is actually there (the window looks open!?) or creat cocamamy theories as to why it could be expected given the official story of 911.
I present facts. I don't block. No garbage can stick on me. Keep tossing!
"I have over 350,000 viewers who, like you, could find no errors in my videos."
The word "Error" does not mean anything,
Implying a thesis from stating an hypothesis may not contain any logical error, it may be formally correct, but if the hypothesis is weak and unclear there is a substantial Error.
Yes, I would say that fake streams of water would be the logical thirst-quencher for fake fires. :-)
nameofthepen 2 years ago
fresniak says
"I mean you're stating that everything is fake because of a mistake"
No, I am saying that an image of water spraying thru a closed window proves the water spraying thru the closed window is fake.
I am saying that a defendent proven to have lied on any issue should be carefully examined on all other issues.
I am saying, don't assume anything, show.
CNN911Fakes 3 years ago
Knowing that:
1) It is dubious that the window is closed (at least for me)
2) It is dubious that the water is going into the window
3) Even assuming that it was indeed closed, the fireman probably didnt see it and sprayed anyway.
How can you possible state that this is complete evidence of fakery?
It's not a matter of lie (we know they lied), it's a matter of using tv-fakery. You don't do that without reason and I don't see the necessity of doing that here..to fake firemen action.
fresniak 3 years ago
fresniak claims
1) It is dubious that the window is closed (at least for me)
2) It is dubious that the water is going into the window
3) Even assuming that it was indeed closed, the fireman probably didnt see it and sprayed anyway.
Wow, the video shows all three, so I guess I am stuck.
I will delete all further comments along this line for a number of reasons;
it is trolling.
it is spam
it is an obvious lie.
Go away.
CNN911Fakes 3 years ago
Sorry but this video does not proove anything really. The spraying looks completely normal to me. Yes the water is going inside so what's the point? You want to tell me that you are able to see drops of water going out, with the camera placed at that distance and with such low image quality?
So what is your point, why should they fake even firemen at work? Are you being serious? I dont believe everything was fakery.
Are you trying to push some disinformation here?
fresniak 3 years ago
fresniak says
"The spraying looks completely normal to me. Yes the water is going inside so what's the point?"
Uh, the window is closed.
CNN911Fakes 3 years ago
So what a fireman cant make a mistake, maybe he didn't see it . I mean you're stating that everything is fake because of a mistake or an odd behaviour from the fireman??
fresniak 3 years ago
How can you even see from the bad quality of the video if the water goes in, out, or mostly evaporates? It's not possible to form an opinion on this.
Also for every crime you need a motivation. Why would they fake firefighters? Why to risk? If they would do their job anyway?
Also you forgot that no fakery was used to cover the main event at the pentagon (the missile strike) so there would be no reason to use it for such an insignificant follow up.
fresniak 3 years ago
fresniak,
You are not welcome to spam or troll.
You are welcom to say your unsubstantiated opinion once.
The video at v1:18 shows the window is closed. Water, foam, can't go thru a closed window.
You assume there was a missile with no evidence. I absolutely show the window is closed in the video and you want to argue it is not.
Perhaps you should reexamine your approach to evidence.
CNN911Fakes 3 years ago
There are evidences of a missile being used at penthagon, but of course it's not into this piece of footage, dealing about firemen
fresniak 3 years ago
fresniak
OK, let's go thru the shill/infiltrator 2-step.
Pls provide a link to evidence of a missile at the pentagon.
Please do not refer to the rummy interview where the rumour was started as rummy never tells the truth.
You're right, this video deals with the narrow subject of one faked spraying at the pentagon.
CNN911Fakes 3 years ago
1) The shape of the hole and internal damage looks like could have been made by a missile
2) There is a camera showing some object like a missile going very fast into the pentagon wall and causing an explosion. If they could fake it , why didn't they do it properly, by showing an airplane instead?
3) words slippery by Rumsfeld (interview Oct. 12, 2001 for Parade Magazine)
4) I am sure there are others but don't recall them right now
So what is your theory about the explosion at the pentagon?
fresniak 3 years ago
fresniak
I asked for evidence links, not your opinions.
1. "looks?" Hardly evidence.
2. No there isn't.
3. rummy always lies
4. So what?
I have no theories. I only have evidence that I cross reference
You have opinions that are unfounded.
CNN911Fakes 3 years ago
It's much better evidence than your shit of video here is showing..
You have no theories then you are definitely a disinformation shill. Your videos try to ridiculize the "No-fakery" evidence, that people like Simon Shack and others have put together with so much sacrifice. You're really a shill.
fresniak 3 years ago
fresniak
Don't use vulgarity on my boards. I will leave this comment as it shows who is who quite well.
I have been criticized by far more competent than you. I have over 350,000 viewers who, like you, could find no errors in my videos.
Shills, like you, pretend not to see what is actually there (the window looks open!?) or creat cocamamy theories as to why it could be expected given the official story of 911.
I present facts. I don't block. No garbage can stick on me. Keep tossing!
CNN911Fakes 3 years ago
"I have over 350,000 viewers who, like you, could find no errors in my videos."
The word "Error" does not mean anything,
Implying a thesis from stating an hypothesis may not contain any logical error, it may be formally correct, but if the hypothesis is weak and unclear there is a substantial Error.
fresniak 3 years ago
2. No there isn't.
What you mean there isnt? Care to explain maybe??
It was shown on tv, you can say it was doctored, but there is a video. So dont say bs
fresniak 3 years ago
fresniak
I have simple rules. I give people opportunities to present their evidence.
Asserting the same unfounded opinion is not presenting evidence. It is spam. Don't bother.
Give a link. If it is a video, give the YT link and I would be happy to meet you there.
Everything shown on TV is doctored. TV fakery is every single day in every single news story on every single station.
Your assertion requires belief that they didn't lie on 911.
CNN911Fakes 3 years ago
well presented , we have been lied to on the 911 terror event
capelipl 3 years ago
That window was closed and unbroken.
Why didn't anybody see that before?
CxCOXitvpD8 3 years ago
drop the disney font and show the damn video clip!
CensorThisPlease 3 years ago
Wow, a comment of substance.
No.
CNN911Fakes 3 years ago
censorthisplease
Looking for debunkery practice?
watch?v=RgTVchBl13o
CNN911Fakes 3 years ago
More truth exposed...and their lies get bigger
1DarkWingDuck 3 years ago
Thanks. They are easy to find.
CNN911Fakes 3 years ago