Maybe... there is an Anon who is vehemently opposed to the CGI facts. He claims that there are eyewitnesses and other videos that show the planes. But, he never addresses the fact that original videos were bought by CNN and other MSM giants, and then doctored. And, the eyewitnesses could easily have been plants. So, his sources are at least questionable, but he never addresses the CGI facts that are in this video.
"The fact" that videos were "doctored"? How would you be able to prove that to be a fact, and not what it really is...an assumption. And where is the proof that the eyewitnesses were liars? And you have the temerity to say that "his sources are at least questionable," when all you have is sheer fantasy.
Just because you say "prove it" first does not mean that your side is accurate. Did you watch this video? Can you say one is doctored and not the other, regardless of which one? And given all that we know, I would suggest that the idea that the plane was added is more plausible, especially given all of the raw video of people saying it was an explosion and that there was no plane.
If the plane s/he saw only clipped the corner of the south tower then s/he must also be claiming that there was a third plane. The north tower was attacked first, the south tower second - or is s/he claiming the 767 looped around and went for a direct hit after s/he saw it fly overhead and clip the corner of the south tower?
Where's the CGI-denier? He is always askingfor proof. This video presents the proof.
Maybe... there is an Anon who is vehemently opposed to the CGI facts. He claims that there are eyewitnesses and other videos that show the planes. But, he never addresses the fact that original videos were bought by CNN and other MSM giants, and then doctored. And, the eyewitnesses could easily have been plants. So, his sources are at least questionable, but he never addresses the CGI facts that are in this video.
"The fact" that videos were "doctored"? How would you be able to prove that to be a fact, and not what it really is...an assumption. And where is the proof that the eyewitnesses were liars? And you have the temerity to say that "his sources are at least questionable," when all you have is sheer fantasy.
Just because you say "prove it" first does not mean that your side is accurate. Did you watch this video? Can you say one is doctored and not the other, regardless of which one? And given all that we know, I would suggest that the idea that the plane was added is more plausible, especially given all of the raw video of people saying it was an explosion and that there was no plane.
If the plane s/he saw only clipped the corner of the south tower then s/he must also be claiming that there was a third plane. The north tower was attacked first, the south tower second - or is s/he claiming the 767 looped around and went for a direct hit after s/he saw it fly overhead and clip the corner of the south tower?