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.
I watched samples from it. All concocted. Street people declaring what they saw, when they saw only the effect. Some idiot with an eastern European accent insisting that an airplane would behave like a brittle accordion, and that it could not penetrate the building (B-25 vs. Empire State Building to the contrary). Someone referred to the video of one airliner passing over building tops and one wingtip seemingly went behind one building (which was in fact consistent with the path of the airplane and the fact that distance perspective flattens out at long distance). Where did the "undoctored" video come from, and what is the certification that it is "undoctored"? There was a fireball from the first instant of the collision, which is unremarkable considering the airplane was fully fueled and a collision would be guaranteed to create sparks or adiabatic heating in a fuel space with ullage. People in this country have become conditioned to think that a cloud of fire signifies an explosion because Hollywood finds it more convenient to simulate them with propane than with explosives.
So, prove it. Arguing "it might have been" or "it could have been" is only fantasizing based on an ignorant view of the mechanics of such an event. The planes were commandeered and were driven into the Towers, the Pentagon, and the countryside with all passengers aboard. They are gone, and this obsession with a fantasy is a morbid trivialization of their deaths.
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.
I watched samples from it. All concocted. Street people declaring what they saw, when they saw only the effect. Some idiot with an eastern European accent insisting that an airplane would behave like a brittle accordion, and that it could not penetrate the building (B-25 vs. Empire State Building to the contrary). Someone referred to the video of one airliner passing over building tops and one wingtip seemingly went behind one building (which was in fact consistent with the path of the airplane and the fact that distance perspective flattens out at long distance). Where did the "undoctored" video come from, and what is the certification that it is "undoctored"? There was a fireball from the first instant of the collision, which is unremarkable considering the airplane was fully fueled and a collision would be guaranteed to create sparks or adiabatic heating in a fuel space with ullage. People in this country have become conditioned to think that a cloud of fire signifies an explosion because Hollywood finds it more convenient to simulate them with propane than with explosives.
So, prove it. Arguing "it might have been" or "it could have been" is only fantasizing based on an ignorant view of the mechanics of such an event. The planes were commandeered and were driven into the Towers, the Pentagon, and the countryside with all passengers aboard. They are gone, and this obsession with a fantasy is a morbid trivialization of their deaths.
You sound so desperate to be right. I am not. I can agree to disagree. I wish you well.