HOLY CRAP! proof of tvfakery

Welcome to Pumpitout. We hope you enjoy your visit.

You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.

Join our community!

If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Pages:
1
2
3
4

HOLY CRAP! proof of tvfakery
Topic Started: Jun 30 2009, 06:17 AM (1,320 Views)
elephant room	Jun 30 2009, 06:17 AM Post #1
Posts: 648 Group: Members Member #50 Joined: Oct 21, 2008	reserved to defend "tvfakery" in 9/11 videos, other than what is perceived to be visually puzzling "crash-less" entry or speeds that are proving to be impossible for these planes to remain in flying condition ... let alone be controllable by amateurs. Edited by elephant room, Jun 30 2009, 06:47 AM.



RasgaSaias	Jun 30 2009, 06:20 AM Post #2
Posts: 1,360 Group: Global Moderator Member #43 Joined: Oct 16, 2008	HOLY CRAP! none...



broken sticks	Jun 30 2009, 09:48 AM Post #3
Posts: 1,420 Group: Members Member #105 Joined: Jan 3, 2009	Every piece of TV fakery evidence i look into proves to be false, with the possible exception of the phone-ins at the time of the second crash. They seem to have been cut or manipulated. I'm not even sure about the ABC colour change (I've found a fresh one at about 9:30am) but i'll reserve judgment on that for now as I haven't worked it out. So i guess i should point out the lack of delay on Devin Clark and Kim Abramson's videos.



genghis6199	Jun 30 2009, 12:10 PM Post #4
Posts: 1,913 Group: Members Member #4 Joined: Sep 27, 2008	HOLY CRAP. thank god i wasn't one of the sheep who runs around saying "tvfakery" i doubt the speed of the plane, i DENY THE ENTRY OF PLANES INTO STEEL STRUCTURES WITH NO RESISTANCE WHATSOEVER. and i know no pilots could fly like that, and if they did they would be shot down. so I KNOW the "plane story" of 911 is a complete bunch of bullshite, but those who equate this with a four year old catch cry of nico haupts is here only to spread his own ignorance. i take a few days off and the place turns into a yawn fest of back slapping old ladies.



steelers43	Jun 30 2009, 04:42 PM Post #5
Posts: 76 Group: Members Member #112 Joined: Jan 9, 2009	So what exactly is everyone saying???
Posts: 76 Group: Members Member #112 Joined: Jan 9, 2009


elephant room	Jun 30 2009, 05:10 PM Post #6
Posts: 648 Group: Members Member #50 Joined: Oct 21, 2008	steelers43 Jun 30 2009, 04:42 PM So what exactly is everyone saying??? My opinion is pretty much what brokensticks said ... "Every piece of TV fakery evidence i look into proves to be false..." I think the term itself and the whole genre of fake this & missing that ... are the distraction. but this would be a good thread to change my mind.



YOUROOM101	Jul 1 2009, 02:11 PM Post #7
Posts: 65 Group: Members Member #98 Joined: Dec 31, 2008	I thought most people had a hard time believing the video of the plane melting into the building like as if the building wasn't there to stop it?
Posts: 65 Group: Members Member #98 Joined: Dec 31, 2008


YOUROOM101	Jul 1 2009, 02:43 PM Post #8
Posts: 65 Group: Members Member #98 Joined: Dec 31, 2008	I'll just put the things that I hold questionable, this is my list: 1) The fireball is only visible after the planes gone into the building, is this just easier to fake? 2) No plane serial numbers for plane parts that I can find, this adds to the fake video claim? 3) No live crash video broadcast? 4) Video quality is generally poor, and holding onto original footage is questionable in itself? 5) The interviews on the ground do sound staged, I must admit even though I'll stand by the locations are real no blue screen used that I can see. 6) Speed of the plane, are we looking at speeded up video or are they stupid enough to animate it going to fast?
Posts: 65 Group: Members Member #98 Joined: Dec 31, 2008


elephant room	Jul 1 2009, 03:28 PM Post #9
Posts: 648 Group: Members Member #50 Joined: Oct 21, 2008	None of your points suggest that we are looking at fake or edited video. The crowd that has taken the absurdity of layering/green screening/fake scenery to the point where now suggesting the smoke is a collage of images of animals ... SparkOfLife tried to make his points, but we found out that it was mostly Simon Shacks crappy gifs. The one building isn't even the wtc behind the frantic guy ... a mistake made by looking at crappy gifs. But KT & Duck and whomever else have not been able to prove fake/missing buildings or people. Alot of us have been Censored from defending the truth w/ these points at their guarded hangout. So the issue is how can these guys not see what is so obvious? why this insistent need to push "fakery"? ... Yet they all carry on at movement about how many animation mistakes were made ... and accuse people like mark humphrey of involvement in 9/11 ... while Simon Shack defends that no one video taped the wtc collapse ... and Ace Baker ignores the plane in the wideshot & the "nose" in every shot ... and kt will say ambiguous points about jumping buildings in a crappy gif ... and Fetzer will continue to be lazy with his facts (jack white's amateurism for example) ... and kt will act like he is not interested in the details (one of the most laughable ideas that anyone would have constructed the amount of info together and spend the amount of time he does and not be driven to know what happened!) So I offered this thread to prove "fakery" ... I dont think your points listed are exclusive to the conclusion of TVFakery. Edited by elephant room, Jul 1 2009, 03:50 PM.



broken sticks	Jul 1 2009, 03:39 PM Post #10
Posts: 1,420 Group: Members Member #105 Joined: Jan 3, 2009	Well put, E/Room. I'm very tempted to post my "ABC Interference and other Killtown-related Issues resolved" video on movement. I'm not banned there (probably because i never post).



heavyplastic	Jul 1 2009, 05:03 PM Post #11
Posts: 89 Group: Members Member #234 Joined: May 22, 2009	So what's next? We all jump on the AJ bandwagon? LOL



Lord Tsukasa	Sep 22 2009, 01:32 AM Post #12
Posts: 173 Group: Members Member #14 Joined: Sep 28, 2008	heavyplastic Jul 1 2009, 05:03 PM So what's next? We all jump on the AJ bandwagon? LOL Good question. It sounds like there is a real shift towards planehugging going on here.



elephant room	Sep 22 2009, 04:08 AM Post #13
Posts: 648 Group: Members Member #50 Joined: Oct 21, 2008	Lord Tsukasa Sep 22 2009, 01:32 AM heavyplastic Jul 1 2009, 05:03 PM So what's next? We all jump on the AJ bandwagon? LOL Good question. It sounds like there is a real shift towards planehugging going on here. whats up Lord T, Alex Jones is a scam artist as far as I can see, certainly he is a poor "face" for the truth... Embarrassing might be a better word. But to answer the part of the question I think you were more interested in: A re-review of the NPT & "TvFakery" has led me to the conclusion that there was most likely a plane of some sort in the case of the second wtc incident. & that September Clues is almost entirely made up of falsehoods, wild speculation, and pretty serious accusations about the witnesses w/o sufficient evidence. More specifically, with regards to the thread I started here, I no longer know of any 'proof' of fakery that hasn't been clearly refuted & debunked. I ask you to offer what 'proof' you think there is for fakery for discussion. This is my reason for the thread & it's title. best Edited by elephant room, Sep 22 2009, 04:26 AM.



Lord Tsukasa	Sep 22 2009, 10:26 AM Post #14
Posts: 173 Group: Members Member #14 Joined: Sep 28, 2008	elephant room Sep 22 2009, 04:08 AM Lord Tsukasa Sep 22 2009, 01:32 AM heavyplastic Jul 1 2009, 05:03 PM So what's next? We all jump on the AJ bandwagon? LOL Good question. It sounds like there is a real shift towards planehugging going on here. whats up Lord T, Alex Jones is a scam artist as far as I can see, certainly he is a poor "face" for the truth... Embarrassing might be a better word. But to answer the part of the question I think you were more interested in: A re-review of the NPT & "TvFakery" has led me to the conclusion that there was most likely a plane of some sort in the case of the second wtc incident. & that September Clues is almost entirely made up of falsehoods, wild speculation, and pretty serious accusations about the witnesses w/o sufficient evidence. More specifically, with regards to the thread I started here, I no longer know of any 'proof' of fakery that hasn't been clearly refuted & debunked. I ask you to offer what 'proof' you think there is for fakery for discussion. This is my reason for the thread & it's title. best Nothing much here, E/R. Okay, let's discuss fakery evidence. Let's discuss the contradictory flight paths: Thoughts?



broken sticks	Sep 22 2009, 10:55 AM Post #15
Posts: 1,420 Group: Members Member #105 Joined: Jan 3, 2009	the flight paths all match, they're just from different perspectives here's rasga's pic to demonstrate: next?



1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)


Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Disinfo / Manipulation / Propaganda · Next Topic »

Pages:
1
2
3
4