marski420
- 511
- 43
How can you prove ignorant people wrong? Its impossible, you dont take any of the facts I said and debate them, just call them lies and dont even touch on them. Not to mention you're not even arguing your own side.. you just say what I say isnt true and want me to prove that wrong? like wtf is wrong with your head.I know you havent seen the video for yourself, and in fact I already showed your true character earlier in this thread when you were saying it was untrue without even watching it(Still at it!). Your logic is virtually non existent.. a logical person REVIEWS all the information then makes their decision. You just straight up said it wasnt true and STILL to this day have not presented any facts to discredit the theory. You say its on me to prove it, yet I already did... the video has all the proof, go watch it. I could sit here detailing the videos evidence but thats not going to reach you(Not that anything can by the looks of it)
I am the one telling you, its on YOU to watch the video and prove me wrong.. if you wont (or even better, CANT) prove me wrong then what the hell are you doing here? I want you to PROVE a piece of hollow plastic can penetrate thick steel columns (2 sets) and come out the other side unscathed. That bit of info defies all logic and physics alone. Why dont you describe to me why the non live footages show a shadow from the planes nose across the building as is comes out the other side.. BUT on the live shot of it coming out the other side theres no shadow. I know quite a bit about video editing and this is where you have been totally wrong about me. You claim I have to be some sort of scientist to figure this out and that is incorrect. While I do love science a video editing expert has more leverage on this particular incident than anyone and thats because the planes were edited in to the shot. You say its 2d, ok but what about when he goes on to his computer and uses his state of the art software and shows a 3d scale? The angels arent just minor differences.. on one video the plane is shown to explode from underneath near the engines and on another video you can see the explosion above the wings and engine, as he points out yet another flaw in the editing. One last thing for you to prove me wrong.. how come he makes his own fake plane and inserts it into the 9/11 footage and the impacts look just as fake as the"real" footage? Why on both his and the original does the plane appear to travel right through the building like a ghost? VIDEO EDITED.
I have to quickly point out you talk about me attacking your character.. dont think I have forgotten everything you said in this thread, you started it by saying a whole bunch of shit about me when I first presented this so you may wanna not be such a hypocrite. All I want is peaceful debate, I have shown you my side now show me yours. Your side can not consist of telling me Im wrong and not backing it up.. doesnt work that way the burden of proof is on you since you're the one denying it. Give me anything, hit me with your best shot squigs.
I am the one telling you, its on YOU to watch the video and prove me wrong.. if you wont (or even better, CANT) prove me wrong then what the hell are you doing here? I want you to PROVE a piece of hollow plastic can penetrate thick steel columns (2 sets) and come out the other side unscathed. That bit of info defies all logic and physics alone. Why dont you describe to me why the non live footages show a shadow from the planes nose across the building as is comes out the other side.. BUT on the live shot of it coming out the other side theres no shadow. I know quite a bit about video editing and this is where you have been totally wrong about me. You claim I have to be some sort of scientist to figure this out and that is incorrect. While I do love science a video editing expert has more leverage on this particular incident than anyone and thats because the planes were edited in to the shot. You say its 2d, ok but what about when he goes on to his computer and uses his state of the art software and shows a 3d scale? The angels arent just minor differences.. on one video the plane is shown to explode from underneath near the engines and on another video you can see the explosion above the wings and engine, as he points out yet another flaw in the editing. One last thing for you to prove me wrong.. how come he makes his own fake plane and inserts it into the 9/11 footage and the impacts look just as fake as the"real" footage? Why on both his and the original does the plane appear to travel right through the building like a ghost? VIDEO EDITED.
I have to quickly point out you talk about me attacking your character.. dont think I have forgotten everything you said in this thread, you started it by saying a whole bunch of shit about me when I first presented this so you may wanna not be such a hypocrite. All I want is peaceful debate, I have shown you my side now show me yours. Your side can not consist of telling me Im wrong and not backing it up.. doesnt work that way the burden of proof is on you since you're the one denying it. Give me anything, hit me with your best shot squigs.