CNN fake news - just for you, Strav!

[Lamb]

http://www.conservativefighters.com...l&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer

Here's the video on the CNN site. At 32 seconds you can see the reporter has on shorts...unless that's supposed to be the producer? But then there's another guy as well in the frame wearing shorts too.
http://www.cnn.com/videos/us/2017/08/30/drew-griffin-crew-rescues-man-from-car-orig-vstop.cnn

For those who don't want to click...the reporter is wearing shorts but then there is a weird flash (the edit?) and then the camera moves away from a sign and the reporter is wearing long dark pants...and he's saving the guy.

 

[Stravinsk]

The weird flash is just a video editing feature - it by no means can be used to determine clip edits or foul play.

CNN has been faking news for years. The first gulf war coverage a pretty solid example. That isn't to say that there isn't real news on their feed - but real news is mixed with "agenda" news and false narratives. I stopped trusting them as an honest news source quite a few years ago. Adding drama, heroism and other features that add appeal only do so for as long as the general public believes what they see and the source isn't known for being liars.

Like most of the other major corporate networks - they played their part in some of the fake footage of the 911 event.

 

[Lamb]

Snopes is saying the guy in the shorts is the producer and he's wearing a red jacket as well as the reporter. There was 90 seconds of looking at the sign that got cut out because the camera guy went to help.

 

[Stravinsk]

Snopes is saying the guy in the shorts is the producer and he's wearing a red jacket as well as the reporter. There was 90 seconds of looking at the sign that got cut out because the camera guy went to help.

"Snopes" also supports the idea that Aspartame is harmless, doesn't kill ants etc. I know for a fact it is harmful - and their examples of it not being ant poison are dishonest. They set up a straw man to slam it down. Ants don't touch it because it's not food, but they will if it's mixed with sugar syrup and they WILL die. But "Snopes" won't let anyone in on that.

Snopes also supports the idea that 19 hijackers took over planes and slammed them into the twin towers and the Pentagon, bypassing the entire US defense system and setting speed records for those types of air buses at (or near) ground level, where air density is thicker. The tards at Snopes fully support that a passenger air bus was flying at full or near full speed just a few inches above the grass at the Pentagon. This alone tells me "Snopes" if full of it and is definitely a paid disinfo source.

 

[Stravinsk]

This is a fair representation of a few different false news events covering multiple years put out by corporate media to serve one agenda or another. It's too bad 911 is only covered in one of it's aspects, as this is a major major psyop (psychological operation):

I might note that being a believer in these kinds of things is generally no picnic. Hordes of idiots, including some of my own family - shun or hate you simply because you question things they can't or won't. I have gotten crap for my views on 9/11 since 2003 on the web and in life. It hasn't stopped since I arrived here. Too often I feel like throwing up my hands and joining the wrong side. I could get paid well to tell dip sticks exactly the lies they want to hear, while I continually rape them with lies and pet their egos and tell them they are the best people in the world...and most of them will lap up every word.

Most of the time the people telling the truth are the objects of the most hatred and scorn - at least until the herd catches up. That being said, some people addicted to corporate television will never unplug.

 

[ImaginaryDay2]

Any idea what that intro is at 0:35?

 

[Stravinsk]

Any idea what that intro is at 0:35?

No, but I like it. My first guess is DT, I haven't kept up with their newer stuff.

 

[ImaginaryDay2]

But I thought "emergency services aren't available" and people "are on their own". But they come out to arrest looters?? Things that make you go "hmmmm..."

http://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/world...ooters-caught-on-camera/ar-AArFRwG?li=AAggv0m

 

[Lamb]

But I thought "emergency services aren't available" and people "are on their own". But they come out to arrest looters?? Things that make you go "hmmmm..."

http://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/world...ooters-caught-on-camera/ar-AArFRwG?li=AAggv0m

That did sound odd when they made those threats but were out to get the looters.

Have you noticed some of the hurricane videos of the keys where they said that complete islands were devastated and then they show one tiny area that had trees down but you could see further down the road it looked pleasant? My friend lives on St. Croix and luckily her island was spared and didn't have as much damage but St. Thomas had a lot of damage from some of the photos she's posting from a friend.

 

[tango]

But I thought "emergency services aren't available" and people "are on their own". But they come out to arrest looters?? Things that make you go "hmmmm..."

http://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/world...ooters-caught-on-camera/ar-AArFRwG?li=AAggv0m

I'm not sure the two necessarily conflict. There's a difference between "we will rescue you if you're caught" and "you're on your own" in that the first suggests a guarantee that someone will come to rescue you while the second does not. The second doesn't necessarily mean that if a rescue vehicle is right outside your house they'll watch you perish, merely that there's no guarantee that the rescue vehicle will come at all (i.e. you're on your own).

In the face of a mandatory evacuation order it seems reasonable to say that anyone who does decide to stay behind (as everyone should have the right to do) does so at their own risk and shouldn't assume anybody is going to come and help them if things get worse than they expected.