It's from a 9/11 site, what do you expect? I thought James Bradley did a decent job of giving the macro-history/relationship/and ultimate context for the precursors for the war in his book Flyboys. Took it back to mid-1800's and forward to give a proper context to the two nations relationship which ultimately lead to the conflict.
The Gulf of Tonkin Incident is the only proof we need to know that False Flag operations are the very foundation tactics used to create war...........................
How is it that you only need that as proof? Which means your requirements are obviously very low, but all of the evidence towards the official story isn't enough?
VERY LOW? Tell that to all the families of Vietnam vets who lost their lives or are deceased and those who are still alive.......... Go ahead tell them they fought a pseudo war for ELITE interests,to line the pockets of the true rulers in this world...................
No such thing as plagiarism with google at your fingertips, now is there? If information matches up well enough with my beliefs I posts it........ Why waste time typing when the same message can be easily found with a quick search? It is called key words............ Since you have just learned this heavily guarded secret, now you can use it,LOL...................
What the hell are you talking about? How about you take yourself around to the firehouses of NY and tell them they were involved in a conspiracy? How about you go around to the police stations, hospitals, and first responders families, and fill them in on how their loved ones, and even themselves were involved? Don't give me that bleeding heart (*)(*)(*)(*) as you (*)(*)(*)(*) on the graves of thousands.
So you're suddenly familiar with the rules? How did you achieve this epiphany? I assume you'll rectify your obvious plagiarism now? On the other hand, since your wrote the following, I suspect that's never going to happen. Do you seriously believe that? Because what you wrote there is absolute bullsh!t, and says a lot about you.
Everything anybody posts is plagiarizing in some sort of way or another, for the fact they read or seen or been taught these thoughts that are in their mind, from someone or action of someone or self, through their own life experiences.................
So you can't distinguish between expressing information in one's own words and completely cribbing the exact words from someone else? Rules like the one on this forum's TOS are there for a reason, yet you seem cool with hand-waving that off as if it's unimportant. Hopeless.
Hog wash. The suggestion of wings is still visible, and that brings the width up to almost that of the towers in the forground. You need to learn a certain basic concept of photography called "depth of field." The plane was out of focus, thus would show few details, especially in small structures and textures, probably even color. This is not rocket science.
Nonsense. The orb passes east of the north tower only two seconds before the south tower exploded. NO PLANE of any kind could have made that turn except in a video game. No wings or anything is visible. It's an orb, nothing else. You are making an excuses without any proof. A barge is visible on the surface of the water, is further from the camera than the orb. The barge is discernible as are the buildings north of the towers. The orb would've been nothing if it wasn't something.
People who know what they are looking at see an aircraft. Get a better cpy of the video and a bigger monitor with decent resolution.
That's not true. Lauer described a small plane circling the building. A plane cannot circle a building in the final two seconds before it crashes into the back of it. That's one main reason why it could not be a plane. I don't need a better anything. It's not a plane and you have the burden of proving that it was something that it wasn't, a plane of any kind. - - - Updated - - - Find a real plane and compare it to the orb from 911 or any other plane. You can't do it because it looks nothing like any plane.
Lauer didn't spend four years of his life sitting and watching aircraft take off and land or participating in fire power exercises. I have. He seems to have confused a helicopter with the airliner. At that distance, not hard to do. It looks like a plane to those of us who know something about photography, or who have watched a lot of footage of aireal combat.
That's called reverse burden of proof and it's BS. It is not OUR burden. 3 airplanes flew into 3 different targets is the accepted narrative by all of sane society. You are trying to say that those events didn't happen the way they have been proven to be accepted. The burden of proof lies completely on you, and it is up to you to prove that there were no planes. Which you haven't done at all. No planers are crazy by truther standards, that's the funny part.
Thus proving Shakespeares' theory about 'all of the people some of the time .............' - - - Updated - - - Aliens .........................
The orb ain't a plane, could never be a plane and no attempt to prove it was a plane will ever occur by anyone. I have no burden of proven of anything, especially the negative that planes crashed into the towers. You have lost the debate because you haven't offered any proof of planes because no real proof of planes exists.
