That's clearly an oversimplification. I don't think you seem to understand. I do t need to back my claim at all. The burden is with you.

Imagin a vinndiagram with 2 circles (not the one kamala thinks of). On one side, we have our cause. On the other is any talking-head. Some talking heads over lap our cause more than others. When they overlap on an issue, it doesn't mean that they are on our side. When they stop overlapping, it doesn't mean they are traitors or against us. The pope is a liberal, and it just happens that the small sliver that overlaps with us is on this issue.

The burden of proof is on you not me. You see how you keep trying to place the burden onto me. It's a standard FE move.

From the video:

• There is no proof showing the government had sole authority over all videos, both public and private.
• There is no proof that all private videos showing planes were doctored.
• There is no proof that all eyewitnesses were lying.
• There is no proof that there was 0 plane wreckage.
• There is no proof that the FAA doctored the flight paths which were recorded.
• There is no proof that the distress calls from the planes were faked.

You have the burden of proof. You have to proove all of these. Not just one. This is your burden not mine.

Yes it was an inside job. There were explosives.....and planes

Well I guess fortunately for me, I'm not the one with the burden of proof. Just like a flat earther, you are the one with the burden. So. Prove it with forensic level evidence that proves no planes hit the towers, this proof should be trying enough to make the 1000s of eye witnesses questionable.

• Your argument suggests a refusal to accept the possibility of conflicting eyewitness accounts and emphasizes the need to examine all evidence. However, the volume and consistency of the eyewitness testimonies that confirm planes hit the towers are overwhelming. Thousands of people, including professionals such as pilots, firefighters, and journalists, have corroborated this event, and their accounts are supported by video footage from multiple angles, forensic evidence, and independent investigations.

• To illustrate this point, consider the sinking of the Titanic. Some witnesses reported that the ship broke in two before sinking, while others believed it went down whole. Those who thought it sank in one piece were typically at the ends of the ship and couldn’t see the break, whereas many near the middle witnessed the split. This discrepancy didn’t mean the Titanic didn’t break; it highlighted the limitations of certain vantage points during a chaotic event.

• Similarly, the accounts of people who didn't see a plane and only observed an explosion do not negate the presence of the planes. It simply indicates that their angle or position prevented them from seeing the impact. The overwhelming majority of eyewitnesses and video recordings clearly show planes hitting the towers, and these accounts have been verified through extensive forensic analysis.

• Examining evidence critically is essential, but dismissing the robust and consistent body of eyewitness testimonies, supported by video and forensic evidence, in favor of less substantiated claims does not provide a stronger standpoint. The burden of proof lies with presenting verifiable evidence that can withstand scrutiny, and so far, the most credible and substantial evidence supports the fact that planes hit the towers on 9/11.

• Thousands of eyewitnesses, along with video evidence, provide substantial proof that planes hit the towers on 9/11. When thousands of people all corroborate the same event, and their accounts are supported by extensive video footage and forensic analysis, this constitutes strong, compelling evidence.

• Dismissing this overwhelming body of firsthand accounts and visual documentation in favor of later, unsubstantiated theories is not a rational approach. The consistent testimonies of eyewitnesses, reinforced by video and forensic evidence, form a robust basis for understanding what occurred. It's important to critically evaluate all claims, but it's also crucial to recognize the weight of direct, corroborated evidence when assessing historical events.

• When new claims emerge that contradict the accounts of thousands of eyewitnesses, it's critical to assess these claims with a healthy dose of skepticism. Disregarding firsthand accounts and overwhelming evidence in favor of later, non-forensic theories is not a rational approach. Instead, it's more logical to question the validity of the contradictory opinion rather than dismiss the consistent and corroborated testimonies of those who witnessed the event firsthand.

• To disregard the substantial body of evidence and eyewitness accounts in favor of speculative theories is to undermine the principles of critical thinking and evidence-based reasoning.

Lmao, I'm not sure where you got that from, I think you should reread my first post on here.

I've heard 3 from family relatives 1 was a police officer, 1 is a taxi driver, and the last did odd jobs, was washing windows outside at the time. They all watched the 2nd one, the window wash saw the first. And yes I will take a few 1000 eye witnesses over someone who wasn't there.

• I watched the video, and I find it unconvincing. The claim that no plane was seen on live TV and that all other planes were digitally inserted contradicts the accounts of thousands of eyewitnesses. There are numerous personal videos from private citizens showing the planes. For instance, one video captures an individual's account of explosions before the plane hit and then documents the second plane hitting in real-time.

• Even if we entertain the notion that all videos could be fabricated, we cannot dismiss the thousands of eyewitness accounts. Many people didn't see the first plane simply because they weren't looking, but a very large number of people saw the second plane hit the towers firsthand. The sheer volume and consistency of these eyewitness testimonies strongly refute the claim that no planes were involved.

I'm traveling I don't have the connectivity to stream. What's the video about?

• There were several thousand eye witnesses to the planes. I know a few.
• planes basically crumble even without an explosion.
• the passports were clearly planted
• the blackboxes were stolen
• there was clearly a setup happening woth rigged thermite and other possible explosives.
• any material evidence was quickly removed to contaminate the scene to prevent independent investigations.

The idea of no planes is a black psyop to make us look stupid and is up there with flat earth theory.

Action speak louder than words. Elons actions at the moment align with ours.

I wouldn't be so quick to say that. They could have been the ones who set it up for all we know.

Yeah that seems to be weather or not the Founders used the same definition as vittel. If they did, then she is not qualified. It seems like they did use that definition, not only did they all read his book, but his book was often cited in early law.

Nah, she just got her notes from Hillary Clinton. Where is her hot sauce reference?

Yeah, they seem to thinkits fine to keep something unconstitutional if correcting the issue is "confusing"

So they are saying, something unconstitutional can remain if it causes confusion to correct it?

Not really. I think both ways are not conclusive. But regardless, would you agree that at a minimum this is a distraction?

I have two sisters that married half black people. Their kids look 100% black. I mean like the color of Nutella. All but one, who looks like my sister and Maybe 10% black. Going off of skin color doesn't work well with mixed race kids. Some can come out looking white, some can be an even mix, some can come out looking black.

• Beryl Christie Harris is the mother of Kamala Harris.

Beryl Christie Harris parents:

• Herbert Finegan: A prominent Jamaican civil servant and educator.
• Ethel Finegan (née Mayne): A teacher and community worker.

Herbert Finegan's parents were:

• Francis Finegan: He was a respected figure in Jamaica and worked as a civil servant.
• Hannah Finegan (née Hylton): She was involved in community work.

Because there is not a single instance in her past family of Bing pure Black or pure white it means that the chances of them being 75% or more is not likely. I would say 50% is a closer number. Just an opinion there isn't a good way to verify.

Are you speaking of her father's side? Here is her mother's side:

Shyamala Gopalan, Kamala Harris's mother, was born in Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India. Her parents were P.V. Gopalan and Rajam Gopalan.

• P.V. Gopalan was a civil servant in India.
• Rajam Gopalan was a housewife.

Both of Shyamala Gopalan's parents were of Indian descent, specifically from the Tamil Brahmin community, which is an upper-caste group in Tamil Nadu.

• When you teach someone to build an engine, you focus on the process of disassembly and reassembly, not just on identifying a wrench. Practical application is key; the tools are learned innately through use.

• Schools fail because they emphasize tools first, causing burnout without imparting the practical understanding of their use.

• Instead of repeating this mistake, let's enlighten them about the evils, about Epstein, and the true essence of Q. Expose the manipulation and tactics used against us. Over time, they will naturally grasp Q drops, proofs, and decodes.