Well, probably would have been better than that 4 frames of as "proof" 77 hit. The resolution on that is about as good as a 12 inch black and white analog tv with ice cream smeared across the screen (actually worse than that....we'd have probably been able to tell what kind of ice cream we were looking at).
It really depends on what it is I want to find out about.. I'll tell you though, it will NOT be something where the the information does NOT have any corroboration or independent evidence from OUTSIDE the source. In other words, I won't say something is true just because a grand total of ONE guy told me that.. ESPECIALLY when IF TRUE, there WOULD be outside evidence, but none exists. If that guy only said it AFTER he was tortured, this would be even more reason to throw that out as he most likely just said it to get the torture to stop. If this information can't even be confirmed to come from him, and I received it second hand from a middle man, this is even worse. If that middle man has a history of dishonesty, and even destroyed evidence about these statements despite court orders not to, even MORE reason not to trust it. THAT is how my source would be different than that of the main story about the plotting and funding of 9/11 as told by the 9/11 commission.
Except you did the exact opposite when you said Bush posed for pictures outside of the Booker T Washington. Liar.
So I do that so much that the only example you've got is from over six months ago... lol. Keep digging up that classic gem.. Like the one time I made a mistake and admitted it.. Showing how long it is in the past since I've been wrong only shows how right I must be in the present. Keep up the good work, candy.
Hey candy, I notice you followed the red herring about me, but failed to defend your precious 9/11 commission report and refute the charges against it. You sputtered out again... Fail. 9/11 report is 100% right you're going to say.. And I'll just link to the thread where I disproved you about that.