September 11

[kompili]

With an open mind, and applying critical and rational thought, I studied 9/11 from the top to the bottom, and there is only one conclusion I could come with. It was an inside job.

[Fancy]

Having an open mind would mean realizing there is a lot of information not available on the internet and based on conlusions of various events means consideration wasn't given to all the evidence that was available to start with. Ignoring all the links I've provided and stating everything is coming from mainstream media certainly indicates not everything was studied.

[goatboy]

With an open mind, and applying critical and rational thought, I studied 9/11 from the top to the bottom, and there is only one conclusion I could come with. It was an inside job.

And you have no problem with the inconsistencies I raised?

[kompili]

With an open mind, and applying critical and rational thought, I studied 9/11 from the top to the bottom, and there is only one conclusion I could come with. It was an inside job.

And you have no problem with the inconsistencies I raised?

Your inconsistencies, are just that, inconsistencies a relation between propositions that cannot both be true at the same time. If there was any inconsistencies it is with the official story, and the facts back this up.

[Fancy]

What facts? Doesn't sound like you did much studying.

I just watched it happened and used common sense, and I knew it was an inside job, no one had to feed me anything. I didn't need the media, the conspirators, and the false documents to twist things around to make me believe

[goatboy]

Your inconsistencies, are just that, inconsistencies a relation between propositions that cannot both be true at the same time. If there was any inconsistencies it is with the official story, and the facts back this up.

So my inconsistencies are irrelevant but yours are very pertinent?

There are no "facts" to back up your hypothesis. Just guesses that fit within the framework of events. If you tried hard enough, you could come up with a couple of other scenarios that also fit within the events of that day but they wouldn't be true either.

You consider the lack of evidence as proof that something didn't exist. That's not the right way to proceed.

[kompili]

Ignoring all the links I've provided and stating everything is coming from mainstream media certainly indicates not everything was studied.

I read every link you provided even though it was all one sided. I listened to what the mainstream media had to say, and I even listened to Bush's Mumbo Jumbo, and I am sorry to say that none of it made any common sense, and it was clearly an inside job.

[kompili]

Your inconsistencies, are just that, inconsistencies a relation between propositions that cannot both be true at the same time. If there was any inconsistencies it is with the official story, and the facts back this up.

So my inconsistencies are irrelevant but yours are very pertinent?

The facts are not inconsistencies, and that is what I deal with, is the facts. Not your DIE HARD movie make believe fantasies

[Fancy]

I read every link you provided even though it was all one sided.

Firemen are one sided and they don't have common sense? Really?

[goatboy]

The facts are not inconsistencies, and that is what I deal with, is the facts. Not your DIE HARD movie make believe fantasies

Ok, list a couple of your "facts" then, there's so many floating around I'm lost on what ones you believe.

From what i can piece together:

All the flights involved never actually existed and the passengers are not real
Military aircraft that were remote control were used
A number of floors of the WTC were empty and full of explosives
The Israelis were involved
No plane hit the Pentagon, it was a missile
No plane crashed in Shanksville
NYPD and the Media were involved


Do you find it at all odd that they don't believe in a lot of things the majority of us do? I consider myself quite intelligent and do look outside the box but what you believe is far too "Die Hard" than anything I've come up with.

[kompili]

Do you find it at all odd that they don't believe in a lot of things the majority of us do?

Thank you very much, this is the best compliment I've had in some time. I didn't believe that the earth was flat also.

[Fancy]

You didn't respond to the post - it seems you've stated what you believe in is:

All the flights involved never actually existed and the passengers are not real
Military aircraft that were remote control were used
A number of floors of the WTC were empty and full of explosives
The Israelis were involved
No plane hit the Pentagon, it was a missile
No plane crashed in Shanksville
NYPD and the Media were involved

Whether you believe the earth is flat or not is irrelevant to the topic.

[kompili]

Ok, list a couple of your "facts" then, there's so many floating around I'm lost on what ones you believe.

From what i can piece together:

All the flights involved never actually existed and the passengers are not real There were planes involved, remote control planes. How could they be real, there never was any passengers

Military aircraft that were remote control were used Yes this is correct

A number of floors of the WTC were empty and full of explosives Yes, plus there were explosives in the basement, and on other floors

The Israelis were involved Yes some of the special forces were involved.

No plane hit the Pentagon, it was a missile Correct

No plane crashed in Shanksville I think they shot down a plane with missiles in Shanksville, what had real passengers on, but no terrorist. i

NYPD and the Media were involved. Yes, the top few in the NYPD were involved. The media, the owners were involved and a few key people, the rest was just passed along the ranks, Don't forget that only a few media outlets covered the story, and passed it on to the other media.

[kompili]

You didn't respond to the post - it seems you've stated what you believe in is:

.

It really is none of your business, if i want to respond to something I thing is important, i will do so.

[Fancy]

You're the one adamant about what happened which is contrary to the evidence provided.