911 inside job - for what?

[The Silver Thong 4,323]

Silver Thong, you have come a long way into recoginizing that the 9/11 attacks were not in any way associated with the US, but purely the doings of radical muslim extremest's under UBL.

Good job!!!

The US alone did not attack itself as it has in the past but it was complacent in 2001 for a reason. You have to get past how great your nation is and your patriotic duty is to ask but demand your govenment to listen. Does your government listen, no didn't think so

[The Silver Thong 4,323]

Re-read the burden of proof principle again. I have not made any claims, yet. I started this thread to solicit arguments for an inside job; who and why.

I have heard several theories of why but nothing to identify who, except for Larry Silverstein and George W. Bush.

Larry Silverstein and George W. Bush. had little or nothing to do with it but they knew of it.

[pallidin 8,349]

Re-read the burden of proof principle again. I have not made any claims, yet. I started this thread to solicit arguments for an inside job; who and why.

I have heard several theories of why but nothing to identify who, except for Larry Silverstein and George W. Bush.

OK, I'll try again. It was radical muslim hijackers under the auspices of bin Laden that cause 9/11.

[The Silver Thong 4,323]

OK, I'll try again. It was radical muslim hijackers under the auspices of bin Laden that cause 9/11.

I could pose a rebutal that it was radical christian Americans that trained Osama bin ladin. Now lets look at it this way, who hijacked the middle east.

[redhen 1,482]

Redhen why did the terrorists do what they did and why to such lengths and how did they pull it off.

You want answers from everyone now answer that question. Or does it not fly with they just did it theory

I have asked this at least six times...................

If you are going to ignore the burden of proof principle, then you are not reasoning logically. If you don't want to reason logically, then I will have to move on to someone else who is willing to follow the constitutive rules of argumentation.

[joc 7,520]

If you are going to ignore the burden of proof principle, then you are not reasoning logically. If you don't want to reason logically, then I will have to move on to someone else who is willing to follow the constitutive rules of argumentation.

If you are willing to...Admit that you can be wrong.....why don't you want to see any evidence?

[pallidin 8,349]

The US alone did not attack itself as it has in the past but it was complacent in 2001 for a reason. You have to get past how great your nation is and your patriotic duty is to ask but demand your govenment to listen. Does your government listen, no didn't think so

Ah, you flatter me! Thanks!

I am very patient with patient's, so allow me to subtly correct your statement with your true, heartfelt intention of meaning:

"The US did not attack itself"

There, that's better. You can thank me later... no charge.

[skyeagle409 2,909]

How and why Sky

First, let's look at the flight profiles. Take the flight profile of American 77. Look at the profiles after the hijackers took control.

http://www.911myths...._Study_AA77.pdf

Next, we have the recordings of hijackers voices because they failed to realize they were still on the frequency of ATC. Apparently, they didn't realize they were in contact with ATC personnel rather than the passengers.

'We have some planes... Stay quiet and we’ll be OK' The chilling exchange between 9/11 hijackers and air traffic control

http://www.dailymail...ic-control.html

Edited January 12, 2013 by skyeagle409

[The Silver Thong 4,323]

If you are going to ignore the burden of proof principle, then you are not reasoning logically. If you don't want to reason logically, then I will have to move on to someone else who is willing to follow the constitutive rules of argumentation.

I have lived up to your rules I even asked what you want me to post. are you asking me to prove and site spcific names in the banking industry that caused war. Burden of proof would be nice but could I name one man no. Your request is absurd and you know that. Your trolling as there is no one name to name.

[pallidin 8,349]

Now lets look at it this way, who hijacked the middle east.

The radical Islamic muslims.

Geeze, at least read the news.

[joc 7,520]

The radical Islamic muslims.

Geeze, at least read the news.

Who creates the news? Who decides what news plays? Who is making the decision...show this...don't show that? Read the news? Do you really trust the media?

[The Silver Thong 4,323]

First, let's look at the flight profiles. Take the flight profile of American 77. Look at the profiles after the hijackers took control.

http://www.911myths...._Study_AA77.pdf

Next, we have the recordings of hijackers voices because they failed to realize they were still on the frequency of ATC. Apparently, they didn't realize they were in contact with ATC personnel rather than the passengers.

'We have some planes... Stay quiet and we’ll be OK' The chilling exchange between 9/11 hijackers and air traffic control

http://www.dailymail...ic-control.html

For crying out loud for the tenth time prove how they did it and a bonus why. This is where you fail you have no idea how they did it.

[skyeagle409 2,909]

Now lets look at it this way, who hijacked the middle east.

Al-Qaeda.

[The Silver Thong 4,323]

Ah, you flatter me! Thanks!

I am very patient with patient's, so allow me to subtly correct your statement with your true, heartfelt intention of meaning:

"The US did not attack itself"

There, that's better. You can thank me later... no charge.

I see changing a persons post to fit your wants to satify your truth is what it comes to. Ok little man go with that.

[joc 7,520]

The Silver Thong, on 12 January 2013 - 04:39 PM, said:

Now lets look at it this way, who hijacked the middle east.

Al-Qaeda.

Really?

[redhen 1,482]

If you are willing to...Admit that you can be wrong.....why don't you want to see any evidence?

I'm still waiting to find out who planned the attacks.

[The Silver Thong 4,323]

Al-Qaeda.

Thats a made up name now use the name they were called when under western control.

[The Silver Thong 4,323]

I'm still waiting to find out who planned the attacks.

I thought you knew a guy in a cave

Edited January 12, 2013 by The Silver Thong

[pallidin 8,349]

Who creates the news? Who decides what news plays? Who is making the decision...show this...don't show that? Read the news? Do you really trust the media?

OK, Joc, that's a fair statement. For myself, I look at CNN, FOX, HuffingtonPost and several others to get some type of balanced opinion.

Joc, what is YOUR source of news?

Really?

Really.

[redhen 1,482]

I have lived up to your rules I even asked what you want me to post. are you asking me to prove and site spcific names in the banking industry that caused war.

Yes. You made the claim that the Bank of England and other unnamed banks planned the 911 attacks. I'm asking for the names of some of these people and evidence that they planned it.

Burden of proof would be nice but could I name one man no. Your request is absurd and you know that. Your trolling as there is no one name to name.

No it's not absurd, the burden of proof is a non-contentious principle of argumentation. If you don't have any warrants for your claim, like I said before it is not a reasoned opinion, it's a simple opinion. You see the difference?

[The Silver Thong 4,323]

I'm still waiting to find out who planned the attacks.

Nobody is going to fall for that, I'm still waiting to hear what your name is. See why would you tell. Because you dont have to.

[pallidin 8,349]

Thats a made up name now use the name they were called when under western control.

Most of Europe was once under Roman authority. But not now, at all. So who gives a rats **** about a name.

[The Silver Thong 4,323]

Yes. You made the claim that the Bank of England and other unnamed banks planned the 911 attacks. I'm asking for the names of some of these people and evidence that they planned it.

No it's not absurd, the burden of proof is a non-contentious principle of argumentation. If you don't have any warrants for your claim, like I said before it is not a reasoned opinion, it's a simple opinion. You see the difference?

I hope mommy and daddy have you wear a helmet as that is not what I said so please before you post think. The fedral reserve is not a fedral bank who owns it, look it up smart boy. Now I'm p***ed Redhen your a complete dbag you are pulling chit out of your ass to make your pathetic quest to nowear going. Shut up or add something you tool. I use to respect your crap but f u you troll.

Post something other than blah blah blah

Edited January 12, 2013 by The Silver Thong

[redhen 1,482]

I thought you knew a guy in a cave

I made no such claim on this thread. I have made no claims yet, only solicitations to discover who planned this inside job and why. You told me why but have failed to tell me who, specifically, not generalizations like "global banking" or Federal Reserve or Bank of England.

Edited January 12, 2013 by redhen

[The Silver Thong 4,323]

Most of Europe was once under Roman authority. But not now, at all. So who gives a rats **** about a name.

Damn you are so smart that the Euro slipped under the radar.