Was 9-11 an inside job or not?

[LastChild]

Haliburton and KRB are not the same company anymore, dunce. Had you bothered to read the CNN article you cited you'd know that.

So now the argument has shifted to where Halliburton moved its corporate HQ? Well that's proof

INSiDe JorB/WAR ProFiTeeRING!!3!!@#

Wrer they part of the same company when they got their no bid contracts? Try to keep up will ya.

So, your answer is yes. Thanks. We don't need to hear anything else from you, to be honest.
Short sighted arguments? I'm just asking questions.

Your argument and questions are ignorant.

This forum is about YOUR arguments (and I use the term loosely) and their lack of basis, bud.

The only thing you're getting is owned.

Oh yeah and reported too.

 

[GeeMack]

We would need an investigation that's not an inside job to find that out.

So can you reiterate your position on the issue more clearly, LostChild? Is it that you aren't sure whether the 9/11 attack was an inside job, but you do believe the various investigations into the attack were inside jobs?

 

[twinstead]

Can't argue with an ideologue. LC simply knows it all. We are all ignorant sheep.

End of story, right?

 

[Good Lt]

The only thing you're getting is owned.

LC. your answers (or rather you inability/unwillingness to answer a very simple and direct question) have demonstrated the fine art of self-pwnage. And you don't even realize you're answering "yes" with each post, no matter what you type.

The other Troofers can learn how not to answer a question by reading this thread, except for Max. He seemed to get it.

 

[LastChild]

So can you reiterate your position on the issue more clearly, LostChild? Is it that you aren't sure whether the 9/11 attack was an inside job, but you do believe the various investigations into the attack were inside jobs?

My position is no one knows exactly how it happened because there has been no real investigation into 9/11. Trying to debunk conspiracy theories is a waste of time because even if one could debunk a CT it still does nothing to support or make any official version to date any more credible or true. It’s just a distraction and maybe that’s just the objective for some people. They just want to distract from an incomplete ridiculous version of events.

 

[Good Lt]

My position is no one knows exactly how it happened because there has been no real investigation into 9/11.

You're wrong.

There have been extensive investigations by numerous entities more capable and informed than yourself, and they've all come to the same conclusion.

9-11 was not an inside job. The end.

There are plenty (the vast majority) of people who know what happened on 9-11. Just because your "research" hasn't yielded the answer you've been clamoring for and devote your being to somehow willing into existence still doesn't mean that "the twoof is still out there." (cue X-Flies theme)

You've been living in a dream world, Neo.

It's the 4.6%ers and the LIHOPers who don't seem to get it, and they never will because they don't want to.

 

[LashL]

Trying to debunk conspiracy theories is a waste of time

I disagree. I view the debunking of conspiracy theories as a very worthwhile use of time. Educating oneself and others, utilizing proper research methodologies, expanding one's knowledge through research and by absorbing and learning from the knowledge, experience and expertise of others, promoting rational and critical thinking, exposing snake oil salesmen for what they are: these are all worthwhile pursuits.

because even if one could debunk a CT it still does nothing to support or make any official version to date any more credible or true.

If? Many 9/11 conspiracy theories have been well and truly debunked. In any event, why are you conflating the debunking of conspiracy theories with support for the "official" version of events? The evidence is what it is. The evidence-based version of events is exactly that - evidence based. The refusal by many conspiracy fantasists to look at the evidence, well, that's another story.

It’s just a distraction and maybe that’s just the objective for some people. They just want to distract from an incomplete ridiculous version of events.

I sincerely doubt that, but since you've raised the subject, what is your objective here?

 

[SDC]

My position is no one knows exactly how it happened because there has been no real investigation into 9/11. Trying to debunk conspiracy theories is a waste of time because even if one could debunk a CT it still does nothing to support or make any official version to date any more credible or true. It’s just a distraction and maybe that’s just the objective for some people. They just want to distract from an incomplete ridiculous version of events.

In short, you lack the nerve to make a clear statement. You state, here, that the "official version" is "incomplete [and] ridiculous." But you lack the nerve to say anything further.

Come on, speak honestly. What can happen to you? No one knows your name or address. ("On the internet, no one knows you're a dog.") The police, the Halliburton stormtroopers, no one is going to knock on your door. You can't be hurt by being honest on a forum like this! Try it for once.

 

[twinstead]

LC the only reason why you think the official story is an 'incomplete ridiculous version of events' is because you WANT it to be.

The preponderance of evidence is against you, and you know it.

 

[Elizabeth I]

It's a lot like The Force. One must BELIEVE he can move objects with his mind in order to do so. Hence:

LUKE: I don't believe it! (after Yoda lifts an X-Wing with his mind)

YODA: That...is why you fail.

Shouldn't that be:

"YODA: Fail why you is that"?

 

[hellaeon]

OP Answer:
I have not been convinced in any way that '9/11 was an inside job'.

Reason:
I have read the arguements, I have debated lightly, but I am no engineer, so according to the overwhelming majority of engineering experts, 9/11 happened as explained, and everything as officially explained follows the best path we have to create the story of what actually happened. I have looked at some of the reasons why a fringe element disagree with the experts, but that evidence is either fabricated or wrong.

Even the truth movements 'smoking guns' have been anything but, starting with the 'blueprints' and of course, 'Mike the EMT'.

Lets not forget the impossible technology in dime a dozen supply at the local NWO-mart. It gives us fake CGI that even fooled people in or at the event, and we have microwave weaponology on a massive scale, that no one notices.

All in all, the 'truth' movement is as much of a hinderence to itself as the actual evidence is.

Thus, I have not been convinced in any way that '9/11 was an inside job'.

 

[beachnut]

My position is no one knows exactly how it happened because there has been no real investigation into 9/11. Trying to debunk conspiracy theories is a waste of time because even if one could debunk a CT it still does nothing to support or make any official version to date any more credible or true. It’s just a distraction and maybe that’s just the objective for some people. They just want to distract from an incomplete ridiculous version of events.

You must of been in a coma for 6 years. Total crap. If you can not figure out 9/11 now, you are not trying or you are not capable of figuring it out due to lack of knowledge and judgment. You are wrong on all counts.

 

[Dave Rogers]

So now they're not profiteers? If you look up war profiteering on wiki Halliburton is one of the first mentioned.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_profiteering

In the United States

Criticism of companies such as Halliburton in the context of the Iraq war draw heavily on the stereotype of the businessman profiteer.

So because Wikipedia says people criticise Halliburton for war profiteering, therefore Halliburton must be war profiteers. A classic example of truther proof. Stundied.

Dave

 

[Good Lt]

Stundied.

Awesome.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

My position is no one knows exactly how it happened because there has been no real investigation into 9/11.

Now that, folks, is comedy.

Oh, and the answer to the question is: not.

 

[Sparky]

After all, who benefits from building fires?

I'm a fire protection engineer. I know I sure as heck profit from trying to prevent them.

 

[Good Lt]

I'm a fire protection engineer. I know I sure as heck profit from trying to prevent them.

Profiteer. Traitor. The gallows await ye.

 

[LastChild]

I'm a fire protection engineer. I know I sure as heck profit from trying to prevent them.

Yeah well that's different right? For instance a firefighter would never commit arson.

http://www.nvfc.org/news/hn_usfa_arson.html

http://www.state.sc.us/forest/lear.htm

http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/bfab/bfab016.html

http://forums.firehouse.com/showthread.php?t=78133

 

[twinstead]

Yeah well that's different right? For instance a firefighter would never commit arson.

http://www.nvfc.org/news/hn_usfa_arson.html

http://www.state.sc.us/forest/lear.htm

http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/bfab/bfab016.html

http://forums.firehouse.com/showthread.php?t=78133

Amazing. So because firemen can commit arson, it's okay to accuse one of arson with no other evidence other than he's a fireman, and firemen can commit arson?

That is what you are doing.

 

[Good Lt]

So now firefighters are arsonists?

Was the FDNY complicit in covering up WTC7 CD, per Alex Jones, LC?

Yes or no will do.