Xooxer wrote:

Read the 9/11 report.
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/911/Index.html

Which has no money trail to an inside job... what was the point of that link?

Xooxer wrote:

Oh, but Snopes said it did. Odd that.

Read it again, it said the exact opposite.

Xooxer wrote:

Well, given the fact that you turned the question and are asking, in essence, two different things and expecting one answer, I'm not surprised.

You responded to all my bullet points with a simple "I had a huge reply for this, but hit a wrong button and lost it. Just google 'put options' to start down the money trail." What more did you expect me to converse with you about?

You asked for some tidbit, I said put options. You bring up the Snopes articles that claims all the rumors and allegations are false because the 9/11 Report said they were. You asked me to provide some resource to show that they don't provide any answers, just conclusions, then I post a link to the the very same report Snopes says answers your original question. Then you state it doesn't say it was an inside job, a straw man, and then knock it down when it's clear the 9/11 Report doesn't indicate an inside job. But that wasn't the question you asked. You asked for me to provide references for my claim, which I did. Either you can't be bothered to keep your own questions straight, or your have ADHD. Either way, your answer is there. Look.

I've been very clear. I asked you for references and a logic train that proved that 9/11 was an inside job. You ONLY responded with "look up put options"; I cannot corroborate your claim. I'm respectfully asking you to provide links and information so that I can understand why you have come to your current conclusion. If you don't like the 9/11 commission report, that's all fine, but where are you counter resources?

Remember, you are the one claiming that 9/11 was an inside job. You have put out the supposition; it is your responsibility to prove that the supposition is true. Your initial nine second video needs forensic analysis. Your put option supposition needs corroborating evidence. There's a real reason why ZERO people have been convinced because of this nine second video; use the same sharp understanding you have of quantum mechanics to understand basic needs of humans to have proof of something before they believe in anything.

Xooxer wrote:

Well, I think I've already stated a few times in this thread that it was not up for debate. The mere fact that I'm humoring you shows you have at least taken some effort to put forth intelligent questions. If you're going to revert to lesser means of debate, I'll end this now.

So let's continue.

You asked for references about the put options. I gave you the only one you need. If you can't be bothered to google this yourself, since you're so curious, I can't be bothered to do it for you.

There is no evidence I can find on google. Please point me to the evidence that you have used to come to your conclusions.

If you are interested in convincing any person on your position, you have the responsibility to provide evidence and a logic train to support that position.

I have to do nothing.

And you have done nothing. That nine second video really showed nothing.

The only thing I have to do is whatever the heck I want.

If you are a US citizen, you are bound by the rule of the land.

If I want to to claim something and not back it up with proof you find sufficient, that's up to me.

Absolutely true, but if it isn't apparent already, you have convinced no one of your position.

You don't get to dictate my actions.

Absolutely true.


I've stated pretty clearly that I wouldn't turn this into a debate. You're lucky I've entertained you this far.

Okay, thank you for the entertainment?

My only goal is to piss you off.

I'm not mad. Just curious. Believe me, I want to desperately to believe in God; and I'm trying to figure out what motivates people to so whole hearted throw their faith behind a belief without the facts to support them.


I thought I stated that already. I'm not going to convince you, I'm not going to try. If you want to be a sheep and get the fleece pulled over your eyes, that's your problem, not mine.

You can convince me. Just provide me evidence and a logic train.

Oh, wtf. It cut off almost all of the reply. Gah, I am starting to hate this blog system. >:(