Unanswered questions in regards to 9/11[W:762]

[Jango]

Yes .

 

[Fledermaus]

Yes .

Show me they KNEW....

 

[Jango]

 

[Fledermaus]

<snipped non-answer>

So, you can't.

Why don't you just admit it.

 

[Jango]

Spoiler

 

[Fledermaus]

Stop Kokoing,

So, you can't.

Why don't you just admit it.

 

[Jango]

I'm not. I'm responding to what you're saying every time, perhaps not with text but with something that can be understood nonetheless.

I am not your

I do not

for you.

You've been around here long enough where either you're curious about 9/11 or you aren't. Clearly, you are not. If you were, you'd know that I don't need to use The Google and then search and then copy and paste links for your viewing pleasure. Therefore, it leaves faced with this:

What's the incentive for me to spend any amount of time hunting down links* and trying to find archived ones if necessary just for all of them


* = From sites in mainstream use -- New York Times, The Times, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, Wall Street Journal, Financial Times, Guardian, Telegraph, BBC, Ha'aretz, Jerusalem Post, Der Spiegel, France 24, Le Monde, Sydney Morning Herald, The Australian, CBC, Toronto Star, CBS News, FOX News, ABC News, MSNBC News, CNN News, Huffington Post, Free Beacon, Houston Chronicle, Miami Herald, Boston Globe, Boston Herald, San Mercury, St. Louis Post Dispatch, Denver Post, Detroit Free Press, Chicago Tribune, Dallas Morning News, Philadelphia Inquirer, and onto anything with .gov or .mil or whatever other domain url the government owns and operates. It doesn't matter what I put in front of you. It never has and it never will.

 

[Fledermaus]

I'm not. I'm responding to what you're saying every time, perhaps not with text but with something that can be understood nonetheless.

I am not your <snipped>

I do not <snipped>for you.

You've been around here long enough where either you're curious about 9/11 or you aren't. Clearly, you are not. If you were, you'd know that I don't need to use The Google and then search and then copy and paste links for your viewing pleasure. Therefore, it leaves faced with this:

<snipped>

What's the incentive for me to spend any amount of time hunting down links* and trying to find archived ones if necessary just for all of them


* = From sites in mainstream use -- New York Times, The Times, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, Wall Street Journal, Financial Times, Guardian, Telegraph, BBC, Ha'aretz, Jerusalem Post, Der Spiegel, France 24, Le Monde, Sydney Morning Herald, The Australian, CBC, Toronto Star, CBS News, FOX News, ABC News, MSNBC News, CNN News, Huffington Post, Free Beacon, Houston Chronicle, Miami Herald, Boston Globe, Boston Herald, San Mercury, St. Louis Post Dispatch, Denver Post, Detroit Free Press, Chicago Tribune, Dallas Morning News, Philadelphia Inquirer, and onto anything with .gov or .mil or whatever other domain url the government owns and operates. It doesn't matter what I put in front of you. It never has and it never will.

TRANSLATION: Asked to show where they KNEW that al Qaeda had not only gained entry to the U.S. but were planning a large scale attack within CONUS using commercial aircraft they would hijack. Jango goes full Koko...

And you NEVER go full Koko.....


Look Jango...

THAT WAS YOUR CLAIM.

YOURS.

WHY WOULD I GOOGLE AROUND TRYING TO SUPPORT YOUR CLAIM?

YOUR CLAIM.... YOUR BURDEN OF PROOF.....

 

[Kanzaki]

I'm not. I'm responding to what you're saying every time, perhaps not with text but with something that can be understood nonetheless.<snipped for brevity>

I don't really care personally if you don't plan to hold a discussion but I do question the point of even posting if you're defining responses with screenshots and internet memes as serious posting. If you want to post just for humor there's a place for that. Or alternatively if you can't hold a discussion there's an ignore feature that's usually effective enough.

 

[Fledermaus]

I don't really care personally if you don't plan to hold a discussion but I do question the point of even posting if you're defining responses with screenshots and internet memes as serious posting. If you want to post just for humor there's a place for that. Or alternatively if you can't hold a discussion there's an ignore feature that's usually effective enough.

Or, he could just state the truth. He CAN'T back up his claim.

 

[Jango]

TRANSLATION: Asked to show where they KNEW that al Qaeda had not only gained entry to the U.S. but were planning a large scale attack within CONUS using commercial aircraft they would hijack. Jango goes full Koko...

And you NEVER go full Koko.....


Look Jango...

THAT WAS YOUR CLAIM.

YOURS.

WHY WOULD I GOOGLE AROUND TRYING TO SUPPORT YOUR CLAIM?

YOUR CLAIM.... YOUR BURDEN OF PROOF.....

Serious question -- are you a robot? I've challenged you before to a legitimate debate here at DP and you rejected the offer. But down here in the CT forum I can lay out masterful researched pieces and it does nothing but illicit every kind of lawyer-esque behavior out of you and your likeminded brethren. So if you want me to take the time it does to lay everything out on the table, let's do it in the sanctioned debate forum, eh?

 

[Jango]

I don't really care personally if you don't plan to hold a discussion but I do question the point of even posting if you're defining responses with screenshots and internet memes as serious posting. If you want to post just for humor there's a place for that. Or alternatively if you can't hold a discussion there's an ignore feature that's usually effective enough.

:lol:

You try to speak absolutely about things that you're clearly ignorant of, but please, do continue your analysis of the situation at hand.

 

[Kanzaki]

Or, he could just state the truth. He CAN'T back up his claim.

That would be ideal, but he can't be forced to do anything. He can only deal with consequences for his choices, even if that means he's not taken seriously. As I told Mark F in the WTC 7 thread anyway, this is common internet crap that's not worth getting too bent out of shape for. If he doesn't plan to post seriously I don't need to waste my time dealing with that stuff unless I'm in the mood for it.

:lol: You try to speak absolutely about things that you're clearly ignorant of...

I'm not interested in politics, and even if I was, I don't see a discussion going anywhere. Just stating the obvious.

but please, do continue your analysis of the situation at hand.

Already did, thanks.

 

[Fledermaus]

Serious question -- are you a robot? I've challenged you before to a legitimate debate here at DP and you rejected the offer. But down here in the CT forum I can lay out masterful researched pieces and it does nothing but illicit every kind of lawyer-esque behavior out of you and your likeminded brethren. So if you want me to take the time it does to lay everything out on the table, let's do it in the sanctioned debate forum, eh?

It is a simple concept.

Stop trying to change the subject.

YOU claimed "The U.S. IC and two different POTUS and their worldwide counterparts knew that al Qaeda had not only gained entry to the U.S. but were planning a large scale attack within CONUS using commercial aircraft they would hijack"

Perhaps you might want to back that up.

 

[Jango]

I would in the True Debate I've challenged you to and you've refused twice now. You want to see me back it up, then you're gonna need to compromise and accept the challenge of a True Debate. Deal or no deal?

 

[Fledermaus]

I would in the True Debate I've challenged you to and you've refused twice now. You want to see me back it up, then you're gonna need to compromise and accept the challenge of a True Debate. Deal or no deal?

YOU claimed "The U.S. IC and two different POTUS and their worldwide counterparts knew that al Qaeda had not only gained entry to the U.S. but were planning a large scale attack within CONUS using commercial aircraft they would hijack"

 

[zyzygy]

YOU claimed "The U.S. IC and two different POTUS and their worldwide counterparts knew that al Qaeda had not only gained entry to the U.S. but were planning a large scale attack within CONUS using commercial aircraft they would hijack"

He seems unable to back up that claim but can't or won't admit it.

 

[Fledermaus]

He seems unable to back up that claim but can't or won't admit it.

Agreed...

 

[Jango]

Agreed...

Be a man and accept the challenge.

 

[Fledermaus]

Be a man and accept the challenge.

KNEW hat al Qaeda had not only gained entry to the U.S. but were planning a large scale attack within CONUS using commercial aircraft they would hijack..... Put up or shut up

 

[zyzygy]

Be a man and accept the challenge.

Why should he? You refuse to address the point put to you about foreknowledge. Any further debate with you would be a waste of time. As the man said, put up or shut up, or admit that you cannot back up your claim.

 

[Fledermaus]

Why should he? You refuse to address the point put to you about foreknowledge. Any further debate with you would be a waste of time. As the man said, put up or shut up, or admit that you cannot back up your claim.

So...

Let him flail...

Can you remember any more obscure CT claims...?


Wait.

I know.

Energy beams melted the towers.

 

[Jango]

Energy beams melted the towers.

Already been addressed.

 

[Jango]

Why should he? You refuse to address the point put to you about foreknowledge. Any further debate with you would be a waste of time. As the man said, put up or shut up, or admit that you cannot back up your claim.

Why shouldn't he? I'm offering myself up on a platter for the whole board to see in a True Debate if I cannot back my arguments up. He has no reason to reject my offer several times. I'm not going to take the hours out of my life to make the case in this thread that will be glossed over and buried within a week. The incentive for me to do what he wants me to do is going to be in a True Debate or nothing else. He needs to compromise to get what he wants outta me.

 

[zyzygy]

Energy beams melted the towers.

Even the more rabid truthers seem to have dropped that one.