We can't trust wikipedia.

[Pin dÁr]

View attachment 67207110

Ah well, the Ad Hominems.

 

[Pin dÁr]

Last chance Pin, explain exactly what you mean by, "One thing is extremely clear,9-11 was an inside jiob. No doubt about that at all!"
provide your sources that you used to come up with that conclusion

and last what is a jiob?

Yes, it is sad Pin. Your inability to back up your statements.

Oh ok, it's job, just a typo. If that is your concern , so be it.

 

[mike2810]

Oh ok, it's job, just a typo. If that is your concern , so be it.

So you won' back up your statement of inside job.

It is clear you do not want to discuss in a meaningful manner what you posted.

Fact . Your a troll.
end of thread.

 

[Pin dÁr]

So you won' back up your statement of inside job.

It is clear you do not want to discuss in a meaningful manner what you posted.

Fact . Your a troll.
end of thread.

No, I can put a lot out here, but you will never 'get it' because you don't want to.

If you really think you will change your view after seeing enough evidence, you are only fooling yourself.

 

[mike2810]

No, I can put a lot out here, but you will never 'get it' because you don't want to.

If you really think you will change your view after seeing enough evidence, you are only fooling yourself.

How do you know till you post something that backs up what you say? Your post is a typical dodge.

You have not been here very long. If you read older threads, I have stated if someone came up with another theory that was proven, I would change my mind.

It is you who seems to jump to conclusion and avoid answering questions. So until you do. Nothing more to discuss with you on this subject of "inside job".

 

[Pin dÁr]

How do you know till you post something that backs up what you say? Your post is a typical dodge.

You have not been here very long. If you read older threads, I have stated if someone came up with another theory that was proven, I would change my mind.

It is you who seems to jump to conclusion and avoid answering questions. So until you do. Nothing more to discuss with you on this subject of "inside job".

I know. Let's say it is from experience with people like you, who are too deeply programmed into believing mainstream-rubbish.

You have not even a clue what experience I have with people like you.

And that's ok, one day you will wake up. That's a certainty.

You even don't have to believe me. One day you will find out.

 

[mike2810]

I know. Let's say it is from experience with people like you, who are too deeply programmed into believing mainstream-rubbish.

You have not even a clue what experience I have with people like you.

And that's ok, one day you will wake up. That's a certainty.

You even don't have to believe me. One day you will find out.

Funny. If you have read older posts/threads you would see I use many sources. Some even from CT sites.

Nice dodge. You continue to fail to answer the question asked. Your proof of "inside job" is?

If your so sure, you would post it.

Hopefully, one day you will realize many are just laughing at what you post.:mrgreen: reminds me of an old joke. You must be a comedian , your posts a joke.:lamo

Back to the OP. Yes, Wikipedia cannot be trusted, unless one checks what is posted.

 

[Brochacholomigo]

Ah well, the Ad Hominems.

It's the only response I can stand to give your own ad hominem - which was in turn a response to an appeal to authority. Shall we go down the list? I suggest we test out the red herring next!

 

[Pin dÁr]

Funny. If you have read older posts/threads you would see I use many sources. Some even from CT sites.

Nice dodge. You continue to fail to answer the question asked. Your proof of "inside job" is?

If your so sure, you would post it.

Hopefully, one day you will realize many are just laughing at what you post.:mrgreen: reminds me of an old joke. You must be a comedian , your posts a joke.:lamo

Back to the OP. Yes, Wikipedia cannot be trusted, unless one checks what is posted.

it is ok, it is a process.