HATS NOT A FUCKING LOGICAL ARGUMENT!

Oh my god... the fact that you can't see how silly it is must be embarrasing.

Saying "the us government knew about pearl harbor so they must have had a part in 911" is the worst argument Ive heard.

You wonder why I don't answer your questions it's because you can't comprehend simple logic. You don't understand that your argument is worthless and since thats the case its useless to take you seriously. So here i go again not taking you seriously or responding to you

@Zero129, good work man, you have more patience than I do.

The significance of Pearl Harbor is that it was an attack on American soil that the US could have acted to prevent or even counter attack. Instead they kept it secret that the attack was coming & used the emotional response by the American people to spur mass enlistment & enter WW2.

Fast forward to 1962, Operation Northwoods
Operation Northwoods proposals included hijackings and bombings followed by the introduction of phony evidence that would implicate the Cuban government. It stated:

The desired resultant from the execution of this plan would be to place the United States in the apparent position of suffering defensible grievances from a rash and irresponsible government of Cuba and to develop an international image of a Cuban threat to peace in the Western Hemisphere.

Several other proposals were included within Operation Northwoods, including real or simulated actions against various U.S. military and civilian targets. The plan was drafted by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, signed by Chairman Lyman Lemnitzer and sent to the Secretary of Defense. Although part of the U.S. government's Cuban Project anti-communist initiative, Operation Northwoods was never officially accepted; it was authorized by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, but then rejected by President John F. Kennedy.
The previously secret document was originally made public on 18 November 1997, by the John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Review Board,

Fast forward to 2000 and Project for a New American Century "...a new Pearl Harbor would be needed (for America to quickly reach it's military goals)"

Fast forward to 9/11/2001

it was a wargame going wrong.

The people the goverment hired to be in this war games were double agents and USA got taken on the bed, now they cant tell the truth it would be to embarrasing so they spin the shit out of it.

That is my theory after spending several years watching everything i could get my hands on.

If you really think thats the only thing ive been saying you need some reading lessons with those logic ones, but this is more evidence of your selective reading/knowledge/ect. you only see what you want to see.

you woul be laughed out of a debate with that no so logical point. if you want to use those to support youre argument then you need to connect them, which you will never be able to do logically. Your argument is abdsurd as me saying Money is green therefore grass is money. The fact that you and zero cant see this says a lot

Okay, i'm only responding to you because you used a key word: sound. in order to be sound your argument needs to be valid (which it isn't) and needs to be true (which you havent provided any support for)... take a logic course and youll see how absurd youve been. Again, in an argument you need to have premises that logically follow one another. "us knew about PH so they did the same thing in 911" is missing sooooooo many premises its not even funny. If you want to give an example of the past you need to first disbute the event in question and prove your claims, which in my opinion you  will never do. Then you need to link it logically which again you will never be able to do. You claim you arent that smart yet you refuse to listen to me who has taken courses on this type of stuff (since ya know, I need to prepare for LSAT if i want to become a lawyer). So far the PH attacks are irrelevant premises because you've failed to link them in any way or provide support for your claims. And to provide you with my qualifications, I have taken ethics and logic courses. Both were honors. And I recieved a 99% in ethics and 99.95% (I missed one question on one exam) in logic for the course (i know the materia pretty well obviously). And they were both taught by Dr. in their respective study.

This argument moves around far too much. I've tried to establish the collapse of tower 7 and the crimping effect which is reminiscent of a controlled demolition, but that isn't suspicious at all, even though it was the third building that fell into its own footprint on that day and it didn't sustain any real structural damage.

I've posted undeniable proof that dozens and dozens of witness said that they heard bombs going off ... not just one bomb, but 'like a machine gun', or 'fire crackers', or 'boom, boom, boom.' Once we establish that witness did indeed say they heard bombs you should (if you had anything about you) question the official story, but you just choose to ignore those witnesses. I'm sure you can't disagree that the witnesses, and many of them, DID actually say that? OK, so now we've established that. So when asked about the witnesses that say they heard bombs, why did Bernie Kerik say that there were no witnesses? Can you imagine how frustrating that must have been for those many people who said there was? They were firemen and policemen and people who were actually in the building.

OK, so what about Dick Chaney and the Norman Mineta testimony? You see this goes on and on and on and never stops. This is why it will never go away, as much as the conspiracy theorists would like it to.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDfdOwt2v3Y

As a lawyer, I really hope you listen to the witnesses!

No one said they heard bombs going off. It was the 4th building to collapse but convienently leave out WT5 because it doesn't support your argument. And the "bombs" werent referring to 7 so they are irrelevant considering they were supposidly in the basement of the twin towers which makes your claim look ridiculous because the buildings fell from the top down

Oh, dear lord. You just can't accept what people are posting and proving can you. It doesn't matter which tower these people are talking about. They heard bombs. Not one, not two, but many. These people include firefighters, policemen, civilians in the towers, bystanders and news reporters. This is very important because it offers another reason why the twin towers came down in such an extraordinary way, but for some strange reason you just want to ignore that. When you are in court and three witnesses claim they heard gunshots, are you just going to be able to ignore their testimony in order to push the idea that your client was innocent and that the victim mearly fell over from a heart attack?

Watch it for goodness sake. This is evidence: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EfJtsAVoxOA

I've watched over three minutes of that video. Haven't heard the word bomb yet. You are the only one using that word. Explosions =/= bomb. No one has proved a single thing except they believe this convoluted theory that involves bombs, thermite, thermate, demo crews, government, war plans, missles, actors, owners of buildings, ect ect...

The twin towers came down in an extrodarnary way? Which way is that? GETTING A FUCKING GIANT AS PLAN SLAMMING TO THE SIDE OF THEM AND BURNING FOR AN HOUR AT HIGH TEMPERATURES THEN COLLAPSING FROM THE TOP DOWN (but I thought the bombs were in the basement.... hm....)