Quote:
<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="100%"> <tbody><tr> <td class="alt2" style="border: 1px inset ;"> Originally Posted by
TiCkEr 
Who cares if by definition 9/11 falls under the definition of conspiracy?
</td> </tr> </tbody></table>
Quote:
Originally Posted by CosmicSerpent  You do, apparently. If you didn't, you would have never had a problem with what I said. |
I really don't. Just because you can define 9/11 as a conspiracy, it doesn't mean that it has to be labeled as such.
Quote:
<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="100%"> <tbody><tr> <td class="alt2" style="border: 1px inset ;"> Originally Posted by
TiCkEr I never implied the word "conspiracy" meant that something wasn't true, now you are making false assumptions.
</td> </tr> </tbody></table>
Quote:
Originally Posted by
TiCkEr It's the truth, not a "conspiracy".
Again, I feel it is the truth and should not be put into a category along with the other wacky theories out there. That was my first post on this subject, if I would have known you would be dissecting everything I said I would have elaborated further. When the general public hear conspiracy they attach a lot of dogma along with it and many of them believe anything conspiracy to be false/fictitious. I also believe 100% that 9/11 was an inside job (agree to disagree I guess) after countless hour of research and analyzing the facts. So in my opinion, I would much rather call 9/11 truth rather than a conspiracy. CAN 9/11 be called a conspiracy? Sure.. happy now? Does it HAVE to be? No.. regardless, thats not my point. Now let's move past this so others can have a chance to post their opinions instead of listening to us battle it out. Ah well, if I'm bored and want a good debate, I know who to pm. Heck, just come to Canada and we'll burn a doob.. that way I can kick you if you disagree with me to much(I kid I kid
). Besides, were off topic. Thread is about whether or not Bush will be the North American Union president in 2012.
TiCkEr