Comment: Plain words were used throughout

We just had a conversation and apparently you didn't absorb too much of it.

If you had, you may well understand that "inside job" is a vague term used by Fox and others without definition. Its another pejorative the same as "truther", "conspiracy theorist", and other concepts you repeat without knowing where they came from or why they were coined in the first place.

You then try and throw down "was it an inside job or not". Once again not realizing you are using an establishment term meant to discredit one who argues against it.

I am not looking to have a conversation with you on someone else's terms, coined to preserve an agenda, of which you are ill-prepared and ill-researched to discuss.

But, if you really want to continue to find a way out of the mess you created, and you are able to provide a detailed definition of what you mean by "inside job", I can try and answer your currently meaningless question.

If you are relying on the context used in a Fox debate..then we can just let it go right here. But if you have any original though on what you mean by it....then by all means....define it...and we can continue on with the "conversation".

In the end...it seems you are afraid of the truth or at least what you do not understand. It seems that you are comfortable having your language and reality defined by others (why else use loaded terms that cannot be called plain or truthful). You haven't done the research. And name calling doesn't count on the score sheet of debate. I only wish i could call your input a speech, but, a speech needs to have a point.

In the end....i wish you wouldnt call people who disagree with you names coined by the CIA, the Mass Media, and others who have an obvious need to maintain the status quo. I would imagine that both being members here we have a lot more in common than differences.

So define "inside job" with some critical thinking...or just let it go and agree that disagreeing on 911 doesnt mean we are enemies.