The 9/11 Conspiracy Facts

“The individual is handicapped by coming face to face with a conspiracy so monstrous, he cannot believe it exists”

- J. Edgar Hoover, FBI Director 1935-1972
Click to expand...

Congratulations! You came up with one thing that was right!

That quote is exactly why truthers cannot accept 19 lunatics conspired into hijacking 4 planes.
 
mjd1982 said:
1stly, I'm pretty certain i didnt ask for DRG to lead the investigation
Click to expand...

But you did state he should be asking the questions:
mjd1982 @ SLC said:
I would suggest getting a team of people who are evidently and irreconciliably independent from US gov/corporate influence. This would mean a largely international panel.

It may be a good idea to have a set of questions agreed upon by Griffin, Rodriguez, Jersey Girls et al, and ensure that all of them are answered.
Click to expand...
Yeah, have a theologian, a proven liar janitor, and grieving widows who won't accept answers provide the questions for a new investigation.
 
Having not read the thread, I am responding to the OP.

Welcome to the forum, try posting some of your own thoughts next time though. Copy + Pasting propaganda is one of my pet hates.
 
mjd1982 said:
PNAC wanted, with regards to Iraq 2 things- a permanent military base there (done), and Saddam overthrown with US control over oil (done).
Click to expand...
Uh, if the U.S. controls Iraqi oil, then why isn't it being sent to the U.S.? The U.S. imported 30% less oil from Iraq in 2006 than it did in 2001. That wouldn't seem to be very good control, at least in terms of it making the oil available for American consumption.

Last year, Canada was the #1 supplier of petroleum to the U.S. accounting for 17.66% (that's over one-sixth) of the total. Mexico was #2. Combined, Mexico and Canada supplied one-third of all U.S. petroleum imports.

So why is the U.S. focused on Iraqi oil when there are more friendly and secure sources much closer to home?
 
mjd1982:

One question, two parts - Who should be on the investigative panel of this new investigation, and how would the investigation be financed?

Hokulele:

Oook! :D
 
Mobyseven said:
mjd1982:

One question, two parts - Who should be on the investigative panel of this new investigation, and how would the investigation be financed?

Hokulele:

Oook! :D
Click to expand...

We already asked him that over at SLC. His answer was "anyone independant of the investigation" and "privately funded"
 
Unsecured Coins said:
We already asked him that over at SLC. His answer was "anyone independant of the investigation" and "privately funded"
Click to expand...

Oh? So if a certain individual or a particular company contributed the necessary funds for this "independent investigation" then mjd1982 would be okay with that? Because that's what "privately funded" generally means - not lots of small donations but a small number (like one) of very large donations, often from corporations.
 
Unsecured Coins said:
. . . Anything you notice that mjd posts that has [expletive deleted]-all to do with his argument will cause him to invoke the "NASA chimp" insult on you with great vengeance and furious anger. . . .
Click to expand...

HamSuitedUp.jpg


Ook! Ook! Ook! Ook! Eee! Eee! Eee! Eee!
 
AZCat said:
Oh? So if a certain individual or a particular company contributed the necessary funds for this "independent investigation" then mjd1982 would be okay with that? Because that's what "privately funded" generally means - not lots of small donations but a small number (like one) of very large donations, often from corporations.
Click to expand...



Funny, but I had exactly the same thought when he said this. Who does he think would privately fund such an investigation? The Federated 7-11 Association of America?

-Gumboot
 
Just noticed this. Classic twoofer deliberate ignorance.

mjd1982 said:
So, let's look at these budgetary allocations...

Not sure about the JSF, but done [canceled] for the Crusader.
Click to expand...

Ahem. You verified that the "roadblock to PNAC" Crusader program was canceled, but you're "Not sure about the JSF," another PNAC "roadblock?"

The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter is the most expensive aircraft program – and one of the most expensive military acquisition programs of any kind – in history. It is very much in full swing and very much over budget.

2006:
The total price tag for the tri-service Joint Strike Fighter program shot up by nearly $19 billion during a four-month period in 2005, according to a Pentagon selected acquisition report (SAR) released April 7 after it was sent to Congress.

Prior to that significant increase, overall JSF cost growth set against the program’s 2002 baseline estimates came in at $75 billion over a three-year span. “Base year” cost estimates for the JSF totaled just over $202 billion in 2002, states the April 7 report.

With that trend of cost spikes, the F-35’s $276 billion price tag has made it one of the most expensive defense acquisition efforts in Pentagon history, according to defense officials and analysts.

The increase also placed the JSF program among the 15 platforms listed in the April SAR that DOD says breached the Nunn-McCurdy statute during the September through December 2005 time frame. The Nunn-McCurdy Act places caps on single-unit cost growth for all major DOD acquisition programs, notes the April 7 report. Source

2007:
Overall, program costs rose 8.5% from $276.46 billion to $299.82 billion. The biggest culprit was the Pentagon's decision to decrese the annual buys and stretch the production schedule end from FY 2027 - FY 2034 (+$11.2 billion); accompanying that is a support increase due to aircraft configuration update, revised procurement profile, and methodology changes (+$6.42 billion). Commodity price increases for key structural materials like titanium was also an issue (+$5.47 billion). Source
Click to expand...


As you noted, PNAC said that if the JSF went forward, it would be a "roadblock" to their desired military plans.

So why the all-powerful PNAC let this incredibly expensive roadblock be put in its way?

And why did you ignore this teeny little issue, O seeker of "truth"? Incompetence? Intellectual cowardice? Both?

:con2:
 
Last edited:
mjd1982 said:
The Play’s the Thing
Click to expand...


OK, I've had a little sleep and found a funny in the multi-link beast I posted earlier.

Skeptic said:
There old theory was that if you put an infinite number of monkey next to an infinite number of keyboards, eventually one of them will write Shakespeare's plays.

The internet had proven that that's not true.
Click to expand...


Ook!
 
PNAC also called for the CVX Supercarrier plans to be dropped - in fact they called for Carrier Battle Groups to be entirely phased out.

Yet the first of the new class of carriers - the USS Gerald R Ford (CVN-78) is scheduled to be laid down in 2009.

Sadly the ship is to replace the USS Enterprise; raising the question of what will be the next Enterprise?

-Gumboot
 
Hokulele said:
OK, I've had a little sleep and found a funny in the multi-link beast I posted earlier.




Ook!
Click to expand...

I've been saving that for one of my later sig changes.



Robert Willensky, UC Berkley....
We've heard that a million monkeys at a million keyboards could produce the complete works of Shakespeare; now, thanks to the Internet, we know that is not true.
Robert Wilensky, speech at a 1996 conference
Click to expand...
 
JimBenArm said:
[URL]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/12793466e0a79bf2b8.gif[/URL]
Just for her! When do I get to pin them on?
Click to expand...


Thanks guys! Um, are you sure they are supposed to go there?

Funny but true side note, I spent a recruitment week at Annapolis back in high school over 20 years ago. If a couple of the instructors hadn't been such twits about people with different gender and ethnic backgrounds, who knows what might have happened. Oh, and the horror stories about plebe summer, those didn't help either.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom