The 9/11 Conspiracy Facts

[mjd1982]

If you would read the posts you would be enlightened to your wrongness many times over. Over.

Got anything about pilots and flying stuff, or energy things? Or what about something new? Got some new stuff? Original new stuff, looking for input, got some?

Wow, that is a fantastic argument! What a bright soul you are. A credit to your movement, that much is true.

All my points are in the OP. If you dont want to argue them, then go away!

 

[Unsecured Coins]

How is it NOT VERY RELEVANT? It's odd that notthing that goes against your "view" of things is always "irrelevant". Either you're that shrouded in confusion or just plain ol' picky about what you wanna believe.

Also - This is now Number 2 on the LOSYDNR (List Of Stuff You Did Not Research) Top 10.

 

[T.A.M.]

It is a public thread, and he may post where he wishes, about what he wishes, as long as he breaks no rules...jsut as you are allowed to do the same...

TAM

 

[mjd1982]

Above is a quote of all my posts on this thread. Please show me where I told someone not to respond to you?

I have said that most unlikely will respond to you, and that there is just cause for them not to, but I have told noone NOT TO POST TO YOU.

You are behaving like an elitist, pompous A**hole. I could care less if you are an Oxford/Harvard/MIT grad, it only changes the location of where you likely developed your arrogance. As far as I am concerned you can take your old, long ago debunked, silly, ridiculous claims and post them elsewhere, but it is not my board, so do as you like twirp.

TAM

TAM

Well, there is at least this:

In the end, this guy will clearly call "shill" on NIST/FEMA/ASCE anyway, so what is the sense in arguing with him.

That's gotta be quite embarassing for you, no?

 

[Unsecured Coins]

Well, there is at least this:



That's gotta be quite embarassing for you, no?

Not as emabarassing as your unprecedented 33% "fact"

Is that egg on your face or are you really that bad a marksman?

 

[MIKILLINI]

mjd; People here have gone through these arguments over and over again so expect sarcasm, just look at how many times some have posted. You have to look at 9/11 with a critical eye, as you are, but keeping an open mind is critical.
I once was at the point of where you are now; believing the govt. was involved to further the Global Dominance Agenda. Except I argued that all that was needed to LIHOP was for the govt. to allow the future hijackers to roam free here in America until they had decided to execute their plan; hijack the airliners. After that, the events that unfolded on 9/11 would appear as a conspiracy, but why would you need to.....
Wire up buildings for demolition?
Know this was going to happen and plan scenarios/exercises of the very same thing?

 

[T.A.M.]

Well, there is at least this:



That's gotta be quite embarassing for you, no?

I did not tell someone to not respond, or not post, i said what is the sense.

Get your facts straight moron, or simply leave it.

TAM

 

[mjd1982]

Above is a quote of all my posts on this thread. Please show me where I told someone not to respond to you?

I have said that most unlikely will respond to you, and that there is just cause for them not to, but I have told noone NOT TO POST TO YOU.

You are behaving like an elitist, pompous A**hole. I could care less if you are an Oxford/Harvard/MIT grad, it only changes the location of where you likely developed your arrogance. As far as I am concerned you can take your old, long ago debunked, silly, ridiculous claims and post them elsewhere, but it is not my board, so do as you like twirp.

TAM

TAM

Loath though I am to do so, I will address you once more- why are you posting here?! All you've got is bile, there's nothing of substance. Is it some emotional tick you have with the year 1982 that makes you behave this way?

Incidentally, you are right that it matters little what uni I came from- intellectual qualifications count for little in this domain, we have all learnt that much I think. The statement was brought out when a chimp accused me of "not being Rhoads (sic) Scholar material", and I did find the irony too delicious to resist. Sorry.

 

[Foolmewunz]

Wow, that is a fantastic argument! What a bright soul you are. A credit to your movement, that much is true.

All my points are in the OP. If you dont want to argue them, then go away!

You see, MJD, that's not how a forum works; particularly not this forum. You've come into our living room, eaten all the after dinner mints meant for the rest of the guest, then put your feet up on the coffee table, belched a couple of times, and basically announced that you're running things.

Try it this way:

You post.
Someone responds.
You respond.
Someeone responds in turn.

If you want to have an MJD controlled debate, go start your own forum. There is no such thing as thread ownership. This is an open forum.

ETA: Ya snot-nosed kid, ya!

 

[mjd1982]

How is it NOT VERY RELEVANT? It's odd that notthing that goes against your "view" of things is always "irrelevant". Either you're that shrouded in confusion or just plain ol' picky about what you wanna believe.

Also - This is now Number 2 on the LOSYDNR (List Of Stuff You Did Not Research) Top 10.

Because it has nothing to do with the thrust of the argument. Look up "relevant", and you'll learn more.

Incidentally, is that #2, because there are only 2? It should be called a top 2 then, you know that?

 

[Unsecured Coins]

eaten all the after dinner mints

Damn, and those were the good kind that dissolve in your mouth like a minty rush of dissolved liquid mint. Heaven in your GULLET, I tell you

 

[T.A.M.]

Loath though I am to do so, I will address you once more- why are you posting here?! All you've got is bile, there's nothing of substance. Is it some emotional tick you have with the year 1982 that makes you behave this way?

Incidentally, you are right that it matters little what uni I came from- intellectual qualifications count for little in this domain, we have all learnt that much I think. The statement was brought out when a chimp accused me of "not being Rhoads (sic) Scholar material", and I did find the irony too delicious to resist. Sorry.

I am posting here because this is a public board, and I have the right to do so. I would stack my educational background against yours anyday, but it really is pointless, as you will still be behaving like a pompous, obnoxious individual, and I will still be annoyed by your elitist attitude.

Your calling people here chimps is clearly inflammatory, and if I see you direct it at a particular individual, you will be reported, and your stay here will likely be shortened.

The reason I am caustic, is because of your attitude to those people posting here, in particular your "I am better than everyone else" demeanor, which I really cannot stand.

TAM

 

[mjd1982]

mjd; People here have gone through these arguments over and over again so expect sarcasm, just look at how many times some have posted. You have to look at 9/11 with a critical eye, as you are, but keeping an open mind is critical.
I once was at the point of where you are now; believing the govt. was involved to further the Global Dominance Agenda. Except I argued that all that was needed to LIHOP was for the govt. to allow the future hijackers to roam free here in America until they had decided to execute their plan; hijack the airliners. After that, the events that unfolded on 9/11 would appear as a conspiracy, but why would you need to.....
Wire up buildings for demolition?
Know this was going to happen and plan scenarios/exercises of the very same thing?

But I dont think that that has much import mate. Forget about wiring buildings , forget about war games, just concentrate on the minimum for the moment- did they let it happen. If probably, then you realise there shoud be a new investigation, and you are a CTer. Forget about the rest for the moment.

 

[Unsecured Coins]

Because it has nothing to do with the thrust of the argument. Look up "relevant", and you'll learn more.

Incidentally, is that #2, because there are only 2? It should be called a top 2 then, you know that?

If your freshly blown out of the water argument is now not relevant because you just got spanked with it, then you posting it is a moot point to begin with, since you only deal in "relevance" anyway, right?

By the way, your LOSYDNR is a work in progress. When it's done I'll make sure you get a bronzed copy of it.

 

[mjd1982]

I am posting here because this is a public board, and I have the right to do so. I would stack my educational background against yours anyday, but it really is pointless, as you will still be behaving like a pompous, obnoxious individual, and I will still be annoyed by your elitist attitude.

Your calling people here chimps is clearly inflammatory, and if I see you direct it at a particular individual, you will be reported, and your stay here will likely be shortened.

The reason I am caustic, is because of your attitude to those people posting here, in particular your "I am better than everyone else" demeanor, which I really cannot stand.

TAM

Oh boy, what a pleasant individual you sound!

You might wanna take me through the parts where I have stated that I am better than everyone else; me calling people "chimps" is deprecatory in pretty much the same way everyone here talking about "Twoofers", or "The Woo" is; there is little difference. Do you report people who say that? if not, you are a hypocrite. You guys are happy to give it, but cry foul when it gets sent back your way.

As for my elitist (Alex Jones? Is that you?) attitude, well, I dont care for your educational background much more than I care for my own in this context, as I have explained already.

 

[beachnut]

I would want nothing more than a civil debate of the facts.

Okay, bring on the facts, so far there have been zero facts and evidence that support any of your conclusions which are hard to figure out in the first place.

Waiting for the flood of facts, hope you have more than Charlie Sheen. Facts?

It has been a long time since someone has wanted to debate the facts, but as usual, there are no facts brought to the debate, just talk and false information that do not support the conclusions that are veiled behind empty rhetoric of mushy ideas on PNAC? I was looking for the army that PNAC had to start this new PH stuff (BTW, PH was a surprise attack, yes we already knew that Japan was out and about and going to go nuts, but we had our pants down on Sunday the 7th, too bad people like you were not there to save us) still looking, all I found was Dick's shotgun, but his wife took it away from him when he tried to kill his friend who looks a lot like a dove when you drop your glasses and turn to shoot something. If you could hook me up with some facts about this vast NWO PNAC army of black ops who wired the WTC, flew planes into buildings and faked DNA stuff all over the USA I would be eternally thankful.

Are you a Branch Davidian, or just some tax evading young kids who did not listen in class. Who makes up this tripe and does your mom know you will not be graduating with honors? I found if you take geometry, algebra, calculus, and differential equations you will not fall for a lot of BS like that from the 9/11 truth movement. It helps if you pass those classes too. But there are many who know how to think and use facts and evidence to come to conclusions which resemble reality unlike any attempts by the really challenge 9/11 truth movement. Many are posting here, some much smarter than all the PhDs and experts of the entire truth movement combined on 9/11 topics. Lay people who write better, think better, are better than the entire 9/11 truth movement on 9/11. That excludes me, I can barely keep up with those who debunk you with one finger.

As I was typing, it came to mind, I have no idea what your conclusion are on 9/11 and after reading the entire thread I still am baffled to figure what the heck you stand for except poor research and the inability to provide support for what ever you say your conclusions are.

Anyone have a clue what you are up to? I did see PNAC, but as I said with out an small army of thousands, PNAC only had Dick's shotgun as a weapon and that has been remedied. What do you have and what supports it?

 

[T.A.M.]

If you are referring to all of us, as a group, as "chimps", while derogatory, it is not against the rules here. My point, was that if I see you calling an individual here a "Chimp" than I will report it as a rule violation.

As for my pleasant nature, the lack of it is solely for you right now, so you can feel honored. In general, most here will attest to my often benign nature, and my usual call for peace and civility on these boards.

I will leave it here, however, as we are severely derailing this thread with our unrelated conversation.

TAM

 

[ConspiRaider]

...

Just to frame where we are at.

To deal with a couple of other issues 1st that I dont wanna leave lying- there seem to be a couple of people here who post constantly, telling people not to post, e.g. Conspiraider and TAM. Why are you doing this? If you dont want to debate me, then don't. There are plenty of other threads. Go on them...

It's been a very dry year here in Los Angeles - driest on record - and I was being overly cautious, I'll admit. Last thing we need is raging wildfires out here.

I predicted (correctly, once again) that if mighty JREF forumiters persisted in their relentlessly logical activities, you would be flamed to a degree that no one could have possibly imagined. And as you see, it's happened. You're now toast.

So I was looking out for you, buddy, and the surrounding topography. You should be thanking me.

P.S. Once the L.A. County fire officials assured me that there was plenty of water and flame retardant on hand to deal with any emergency, I must confess to rather enjoying being a witness to the destruction of your "arguments". Although sometimes it was so brutal that even I had to look away. I mean after all we are not complete barbarians.

 

[sleahead]

Actually, it says that, short of such an event, it could take longer for those changes to occur.

Correct. So the question is, did they want the changes to happen in a "longer" timeframe (specified later as "several decades"), or shorter, i.e., presumably, monthr or years?

So we can already make the qualification that given that such a crucial transformation taking mths/yrs, is preferable to it taking decades, then a new PH is propitious to policy. This should not be controversial, or hard to understand.

But let's look closer at the doc. For we are told that not only are such policies crucial, but we are warned repeatedly of the importance the the 2001QDR to the implementation of such policies:



The need for the necessity of such changes to be impressed on the new government before October 2001, is thus drastic. This is underline even further later on:



So we can already see that the doc is stating quite clearly the need, urgent, for the necessity for the changes proposed in the doc to be crystalised in POTUS's mind, by October 2001. And concomitantly, the need for whatever other decision making bodies, Congress, Senate, the people, to be on board, by October 2001. Further fuel to the flame.

And even if it DID say what you say it says, it still wouldn't be related to 9/11. I'm still waiting on that.

Errr... other than PH was a terror attack on US soil by foreigners killing thousands of US, burned on the public;s mind, that catalysed the US into drastic military action. Remind you of something?

I think everything else is dealt with.

Reminder that the aim of my points re PNAC is to show that there was clearly stated intent for a new PH to happen on the part of the neo cons, with the implication that such should happen before October 2001.

Once we establish this, not too hard to understand fact, we can proceed with a useful framework.

You keep repeating this stuff, even though the same paragraph that contains the Pearl Harbour quote in the PNAC document ends with this:

Thus,this report advocates a two-stage process of
change – transition and transformation –
over the coming decades.

It is quite clear the authors are content with a long process of change. The only question is when will this long process will get under way, hence the desirabilty of meeting the 2001 QDR deadline.


You then go on to say that they needed to crystalise the changes in the mind of the POTUS before the presentation of the QDR in October 2001 and that the need for these changes to be impressed on the new government. Do you not think that the gentlemen of PNAC had access to to GW Bush before he was elected? What makes you so sure Bush wasn't on board with this from the get go? I'm sure you also know a number of signatories to the PNAC document were members of the new government, right? The preparation of the QDR began almost immediately President Bush took office. What makes you think that the Bush administration would have a problem getting the QDR approved by Congress? On June 28th 2001, Rumsfeld appeared before the House Armed Services Commitee seeking a very large budget increase for the fiscal year 2002. He appears to have been well received. Added to this is the fact that the Republicans had a majority in Congress. Can you provide any evidence that QDR spending plans would not have been approved but for the events of 9/11?

 

[DGM]

This has been dealt with, but I'll do it again. She has no capacity to cause the crash covertly. Whereas the gov does. Ive illustarted how twice now.

Remember Mrs. Smith the brake mechanic. She has covert capacity. But you already knew that so you ignored it.