The 9/11 Conspiracy Facts

DGM said:
This only your opinion. Not a fact!
Click to expand...
Its an interpretation, quite a simple one. If you disagree, go to #493, where the argument for that interpretaion is set out very clearly, and respond to it. Then we can move on.
 
mjd1982 said:
Having a jump start on something does not negate planning for the long term. PNAC have a long term plan; but they want it implemented early. Simple.
Click to expand...
Simple? You said they wrote their plan to attack America into "Rebuilding America's Defenses." That's simple all right: simply batcrap insane. Ook, ook!

As has been addressed too many times here, the money has gone to precisely what they wanted. Please see my rebuttal to the LCGuide on p3 if you want to learn more.
Click to expand...
Of course they did: like $400 billion for a ground war in Iraq against people armed with Fiat Pandas, old artillery shells, and cell phones, and $300 billion for the Joint Strike Fighter. That's "precisely" what the PNAC called for, isn't it, mjd?

Oh, wait....
 
mjd1982 said:
Its an interpretation, quite a simple one. If you disagree, go to #493, where the argument for that interpretaion is set out very clearly, and respond to it. Then we can move on.
Click to expand...

Please, everybody, please stop disagreeing with him, even though you do, just stop.

Now, your next point is?
 
Oh, it's an interpretation now, which is neither fact nor fiction. just how one sees it it be. An opinion.

Ahhh.... I get it now. I get it now.
 
mjd1982 said:
Its an interpretation, quite a simple one. If you disagree, go to #493, where the argument for that interpretaion is set out very clearly, and respond to it. Then we can move on.
Click to expand...

you mean this ridiculous post?

mjd1982 said:
Oh boy.

Now look. I posted very clearly in #416 and #419, crystalising the arguments about 1) How 9/11 is a new PH, and 2) Why according to RAD, a new PH would be propitious to policy. I asked for responses. I have had none, none that address the points.

So I will post them again. Anyone who is interested in arguing this point, please refer to them- click the reply button, and go through them. To recap the former:

PH had many characteristics. It wasnt just the fact that it was one nation attacking another; it was done by Japanese, it was done on a fleet, it was done by air etc etc.

The question is, which of these many characteristics are pertinent to the analogy between 9/11 and PH. The answer is very simple, since it is given in the doc: #1 catastrophic, #2 catalysing(militarily).

Indeed, strictly speaking, to say that what they were talking about was a new PH, is not completely accurate, since the term "new PH" is used in a comparative clause. The direct clause is "a catastrophic and catalysing event".

Hence the analogy between 911 and PH is valid, and to dispute such would be brainless.

I think this is quite simple.

**********

And the latter:

the aim of this section is, as has been stated many times, simply to show that a new PH was propitious to policy for PNAC/The Bush Admin. One person has admitted so, but that is all so far.

But after that, the question is, did they want the transformation to happen over decades, or over mths/years. I think that ordinarily would be obvious, but we can argue it here on the basis that:
a) The aim of PNAC is to militraily create a platform that will project US hegemony and make the 21st Century the American Century. Thus, it is logical that they would want this platform to be created soon, so they could actively project US hegemony and create an American 21st Century, rather than wait, have it potentially jeopardised by other elements.
b) The fact that the QDR was in Oct 2001, and the elements upon which it was to be based would have to be crystalised in decision makers minds by then; i.e. early, rather than late.
c) A revolutionary change in the geo-political landscape, creating, in the eyes of the authors, stability, peace, security and democracy for the world, is preferable, certainly to power hungry politicians, sooner, rather than later. If anyone is going to argue why this is not the case, I will be very interested to read it.

******

Now PLEASE address these points. Also, the LC guide riposte delivered very early on, has not been touched by any of you "truth seekers". Please don't be evasive. Address the points, and we will all make some progress.
Click to expand...


Tell me where in this rubbish you have an argument? You only added the words "sooner than later" to your previously debunked argument.

"sooner than later" doesn't mean anything.
 
Last edited:
Gravy said:
Of course they did: like $400 billion for a ground war in Iraq against people armed with Fiat Pandas, old artillery shells, and cell phones, and $300 billion for the Joint Strike Fighter. That's exactly what the PNAC called for.
Click to expand...


Gravy, if you're not married, feel free to come down here and take one of my sisters off my hands. You crack me up
 
Ok, here's the deal

I will ask you all, those who havent to kindly respond to my points. I will then go to the next stage.

Now I know many of you have come and said "We understand what your saying, and we disagree"; well, I'm afraid this isnt very "propitious" to a debate, is it? If you went on LC with an argument, and people spoke like that to you, you would get pretty peeved, no? It is courtesy to do so, and moreover, it is how a debate proceeds. It allows us all to know where we stand, and allows us, if we are honest, to see the flaws in our arguments, and thus gain a better idea of what is right and wrong.

So...I would like everyone who believes 911 wasnt a new PH to respond to #416; those who believe PNAC didnt deem it propitious to policy, respond to #493.

I will be away for 24 hours; when I come back, I will respond to everyone who has been kind enough to post; and then we will move onto the next point, which will be foreknowledge. This i promise.

NB- Those who decide to evade the point, well, your cowardice and dishonesty will be clear. Please dont do this.
 
If we went to LC and posted the exact opposite of what they think happened we would be banned before the mouse button rebounded after clicking on "submit post"
 
mjd, I did respond to your points. You then called me names and told me to go away.

Did widdle mjd get scawed by big bad wowds?
 
mjd1982 said:
Ok, here's the deal

I will ask you all, those who havent to kindly respond to my points. I will then go to the next stage.

Now I know many of you have come and said "We understand what your saying, and we disagree"; well, I'm afraid this isnt very "propitious" to a debate, is it? If you went on LC with an argument, and people spoke like that to you, you would get pretty peeved, no? It is courtesy to do so, and moreover, it is how a debate proceeds. It allows us all to know where we stand, and allows us, if we are honest, to see the flaws in our arguments, and thus gain a better idea of what is right and wrong.

So...I would like everyone who believes 911 wasnt a new PH to respond to #416; those who believe PNAC didnt deem it propitious to policy, respond to #493.

I will be away for 24 hours; when I come back, I will respond to everyone who has been kind enough to post; and then we will move onto the next point, which will be foreknowledge. This i promise.

NB- Those who decide to evade the point, well, your cowardice and dishonesty will be clear. Please dont do this.
Click to expand...

Kitty time again!
 

Attachments

  • Retardcat.jpg
    Retardcat.jpg
    22.7 KB · Views: 3
Here are two of my favorite friends, mjd. Their names are CAT-astrophic and CAT-alysing. They are the founding members of PurrNAC.

I'm pretty sure they knew something prior to the events...but, it's pure speculation and assumption on my part. Enjoy!
 

Attachments

  • purrrr.jpg
    purrrr.jpg
    19.4 KB · Views: 5
  • dadaisy.jpg
    dadaisy.jpg
    10.2 KB · Views: 3
Which poster was it, a while back, who had the same MO as mjd? remember, he came here, said he was going to convince us that 9/11 was an inside job, but we had to follow precise steps, addressing one point, then he would "allow" us to move on. Same "better than everyone" tone. Who was that? Was it 28th kingdom? I cannot remember, anyone??

TAM:)
 
mjd1982 said:
Ok, here's the deal

I will ask you all, those who havent to kindly respond to my points. I will then go to the next stage.

Now I know many of you have come and said "We understand what your saying, and we disagree"; well, I'm afraid this isnt very "propitious" to a debate, is it? If you went on LC with an argument, and people spoke like that to you, you would get pretty peeved, no? It is courtesy to do so, and moreover, it is how a debate proceeds. It allows us all to know where we stand, and allows us, if we are honest, to see the flaws in our arguments, and thus gain a better idea of what is right and wrong.

So...I would like everyone who believes 911 wasnt a new PH to respond to #416; those who believe PNAC didnt deem it propitious to policy, respond to #493.

I will be away for 24 hours; when I come back, I will respond to everyone who has been kind enough to post; and then we will move onto the next point, which will be foreknowledge. This i promise.

NB- Those who decide to evade the point, well, your cowardice and dishonesty will be clear. Please dont do this.
Click to expand...

Ok here is the deal, you will stop repeating your previous posts, you will stop pretending that you are super intelligent , you will stop pretending that you are posting something that has not been posted before and bring something new to this forum.

You will stop dismissing people who disagree with you, you will stop being arrogant and you will stop believing you are the saviour of humanity. You will stop pretending you are lecturing infants and you will start acting like an adult. You will stop treating everybody here as though they are insignificant nobodies who have not got a clue what they are talking about and you will eventually present something other than words.

You will eventually enter into meaningful debate and discussion and you will eventually tell everybody why I should give monkeys what you think. You will present evidence that is irrefutable, unbelievable, undeniable, earth shattering, hold the front page, stop the world revolving and jaw dropping.

Or maybe not, maybe you will continue as you have, unimpressive, uninspiring and completly boring.

I look forward to your return, not.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom