The 9/11 Conspiracy Facts

[mjd1982]

Well, I loved your "sensible" responses to #2487, #2488, #2491 and #2502. Of course I'm leaving out #2491 & #2494. Yeah, we now know that you're going to move the goal posts and say I would love to read your excuse as to why the first set of posts I listed are not "sensible."

Understand the difference between ignoring and ducking, this will resolve your confusion.

 

[mjd1982]

Ok, UC, you win.
Yet our "ilk" answering that post led to the whole argument on whether the claim that OBL was offered to us was credible or not. Of course there's posts #757, #764, etc. that also deal with post #750. So, in light of this dishonesty, we are supposed to take your word at face value because?

No, some of your "ilk" flailed at explaining 1 point in #750, failing to show how such testimony does not suffice as evidence. There were 3 other points.

This should have been very simple to understand.

 

[mjd1982]

Oh, I will.

You've been shown AGAIN and AGAIN that "quicker" and "easier" are not synonyms, and that they do not necessarily follow one another.

And you've said your self that It'll take a long time to implement whatever the scenario., which means that it won't be really "quicker", will it ?

You're contradicting yourself.

Read the rest of the PH para, and you will see that the reason it will take long is because of difficulties- roadblocks, upheavals, clogged inventories etc.

Hence, as I have said every time, in this context, easier=quicker

 

[mjd1982]

Yes, I understand humor in all of its many forms. What you don't seem to understand is that the common thread is always, inescapably, AMUSEMENT.

Clockwork is not (except, of course, among the ignorant, morally undeveloped teenage boy set), nor was it intended to be, amusing on any level The juxtapositions and incongruities that simpletons like yourself dismiss as dark humor are, in fact, dripping with symbolism and have serious intent. The film is a severe parable, rich in metaphors. And they're not there for the viewer's amusement, genius. They're all completely loaded.

Clockwork is a satire. That you equate this with "Clockwork is humor for a moral purpose" speaks to a dim, uneducated, juvenile mindset.

Try reading serious reviews and criticism of the film if you'd like to learn. Posting links to insipid websites like "rotten tomatoes", or one review from 35 years ago that stands in contrast to just about every other one out there, does not impress.

Educate yourself, young man. You'll be less inclined to make a horse's ass out of yourself.

P.S. Since you apparently haven't the slightest clue as to what constitutes dark humor, rent Kubrick's "Dr. Strangelove". That should help.

Lol, suffice to say that you should preclude "symbolism" and "serious inten" from the use of humour illustrates your problem quite nicely. Oh, as does your dismissal of an article "from 35 years ago".

No more discussion on this topic is necessary i think.

 

[mjd1982]

Let's try this again. Of the 10,000 people affected by this supposed power-down, we can guess that in the neighborhood of 8,000 are democrats. Of these 8,000, it is a safe assumption that a significant percentage are rabid in their hatred for George Bush. They would undoubtedly go to great lengths to see his head on a platter.

Since corroborating Scott's story might potentially be a step in this direction, it is inconceivable that they would ALL choose to remain silent. Contrary to your nonsensical assertion, they would in no way be indicting themselves or their employers. This is a vacuous fantasy, contrived by a very, very simple mind in a desperate attempt to explain away the unexplainable.

Well, the 2nd para here is the only one that addresses stuff that hasnt already been addressed, but since it is completely substanceless, I dont know what you expect me to say.

 

[mjd1982]

Oh, just a quickie- who was the dude who said that he thought Borat was racist/Sacha Baron Cohen was a racist? Does that person also think the Simpsons is racist too?

 

[volatile]

Read the rest of the PH para, and you will see that the reason it will take long is because of difficulties- roadblocks, upheavals, clogged inventories etc.

Hence, as I have said every time, in this context, easier=quicker

Eh?

It's going to be slow, even given a "New Pearl Harbor", but, according to you a "new Pearl Harbor" would make it "easier", if it wasn't for all the other problems - thus the US government 'massaged' 911? Don't you see how stupid that sounds?

You are talking absolute nonsense. Your arguments are verging on dribbling, blabbling inanity. Do you even think through the sense of what you're trying to argue?!

 

[mjd1982]

Eh?

It's going to be slow, even given a "New Pearl Harbor", but, according to you a "new Pearl Harbor" would make it "easier", if it wasn't for all the other problems - thus the US government 'massaged' 911? Don't you see how stupid that sounds?

You are talking absolute nonsense. Your arguments are verging on dribbling, blabbling inanity. Do you even think through the sense of what you're trying to argue?!

I think the last 2 sentences are more apt for your capacities of comprehension.

A new PH would make it easier. Full stop. Nothing about the other problems. These will be circumvented by the occurence of a new PH, according to PNAC.

 

[volatile]

Here you get confused. The policy as a whole will take a long time to implement whatever the scenario.

A new PH would make it easier. Full stop. Nothing about the other problems. These will be circumvented by the occurence of a new PH, according to PNAC.

We've already shown you that, if anything, the wars following 9/11 made spending on military technology slow down! Also, do you think we forget when you post things such as the sentences above? You're arguing that the PNAC wanted to cause a new Pearl Harbor in order to make their military gains arrive quicker, and that it will take a long time whatever happens. You're arguing against yourself! And you honestly wonder why no-one is convinced by your arguments?

 

[Brainache]

Oh, so inference is admissible to debate when you want it, is that right?

I never said it wasn't. I was also having a bit of a gentle dig at your "debate" style.

Aside from that hypocrisy, all you have done is show that figures in the movement are selling stuff. You have to make the connection betweem this, and your assertion that the TM is "driven by financial gain". You wont.

Even though the original assertion came from someone else, I have shown that all the leading figures of the TM are selling stuff. There may be exceptions to this, but I haven't seen any.

Of course, not everyone in the TM is making a profit, most of the Truthers like you are being exploited by the money making con-men.

Bought any good books lately?

 

[Belz...]

Read the rest of the PH para, and you will see that the reason it will take long is because of difficulties- roadblocks, upheavals, clogged inventories etc.

Hence, as I have said every time, in this context, easier=quicker

Hence ? It doesn't even follow.

Will it take a long time or not ?

A new PH would make it easier. Full stop.

I see. So now you can keep claiming that it made it EASIER, but cop-out by saying that OTHER factors have slowed it down. It's the end-of-the-world prophecies all over again. You can claim it's been delayed indefinitely and still say you're right.

 

[funk de fino]

I never said they would not travel. Implicating Putin for killing 1 russian is a million miles away from implicatin Bush in killing 3000 US. This should be obvious.

Right. So the Met are going to go to the US and uncover the 911 plot. What planet do you live on? How could such an occurrence ever be possible?

what did this mean then?

they might go and investigate why scott is being hassled and claims there has been a cover up by FT or PA, whether this leads them to think this was in any way connected to a plot by Bush to murder 3000 citizens would be your inference not mine, i see no evidence for it so why would the MET find any?

why would they not go to the states to investigate a small matter like scotts claims?

what about where the murders took place, does this make a difference?

are you trying to say that a russian person who has just been given uk citizenship being murdered with radiation, on british soil, that could have potentially killed more innocent UK and foreign citizens

1. is a small matter compared to FT potentially covering up a power down and victimising an employee because of it?

2. is a small matter compared to a government involvment in murder?

 

[funk de fino]

Oh, just a quickie- who was the dude who said that he thought Borat was racist/Sacha Baron Cohen was a racist? Does that person also think the Simpsons is racist too?

oh just a quickie, that would be me who thought Borat was racist

not cohen just the character borat

i will ignore the simpsons remark as you have ignored questions of mine, not nice is it?

 

[mjd1982]

We've already shown you that, if anything, the wars following 9/11 made spending on military technology slow down! Also, do you think we forget when you post things such as the sentences above? You're arguing that the PNAC wanted to cause a new Pearl Harbor in order to make their military gains arrive quicker, and that it will take a long time whatever happens. You're arguing against yourself! And you honestly wonder why no-one is convinced by your arguments?

Oh boy...

Please think before you post.

The transformation will take a long time. You cannot militarise space in a day. Do you understand this?

With the aid of a new PH, and the creation of a wartime environment, extra urgency will be put on military policy, and thus extra impetus will be provided to such transformations. Thus they will happen quicker.

Understand the difference between "quicker" and "quickly" and your confusion should dissipate.

 

[mjd1982]

I never said it wasn't. I was also having a bit of a gentle dig at your "debate" style.



Even though the original assertion came from someone else, I have shown that all the leading figures of the TM are selling stuff. There may be exceptions to this, but I haven't seen any.

Of course, not everyone in the TM is making a profit, most of the Truthers like you are being exploited by the money making con-men.

Bought any good books lately?

I have bought 1 book on 911 Truth, and that was about 1 mth ago to support the London movement. So tell me how I am being exploited?

And yes, you are right. Many people in TM are selling stuff. That is correct. Now, tell me how this means that the TM is driven by financial gain. This will be your 4th(?) attempt?

 

[mjd1982]

Hence ? It doesn't even follow.

Will it take a long time or not ?



I see. So now you can keep claiming that it made it EASIER, but cop-out by saying that OTHER factors have slowed it down. It's the end-of-the-world prophecies all over again. You can claim it's been delayed indefinitely and still say you're right.

As I said to the other dude, learn the difference between "quickly" and "quicker" (vite/ plus rapide)

 

[volatile]

The transformation will take a long time. You cannot militarise space in a day. Do you understand this?

Yes. Do you?

With the aid of a new PH, and the creation of a wartime environment, extra urgency will be put on military policy, and thus extra impetus will be provided to such transformations. Thus they will happen quicker.

You'll note, of course, that these transformations have not happened, and indeed have been impeded - the pressure to fund a war on two fronts has trumped the pressure to "militarise space". You're utterly, utterly wrong.

Understand the difference between "quicker" and "quickly" and your confusion should dissipate.

Military spending on technology has slowed down! Your contentions are demonstrably false.

 

[mjd1982]

what did this mean then?

they might go and investigate why scott is being hassled and claims there has been a cover up by FT or PA, whether this leads them to think this was in any way connected to a plot by Bush to murder 3000 citizens would be your inference not mine, i see no evidence for it so why would the MET find any?

why would they not go to the states to investigate a small matter like scotts claims?

what about where the murders took place, does this make a difference?

are you trying to say that a russian person who has just been given uk citizenship being murdered with radiation, on british soil, that could have potentially killed more innocent UK and foreign citizens

1. is a small matter compared to FT potentially covering up a power down and victimising an employee because of it?

2. is a small matter compared to a government involvment in murder?

Please dont be facile. The implication in Scotts charge is clear, otherwise we wouldnt be debating it. If it were just a matter of a power down, then there would be no need to discuss it. The suggestion is that there is a cover up of shady behaviour in the TT's the w/e b4 911 which would relate to gov behaviour. If the met were to go over and investigate this, then equally this would be the implication behind their actions- they would be, by implication investigatin the "conspiracy theory" that the US gov were to some degree involved in 911, or maybe behind the collapse of the TTs. This would not do, and is incomparable to the Litvinenko case, 1 guy being poisoned.

 

[mjd1982]

oh just a quickie, that would be me who thought Borat was racist

not cohen just the character borat

i will ignore the simpsons remark as you have ignored questions of mine, not nice is it?

1. I did not ignore your Borat contention, I just said that if you believed that, then we would have to agree to disagree.
2. Borat is a creation of Cohen- if he is racist, then Cohen would have to be too
3. So, is the Simpsons racist? Apu, Dr Nik, Groundskeeper Willie etc?

 

[mjd1982]

Yes. Do you?



You'll note, of course, that these transformations have not happened, and indeed have been impeded - the pressure to fund a war on two fronts has trumped the pressure to "militarise space". You're utterly, utterly wrong.



Military spending on technology has slowed down! Your contentions are demonstrably false.

Ok good, you have understood the 1st part. You argument here was not addressed, since I have addressed it so many times on this thread that it is getting quite comic.

Learn to distinguish between design and execution

I will leave you to see whether you can work out the rest yourself (you can get some hints by going back in the thread and reading my posts)