The 9/11 Conspiracy Facts

[HeyLeroy]

(Owned)

 

[jsiv]

Not safe for work ??

NOT SAFE ?????

But... But... Jessica is ALWAYS safe for work <sob>.

I'd like to work her safe.

 

[lapman]

good. So you believe that the testimony of the middleman in discussions between the US and the Taliban about killing OBL, is worthless in a debate about discussions between the US and the Taliban about killing OBL.

Back in the real world, this is called key testimony. You may dispute it, but it is key testimony, and would be central to any case about Bush's "failures" to stop 911

HAHAHAHAHA. In the real world, it's only called key testimony if it's credible. We have shown repeatedly and sensibly that the credibility of the sources and the "middleman" is extremely suspect. So, in any investigation or trial, his testimony would be dismissed immediately.

He was warned once in every 4 days that OBL was plotting to attack the US. All 40 times he did nothing. If you are happy with that sort of behaviour from your president, then you too are a negligent member of the electorate.

You have been asked what should have been done. You have yet to provide any viable response to the warning. Since many of the first threats called for imminent attack that didn't happen. So how are they supposed to take any other threat seriously? You still haven't posted any comparison to show what should have been happening.

Lol, you ignoring it doesnt mean that it hasnt been shown. Btw, though you may well be closing your eyes, this is being show on this page

I'm not ignoring anything. You have yet to post anything that is based on reality. You're design vs execution argument is simply a cop out. It's only the execution that matters. Understand this and you'll understand why your whole new PH argument is completely ridiculous.

WTF???

Where has his story been convoluted?

I've already posted the link, referred you back to that post and described how it's been convoluted several times. Your failure to acknowledge this shows the extreme depth of your dishonesty.

You were trying to say that the TM weren't even aware of his story, that it was just me! ROFL Get off them pills mate!

I said that where? Please post this.

The 1st part, well, I have asked people to explain why he hasnt been sacked for implicating his employers in a 911 cover up. No one has. Surprise surprise!

That's because he never implicated his employers in any way, shape or form. Not even the "TM" believed in the cover-up. You and ONLY you make this claim. This has been explained over and over again. So your statement is a lie.

I dont mind when someone doesnt respond to me.

A lie

But when I go on and on and on at people to respond, and no one does, that is ducking.

Your failure to acknowledge the responses is dishonest to the extreme.

 

[funk de fino]

This would not do, and is incomparable to the Litvinenko case, 1 guy being poisoned.

i will ignore again the snideness

so two cases where it is suspected that the leader of a country has conspired to murder a citizen or citizens are incomparable? what would the charges be in both cases?

would the litvinenko one be worse because it was committed against someone in another country? or does that make no difference in this case?

 

[funk de fino]

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?

1, i never said you did, read more closely, it was other questions, slow down, you are making mistakes

2. no because frakenstein is a creation of mary shelly but i do not believe that makes her a murdering monster made of dead body parts

3. ignored as you have done to some of my questions

 

[lapman]

Since you claim that I close my eyes to posts like this, here we go, again.

PNAC have their plan to have a new PH,

This is the first lie. PNAC never stated or implied that a new PH was a part of the plan.

start the never ending WOT,

Lie #2. The RAD was to prevent war, not start one. Show where they claim a war is needed or wanted.

and get a load of money for these military radicalisations.

Finally a true statement!

That is the design. They get the new PH.

Which is not a part of the design.

They get a load of money.

Which is not entirely true per the memos that have been posted.

They embark upon one element of the WOT, namely the occupation and control of Iraq and its oil fields.

Which is not part of the design, nor is it any way linked to the "new PH" until after WMD's were not found.

They overthrow Saddam, and then they start to do stupid things, like firing the entire Iraqi army, Abu Ghraib, and more. This creates resentment, a quagmire, and a war that ends up taking all the resources from the US, and stopping development of the other programs. This is the execution.

Hence your whole argument is baseless since your "execution" is not based on any design of the PNAC.

Further they cannot withdraw, since they would lose direct control of what they invaded for, even if this might free up more funds for other things.

How can they lose control of something they have no control over in the first place?

Hence the difference betweem design and execution. Make sure you tell all your friends.

Hence the huge holes in your logic, now all your "ilk" will see. Hey, none of your "ilk" are here to defend you. Looks like they don't believe you either.

 

[BillyRayValentine]

The 1st part, well, I have asked people to explain why he hasnt been sacked for implicating his employers in a 911 cover up. No one has. Surprise surprise!

Dozens of posts have pointed out that he has implicated no one, at least not publicly, hence FT has no legal basis for firing him.

Now, if during your chat with him he did explicitly accuse his employers of participating in a 9/11 cover-up, that might change things. Would you be willing to testify under oath that he did this? A close friend of mine is an executive at Franklin Templeton, FT's parent company. If you'd be willing to play ball, I'm sure we could end his tenure at FT right quick.

Of course, if he's telling the truth as you insist, this process could end up being quite lucrative for Scott, with the added benefit of blowing the entire conspiracy wide open.

So how 'bout it? Do either you or Scott have the moral courage to actually walk the walk? Or are vague innuendos supported by faulty logic as far as you're willing to go? Remember, we're talking about the mass murder of 3,000 innocent human beings here...

 

[lapman]

There has been no investigation, what is there to pay for? There can only be a new investigation with congressional approval as I have said

Since there is no investigation to fund, where is the money going to?

 

[mjd1982]

Effectivement, puisque "changement" n'est pas un mot Anglais et que, à date, nous discuttons dans cette langue un peu simpliste pour laquelle les objets et les noms communs n'ont pas de sexe.

Il y a une difference entre "simpliste" et "simple". Je pense k je pourrais bien t'enseigner ta langue maternelle, evidemment!

Et en plus- nous discutons

 

[mjd1982]

Now see, you did exactly what he told you you were doing. You accuse others of not responding to your posts when they have, and when it's pointed out to you, you simply say "well, it's not sensible".

Then after a few pages goes by, you start again with the 'no one responds to me' spiel.

What's funny is that in response to a post that you even quoted that called you on it, you STILL DID IT.

Lol, couldnt be a better person to be posting that

Go back to #750, and see how many of the 1750 posts since have addressed post #750.

If you can't, you can either keep on squirming, or you can apologise. Its your choice.

3rd time i'm asking u this!

 

[mjd1982]

HAHAHAHAHA. In the real world, it's only called key testimony if it's credible. We have shown repeatedly and sensibly that the credibility of the sources and the "middleman" is extremely suspect. So, in any investigation or trial, his testimony would be dismissed immediately.

lets be clear here, You have disputed it based on:
1. He's 1/2 Afghan and so unavoidably mendacious in matters such as this
2. The US State dept disagrees.

The 1st would not be allowed in a courtroom; the 2nd would be the evidence to be disputed

You have been asked what should have been done. You have yet to provide any viable response to the warning. Since many of the first threats called for imminent attack that didn't happen. So how are they supposed to take any other threat seriously? You still haven't posted any comparison to show what should have been happening.

I have posted many times on what should have been done. For start, they could have done what the 911 Comm recomended
http://youtube.com/watch?v=zK-te3Y0m5A

I have posted this video many many many times now

I'm not ignoring anything. You have yet to post anything that is based on reality. You're design vs execution argument is simply a cop out. It's only the execution that matters. Understand this and you'll understand why your whole new PH argument is completely ridiculous.

Lol, how simple you must be. Can we have some intelligent posters on here? Are there any in your camp? Desgin is all that matters, since what the PNAC doc represents is design- the design that a new PH would be propitious to policy.

Think, if you can, before you post.

Possede!

I've already posted the link, referred you back to that post and described how it's been convoluted several times. Your failure to acknowledge this shows the extreme depth of your dishonesty. I said that where? Please post this.

Well if that is the case, which it probably isnt, i would have been ignoring you. Send me the link again,

Whats happened to you btw? On SLC you seemed remotely intelligent, you were the one who delayed by arrival here if I remember right. Has losing gone to your head?

That's because he never implicated his employers in any way, shape or form. Not even the "TM" believed in the cover-up. You and ONLY you make this claim. This has been explained over and over again. So your statement is a lie.

Pffff... Hilarious. Ok, boy, i dont even know if I want to go through this again...

He has stated that there was a power down in his offices, right? He is implying that something dodgy was happening, right? FT were having this pwer dowm, right? FT have not come out with details of this allegedly nefarious power down, not reported it to any sources, right? Thus they are involved in the cover up of of something nefarious. This is pretty damn simple.

Your failure to acknowledge the responses is dishonest to the extreme.

I'm gonna humiliate you like I amd doing to Twinstead.

The initial post to this section was #750. Show me one person who has responded to this post, in 1750 posts.

 

[mjd1982]

i will ignore again the snideness

so two cases where it is suspected that the leader of a country has conspired to murder a citizen or citizens are incomparable? what would the charges be in both cases?

would the litvinenko one be worse because it was committed against someone in another country? or does that make no difference in this case?

Where the hell is the snideness??!!

The diffference is 1x3000. Plus native, potential threat, versus domestic, non threatening civilians

 

[mjd1982]

1, i never said you did, read more closely, it was other questions, slow down, you are making mistakes

2. no because frakenstein is a creation of mary shelly but i do not believe that makes her a murdering monster made of dead body parts

3. ignored as you have done to some of my questions

1. Ok, but now I dont know what your point was

2. What?? No more is Cohen Kazakh... The point is that he is using Borat as a direct parody, to also make indirect parodies. Thus his use of Borat as a parody, would be racist, if Borat was.

3. Show me what i have ignored of you please, adnd then kindly answer my point

 

[mjd1982]

Since you claim that I close my eyes to posts like this, here we go, again.
This is the first lie. PNAC never stated or implied that a new PH was a part of the plan.

They stated that it would make things go quicker, due to the circumventing of roadblocks and overhauls- hence easier

Lie #2. The RAD was to prevent war, not start one. Show where they claim a war is needed or wanted.

It was to preserve US hegemony. Everything else was secondary. This would have been made easier by a new PH, was above

Which is not a part of the design.

as above

Which is not entirely true per the memos that have been posted.

ur denying the arms budget went up drastically?

Which is not part of the design, nor is it any way linked to the "new PH" until after WMD's were not found.

read the doc, I have posted you quotes amillion times I am sure, you or your herd

Hence your whole argument is baseless since your "execution" is not based on any design of the PNAC.

I dont care about execution, I aminterested in design

How can they lose control of something they have no control over in the first place?

They had enough control to sack the army, and overthrow and kill the president. That is control

Hence the huge holes in your logic, now all your "ilk" will see. Hey, none of your "ilk" are here to defend you. Looks like they don't believe you either.

This concerns me not a jot, I want to debate on my own; as you can see, I dont need any help. But for the record, I have received 2 PMs laughing at the stupidity of you and your herd, not that this means anything.

 

[mjd1982]

Dozens of posts have pointed out that he has implicated no one, at least not publicly, hence FT has no legal basis for firing him.

Now, if during your chat with him he did explicitly accuse his employers of participating in a 9/11 cover-up, that might change things. Would you be willing to testify under oath that he did this? A close friend of mine is an executive at Franklin Templeton, FT's parent company. If you'd be willing to play ball, I'm sure we could end his tenure at FT right quick.

Of course, if he's telling the truth as you insist, this process could end up being quite lucrative for Scott, with the added benefit of blowing the entire conspiracy wide open.

So how 'bout it? Do either you or Scott have the moral courage to actually walk the walk? Or are vague innuendos supported by faulty logic as far as you're willing to go? Remember, we're talking about the mass murder of 3,000 innocent human beings here...

What an absolutely idiotic post. Am I willing to conspire in getting someone who I met once fired just so he might go to court against 2 multi billion dollar firms and the US government??? What the hell are you taking???

As for he didnt implicate his company, he is implying that there was nefarious activities undertaken on the w/e b4 911, with the blessing of FT, on their premises, and they have not since come out and admitted to this undertaking. And you say this is not implicative. You are simple, no?

 

[lapman]

lets be clear here, You have disputed it based on:
1. He's 1/2 Afghan and so unavoidably mendacious in matters such as this
2. The US State dept disagrees.

The 1st would not be allowed in a courtroom;

False statement. If he was a credible witness, he would be allowed. I never stated that his ethnic background had anything to do with his credibility.

the 2nd would be the evidence to be disputed

This would leave the burden of proof on him. Where are the supposed documents that provide proof?

I have posted many times on what should have been done. For start, they could have done what the 911 Comm recomended
http://youtube.com/watch?v=zK-te3Y0m5A

I have posted this video many many many times now

I said viable and I said yours.

Lol, how simple you must be. Can we have some intelligent posters on here? Are there any in your camp? Desgin is all that matters, since what the PNAC doc represents is design- the design that a new PH would be propitious to policy.

I guess you don't know the difference between intelligent vs gullible. As already shown, the PH is in now way part of PNAC's design. An intelligent person would have figured this out by now. Someone who's gullible enough to believe the "TM's" lies would not.

Think, if you can, before you post.

Try following your own advise.

Well if that is the case, which it probably isnt, i would have been ignoring you. Send me the link again,

Why, so you can "ignore" it again. Go back in the posts and find it yourself.

Whats happened to you btw? On SLC you seemed remotely intelligent, you were the one who delayed by arrival here if I remember right. Has losing gone to your head?

Nope, I'm fine. You, on the other hand, are so lost in your psychosis that you can't distinguish between reality and fantasy.

Pffff... Hilarious. Ok, boy, i dont even know if I want to go through this again...

He has stated that there was a power down in his offices, right?

Right.

He is implying that something dodgy was happening, right?

Right.

FT were having this pwer dowm, right?

WRONG. PA was having the power down. FT just happen to be a lessee on some of the affected floors.

FT have not come out with details of this allegedly nefarious power down, not reported it to any sources, right?

WRONG. They did not order the power down so there is nothing for them to report to anybody else.

Thus they are involved in the cover up of of something nefarious. This is pretty damn simple.

Except that you are wrong.

I'm gonna humiliate you like I amd doing to Twinstead.

Ok, I'm waiting

The initial post to this section was #750. Show me one person who has responded to this post, in 1750 posts.

Again, why? So you can move the goalposts again? Go back and find it for yourself (#757 comes to mind).

 

[nicepants]

There has been no investigation, what is there to pay for? There can only be a new investigation with congressional approval as I have said

If the investigation is approved by congress, it wouldn't be independent, now would it?

As far as what there is to pay for? How about money to victim's families? (Or do you think they were in on it too?)

You have yet to
a) Show that Avery, Jones et al are getting rich of the TM

Dylan Avery says that over 50,000 copies of LC have been sold. SOURCE
50,000 DVDs at $17.95 apice, that's $897,500.

 

[funk de fino]

Where the hell is the snideness??!!

The diffference is 1x3000. Plus native, potential threat, versus domestic, non threatening civilians

possibilty of more than 1 in the litvinenko case as well though, wasnt there?

litvinenko was by now a uk citizen, so is it any different than the foreign workers killed in 911, these were not domestic? very propitous to try and imagine only american nationals were killed on 911 eh?

bush alledgedly murders uk citizens so would or could the MET not be expected to investigate any allegations? remember at this point in time, it is not an allegation against bush it is an allegation against FT or more likely PA of dodgy goings on around that date, if they find more then we need to think how far this would go at that point and only at that point

they are similar cases of state sponsored murder, if we believe your opinion on who carried out 911, carried out by these countries leaders, what charges could be brought?

i would say the putin case is worse ,in some ways, because there is some case built that it was ordered by someone in russia and it was done to a foreign national on foreign soil, the reason they will not hand him over is because they fear what the MET know and what may come out in court

whereas there is no proof in the 911 murders that would indite bush, if there was he would in the clink by now

the whole crux is that you said it was not possible to imagine the MET would investigate these claims and by looking at the litvinenko case it seems they most probably would, if not what reasons would stop them?

 

[funk de fino]

1. Ok, but now I dont know what your point was

2. What?? No more is Cohen Kazakh... The point is that he is using Borat as a direct parody, to also make indirect parodies. Thus his use of Borat as a parody, would be racist, if Borat was.

3. Show me what i have ignored of you please, adnd then kindly answer my point

1. err ok

2. he is a creation of cohen, he is a racist and bigotted boor, this does not mean cohen is, was warren mitchell racist?

3. i am not your PA, but in the case of groundskeeper willie, then no, the simpsons is not racist because of him

 

[funk de fino]

As for he didnt implicate his company, he is implying that there was nefarious activities undertaken on the w/e b4 911, with the blessing of FT, on their premises, and they have not since come out and admitted to this undertaking. And you say this is not implicative. You are simple, no?

no, he is not

FT did not give their blessing, they had no choice in the matter, they are the tenant, since when do tenants get to dictate to landlords about maintenance work that needs to be carried out?

they have not admitted the power down or denied the power down, point irrelevant

none of the other companies that have offices on those floors from 50 upwards have come out and admitted it either? they must have been in on the action too i take it? they must have given their blessing for the nefarious activities? you are the only one so far who thinks there is an implication of FT, does this not ring any alarm bells in that head of yours?

you accuse this guy of being simple and then reply in such a simpleton fashion yourself?