The 9/11 Conspiracy Facts

[Unsecured Coins]

MJD - will you finally post something relevant or will you just keep running around in circles?

 

[MIKILLINI]

I see, ok. Before I even get into that point, you do note that you are disagreeing with PNAC here? And that such a disagreement is completely irrelevant to the issue? Do you realise this?

This is not an agreement or disagreement with PNAC. This is an example of defense spending and how this process is usually played out.
PNAC is an example of how Republicans viewed Clinton's policies toward defense initiatives, and, in the Neocon Republican view, had allowed it to deteriorate during his Administration. PNAC was the written response as to what would be needed to correct the Clintonian policy of neglect.
This is the true design of PNAC, not a catastrophic and catalyzing event as you say.

 

[MIKILLINI]

MJD - will you finally post something relevant or will you just keep running around in circles?

Here's something relevant, UC.

 

[funk de fino]

Theyre share price has gone up a hell of a lot. They have made a killing, as have the oil companies, and the arms companies who significantly fund and intersperse with the government. End of story.

If the Iraqis will all be happy, then why are they protesting? Or are you saying they should all be happy?

And mosr interestingly of all, why do you think the invasion happened in the 1st place?

look at their competitors on that chart that i kindly provided for you

has halliburton shares done better than them by being in iraq?

the others are not there

they are not far above normal market rises which is pretty poor considering how high the price of oil is? do you agree

and that rise in the price of oil is why all the other companies you mention have had record years

I think the iraqi oil workers are afraid for their jobs

I think mr Bush wanted to get rid of Saddam and used the flimsiest excuse possible to achieve this

Not for oil, because they do not need to, they can get it cheaper elsewhere

 

[funk de fino]

Well, I could do more

http://www.brookings.edu/views/op-ed/fellows/luft20030512.htm

http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aairaqioil.htm

So the point stands regardless

you quote a magazine and the US goverment ahead of OPEC? and both of your links are from 2003?

check when mine were from

this is not a pissing contest about how many links you can find, as an oil industry expert who has been to these places I am telling you, as well as industry experts in links i gave you, that Iraq is generally regarded as having the 4th largest oil reserves

the point does not stand, you are wrong

 

[mjd1982]

Yes, their true design was increase in military spending, to spur a military radicalisation. A radicalisation which would be sped up by the occurence of a new PH. Hence why they felt a new PH was necessary.

I think this is pretty simple?

 

[mjd1982]

Interestingly, regarding PNAC, you will note that the main source of OTisms on it comes from the LC guide. This part was dismantled by me on p3 on this thread. Its author has been asked, many many many times to respond sensibly to this criticism. For near 70 pages he has not done so.

So if he cannot, what hope do any of you have? (ps this question has been asked before...)

 

[mjd1982]

look at their competitors on that chart that i kindly provided for you

has halliburton shares done better than them by being in iraq?

the others are not there

they are not far above normal market rises which is pretty poor considering how high the price of oil is? do you agree

and that rise in the price of oil is why all the other companies you mention have had record years

I think the iraqi oil workers are afraid for their jobs

I think mr Bush wanted to get rid of Saddam and used the flimsiest excuse possible to achieve this

Not for oil, because they do not need to, they can get it cheaper elsewhere

You have no idea how stock prices are driven, do you? The companies that have increased more than Halliburton could have had this happen due to a myriad of reasons- good management, deregulation in areas of operation, personnel changes etc etc, not to mention the issue of price volatility. This does not affect in the least the fact that Halliburton's price has increased significantly due to the Iraq war. Your implication that had they not been involved, their price would have risen more has zero basis, therefore.

 

[mjd1982]

you quote a magazine and the US goverment ahead of OPEC? and both of your links are from 2003?

check when mine were from

this is not a pissing contest about how many links you can find, as an oil industry expert who has been to these places I am telling you, as well as industry experts in links i gave you, that Iraq is generally regarded as having the 4th largest oil reserves

the point does not stand, you are wrong

Fine fine , I dont mind. Iraq has the 4th biggest proven reserves. What was the original point? Iraq has a hell of a lot of oil, cheap oil, hence why the US wants to invade.

Dont miss the wood for the trees my friend

 

[funk de fino]

You have no idea how stock prices are driven, do you? The companies that have increased more than Halliburton could have had this happen due to a myriad of reasons- good management, deregulation in areas of operation, personnel changes etc etc, not to mention the issue of price volatility. This does not affect in the least the fact that Halliburton's price has increased significantly due to the Iraq war. Your implication that had they not been involved, their price would have risen more has zero basis, therefore.

i am not saying it would have risen more if they had not been involved i am saying that your reasons for thinking that it has risen due to the war is false

putting words in my mouth again ROFL boy

the two companies in that chart are there two biggest direct competitors, they are not involved in iraq and there share price has increased more - correct?

halliburton due to there involvement in the iraq oil industry have obviously gained nothing against their competitors by being involved in the iraq location - correct?

so again listen to me, i have more idea how Oil service stocks work than you because i trade in them in them and have for years

they are very closely tied to the price of oil and supply of oil, even when a company is having record financial performance in a year the city can get scared by a dollar drop in the price of oil and the share will drop, these companies are invariably linked in performance of the industry as a whole and not on normal economic factors, sometimes all oil service stocks can be rising as everything else is plummeting and vice versa, price volatility effects all the three companies i showed exactly the same, personnel changes have had no effect on the prices of the shares i showed you and deregulation is the same for all the companies, we are in the same locations

their price increased rapidly prior to the war but then has lagged these competitors since so it has given them no advantage, there is one other reason there was a massive rise before the war but as you are the expert i will let you find it

 

[funk de fino]

Fine fine , I dont mind. Iraq has the 4th biggest proven reserves. What was the original point? Iraq has a hell of a lot of oil, cheap oil, hence why the US wants to invade.

Dont miss the wood for the trees my friend

i am glad you can at least admit you are wrong, it is more than most of your type do

cost of war = approx $1 trillion by the time it is final?? plus thousands of deaths, plus possible impeachment for 911 when you lot find your smoking guns

cost of oil from canada = approx $77 a barrel minus the offset of millions of dollars made by US companies in canada drilling this oil minus no deaths or threats of jail?

dont start a business pal

 

[WildCat]

i am glad you can at least admit you are wrong, it is more than most of your type do

cost of war = approx $1 trillion by the time it is final?? plus thousands of deaths, plus possible impeachment for 911 when you lot find your smoking guns

cost of oil from canada = approx $77 a barrel minus the offset of millions of dollars made by US companies in canada drilling this oil minus no deaths or threats of jail?

dont start a business pal

And of course we could have just bought Iraqi oil also.

BTW mjd1982, exactly how much oil has been stolen from Iraq to date? And what is the price compared to 2002?

 

[Belz...]

Theyre share price has gone up a hell of a lot. They have made a killing, as have the oil companies, and the arms companies who significantly fund and intersperse with the government. End of story.

Sure, end of story. In a pig's eye.

G pas les accents sur mon ordinateur.

You don't have international ASCII codes on your computer ?

And it's "J'ai", not "G".

Si francais est ta langue maternelle, tu devrais pas faire des erreurs comme ca... c un peu honteux.

So a Frenchman can't possibly make typos ? Remind me to point out every single mistake you ever make.

Oh, by the way, in French we have articles that are required in front of every noun. It's not "Si francais", it's "Si le Français". Thanks. Next week, we'll learn about adjectives.

Et ouais, tu connais pas la difference entre "simple" et "simpliste".

I know exactly what I said. I said English was simplistic, not simple.

Je pourrais bien t'instruire en francais ainsi qu'en anglais, evidemment...

You probably couldn't get a bird to fly.

 

[Cuddles]

Actually, you are correct. I missed my own name in the list of posters for this thread. This post marks my 14th entry in this thread.

No point, I just found the numerics interesting. You've got 721 of 763, or 94.5%, of all the posts you have on the boards here in this one single thread. It's not something I've really seen before, to see someone with their posts so concentrated into a single thread. Usually there is at least some spreading around of posting into different threads.

You might find this thread interesting. Or possibly just amusing in a rather sad way. Apparently the fact that he only posts here is entirely the fault of the forum design, the management, the composition of members and the fact that the vast majority of the world do not believe his "theory". But it's absolutely nothing to do with him.

 

[lapman]

So its irrelevant to the link between PNAC and the DoD that the sec, dep sec, under sec, under sec for policy, chairman of defense council, and more, were all from PNAC.

It's irrelevant here in the US. Since you're not from here, I can understand why you are having such a hard time understanding this.

Enforcing no fly zones doesnt mean hegemony.

It absolutely is part of the hegemony we had over Iraq.

It doesnt mean "We must invade Iraq", it implies that an invasion of Iraq would be... propitious.

Nope, not even close. I guess "transcends the issue" means something different there in the UK than it does here in the US. I guess there it means "propitious to."

 

[BillyRayValentine]

Your implication that had they not been involved, their price would have risen more has zero basis, therefore.

He made no such implication, junior. You have a habit of coming up with your own distorted, blatantly false interpretation of what others say, so you can then argue against it. That's called being dishonest. If you hope to earn any respect from the adults present, I suggest you stop. It's a moronic tactic, and obvious as all hell.

P.S. The point is that Halliburton has not seen an outsized increase in value relative to its peers, results that run counter to the claim that they are making a killing off the war. Your simplistic drivel about what drives share prices is irrelevant to the point. Such a peer comparison always examines a variable of choice, holding all else equal.

You're getting in way over your head. I suggest you kick for the surface and regroup.

 

[Belz...]

Nope, not even close. I guess "transcends the issue" means something different there in the UK than it does here in the US. I guess there it means "propitious to."

No. It just means it in United Mjdom.

 

[mjd1982]

i am not saying it would have risen more if they had not been involved i am saying that your reasons for thinking that it has risen due to the war is false

putting words in my mouth again ROFL boy

the two companies in that chart are there two biggest direct competitors, they are not involved in iraq and there share price has increased more - correct?

halliburton due to there involvement in the iraq oil industry have obviously gained nothing against their competitors by being involved in the iraq location - correct?

so again listen to me, i have more idea how Oil service stocks work than you because i trade in them in them and have for years

they are very closely tied to the price of oil and supply of oil, even when a company is having record financial performance in a year the city can get scared by a dollar drop in the price of oil and the share will drop, these companies are invariably linked in performance of the industry as a whole and not on normal economic factors, sometimes all oil service stocks can be rising as everything else is plummeting and vice versa, price volatility effects all the three companies i showed exactly the same, personnel changes have had no effect on the prices of the shares i showed you and deregulation is the same for all the companies, we are in the same locations

their price increased rapidly prior to the war but then has lagged these competitors since so it has given them no advantage, there is one other reason there was a massive rise before the war but as you are the expert i will let you find it

Well if you trade in them you will, or should, know that the share of a company will rise or fall dependent on a number of factors, as I have already explained to you.

So to say that they have gained nothing against their competitors due to Iraq is falsely presupposing that absent Iraq their stock price would be higher than it is now, an assertion taht you cannot support.

 

[mjd1982]

i am glad you can at least admit you are wrong, it is more than most of your type do

cost of war = approx $1 trillion by the time it is final?? plus thousands of deaths, plus possible impeachment for 911 when you lot find your smoking guns

cost of oil from canada = approx $77 a barrel minus the offset of millions of dollars made by US companies in canada drilling this oil minus no deaths or threats of jail?

dont start a business pal

Well, thats a message to forward to Bush, not me.

 

[mjd1982]

You might find this thread interesting. Or possibly just amusing in a rather sad way. Apparently the fact that he only posts here is entirely the fault of the forum design, the management, the composition of members and the fact that the vast majority of the world do not believe his "theory". But it's absolutely nothing to do with him.

A suitably ignorant post.

1, It is nobody's "fault" that this is the case. If you are stll unable to understand that, then you might wanna sit the next few out.

2. 45% of US believed, over a year ago, that Congress or an International Tribunal should re-investigate the attacks, including whether any US government officials consciously allowed or helped facilitate their success. 47% dont.

http://www.911truth.org/page.php?page=zogby_2006

You will try, and fail to explain how this constitutes a "vast majority"