The 9/11 Conspiracy Facts

[beachnut]

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

And still not a real fact to support a single smoking gun fantasy. Wow.

 

[mjd1982]

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.

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

1. Hilarious. So the argument is now that the overwhelmingly PNAC composed DOD had no links with PNAC, but since I'm not from the US I wont be able to understand why. Right. Have some balls and admit when your wrong, you coward.

2. Learn what hegemony means first: "The predominant influence, as of a state, region, or group, over another or others."

So prior to the war, the predominant influence in Iraq wasnt Saddam, it was the US.

Unbelievably moronic.

3. It states that the important of the Gulf is more important than Saddam. Saddam is a major threat nonetheless. The need for a huge military presence there is, and wil always be great. Hence an invasion and overthrow will be propitous. Control of theor oil supply will also be propitious, as I have shown time and again.

http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/RRiraqWar.html

 

[mjd1982]

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.

They are making a killing off the war. As is the oil industry. This is clear, and no one with a brain would dispute it.

The question raised by someone is whether they are making more money than their peers. I have said that this is irrelevant, since their peers may be making a killing off other initiatives. This does nto preclude the fact that Halliburton are making a killing off Iraq, money which they may not have otherwise made.

This should not be hard to understand. Another score for Junior.

Btw- shouldnt you be off this thread about 2 weeks ago?

 

[DGM]

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.

Your right, amusing and deluded. Next thing you know he'll quote an internet survey and then challenge that they're accurate.

 

[beachnut]

1. Hilarious. So the argument is now that the overwhelmingly PNAC composed DOD had no links with PNAC, but since I'm not from the US I wont be able to understand why. Right. Have some balls and admit when your wrong, you coward.

2. Learn what hegemony means first: "The predominant influence, as of a state, region, or group, over another or others."

So prior to the war, the predominant influence in Iraq wasnt Saddam, it was the US.

Unbelievably moronic.

3. It states that the important of the Gulf is more important than Saddam. Saddam is a major threat nonetheless. The need for a huge military presence there is, and wil always be great. Hence an invasion and overthrow will be propitous. Control of theor oil supply will also be propitious, as I have shown time and again.

http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/RRiraqWar.html

The Project for the New American Century is a non-profit educational organization dedicated to a few fundamental propositions: that American leadership is good both for America and for the world; and that such leadership requires military strength, diplomatic energy and commitment to moral principle.

OMG, it is like a school. OMG, they had an army with Dick's shotgun, until his wife took it away due to shooting a friend. Now PNAC has no army. Darn, unarmed and only words. Sounds like you.

It looks like no one can follow our example of peaceful revolution, even with lots of help. OMG, watch out PNAC army is coming. Dick with no gun. Run....

The Project for the New American Century intends, through issue briefs, research papers, advocacy journalism, conferences, and seminars, to explain what American world leadership entails. It will also strive to rally support for a vigorous and principled policy of American international involvement and to stimulate useful public debate on foreign and defense policy and America's role in the world.

Debate, that is real scary. OMG, they are going to talk us to death like you are?

You are funny, in both ways.

 

[funk de fino]

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.

you do not know the factors that is your problem, yet you accuse me of not knowing how stocks work when i trade in them??

i'm not saying anything of the sort, compared to their competitors in the same years they have not had a great success, if they were making millions from iraq in an area where they had monopoly in the business they would have done better IMO, if iraq was the cash cow for them you assume it is they would have a higher stock price IMO, i am not saying they would have been better off out of iraq, words in my mouth again pal, it maybe has not affected the share price in any way?? who can tell??

 

[funk de fino]

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

no it was a message to re-iterate i told you not to get involved in the oil industry discussion like i warned you not too, cause you had no idea what you were on about

also puts another slant on invasion for oil fallacies??

 

[lapman]

1. Hilarious. So the argument is now that the overwhelmingly PNAC composed DOD had no links with PNAC, but since I'm not from the US I wont be able to understand why.

Right. Have some balls and admit when your wrong, you coward.

You mean like you had the balls to admit that you were wrong about the defense GDP levels? Oh wait, you haven't admitted that.

2. Learn what hegemony means first: "The predominant influence, as of a state, region, or group, over another or others."

So prior to the war, the predominant influence in Iraq wasnt Saddam, it was the US.

Let me see, sanctions that we mainly enforced. Main influence on the inspections. Attack at will. Establishing camps for the Kurds in Iraq. Practically every move he made was dictated by what we were doing. Yeah, I would say a predominant influence.

3. It states that the important of the Gulf is more important than Saddam.

Bingo! Give that man a qupie doll!

Saddam is a major threat nonetheless. The need for a huge military presence there is, and wil always be great.

Which transcended Saddam's threat to the region. So in the overall plan, Saddam was a minor issue.

Hence an invasion and overthrow will be propitous. Control of theor oil supply will also be propitious, as I have shown time and again.

No, you claim to have shown but you've only given your speculation and conjecture.

http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/RRiraqWar.html

Proves nothing about the PNAC - Iraq link.

 

[BillyRayValentine]

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.

At issue is whether one of the companies in the peer group - Halliburton - had a unique characteristic (the Iraq War), something that set it apart from the others. If so, we would expect a relative increase in value if this unique characteristic resulted in a significant economic advantage. All other "factors" are assumed equal, or non-unique. You apparently think the operating assumption should be that Halliburton is lacking, or far less than equal, with respect to these other "factors", thereby mitigating the positive impact of their Iraq goldrush. A baseless, ridiculous claim, plucked out of thin air.

Your other operating assumption is that the war was a Halliburton windfall. You keep skipping right past the question of whether it actually was, partly because you're incapable of drawing a distinction between profits and outsized profits. Halliburton is certainly making money in Iraq. But if they weren't there, those resources would be directed elsewhere. And by all indications, "elsewhere" would be similarly profitable.

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.

Bolding mine

And you go right ahead and do it again - use tortured logic to try and put words in someone's mouth. And I do mean tortured logic. The bolded piece is one of the least intelligent things I've ever read. You're breaking new ground. Nice work.

 

[AZCat]

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.

The word "pathetic" just doesn't seem to do that thread justice. Perhaps there is another with more "oomph"?

 

[8den]

The word "pathetic" just doesn't seem to do that thread justice. Perhaps there is another with more "oomph"?

Pitiable. We've got nigh on 2,700 posts on this thread and he's still arguing the language on the PNAC document.

 

[Belz...]

2. 45% of US believed, over a year ago, that Congress or an International Tribunal should re-investigate the attacks

I think you should do some research into statistics and polls.

They are making a killing off the war. As is the oil industry. This is clear, and no one with a brain would dispute it.

So how's that economy going ? Why's that USD dropping ?

 

[nicepants]

1. As i illustrated on p5, of this now 60 page thread, such an investigation would need congressional approval. Why must I keep telling you this again and again?

Didn't the first investigation have congressional approval?
If that's all the truthers need, why aren't they lobbying for congressional approval of their own investigation?

2. The evidence has been provided. Only the most dull of minds would have missed it. He is a truther. He has a big truther story. However he is not making a big deal of it. He is hardly coming to ny truther events. He is hardly posting on truther sites. He is hardly doing any interviews. Why do you think this is?

That does not mean that his employer is harassing him to "keep quiet".

 

[nicepants]

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

Relevance is not propitious to the twoof.

 

[mjd1982]

OMG, it is like a school. OMG, they had an army with Dick's shotgun, until his wife took it away due to shooting a friend. Now PNAC has no army. Darn, unarmed and only words. Sounds like you.

It looks like no one can follow our example of peaceful revolution, even with lots of help. OMG, watch out PNAC army is coming. Dick with no gun. Run....

Debate, that is real scary. OMG, they are going to talk us to death like you are?

You are funny, in both ways.

What the hell are you talking about?

Edited by chillzero: 

Edited for civility

 

[mjd1982]

you do not know the factors that is your problem, yet you accuse me of not knowing how stocks work when i trade in them??

i'm not saying anything of the sort, compared to their competitors in the same years they have not had a great success, if they were making millions from iraq in an area where they had monopoly in the business they would have done better IMO, if iraq was the cash cow for them you assume it is they would have a higher stock price IMO, i am not saying they would have been better off out of iraq, words in my mouth again pal, it maybe has not affected the share price in any way?? who can tell??

Who can tell!! Nice one. I have, incidentally, worked in equity research at, probably, a much more prestigious institution than you currently work at, just FYI. Numerous factors affect stock price, and you cannot say that just because their stock has not gone up as much as other companies since Iraq that they havent profited hugely from Iraq. This is the point being debated, and it is clear that since Iraq, they have profited hugely. End of story.

 

[mjd1982]

You mean like you had the balls to admit that you were wrong about the defense GDP levels? Oh wait, you haven't admitted that.

Let me see, sanctions that we mainly enforced. Main influence on the inspections. Attack at will. Establishing camps for the Kurds in Iraq. Practically every move he made was dictated by what we were doing. Yeah, I would say a predominant influence.
Bingo! Give that man a qupie doll!
Which transcended Saddam's threat to the region. So in the overall plan, Saddam was a minor issue.
No, you claim to have shown but you've only given your speculation and conjecture.
Proves nothing about the PNAC - Iraq link.

Yes, overall he was, hence why they are still there!

That having been said, since you believe that the main influence in Iraq prior to 03 was the US, not Saddam, I dont know what the hell you are doing on this forum anyway, since you are either incredibly stupid, or incredibly dishonest. If the US were the dominant influence, why the hell did they invade???

Dont bother answering that one. Or any others for that matter.

 

[mjd1982]

At issue is whether one of the companies in the peer group - Halliburton - had a unique characteristic (the Iraq War), something that set it apart from the others. If so, we would expect a relative increase in value if this unique characteristic resulted in a significant economic advantage. All other "factors" are assumed equal, or non-unique. You apparently think the operating assumption should be that Halliburton is lacking, or far less than equal, with respect to these other "factors", thereby mitigating the positive impact of their Iraq goldrush. A baseless, ridiculous claim, plucked out of thin air.

Your other operating assumption is that the war was a Halliburton windfall. You keep skipping right past the question of whether it actually was, partly because you're incapable of drawing a distinction between profits and outsized profits. Halliburton is certainly making money in Iraq. But if they weren't there, those resources would be directed elsewhere. And by all indications, "elsewhere" would be similarly profitable.

Bolding mine

And you go right ahead and do it again - use tortured logic to try and put words in someone's mouth. And I do mean tortured logic. The bolded piece is one of the least intelligent things I've ever read. You're breaking new ground. Nice work.

Haha... dude, the point is that an invasion of a country leading to lotsof major no bid contracts is in theory a windfall. And it was so in practice. Whether they exploited it as well as other companies exploited their conditions is another question.

This shouldnt be hard to understand.

 

[mjd1982]

The word "pathetic" just doesn't seem to do that thread justice. Perhaps there is another with more "oomph"?

Its most likely, given your deficient vocabulary, that you just havent understood the thread. Read it again, and if your still having difficulties, get your mummy to explain it to you.

 

[mjd1982]

Pitiable. We've got nigh on 2,700 posts on this thread and he's still arguing the language on the PNAC document.

A priceless post! Go read #2662, and you will see why we are still here.

The tactic is pretty simple- I state unpalatable truths, you chaps ignore them, and then you chaps complain that we havent advanced! What a cute herd you all are.