The 9/11 Conspiracy Facts

[mjd1982]

In case anyone forgot #2662...

I think that things are getting a little bit sidetracked here, so its useful to do a bit of a recap. I will now show where my argument has come to. It will be an important crystallisation of my argument thus far, and I am fully aware that there will not be anyone who will argue it sensibly. Nonetheless, I can only do this in the hope that people reading this will find your humiliation instructive.

The PNAC doc illustrates a military and strategic radicalisation that needs to take place if the US is to retain it's hegemony for the "New American Century". It is essential that these strategies are crystallised in decision makers minds by the tim of the Oct 01 QDR, and such changes need to happen under one coherent, global banner, not "decoupled" from one another.

The transformations recommended bear an astonishing resemblance, almost blow by blow, to what is now called the WOT. You can read more here

Further it is stated that the transformation will take several decades, absent a catastrophic and catalysing event. The reason for this extra duration is due to difficulties, backlogs and overhauls, difficulties that will be circumvented by the occurence of a new PH:



Hence, the new PH will make the process of transformation quicker, due to its enhanced ease. This leads as to the uncontroversial conclusion that a new PH was deemed propitious to policy.

PS- I was going to go onto foreknowledge, but I do wanna give anyone a chance to get distracted. Let's see how the herd of independent minds does with this.

Just to repeat my prophetic bold;

I am fully aware that there will not be anyone who will argue it sensibly

I'll give you another chance.

 

[mjd1982]

Oh, and one other repetition- #95 I have dismantled the main buttress of OT thought on PNAC. It's author has refused, brazenly, to address this rebuke sensibly, many, many times. My question is- what makes any of you think you will have a better chance than him?

 

[Brainache]

Oh, and one other repetition- #95 I have dismantled the main buttress of OT thought on PNAC. It's author has refused, brazenly, to address this rebuke sensibly, many, many times. My question is- what makes any of you think you will have a better chance than him?

You do realise that no one posting in this thread actually thinks they will convince you of anything don't you?

You are aware that most people reading this thread are doing so for the entertainment inherent in seeing a pompous jackass make a fool of himself aren't you?

That you still haven't produced even one fact in all this time and all of those posts is some kind of accomplishment I suppose, so well done.

Bought any more good books lately?

 

[funk de fino]

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.

name it then whizzkid and did you study oil service stocks?

i know the numerous factors that affect oil service stocks far better than you

if halliburton (or KBR to more precise here) had made these many millions in an area where the rivals had no work then this would give them an advantage over the competitors (in the eyes of wall street), this is one of the over riding factors in success in the oil service stocks (the most important being the actual price of oil), due to the lack of other bidders and the monopoly in this area i, as someone who has made real money by investing in the industry i work in, would have seen this as an advantage and bought stock hoping this would give me a decent return, it did not seem to compared to their rivals, this would surprise me and lead me to wonder if iraq has in any way contributed to this anomaly , i would not know for certain but i could research it and maybe have a better idea

i would not make un-informed staements like yourself

i believe you brought stock price into this argument, if all you had said was they have made millions of dollars in iraq and not embellished it then you may have had a point, you did not, you cant backtrack now

when you say profited do you mean profit or revenue? they are different sunshine, and do you know the profits they have made in this region compared to others?

are you admitting you made a mistake on what i was saying earlier and you were putting words in my mouth earlier?

 

[Billdave2]

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.

Wrong again. Your "tactic" is, state that you have facts, provide unwarrented speculation and dubious claims, ignore all the posts that show how wrong you are or declare them not "sensible", repeat your unfounded claims, misunderstand when people explain it again using small words and simple phrases hoping you can understand them this time, declare yourself as "winning", insult all the posters who are trying to help you raise your understanding above grade school level, and then say propitous over and over again.

Remember people, you can't spell pity without propitous and a y.

 

[lapman]

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

Oh, so Saddam is still in power? From the grave? What an asinine statement.

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.

Who gave you authority to say who can and cannot post? Rather presumptuous of you. You call me stupid yet you don't know the simple difference between main influence and complete control. What that void between your ears fails to grasp is that difference. However, because we did not have complete control over Saddam, he was still a threat. Was he enough of a threat for us to invade before finishing in Afghanistan? Not at all. The invasion was a political move that has nothing to do with PNAC.

 

[Belz...]

I am fully aware that there will not be anyone who will argue it sensibly

I'll give you another chance.

Mjd, if you consistently label disagreement as "not sensible", then you can safely ignore any and all arguments thrown against you. But then, why would you want to do that.

Here's a question: do you think there is ANY chance, whatsoever, that you could be wrong about your interpretation of the PNAC document ?

 

[twinstead]

Here's a question: do you think there is ANY chance, whatsoever, that you could be wrong about your interpretation of the PNAC document ?

You might as well be asking the Pope if he believes there's any chance that he could be wrong about Mary being the mother of Christ.

 

[JonnyFive]

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.

If you can't advance your position without resorting to insults, perhaps you should carry out this discussion somewhere else.

If you're going to stay here, I'd suggest you check the personal crap, as this subforum is under somewhat stricter standards of moderation than the rest of the forum (at least for the time being).

 

[Cuddles]

You are aware that most people reading this thread are doing so for the entertainment inherent in seeing a pompous jackass make a fool of himself aren't you?

It's tempting to make a poll about who is the most amusing truther. I think mjd and Malcolm are pretty near the top, although I'm not sure if they've managed to knock Christophera off yet. Sadly, such a poll would probably be in breach of the stricter rules here.

 

[mjd1982]

You do realise that no one posting in this thread actually thinks they will convince you of anything don't you?

You are aware that most people reading this thread are doing so for the entertainment inherent in seeing a pompous jackass make a fool of himself aren't you?

That you still haven't produced even one fact in all this time and all of those posts is some kind of accomplishment I suppose, so well done.

Bought any more good books lately?

Good! So you dont think that the PNAC doc is a fact.

Why do you bother posting here?

 

[mjd1982]

name it then whizzkid and did you study oil service stocks?

UBS

i know the numerous factors that affect oil service stocks far better than you

You may well do; you are doing well to fool everyone then

if halliburton (or KBR to more precise here) had made these many millions in an area where the rivals had no work then this would give them an advantage over the competitors (in the eyes of wall street), this is one of the over riding factors in success in the oil service stocks (the most important being the actual price of oil), due to the lack of other bidders and the monopoly in this area i, as someone who has made real money by investing in the industry i work in, would have seen this as an advantage and bought stock hoping this would give me a decent return, it did not seem to compared to their rivals, this would surprise me and lead me to wonder if iraq has in any way contributed to this anomaly , i would not know for certain but i could research it and maybe have a better idea

i would not make un-informed staements like yourself

I include the last sentence since it contradicts nicely with the one preceding it.

You are of course also neglecting the fact that in the chart you sent (from 05?), the increase in value for Halliburton would have been priced, to a significant degree into the stock value. This is an example of basic factors that you dont take into account.

i believe you brought stock price into this argument, if all you had said was they have made millions of dollars in iraq and not embellished it then you may have had a point, you did not, you cant backtrack now

Lol, "making millions" contributes to stock price, dont you know?

when you say profited do you mean profit or revenue? they are different sunshine, and do you know the profits they have made in this region compared to others?

"to profit" = to make profit

are you admitting you made a mistake on what i was saying earlier and you were putting words in my mouth earlier?

What were you saying earlier? Was it inane?

 

[mjd1982]

Wrong again. Your "tactic" is, state that you have facts, provide unwarrented speculation and dubious claims,

Ok. So another person who claims tha PNAC doc is not a fact. You can also go in the "maybe" pile

ignore all the posts that show how wrong you are or declare them not "sensible",

nice gag. Show me where I have ignored any such post?

repeat your unfounded claims, misunderstand when people explain it again using small words and simple phrases hoping you can understand them this time, declare yourself as "winning",

please show where this has been done. Dont make me make a twinstead out of you now...

insult all the posters who are trying to help you raise your understanding above grade school level, and then say propitous over and over again.

Remember people, you can't spell pity without propitous and a y.

Thanks for the "unwarrented speculation and dubious claims".

Now, as I have told the rest of your ilk many many time, there is a very simple way to deduce this. Go to the posts where my "dubious claims" have been crystallised the most substantively (#95, #493, #750, #2662 to name a few) . Then, show me where these have been coherently refuted. Or even addressed.

I sense another twinstead here...

 

[mjd1982]

You might as well be asking the Pope if he believes there's any chance that he could be wrong about Mary being the mother of Christ.

So, I win my bet for the non sensible response. I will ask the question again.

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.

...

 

[mjd1982]

another point that I would like answered:

Oh, and one other repetition- #95 I have dismantled the main buttress of OT thought on PNAC. It's author has refused, brazenly, to address this rebuke sensibly, many, many times. My question is- what makes any of you think you will have a better chance than him?

 

[Unsecured Coins]

if you would get your head out of your fourth point of contact you'd understand that no one is saying the PNAC document is not a fact. We're saying that it's a fact that it doesn't say what you THINK it says.


Errrrr.....

 

[twinstead]

Mjd1982, you seem to think that a sarcastic one-line swipe at a statement constitutes a reply. Hell, even I know that and one-line sarcastic statements are pretty much all I can do, considering I'm no expert on this stuff.

I'm just here, like some others, to express my moral outrage at people like you and your arrogant 'got it all figured out' attitude (comical in people who actually have no idea what they are talking about).

mjd1982 you are supposed to be some kind of expert on this stuff, right, so some substance would be nice. You're supposed to be defending what most here consider a ludicrous theory but you know for a fact is true; you'd think you'd be able to dazzle us with your Bright Light of Reason.

I realize this is just an internet forum, unimportant in the grand scheme of things, but Christ, mjd, you'd think you'd be doing better than this.

Where's the breaking news stories? Where's the congressional hearings? Where's any report in the main-stream media that isn't simply laughing at you folks? Where's the arrests?

The evidence is overwhelming, right? Any fool can figure it out, right?

I'll let the others, the ones who actually DO know what they are talking about, handle handing you your buttocks with facts in this debate.

I'll continue to simply express my outrage. The YouTube Generation...BAH!

 

[Brainache]

Good! So you dont think that the PNAC doc is a fact.

Why do you bother posting here?

You produced the PNAC Document? I thought that was some right wing think tank in the late nineties.

You have produced a bit of speculation based on a few sentences. Try again.

 

[funk de fino]

You may well do; you are doing well to fool everyone then

I include the last sentence since it contradicts nicely with the one preceding it.

You are of course also neglecting the fact that in the chart you sent (from 05?), the increase in value for Halliburton would have been priced, to a significant degree into the stock value. This is an example of basic factors that you dont take into account.

Lol, "making millions" contributes to stock price, dont you know?

"to profit" = to make profit

What were you saying earlier? Was it inane?

complete and utter bollox in every reply sunshine, well done you have proved beyond all doubt i was correct to warn you not to get into the oil discussion because you have a made a twat of yourself

no answer as to whether you studied oil service stocks?

how do you know thay have made a profit from these operations, they may have taken revenue and not profited, they may have not profited as much as the city thought they should, these are among the factors that affect stock price among a multitude of others that you have no idea about

by reading what you are saying about the stock price, i believe that you must have flunked whatever equity research you did at UBS, did you have to move on?

you said that i said halliburtons shares would have been higher if they had stayed out of iraq, i never said this or intimated it, you were the one who came out with the inane comment

as for contradiction, only in your mind pal, i think you know not what this means if you think the two sentences contradict each other

shimmy shammy all you want with this but you have been caught out

now go back to your PNAC crap

 

[mjd1982]

Mjd1982, you seem to think that a sarcastic one-line swipe at a statement constitutes a reply. Hell, even I know that and one-line sarcastic statements are pretty much all I can do, considering I'm no expert on this stuff.

I'm just here, like some others, to express my moral outrage at people like you and your arrogant 'got it all figured out' attitude (comical in people who actually have no idea what they are talking about).

mjd1982 you are supposed to be some kind of expert on this stuff, right, so some substance would be nice. You're supposed to be defending what most here consider a ludicrous theory but you know for a fact is true; you'd think you'd be able to dazzle us with your Bright Light of Reason.

I realize this is just an internet forum, unimportant in the grand scheme of things, but Christ, mjd, you'd think you'd be doing better than this.

Where's the breaking news stories? Where's the congressional hearings? Where's any report in the main-stream media that isn't simply laughing at you folks? Where's the arrests?

The evidence is overwhelming, right? Any fool can figure it out, right?

I'll let the others, the ones who actually DO know what they are talking about, handle handing you your buttocks with facts in this debate.

I'll continue to simply express my outrage. The YouTube Generation...BAH!

I'm sorry, but the best way for me to be "handed my buttocks" would be for people to address my points. This not being done, said buttocks cannot be handed. Hence, as you now well know, there has been no one who has replied to my substantive posts. One such example is #750. You are well aware, having had your buttocks handed to you by me, that no one has had the courage to respond to that.

It's a pretty simple, pretty standard system of evasion. Avoid the post, claim you have answered it, and then keep on avoiding. Politicians do it quite regularly.

Let's go back to watching the tel-evasion.