The 9/11 Conspiracy Facts

DGM said:
Opinion is not evidence. And it has been "critiqued" you just don't except it. The mods in the other thread even tried to tell you. Isn't it funny how your the only one that doesn't sees this? You still are sorely lacking any powers of persuation.

P.S. "fell apart like a Chinese motorbike" is racist. No ifs, ands or buts.

Please think (or at least try) before you post.
Click to expand...
Learn to distinguish between opinion and inference. This will help you a great deal.

And if the points just raised have indeed been critiqued, a simple request- show me where? Get those mods to do the same.

And when you fail, like Twinstead, tell me why you have lied.
 
mjd1982 said:
Learn to distinguish between opinion and inference. This will help you a great deal.

And if the points just raised have indeed been critiqued, a simple request- show me where? Get those mods to do the same.

And when you fail, like Twinstead, tell me why you have lied.
Click to expand...
See posts 1-2800 excluding yours. If you have trouble with comprehension it's no shame to admit this. Maybe if you read them to some one else they could help.

The difference between opinion and inference in this case is only in your mind.

Again try to apply some substance to your posts. You are boring the hell out of this forum.
 
DGM said:
See posts 1-2800 excluding yours. If you have trouble with comprehension it's no shame to admit this. Maybe if you read them to some one else they could help.

The difference between opinion and inference in this case is only in your mind.

Again try to apply some substance to your posts. You are boring the hell out of this forum.
Click to expand...
Good. Then you will have no problem in finding the relevant post/posts. I am unable to. But you, and any of your friends, should be able to find such quite easily.

When you cannot, the thread will, logically, conclude that a catastophic and catalysing attack was indeed deemed propitious by PNAC, and with this in mind, we will move on to the next thing you are all going to evade.
 
mjd1982 said:
Good. Then you will have no problem in finding the relevant post/posts. I am unable to. But you, and any of your friends, should be able to find such quite easily.

When you cannot, the thread will, logically, conclude that a catastophic and catalysing attack was indeed deemed propitious by PNAC, and with this in mind, we will move on to the next thing you are all going to evade.
Click to expand...
Again. No one here cares about your opinion on the PNAC. Are you going on to speculation and hindsight next? God your boring us to tears.
 
Good. Then you will have no problem in finding the relevant post/posts. I am unable to. But you, and any of your friends, should be able to find such quite easily.
Click to expand...

I'll just make it real simple, Mjd. You have been responded to by many posters here on your summarization of the "PNAC: Propitious to policy". The issue of you not having been "satisfied" by any responses in this thread does not constitute a victory for you. I, for one, do not agree with your correlation of the PNAC document toward 9/11. You and I can simply agree to disagree.

So....

with this in mind, we will move on to the next thing.
Click to expand...

I can guarantee You, it will not be evaded. :popcorn1
 
MIKILLINI said:
I'll just make it real simple, Mjd. You have been responded to by many posters here on your summarization of the "PNAC: Propitious to policy". The issue of you not having been "satisfied" by any responses in this thread does not constitute a victory for you. I, for one, do not agree with your correlation of the PNAC document toward 9/11. You and I can simply agree to disagree.

So....



I can guarantee You, it will not be evaded. :popcorn1
Click to expand...
1. As I have asked many, many times now, show me where. 1 post, responding to the arguments crystallised in 2662. Just 1. Anywhere.

2. This has already been posted, and has already been evaded. I will post it again just to illustrate the clownish nature of this forum.

So, to repeat myself, just one post. Anyone, anywhere.
 
mjd1982 said:
1. As I have asked many, many times now, show me where. 1 post, responding to the arguments crystallised in 2662. Just 1. Anywhere.

2. This has already been posted, and has already been evaded. I will post it again just to illustrate the clownish nature of this forum.

So, to repeat myself, just one post. Anyone, anywhere.
Click to expand...

the post directly after it and #2692 responds to it as well?
 
1. As I have asked many, many times now, show me where. 1 post, responding to the arguments crystallised in 2662. Just 1. Anywhere.

2. This has already been posted, and has already been evaded. I will post it again just to illustrate the clownish nature of this forum.

So, to repeat myself, just one post. Anyone, anywhere.
Click to expand...

Try # 356
 
MIKILLINI said:
Try # 356
Click to expand...
#356, though a sensible post, I inadvertently did not respond to.

Nonetheless, the points that are discussed in #2662 are as follows:
1- The stated increased ease in the transformation. This is not touched in 356
2- The similarity between the RAD and the WOT. This is not touched here.
3- The need to start the transformation by the 01 QDR. The poster addresses this, poorly, but since our aim here is to find someone who has responded to the points raised in the post, it is irrelevant.

The post fails.
 
who died and left you lord and savior again? It's becoming increasingly evident that anything that is not what you want to hear is ALWAYS irrelevant.

Now, on to WTC7!!
 
funk de fino said:
the post directly after it and #2692 responds to it as well?
Click to expand...
The post after it is dealt with by me in 2671.

He fails, as do all of you no matter how hard I try to teach you, to distinguish between design and execution.

If you can show how not however, please go ahead. You will fail.

#2692 is brushed aside in 2708. Whats the failing? Surprise surprise...

mjd1982 said:
I presume you are trying to make the point that was attampted by many of your colleagues that the war in Iraq/Afghanistan is taking up so much money that the RAD transformations are getting hindered? Is that it? If so, I'm afraid that this has been dealt with oh too many times now.... Learn the difference between design and execution, and all will become clear to you my friend.
Click to expand...

Keep looking herd, keep looking!
 
#356, though a sensible post, I inadvertently did not respond to.

Nonetheless, the points that are discussed in #2662 are as follows:
1- The stated increased ease in the transformation. This is not touched in 356
2- The similarity between the RAD and the WOT. This is not touched here.
3- The need to start the transformation by the 01 QDR. The poster addresses this, poorly, but since our aim here is to find someone who has responded to the points raised in the post, it is irrelevant.

The post fails.
Click to expand...

Try # 382.
 
mjd1982 said:
The post after it is dealt with by me in 2671.

He fails, as do all of you no matter how hard I try to teach you, to distinguish between design and execution.

If you can show how not however, please go ahead. You will fail.

#2692 is brushed aside in 2708. Whats the failing? Surprise surprise...



Keep looking herd, keep looking!
Click to expand...

its still a response you were claiming did not exist

you really are a dishonest person
 
Hey, I was just checking in to see if we'd gotten to WTC 7 and mjd's list of evidence that actually links 9/11 to PNAC's document.
 
Just as I thought. Even if a post is responded to, if it doesn't meet Mjd's definition of a response, it isn't 'sensible' and doesn't count.

Well, good thing Mjd isn't in charge of deciding what is a good response to his points and what isn't. We'll let the readers decide.

We'll let the world decide, actually. Let's just see when mjd's and other's rantings on the internet EVER get to a courtroom or board of inquiry.
 
mjd1982 said:
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?
Click to expand...

Yes you are very simple.

Do you wear white Amy.
 
mjd1982 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Are you old enough to drive?

Do you know what stock is?

How long do you intend to play here?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom