The 9/11 Conspiracy Facts

Why do you think I am? Why are you so utterly incapable of making simple, logical inference?

Sorry, got to do this. "Why" do we think you are? Perhaps the divine being of one's choosing has a really vicious (yet quirky) sense of humor and just couldn't resist the joke.

And "why" is one of your critics incapable, etc.? First, it's either "a simple ... inference," or "simple ... inferences." Please pay more attention and improve your written expressions.

Can you say nothing without producing vile insults? Have you no shame, sir?

Most sincerely.
 
Have you no shame, sir?

For the young'uns out there, this is a reference to the "Army-McCarthy hearings" (1953 or 1954?) and counsel Joseph Welch, who was pushed over the edge by McCarthy's vicious, false attacks against all his opponents. McCarthy, like Mjd, also applied sophistry as his main method -- in the sense of purportedly sensible arguments which were actually fallacious.

The hearings were my first conscious memory -- my mother was watching them on TV and I remember asking her what was going on. Something to remember.
 
Sorry, got to do this. "Why" do we think you are? Perhaps the divine being of one's choosing has a really vicious (yet quirky) sense of humor and just couldn't resist the joke.

And "why" is one of your critics incapable, etc.? First, it's either "a simple ... inference," or "simple ... inferences." Please pay more attention and improve your written expressions.

Can you say nothing without producing vile insults? Have you no shame, sir?

Most sincerely.
To make simple inference. It's english. You may have to trust me on this.
 
I wouldnt be happy with 70 investigations if nothing was happening, and there was nothing forthcoming. I would order more. Further, since we are concentrating on Bush and Cheney, let's deal with what they did. This is very clear. It is unequivocal, according to Clarke, that these guys didnt care. They hardly wanted to know. Tenet's "hair was on fire". It was an "unprecedented threat". These guys didnt give a damn about the terror threat, according to the head of counter terrorism. They didnt even hold one meeting about it, until 4th Sept. Its not about hindsight- its about fact, and its about gross negligence.
So yu are admitting they did something then?

And those 70 were not the only operations were they, I believe they were only the FBI ones?

What about the disruption operations carried out abroad with the help of 20 other countries? Leading to arrests of AQ figures.

Is this doing nothing?

Do people dispute there was negligence?
 
To make simple inference. It's english. You may have to trust me on this.

Maybe in your idiolect.

And no, I won't trust you on anything.

Please explain why you feel compelled to include so many insults, to so many different people, in your statements. Do you think it will help you to convince them? Or does it represent your attempts at intimidation? Early on, you often spoke as though you had at some time been trained in, or at least introduced to, the rules of formal debate; I doubt insults would have served you well there.
 
So then we are really back to the context of that quote then. It would appear that this would be part of the semantics of what was said. We didn't know exactly what was going to happen. We knew what could happen, out of the many, many, many possiblibilities, but we didn't know exactly what was going to happen. So yah, maybe Bush and Condi are sitting there with their pants down, you know, one of these "Well why did this have to happen on my watch?" kinda things. The question is, would that briefing has contained information and a plan to put into place inm August something to prevent 9/11? I don't think so. Was there a cover up of sorts in regards to this memo? Seems likely. Is there any way that this briefing would have stood out then in the same way it has since 9/11? Nope. So what's the point of this then? To try and point fingers after the fact. Damn straight. I'm not a big fan of Bush, but for all his failings this seems to minor in the grand scheme of things.

And to be fair, you and I know Bush isn't exactly the sharpest knife in the drawer, so unless that briefing was a "POP UP" book, with pictures showing the Twins and planes flying into them (on those little slide tabs you pull back and forth) he wasn't going to understand it anyways.

Good point, 3 ....and adding just a bit to that point; How many times of getting briefed on imminent terrorist attacks, that didn't happen before 9/11, cause those within the administration to become lackadaisical in their approach to it after time? Next point, Mjd.
 
To make simple inference. It's english. You may have to trust me on this.

"Inference" cannot be used in the plural without adding "s" to the end, mjd. "Inference" cannot be used in the singular without the indefinite or definite article (although using a definite article in your sentence would be essentially meaningless), and trying to turn "inference" into a collective noun is improper, just as I cannot tell you to "read interesting book" or "pet cute kitten" under the currently accepted conventions of the English language.

Is it so abhorrent to simply say "I must have made a typo" and leave it at that?
 
The point is, as I have said too many times now, is that they didnt try!!! They could have put the effort in, been told where to go by the airlines, and then blame would have been on the airlines. This is not the case, so we know where blame lies.
Woa there. They were told by the airlines that Moussaoui was acting suspiciously. He was investigated and arrested. What info did they have on the rest of the hijackers to be able to arrest them? Several of the hijackers were question at the airports and were cleared. What more could they have done without real information?
However, the following statement sums it up perfectly:
March 22, 2006: Increased Airport Security May Have Thwarted 9/11 if Moussaoui Confessed During the trial of Zacarias Moussaoui (see also March 6-May 4, 2006), the prosecution claims that if Zacarias Moussaoui had not lied when arrested and questioned (see August 16, 2001) and had provided information about the plot (see August 16, 2001), the FAA could have altered its security procedures to deal with the suicide hijacker threat. Prosecution witness Robert Cammaroto, an aviation security officer, says that security measures in effect before 9/11 were designed to cope with different types of threats, such as “the homesick Cuban,” rather than suicide hijackings. He says that if the FAA had more information about Moussaoui, its three dozen air marshals could have been moved from international to domestic flights, security checkpoints could have been tightened to detect short knives like the ones Moussaoui had, and flight crews could have been instructed to resist rather than cooperate with hijackers. Most of these steps could have been implemented within a matter of hours. However, Cammarato admits that the FAA was aware before 9/11 that terrorists considered flying a plane into the Eiffel Tower and that al-Qaeda has performed suicide operations on land and sea.
This would have provided exact information that would have been required to justify the implemention greater security measures. The public would not have considered a threat of something that may happen as justification. However, having someone that says it is going to happen is another thing.
 
Last edited:
mjd1982, are you ever going to post the actual warning you say the French provided about the hijackers? Or should we just assume this is just more truther lies, deception, and propaganda?

And btw, the proven liar William Rodriquez claims there were bombs in WTC 1 and 2, do you believe this also?
 
"Inference" cannot be used in the plural without adding "s" to the end, mjd. "Inference" cannot be used in the singular without the indefinite or definite article (although using a definite article in your sentence would be essentially meaningless), and trying to turn "inference" into a collective noun is improper, just as I cannot tell you to "read interesting book" or "pet cute kitten" under the currently accepted conventions of the English language.

Is it so abhorrent to simply say "I must have made a typo" and leave it at that?

The construction "make inference" does exist as a sort of compound verb, but it generally only shows up in technical jargon.
 
The construction "make inference" does exist as a sort of compound verb, but it generally only shows up in technical jargon.

Too bad for mjd this doesn't extend to the phrase "to make simple inference," which doesn't exist. :)

ETA: Unless he's trying to show us his 1337 jargon skills.
 
"Inference" cannot be used in the plural without adding "s" to the end, mjd. "Inference" cannot be used in the singular without the indefinite or definite article (although using a definite article in your sentence would be essentially meaningless), and trying to turn "inference" into a collective noun is improper, just as I cannot tell you to "read interesting book" or "pet cute kitten" under the currently accepted conventions of the English language.

Is it so abhorrent to simply say "I must have made a typo" and leave it at that?
No, since you have taken an example of nouns preceded by adjectives; and the nouns you have used are not abstract nouns, as inference is.

A more accurate example would be "to create misunderstanding", for instance.
 
Last edited:
mjd1982, are you ever going to post the actual warning you say the French provided about the hijackers? Or should we just assume this is just more truther lies, deception, and propaganda?

And btw, the proven liar William Rodriquez claims there were bombs in WTC 1 and 2, do you believe this also?
LMAO, this has been done d'uh. Read back.
 
Sorry, got to do this. "Why" do we think you are? Perhaps the divine being of one's choosing has a really vicious (yet quirky) sense of humor and just couldn't resist the joke.

And "why" is one of your critics incapable, etc.? First, it's either "a simple ... inference," or "simple ... inferences." Please pay more attention and improve your written expressions.

Can you say nothing without producing vile insults? Have you no shame, sir?

Most sincerely.
I would like nothing more than civil discourse. Go have a look at my 1st ever post, #1 on this thread. Go and see the anatagonistic responses. This is the same for every CTer who comes on the forum- the d'uhs know that their position has no place in reason, so they choose to be truculent about their faith. This is absolutely fine for me- but I will give it back.

To take your example, you took comments I had made, blithely stated that they were something they werent, and then went on a rambling disquisition about something to do with the problem of something or other. I then pointed out the imbecilic error you had made, and you again refused to renege, instead repeating your accusation of something nonsensical. So I think you have renounced any claim to civility or to other people's patience, hence why you merit the tone I take with you.
 

Back
Top Bottom