The 9/11 Conspiracy Facts

[mjd1982]

Are you really that simple. The fact that the JSF was not canceled clearly shows how ridiculous your claims are. It may have been PNAC's design, but it was never part of the defense design for the future.

errr... so it was part of their design, but not of their design?

Again, your complete lack of comprehension is showing through. Where "cannot be achieved" came from "could be lost" is beyond me. Your comment is total idiocy.

I was giving you a chance. If you are stating that it could be lost through war therefore wars for hegemony dont get fought, you are twice as dumb as I thought

And PH is mentioned twice which you deemed non-related. So Saddam's/Iraq being mentioned does not equate to the Iraq invasion being a part of the design.

ROFL PH is an analogy Einstein; Iraq is reality

Extremely ambiguous. What is the exact wording of said law that would allow the US to be able to take complete control of the Iraqi oil?

LOLLLL... Oh dude. Start being honest/brighter, or you too will get the Belz treatment soon.

 

[mjd1982]

Using your logic, Thomas Harris is a cannibalistic serial killer. Is Thomas Harris a cannibalistic serial killer, mjd1982?

Dude, do you not realize that you're showing an incomprehension of the differences between fantasy and reality when you say things like that?



Still waiting for mjd1982 to explain the relevance, as he has stated that the Twin Towers did not collapse due to controlled demolitions...

Oh, another bright spark we have.

Borat is Cohen's parody of a Kazakh. It is pejorative. Hence is could be considered, by stupid people, as "racist"

Lecter is not a parody of anything.

End.

 

[mjd1982]

(Bolding mine.)

Last comment - promise - just that what we have here is known as a teachable moment.

To wit, substitute "is not" (what I said) for "thus cannot be" (your contrived, egregiously false strawman), and note the very substantial difference.

Such mendacity, particularly when it's so blatant, reflects poorly on you. Try remembering that going forward and you'll appear less foolish.

Here endeth the lesson.

Your quote:

The juxtapositions and incongruities that simpletons like yourself dismiss as dark humor are, in fact, dripping with symbolism and have serious intent

Hence the contrasting of "dark humour" with "symbolism" and "serious intent", reinforced by the use of the opposing "in fact". And therefore the suggestion that "serious intent" and "symbolism" are incompatible with dark humour.

Here endeth the lesson. The one worth going to, anyway

 

[mjd1982]

Still no facts from you? Why? Over 2000 posts and not a fact to support your OP yet. Your opening post is more an oxymoron type of thing, don't you think?

Good. So you believe that the PNAC doc is not a fact. We can stick you on the "discard" pile.

 

[mjd1982]

Actually, it's pretty simple; Mjd believes...And I can't express how deep this belief is...that the Neocons are the watchdogs of the New Century and they wanted their empirical DESIGN to happen sooner in order for TRANSFORMATIONS to happen EASIER, although time constraints would not change significantly for implementation. It's just unfalsifiable propitiousness in his mind. That's point 1.

What utter nonsense. What the hell are watchdogs of the new century? What do you mean "empirical design? Where do I say that time constraints would not change significantly? I have said that the transformation is not one that would happen overnight. This does not mean that the speed of it would not be sped up significantly by a new PH, in the eyes of PNAC. The proof for this, is that PNAC said it.

And it is very very easy to falsify. Go to the doc, and illustrate that they do not want a quicker, easier transformation. Show why. If this is so obvious, this should be very, very easy for you to do. Given that none of your herd of independent minds has come close in ~3000 posts, I dont rate your chances to highly

But now? A power down in the trade towers? What for? Mjd, if you don't believe the towers were destroyed by planted devices, why are you arguing the power down situation pointed out by Hey Leroy?

It doesnt matter that I do not say the towers were CDd. Does that mean that when Scott tells me there was a power down, and he is being hassled to keep quiet etc etc, that I should call him a liar, since the towers were not imploded? Or that I should say that it doesnt matter that this is being covered up, and he is being hassled to keep quiet, since the towers werent CDd? A cover up is a cover up, and it should be investigated to see where it leads. This is pretty elementary stuff.

 

[DGM]

And it is very very easy to falsify. Go to the doc, and illustrate that they do not want a quicker, easier transformation. Show why. If this is so obvious, this should be very, very easy for you to do. Given that none of your herd of independent minds has come close in ~3000 posts, I dont rate your chances to highly

Why would we want to do such a thing? Do you think that the PNAC has some magical power over the government that would allow the murder 3000 of their own? You are suggesting just that.
Why don't you try to show us that they had that capability. If you could, then and only then someone might listen to you. Anything short of that and it's just what everyone else thinks it is, nothing.

 

[nicepants]

which new investigation? How do you know what he's spent the money on?

The one that he claims he wants.
I know he hasn't spent the money on a new investigation.

There is zero feasible way I have of providing proof that he is being hushed up. I can provide evidence, but not proof.

So provide this evidence.

 

[BillyRayValentine]

Your quote: "The juxtapositions and incongruities that simpletons like yourself dismiss as dark humor are, in fact, dripping with symbolism and have serious intent."


Hence the contrasting of "dark humour" with "symbolism" and "serious intent", reinforced by the use of the opposing "in fact". And therefore the suggestion that "serious intent" and "symbolism" are incompatible with dark humour.

What an infantile exercise.

The "quote" you provided was, in actuality, but one sentence. A sentence plucked from an entire paragraph. A paragraph containing other sentences, both preceding and following, which rendered the context and meaning of your selected "quote" quite unambiguous.

Honestly. I'd like to leave you alone. It's just difficult to ignore such brazen, and positively stupid, duplicity. Each successive post of yours breaks new ground with respect to your ability to make an arse out of yourslf. It's like a train wreck that never ends, and it's rather difficult to look away.

 

[lapman]

errr... so it was part of their design, but not of their design?

So the stupidity continues. Let me clarify this for you so your addled mind might be able to comprehend this. The PNAC and Defense Department are 2 separate entities. The PNAC's design in not the Defense departments design. This has been made clear, but you have shown a complete absence of the ability to comprehend this.

I was giving you a chance. If you are stating that it could be lost through war therefore wars for hegemony dont get fought, you are twice as dumb as I thought

The depth of your stupidity has shown to be a bottomless pit. Name one time a war was fought for hegemony in a place were hegemony was already achieved.

ROFL PH is an analogy Einstein; Iraq is reality

But, according to you, PNAC had the requirement of making the "new PH" a reality. Either way, the mention of Iraq is irrelevant. What part of:

the
need for a
substantial
American force
presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of
the regime of Saddam Hussein.

Do you simply not understand?

LOLLLL... Oh dude. Start being honest/brighter, or you too will get the Belz treatment soon.

Well, if you want to continue to show yourself to be a dishonest dullard, please, be my guest.

 

[funk de fino]

1. What was your question?
2. I also have a scottish mate. Silly point. Willie is a pejorative stereotype of a scottish person. This is your grounds for racism, in real terms. So why isnt he racist?
3. You start off by repeating me. Borat is a direct vehicle for Cohen's comedy and commentaries. Thus if Borat is racist, since he is an espousal of Cohens views, Cohen must also be racist. I dont know who Warren Mitchell is

i doubt you have any mates

a stereotype is not racist, borat says racist and bigoted things about jews and other ethnic minorities and races, this is the difference, you have this arse about face boyo, completely wrong again

on what grounds is willie a pejorative stereotype rahter than a stereotype?

not at all, warren mitchell played alf garnet, please dont tell me you do not know who alf garnett is? is he racist or is his character racist?

 

[funk de fino]

wtf are u talking about? I have answered all your questions. I am telling you again- the Met investigatin Putin for killing a Russian spy is insignificant in every respect to investigating, by implication, Bush, for killing 3000 US.

If oyu cannot understand this, then I am willing to accept that it is questions of honestly, rather than intellect that hold you back

you answered none of the questions you just use incredulity, you are a coward

 

[funk de fino]

Its not me, its Democracy Now. You'll have to prove how they are lying/wrong.

how did this relate to anything in my post

what that story is saying and what you think are two compeletely different things, again do not start on the oil industry as you quite obviously have no idea what you are posting about

 

[mjd1982]

Why would we want to do such a thing? Do you think that the PNAC has some magical power over the government that would allow the murder 3000 of their own? You are suggesting just that.
Why don't you try to show us that they had that capability. If you could, then and only then someone might listen to you. Anything short of that and it's just what everyone else thinks it is, nothing.

I take it this post is a joke?

You would "want to do that" since this is a debate, you have claimed that my point is unfalsifiable, I have just shown you how you would go about falisfying it. So go ahead.

As regards the 2nd para, for the zillionth time, the pnac doc shows that the neo cons viewed a new PH as propitious to policy. Not that they did it, not that they planned it. This was the 1st stage in my argument.

Now, you will say, "Oh 2700 posts to make 1 point!- i should take this occassion to illustratee that after 2700 posts, you still havent understood 1 point.

Its pretty pathetic, no?

 

[mjd1982]

The one that he claims he wants.
I know he hasn't spent the money on a new investigation.



So provide this evidence.

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?

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?

 

[mjd1982]

What an infantile exercise.

The "quote" you provided was, in actuality, but one sentence. A sentence plucked from an entire paragraph. A paragraph containing other sentences, both preceding and following, which rendered the context and meaning of your selected "quote" quite unambiguous.

Honestly. I'd like to leave you alone. It's just difficult to ignore such brazen, and positively stupid, duplicity. Each successive post of yours breaks new ground with respect to your ability to make an arse out of yourslf. It's like a train wreck that never ends, and it's rather difficult to look away.

It is infantile, as explaining something to someone with infantile intellectual capacities inevitably is

Yes, I understand humor in all of its many forms. What you don't seem to understand is that the common thread is always, inescapably, AMUSEMENT.

Clockwork is not (except, of course, among the ignorant, morally undeveloped teenage boy set), nor was it intended to be, amusing on any level The juxtapositions and incongruities that simpletons like yourself dismiss as dark humor are, in fact, dripping with symbolism and have serious intent. The film is a severe parable, rich in metaphors. And they're not there for the viewer's amusement, genius. They're all completely loaded.

Clockwork is a satire. That you equate this with "Clockwork is humor for a moral purpose" speaks to a dim, uneducated, juvenile mindset.

Try reading serious reviews and criticism of the film if you'd like to learn. Posting links to insipid websites like "rotten tomatoes", or one review from 35 years ago that stands in contrast to just about every other one out there, does not impress.

Educate yourself, young man. You'll be less inclined to make a horse's ass out of yourself.

P.S. Since you apparently haven't the slightest clue as to what constitutes dark humor, rent Kubrick's "Dr. Strangelove". That should help.

Hence the contrasting of "dark humour" with "symbolism" and "serious intent", reinforced by the use of the opposing "in fact". And therefore the suggestion that "serious intent" and "symbolism" are incompatible with dark humour.

As for the 2nd half of your point, as will be evident to all here, the reason why you cannot "tear yourself away" from this, is because you are getting humiliated, over and over again, and yes, by someone much younger than you. You cannot let this lie, so you keep coming back to try and rectify your idiocy. But, fittingly, you just keep digging a deeper hole for yourself.

 

[Brainache]

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?

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?

Because he is totally focused on making as much money as he can from gullible people who buy his BS?

 

[mjd1982]

So the stupidity continues. Let me clarify this for you so your addled mind might be able to comprehend this. The PNAC and Defense Department are 2 separate entities. The PNAC's design in not the Defense departments design. This has been made clear, but you have shown a complete absence of the ability to comprehend this.

Right, except that you had the secretary of defense, the deputy secretary of defense, the under secretary of defense, Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, plus the chairman of the Defense Policy Board Advisory Committee, all members of PNAC.

Chin up.

The depth of your stupidity has shown to be a bottomless pit. Name one time a war was fought for hegemony in a place were hegemony was already achieved.

So prior to the war in iraq the US had hegemony over Iraq.

Duh!

But, according to you, PNAC had the requirement of making the "new PH" a reality. Either way, the mention of Iraq is irrelevant. What part of:
Do you simply not understand?

Iraq is part of the Gulf region, and has the 2nd largest proven oil reserves in the world (?). Hence it is a very important part of the Gulf region.

 

[Brainache]

...
As for the 2nd half of your point, as will be evident to all here, the reason why you cannot "tear yourself away" from this, is because you are getting humiliated, over and over again, and yes, by someone much younger than you. You cannot let this lie, so you keep coming back to try and rectify your idiocy. But, fittingly, you just keep digging a deeper hole for yourself.

Does the word "projection" mean anything to you?

 

[mjd1982]

i doubt you have any mates

a stereotype is not racist, borat says racist and bigoted things about jews and other ethnic minorities and races, this is the difference, you have this arse about face boyo, completely wrong again

on what grounds is willie a pejorative stereotype rahter than a stereotype?

not at all, warren mitchell played alf garnet, please dont tell me you do not know who alf garnett is? is he racist or is his character racist?

1. ?

2. Hence why i said pejorative

3. He's a menial working, unrefined, ugly, uncultured simpleton, who lives in a shack and who people laugh at

4. I did up to now presume that you were a teenager, but now I assume you must be in you 40's? Can you guess my age? Ive never watvched that programme

 

[mjd1982]

you answered none of the questions you just use incredulity, you are a coward

wtf??? I have answered all your points time and time again. You are trying to equate the Litvinenko murder with 911. I have pointed out that, for one reason, the fact that 3000 died in one, and 1 died in the other, that one is much worse than the other.

Do you understand this?