The 9/11 Conspiracy Facts

[twinstead]

oh, and lest I forget:



I'm doing this just for fun now.

Every time you lie and claim that your posts haven't been addressed, a kitten dies somewhere.

How do you sleep at night?

And yea. You're a conspiracy theory drone. Deal with it.

 

[Belz...]

Il y a une difference entre "simpliste" et "simple". Je pense k je pourrais bien t'enseigner ta langue maternelle, evidemment!

Et en plus- nous discutons

évidemment.

Et j'ai bien dit "simpliste". Je connais la différence entre les deux.

Stop trying to educate me and start educating yourself, Mjd.

 

[Unsecured Coins]

 

[Belz...]

Desgin is all that matters, since what the PNAC doc represents is design- the design that a new PH would be propitious to policy.

But since you admitted that they do not state this, all you have is speculation.

Possede!

In French, we have what we call "accents", Mjd.

You believe that indicting Putin in killing 1 person is worse than indicting Bush in 911.

This is a substanceless post.

Why dont you read the doc, it wil remove lits of cobwebs

As above.

Well, you were the one that said the film is "dripping in symbolism... and serious intent", and thus cannot be a comedy, so your comments are more directed at yourself, I'm afraid.

Think before you post.

I'm pretty certain this isnt your first post here; nonetheless, I dont know what your point is about my posting here. What is your point?

Please read post #1303.

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?

See above.

No, that's just illustrative of the fact that you have no interest in honest debate. There is zero feasible way I have of providing proof that he is being hushed up. I can provide evidence, but not proof. This is obvious, and hence so is your disinclination to honest debate. So why are you here?

Read the doc.

 

[funk de fino]

Lol, right sure. So now you know more than the UN?

UN?

you quoted these lot

Thanks to individuals like you, Global Policy Forum has for many years monitored policy making at the United Nations, promoted accountability of global decisions, educated and mobilized for global citizen participation, and advocated on vital issues of international peace and justice.

UN? or GPF?

do the UN know more about oil reserves than OPEC?

or industry experts?

i hope that ROFL didnt make you choke too much

 

[lapman]

1. Yes its irrelevant that when you say that PNAC had nothing to do with the DOD, and I list all the PNAC/DODers, yes, it is very irrelevant.

Your ignorance of how things work here is showing. It is a common practice to have people from many departments in a think tank like PNAC and still be completely autonomous. So it is irrelevant.

2. That is not the definition of hegemony. Duh!!!

Yet is absolutely is. We had predominant influence over Saddam as I have shown.

3. Read the doc. Iraq/Saddam mentioned once every 2 pages. Is something starting to click?

Irrelevant. They were simply stating current events. Try comprehending what was written and not just reading it. Please explain how

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

means

We must invade Iraq.

 

[BillyRayValentine]

Oh, and referring to my age doesnt do much for your case I'm afraid.

Your age is definitely relevant. You lack wisdom. You lack life experience. You're arguments are informed by the abstract politics of anti-establishment college kids, with zero understanding or appreciation of how the world really works. You struggle mightily to weave together a compelling tale, but it's clearly just a reflection of your (naive) politics, not a reasonable, real-world interpretation of the facts.

You are driven by politics, but it's your lack of worldliness that allows you to make so many stupid claims and reach so many unrealistic conclusions.

The good news is, you'll likely grow out of it. Though since I assume you're already in your mid-twenties, you really should be further along...

 

[mjd1982]

Mjd, you have to realize what goes on with defense spending in this country before you presume what is discussed in PNAC is propitious for anything.

[snip]

No need to have a catastrophic and catalyzing event when these budget games are the norm.

All that has been said there is that the US is spending a lot on defense. This has nothing of consequence for anything, I'm afraid; absolutely nothing at all.

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.

 

[mjd1982]

you have no idea, as you have just proved with those replies, i told you not to go there but you did, dont say i did not try to stop you make a tit of yourself

look at all oilservice companies share prices since 2003 you dolt, including the one i work for, here is the performance of two of their competitoirs in the last few years along with the performance of the GSPC, done them a lot of good eh?

[qimg]http://ichart.finance.yahoo.com/z?s=BHI&t=2y&q=l&l=on&z=m&c=HAL,SLB,%5EGSPC&a=v&p=s[/qimg]

i never said they invaded for any oil but now they are there they will stimulate the industry

halliburton make oil rigs do they?

halliburton and these type of oil service companies help with technology to get the oil out of the ground, the do not then own the oil they just get paid for doing this, the iraq oil industry workers will be better off in the end and more jobs will be created

noiw just leave it there because it is quite blatant you have no idea wht you are talking about

stick to your speculation on PNAC et al

Theyre share price has gone up a hell of a lot. They have made a killing, as have the oil companies, and the arms companies who significantly fund and intersperse with the government. End of story.

If the Iraqis will all be happy, then why are they protesting? Or are you saying they should all be happy?

And mosr interestingly of all, why do you think the invasion happened in the 1st place?

 

[mjd1982]

you really never did any research on this apart from one google search eh?

how embarrassing, as an industry worker i know it is generally recognised that iraq is 4th largest, in future howvwer this may change due to more exploration (carried out by US companies with iraqi workers) once the security situation is settled

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/international/reserves.html

http://www.globalfirepower.com/list_oil_proven.asp

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4688984.stm

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0872964.html

http://www.opec.org/library/Annual%20Statistical%20Bulletin/pdf/ASB2005.pdf

Well, I could do more

The respected Petroleum Economist Magazine estimates that there may be as many as 200 bbl of oil in Iraq; the Federation of American Scientists estimates 215 bbl; a study by the Council on Foreign Relations and the James A. Baker III Institute at Rice University claimed that Iraq has 220 bbl of undiscovered oil; and another study by the Center for Global Energy Studies and Petrolog & Associates offered an even more optimistic estimate of 300 bbl—a number that would give Iraq reserves greater even than those of Saudi Arabia.

http://www.brookings.edu/views/op-ed/fellows/luft20030512.htm

While its proven oil reserves of 112 billion barrels ranks Iraq second in the work behind Saudi Arabia, EIA estimates that up to 90-percent of the county remains unexplored due to years of wars and sanctions. Unexplored regions of Iraq could yield an additional 100 billion barrels. Iraq's oil production costs are among the lowest in the world.

http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aairaqioil.htm

So the point stands regardless

 

[mjd1982]

Every time you lie and claim that your posts haven't been addressed, a kitten dies somewhere.

How do you sleep at night?

And yea. You're a conspiracy theory drone. Deal with it.

LOLLLL... This is too fun. I'll do it again (#4)

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]

évidemment.

Et j'ai bien dit "simpliste". Je connais la différence entre les deux.

Stop trying to educate me and start educating yourself, Mjd.

G pas les accents sur mon ordinateur.

Si francais est ta langue maternelle, tu devrais pas faire des erreurs comme ca... c un peu honteux.

Et ouais, tu connais pas la difference entre "simple" et "simpliste". Je pourrais bien t'instruire en francais ainsi qu'en anglais, evidemment...

 

[mjd1982]

Your ignorance of how things work here is showing. It is a common practice to have people from many departments in a think tank like PNAC and still be completely autonomous. So it is irrelevant.
Yet is absolutely is. We had predominant influence over Saddam as I have shown.
Irrelevant. They were simply stating current events. Try comprehending what was written and not just reading it. Please explain how means

Hahaha... oh boy, come on dude, I think you fellas should start scouting round the forum for some help, this is getting a little embarassing. Even i'm starting to blush...

So its irrelevant to the link between PNAC and the DoD that the sec, dep sec, under sec, under sec for policy, chairman of defense council, and more, were all from PNAC. I think you should have a clown as your avatar from now on.

Enforcing no fly zones doesnt mean hegemony.

It doesnt mean "We must invade Iraq", it implies that an invasion of Iraq would be... propitious.

 

[mjd1982]

Your age is definitely relevant. You lack wisdom. You lack life experience. You're arguments are informed by the abstract politics of anti-establishment college kids, with zero understanding or appreciation of how the world really works. You struggle mightily to weave together a compelling tale, but it's clearly just a reflection of your (naive) politics, not a reasonable, real-world interpretation of the facts.

You are driven by politics, but it's your lack of worldliness that allows you to make so many stupid claims and reach so many unrealistic conclusions.

The good news is, you'll likely grow out of it. Though since I assume you're already in your mid-twenties, you really should be further along...

You do well to assume my age, especially seeing that my birth year is posted on my avatar! Duh!!!

Oh, and I have nothing to do with anti establishment whatevers.

I have sympathy for your frustrations, but dont worry, Your not alone. Seek solace in the rest of your spanked herd. That will help.

 

[Gravy]

Je pourrais bien t'instruire en francais ainsi qu'en anglais, evidemment...

Non.

Yep, your one hell of an expert- you know more about Iraqs oil than Iraqi oil workers, and more about the world's oil than the UN.

 

[WildCat]

I see mjd1982 has yet to provide a single 9/11 "conspiracy fact".

 

[mjd1982]

Non.

??

An odd post. But while you are here, will you tell us why you have not responded to my riposte to your LC guide PNAC section? I have asked kindly many times...

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=84473&page=3

 

[mjd1982]

I see mjd1982 has yet to provide a single 9/11 "conspiracy fact".

[qimg]http://home.mindspring.com/~turniton/COTC/bathroom/yawn.jpg[/qimg]

Oh, boy, how my heart sunk when I saw your name on this thread... These guys are in trouble, I think you should maybe be clearing space for more intelligent OTers...

 

[MIKILLINI]

All that has been said there is that the US is spending a lot on defense. This has nothing of consequence for anything, I'm afraid; absolutely nothing at all.

Now that's exactly right, it's how the defense budget works; That was an example of what Congress and the White House do when it comes to defense spending. Spending increases when Republicans are controlling the purse strings, they have a tendency to be more hawkish towards defense procurements. There is no need for a "manufactured" catastrophic and catalyzing event.

 

[mjd1982]

Now that's exactly right, it's how the defense budget works; That was an example of what Congress and the White House do when it comes to defense spending. Spending increases when Republicans are controlling the purse strings, they have a tendency to be more hawkish towards defense procurements. There is no need for a "manufactured" catastrophic and catalyzing event.

I see, ok. Before I even get into that point, you do note that you are disagreeing with PNAC here? And that such a disagreement is completely irrelevant to the issue? Do you realise this?