The 9/11 Conspiracy Facts

[mjd1982]

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.

Its simple inference. It is not even needed for adults, since we can see that the implication of the doc is pretty clear.

But this is even better- you believe that inference is inadmissible to debate. I'm afraid it is, in adult circles anyway. You can run along back to the kiddies table though.

 

[mjd1982]

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

Stock price doesnt rise based simply on revenue, but on profits and the prospect of profits.

Most of the rest of your post is either stuff/words I have already taught you.

 

[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.....

you missed this one.

 

[jsfisher]

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.

Christophera was steadfast in his conviction to a singular but impossible point. The focus was phenomenal. Then, too, there were those side issues involving the number 22, for example, that added to the man, the mystery, the legend.

Malcolm, on the other hand, just wants to be right about something, anything.

mjd seems to be a hybrid of the two. Maybe we should ask his thoughts on IV bags just to be sure.

 

[mjd1982]

you missed this one.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=84473&page=70

 

[Unsecured Coins]

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=84473&page=70

You still didn't adress what I said. Ergo, you missed it.

 

[funk de fino]

Stock price doesnt rise based simply on revenue, but on profits and the prospect of profits.

Most of the rest of your post is either stuff/words I have already taught you.

are you completely stupid or are you having me on?

i never said stocks rise on revenue, they rise and fall on a lot of things, profits and making financial plans and the price of oil is more important than revenue in most instances

it is you are saying these millions they have made in iraq will make their stocks rise so it is you who are claiming this?

you can have have record revenue but not quite make analyst figures for profit and your shares drops

you are putting words in my mouth again, and have still not apologised for doing it the last time

only thing you have taught me is you are a ignorant buffon who thinks he is way more intelligent than he actually is and will never admit he is wrong about anything when everyone can see he is

 

[lapman]

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

As far as a "fact" pertaining to 9/11 being an inside job. Nope.

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...

And every single one of those posts are purely speculation based on zero understanding of even the "facts" you use in your arguments. This has been shown time and time again. Of course, you're going to say "what posts" as you've done time and time again. We will show you the posts, as we've done time and time again. You will move the goal posts and say "show me a sensible response" as you've done time and time again. Of course you're definition of sensible is an ever changing mystery which is nothing more than a cop out.

 

[twinstead]

He's not even entertaining anymore. Wake me when the trials and congressional hearings start.

I hate to ever say stuff like this, but mjd you have earned it: you are an idiot.

Lets keep things civil, please.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: jmercer

 

[Brainache]

Its simple inference. It is not even needed for adults, since we can see that the implication of the doc is pretty clear.

But this is even better- you believe that inference is inadmissible to debate. I'm afraid it is, in adult circles anyway. You can run along back to the kiddies table though.

You are wrong. Who is this "we"? Seems to me that you are pretty much all alone on this one champ. How embarassing for you.

You don't know what I believe. Inference is acceptable if the inference is reasonable, yours isn't. Simple really, try thinking before you...um well. just try thinking, OK?

 

[mjd1982]

He's not even entertaining anymore. Wake me when the trials and congressional hearings start.

I hate to ever say stuff like this, but mjd you have earned it: you are an idiot.

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.

..

 

[Unsecured Coins]

start posting FACTS, mjd! damn. You're acting like we're demanding you walk on water here

 

[mjd1982]

This is quite amusing. I wonder how long I can keep this up?

Replies will be welcome.

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.

Incidentally, since this is the crystallisation of the argument on PNAC, unless anyone can provide an answer on this thread, or reference to someone elses on this thread, then the simple consequence is that the thread will have come to its conclusion. Since no one wll have been able to contest the point raised on the thread, this will be the logical next step.

After that, we will move back onto foreknowledge. This will be simpy #750. And you will all most likely avoid it. But we will see.

 

[Unsecured Coins]

alot of people have contested your "facts" but I reckon it's hard for you to see since your colon is obviously blocking your line of sight

 

[Gravy]

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...

I have. I made the changes you suggested and changed the name from "Loose Change Second Edition Viewer Guide" to "A Narcissistic Hyperbolic Compendium of Ignorance."

 

[Unsecured Coins]

Ka-CHOW

 

[mjd1982]

I have. I made the changes you suggested and changed the name from "Loose Change Second Edition Viewer Guide" to "A Narcissistic Hyperbolic Compendium of Ignorance."

Oh? And where was this? I mean a coherent, not from incredulity response here.

That would indeed be a fitting name for your guide, all the more so since you cannot defend it.

 

[DGM]

This is quite amusing. I wonder how long I can keep this up?

Replies will be welcome.



Incidentally, since this is the crystallisation of the argument on PNAC, unless anyone can provide an answer on this thread, or reference to someone elses on this thread, then the simple consequence is that the thread will have come to its conclusion. Since no one wll have been able to contest the point raised on the thread, this will be the logical next step.

After that, we will move back onto foreknowledge. This will be simpy #750. And you will all most likely avoid it. But we will see.

Don't you think it's time you get back to your original purpose? Wasn't that to convince us that a new investigation is warranted?
If this is the case you need to work on your powers of persuasion and communication because they are sorely lacking. You my friend are failing miserably if this is the case.

 

[mjd1982]

Don't you think it's time you get back to your original purpose? Wasn't that to convince us that a new investigation is warranted?
If this is the case you need to work on your powers of persuasion and communication because they are sorely lacking. You my friend are failing miserably if this is the case.

Hehe... well you see, persuasion is a 2 way process. The one half puts evidence forth, and defends it; the other half looks at that, and critiques it. And so on.

So clearly this isnt going to happen when the other half refuses to look, and critique.

In that light, I will repeat my request for you and your herd to answer the points.

 

[DGM]

Hehe... well you see, persuasion is a 2 way process. The one half puts evidence forth, and defends it; the other half looks at that, and critiques it. And so on.

So clearly this isnt going to happen when the other half refuses to look, and critique.

In that light, I will repeat my request for you and your herd to answer the points.

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.