The 9/11 Conspiracy Facts

[mjd1982]

But you did state he should be asking the questions:

Yeah, have a theologian, a proven liar janitor, and grieving widows who won't accept answers provide the questions for a new investigation.

Right, so you have just lied through your teeth. No surprise there. Why do you waste your time here?

 

[mjd1982]

Just noticed this. Classic twoofer deliberate ignorance.



Ahem. You verified that the "roadblock to PNAC" Crusader program was canceled, but you're "Not sure about the JSF," another PNAC "roadblock?"

The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter is the most expensive aircraft program – and one of the most expensive military acquisition programs of any kind – in history. It is very much in full swing and very much over budget.

As you noted, PNAC said that if the JSF went forward, it would be a "roadblock" to their desired military plans.

So why the all-powerful PNAC let this incredibly expensive roadblock be put in its way?

And why did you ignore this teeny little issue, O seeker of "truth"? Incompetence? Intellectual cowardice? Both?

I said "I wasnt sure", because I couldnt find any information on it either way.

It may be a roadblock, but clearly doesnt stop the overwhelming preponderance of their desired military plans. This has been outlined to you in pretty plain english, and in great detail. Why have you ignored these issues? Pray tell.

ETA: And since you, apparently, don't read very well:

I do not take too much stock in the total execution of these strategies, since they are reflective of execution rather than design, but I do want to go through them, since they do reflect quite accurately, the current "War on Terror"

This shouldnt have been too hard, to read, or to understand.

 

[mjd1982]

By gosh, you're absolutely right: in 2000 prominent neocons published their plan to kill thousands of Americans in a Pearl Harbor-like attack! I don't know how I could have missed it!



('zat you, Malcolm Kirkman?)

Oh, sorry, hahaha, yep there it is. That's some grade A debunking. Well done!

For anyone who has a serious point to make in response to my points on Gravy's "critique", I look forward to reading it.

 

[mjd1982]

I'm tired and cranky. I'll play.



http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=1736010#post1736010
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2336123#post2336123
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2205056#post2205056
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=1970280#post1970280
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2162006#post2162006
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2618947#post2618947



http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=239353#post239353
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=1644226#post1644226
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=1946408#post1946408
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2258459#post2258459



http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2245836#post2245836
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2657600#post2657600
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=1925483#post1925483



http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2225055#post2225055
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2290535#post2290535
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2493287#post2493287
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2554761#post2554761
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2525634#post2525634
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2484922#post2484922
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2467041#post2467041
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2452348#post2452348
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2449879#post2449879
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2378837#post2378837
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2396957#post2396957
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2158694#post2158694



http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2028127#post2028127
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2146813#post2146813
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2188439#post2188439
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2324048#post2324048
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2355559#post2355559
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2369990#post2369990
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2385171#post2385171
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2471461#post2471461
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2534142#post2534142
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2547528#post2547528
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2576383#post2576383
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2561371#post2561371
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2618933#post2618933



http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=1997854#post1997854
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=1363997#post1363997
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=355221#post355221
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=139672#post139672




Here you go, all of your points addressed. Next.

Incidentally, thank you for that. I'm sure you would agree, it is best that we just settle on a representative piece of work, such as I have chosen. I hope this is okay with you.

 

[peteweaver]

I guess you don't like Gravy then mdj1982...

 

[DGM]

Right, so you have just lied through your teeth. No surprise there. Why do you waste your time here?

I would suggest getting a team of people who are evidently and irreconciliably independent from US gov/corporate influence. This would mean a largely international panel.

It may be a good idea to have a set of questions agreed upon by Griffin, Rodriguez, Jersey Girls et al, and ensure that all of them are answered.

Finally open interviews, fully transcribed.

I missed the lie. DRG is not a key player in your investigation?

 

[mjd1982]

I missed the lie. DRG is not a key player in your investigation?

Well, if you go back and read the post to which you are referring, you will not miss anything.

This is pretty simple, no?

Oh, and there is a point at hand that I am still awaiting a response on. I believe ~30 replies now have evaded it.

 

[mjd1982]

I guess you don't like Gravy then mdj1982...

Its not about liking/not liking anyone. He has provided the most representative synthesis of "debunker" views, and so this is now being challenged on the topic I have mentioned. He should be able to mount a coherent defense, as should others.

 

[Hokulele]

Incidentally, thank you for that. I'm sure you would agree, it is best that we just settle on a representative piece of work, such as I have chosen. I hope this is okay with you.

You are welcome. The information you are looking for is available on this forum if you are willing to search and read. If you are most interested in PNAC, the second group of links (there are 4 of them in the list) address this topic. Go ahead and read through those threads, and then you can come back here to discuss. You can link posts from that thread here if you need to.

If you decide to tackle a few of the other topics, that would be OK with me too.

 

[DGM]

Well, if you go back and read the post to which you are referring, you will not miss anything.

This is pretty simple, no?

Oh, and there is a point at hand that I am still awaiting a response on. I believe ~30 replies now have evaded it.

I did! Approving the questions would not be a lead role?

Would you like to touch on Wildcat's response.

 

[WildCat]

Right, so you have just lied through your teeth. No surprise there. Why do you waste your time here?

Since the link I gave establishes that you think DRG should play a major role in determining which questions should be answered, I can only conclude that you think the lie is either that DRG is a theologian, Rodriquez is a proven liar, or that the Jersey Girls are unwilling to accept answers and/or grieving widows. So which is it?

And BTW:

PNAC wanted, with regards to Iraq 2 things- a permanent military base there (done),

On which page of the document is this stated?

and Saddam overthrown with US control over oil (done).

Explain how the US "controls" Iraqi oil.

 

[Belz...]

Unfortunately, very few of them touch on the point at hand, which is, for the moment, PNAC. So let's look into that. Now, since some have pointed out that this has been "debunked ad nauseam", I'm going to take the PNAC section of Gravy's Loose Change Guide, and go through it. I am aware that you have discussed it at points, but with little clarity, it would seem. So.

Uh-oh. Mjd thinks that old debunked points, in his hands, will do wonders.

A clear example of a transformational strategy that is not merely technological in nature. Thus, the term "transformation" refers not only to technologies, but also to operational concepts- global posture, transformation of the DoD, using cyberspace as a defense tool- which have been the subject of much of the document.

How does that say they're going to murder their own people ?

It states that for such a transformation, crucial, to occur within a timeframe shorter than decades, a new Pearl Harbour would need to happen.

And they print it for the public to see ? Oh, wait, when did they say they would MAKE it happen ?

This is pretty silly. The idea that "they wouldnt say it, so they didnt say it". is pretty worthless in discussion- it is there in black and white. If you can discredit its purported import, then go ahead.

No, it isn't. You're making it say more than it does.

Wrong. These conspirators are the dumbest, most bungling bunch that could ever be imagined. 9/11 is pretty much as evident an inside job as can be reasonably expected.

Only to the untrained one. Only someone with the most rudimentary knowledge of physics, politics, sociology, psychology and statistics could think that 9/11 was an inside job.

Don't worry. You're not the first to think you're smarter than all these other people who didn't spot it, and you won't be the last.

The calling card of the Bush admin is all over it.

Yeah. International terrorists ram jets into buildings. That is SO Bush!

So, let's look at these budgetary allocations. From 2001 to 2003, the defense budget increased by 33%- an unprecedented amount. This increase was pursued almost exclusively under the aegis of the War on Terror, which of course, is pursued under the aegis of the new PH.

And how is this, a result of the 9/11 attacks, show foreknowledge or an inside job ?

Sorry, who are we at war with again?

Iraq, at present. No relation with 9/11. Why ?

The WOT is, as illustrated above, what was once called the “Rebuilding (of) America’s Defenses”, i.e. a serious of radical military measures aimed at furthering US hegemony.

That doesn't follow. Defense <> attack.

Again, I’m sorry, but this just betrays a gross misunderstanding of the document.

Pot... kettle...

It is stating that we need a new PH- a mass terror attack on US soil,

Nope, that's not what it says. Read it again, please.

Sorry about the length, but I hope you can appreciate the focus.

What I appreciate is that you can't read.

 

[Belz...]

Its not about liking/not liking anyone. He has provided the most representative synthesis of "debunker" views, and so this is now being challenged on the topic I have mentioned. He should be able to mount a coherent defense, as should others.

He did. It makes no sense to orchestrate something that is so incredibly complex yet leaves no trace whatsoever, and then tell everyone.

 

[mjd1982]

You are welcome. The information you are looking for is available on this forum if you are willing to search and read. If you are most interested in PNAC, the second group of links (there are 4 of them in the list) address this topic. Go ahead and read through those threads, and then you can come back here to discuss. You can link posts from that thread here if you need to.

If you decide to tackle a few of the other topics, that would be OK with me too.

Sure, ok, in addition to Gravy's critique, I wil run by these 4 threads (I am reading them as I post this)

1. This is a thread about the validity US hegemony, in light of PNAC, so irrelevant to my point.
2. Again, a thread about the validity of their goals, a decade on
3. This is a thread about a tornado
4. Ok, good, here we have some relevance to the document. The points raised are as follows:
a) The transformation hinted at is purely technoogical (I have dealt with this)
b) PNAC are not stating the usefulness of a new PH (I have dealt with this)
c) The transformations advocated have not been carried out (i have also with this)

So, well done on your diligence, but the majority of the links you have provided are utterly irrelevant, and the one that is has had all its points, brainless though they are, addressed by me. Thus, we can proceed with the debate based on the points I have made.

 

[mjd1982]

I did! Approving the questions would not be a lead role?

Would you like to touch on Wildcat's response.

Ok, you did! Then, quite simply, you have some pretty severe comprehension problems. The question was:

Who should lead the investigation? A Federal judge? A Special Prosecutor? The U.N. Secretary General? You?

WC said:

At SLC he suggested David Ray Griffin, I kid you not!

You might wanna sit the next few out my friend.

 

[Hokulele]

...
3. This is a thread about a tornado
...

I was afraid you would miss the relevance of that thread. In essence, it is an analogy, perhaps even a parody, on the dangers of over-applying a single source to fit facts to a theory. It is an example of the larger problem with the information you provided in your OP rather than a tedious point by point dissection. If the original theory is flawed, analysis is unecessary.

 

[mjd1982]

Since the link I gave establishes that you think DRG should play a major role in determining which questions should be answered, I can only conclude that you think the lie is either that DRG is a theologian, Rodriquez is a proven liar, or that the Jersey Girls are unwilling to accept answers and/or grieving widows. So which is it?

The exact quote:

It may be a good idea to have a set of questions agreed upon by Griffin, Rodriguez, Jersey Girls et al, and ensure that all of them are answered.

End.

And BTW:

On which page of the document is this stated?

(I.e. that the US would need a permanent presence in the Persian Gulf)

the Clinton Administration has
continued the fiction that the operations of
American forces in the Persian Gulf are
merely temporary duties.

Although the no-fly-zone air
operations over northern and southern Iraq
have continued without pause for almost a
decade, they remain an essential element in
U.S. strategy and force posture in the
Persian Gulf region. Ending these operations
would hand Saddam Hussein an important
victory, something any American leader
would be loath to do.

Further, these constabulary missions are
far more complex and likely to generate
violence than traditional “peacekeeping”
missions...the preponderance of
American power is so great and its global
interests so wide that it cannot pretend to be
indifferent to the political outcome in the
...the Persian Gulf

Whether
established in permanent bases or on
rotational deployments, the operations of
U.S. and allied forces abroad provide the
first line of defense of what may be
described as the “American security
perimeter."...In the Persian Gulf region, the
presence of American forces, along with
British and French units, has become a semipermanent
fact of life. Though the
immediate mission of those forces is to
enforce the no-fly zones over northern and
southern Iraq, they represent the long-term
commitment of the United States and its
major allies to a region of vital importance.

And that is just the 1st 4 references to "Persian Gulf" in the doc. Please dont post to me again until you start doing some research.

Explain how the US "controls" Iraqi oil.

Oh yes, one more. To find out this, you should read a link I am going to post after I get to 15....

 

[mjd1982]

and to find out about US control of oil read...

 

[mjd1982]

...this!

http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/RRiraqWar.html

 

[JimBenArm]

and to find out about US control of oil read...

...what?