The 9/11 Conspiracy Facts

[rwguinn]

Actually, it says that, short of such an event, it could take longer for those changes to occur.

Correct. So the question is, did they want the changes to happen in a "longer" timeframe (specified later as "several decades"), or shorter, i.e., presumably, monthr or years?

So we can already make the qualification that given that such a crucial transformation taking mths/yrs, is preferable to it taking decades, then a new PH is propitious to policy. This should not be controversial, or hard to understand.

But let's look closer at the doc. For we are told that not only are such policies crucial, but we are warned repeatedly of the importance the the 2001QDR to the implementation of such policies:



The need for the necessity of such changes to be impressed on the new government before October 2001, is thus drastic. This is underline even further later on:



So we can already see that the doc is stating quite clearly the need, urgent, for the necessity for the changes proposed in the doc to be crystalised in POTUS's mind, by October 2001. And concomitantly, the need for whatever other decision making bodies, Congress, Senate, the people, to be on board, by October 2001. Further fuel to the flame.

And even if it DID say what you say it says, it still wouldn't be related to 9/11. I'm still waiting on that.

Errr... other than PH was a terror attack on US soil by foreigners killing thousands of US, burned on the public;s mind, that catalysed the US into drastic military action. Remind you of something?

I think everything else is dealt with.

Reminder that the aim of my points re PNAC is to show that there was clearly stated intent for a new PH to happen on the part of the neo cons, with the implication that such should happen before October 2001.

Once we establish this, not too hard to understand fact, we can proceed with a useful framework.

Home Depot , Lowe's and Wal-Mart buy the stuff you're spreading already composted and resell it for $1.29/ bag.
Your reading comprehension seems to suffer from "betwixtitis"--you are reading "might" as "Shall", "possibly" as "will"--in other words, you read more into stuff than is actually there.
There is no place where a "clearly stated intent for a new PH to happen" is clearly stated, or even hinted at.
Technology expands by leaps and bounds under pressure--because Congress is forced to spend money on R&D when the heat is on, and because there are more votes in welfare and entitlements during times of peaceful existence, so limited R&D $$$ are spent. Anyone rational can see that this is the intent of the wording--not "Lets run airplanes into some buildings and kill lots of people just to kick things into high gear".
That is a really, really stupid idea.

 

[JonnyFive]

Deceleration trauma?

I like to think of it as a hands-on study in the terminal ballistics of the human body.

Think happy thoughts!

 

[mjd1982]

Try out this scenario in your head:

Say a woman named Mrs. Smith writes a letter to the editor of her local newspaper, complaining about a dangerous intersection near her home. In the letter, she states, "Someone will have to be killed there before the city will put up a stop sign!"

A couple of years later, someone dies in an accident. The city quickly puts up a stop sign.

Question: Was the accident "propituous" for Mrs. Smith's campaign to have a stop sign installed at the intersection? If so, do you think there is sufficient evidence to charge Mrs. Smith for murder?

Is there ANY reason at all to think that she had something to do with the accident?

You may think so, but most people aren't sufficiently suspicious and/or paranoid to accuse others of crimes without reason.

Okay, I was gonna leave for a sec, but I did want to address this first.

It's a pretty horrific analogy, but one that is all too frequently used. 2 catastrophic problems:

Problem #1- Mrs Smith does not have the ability to cause a car crash.
Problem #2- Car crashed happen quite regularly, and it would appear that they are all the more likely at this intersection.

Mrs Smith is stating the propitiousness of a stop sign for safety, but there is no reason to suspect her involvment in the crash, since she has no means of influencing it, and it is not that unlikely an occurence. Both of which points are diametrically opposed to the reality which we are debating.

 

[The Almond]

Okay, I was gonna leave for a sec, but I did want to address this first.

It's a pretty horrific analogy, but one that is all too frequently used. 2 catastrophic problems:

Problem #1- Mrs Smith does not have the ability to cause a car crash.

Hogwash. Anyone has the capacity to cause a car crash. Throw a bucket of mud on a car windshield as it comes into an intersection and watch the blinded driver hit something.

Problem #2- Car crashed happen quite regularly, and it would appear that they are all the more likely at this intersection.

Oh? Perhaps you might crank out the probability of a black 2001 Ford Taurus with Wyoming license plate ABC-123 crashing into a pink 2005 VW Bug with Wyoming license plate CBA-321 at exactly 22.21 miles per hour.

Mrs Smith is stating the propitiousness of a stop sign for safety, but there is no reason to suspect her involvment in the crash, since she has no means of influencing it, and it is not that unlikely an occurence. Both of which points are diametrically opposed to the reality which we are debating.

Except that it is unlikely, she has a vested interest in the matter and she has the theoretical capacity to do so.

 

[Myriad]

I dont know what LIHOI is, but again, this is what we can now, i hope discuss.

My apologies; I didn't intend to use obscure slang to confuse the issue. I thought the term was widely understood.

LIHOI means "Let It Happen Out of Ignorance/Incompetence." It's the hypothesis that 9/11 was not an inside job perpetrated by the U.S. governent (or some "rogue faction" within it) on its own citizens and economy, nor was it deliberately allowed to happen by government agents with foreknowledge, but that not as much was done as should and could have been done to prevent it. In other words, people who perhaps should have and could have had that foreknowledge didn't have it.

My own tentative conclusion from the available evidence, for instance, is that the Bush administration gave short shrift to pre-existing anti-terrorism intelligence efforts, particularly with regard to Al Qaeda and OBL, in part or in full because they didn't want to appear to be validating the previous administration's efforts in pursuing those threats which they had earlier publically derided as "wag the dog." In short, partisan politics and not-invented-here-ism over good national security decision-making. I share this opinion with such known radical provocateurs as President William Jefferson Clinton.

I also acknowledge, though, that: (1) Showing that more could have been done is not proof that the 9/11 attacks themselves could have been prevented. (2) Showing that more could have been done is not proof that anyone's actions or omissions were criminal offenses. (3) It has not yet been shown that more could have been done.

LIHOI does not posit a conspiracy. It's not uncommon to find LIHOI plausible at the same time as being a CT debunker. Many people who believe in or are undecided about LIHOI are in fact very annoyed at LIHOP and MIHOP conspiracy theories, because they make wanting to "investigate 9/11" a less respectable political position and therefore make an investigation less likely to happen. The CT's also have a habit of misrepresenting public opinion on LIHOI such as is exhibitied in the Zogby poll you linked to, as supporting "9/11 was an inside job" beliefs. You've done it yourself here, in a small way:

This hasnt happened, I would venture, as result of some social obsesson with CTs, but because there are questions that need answering, re: gov complicity. If such questions get answered by the new investigation, either way, then the poll numbers will be reduced drastically, and people like yourself and myself will probably not need to be debating this issue in any case.

By choosing the word "complicity" instead of, say, "complacency," you sneak unknown numbers, millions, of Americans from LIHOI (for whom the "unanswered questions" are about who was asleep at the switch and who might be covering their behinds) into the CT camp (for whom the unanswered questions are about who was really responsible for and/or "complicit" in the attacks themselves).

Your position on how the new investigation should be constituted and carried out appears to me quite reasonable. I'll have to look into the specific names you put forward, but in general your ideas on re-investigation seem more realistic than most.

You must understand that when you come here on the "CT side" of the issue and hold that up as the only rational conclusion, you're associating yourself (deliberately or accidentally, fairly or unfairly) with people holding much less reasonable positions, calling for revolution, calling for the execution of skeptics for pointing out things like "the laws of physics don't work that way." The patience of some skeptics for rational discussion, especially where it appears that deceptive arguments such as interpreting suspicions of LIHOI as evidence of conspiracy, has unfortunately been exhausted.

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[DGM]

Problem #1- Mrs Smith does not have the ability to cause a car crash.

She is a mechanic specializing in brakes.

Problem #2- Car crashed happen quite regularly, and it would appear that they are all the more likely at this intersection.

Her house is near the intersection. Where no accident has ever happened (hence no sign) but she needs to wait on traffic to get out of her driveway.

Vested interest and ability

 

[NobbyNobbs]

Okay, I was gonna leave for a sec, but I did want to address this first.

It's a pretty horrific analogy, but one that is all too frequently used. 2 catastrophic problems:

Problem #1- Mrs Smith does not have the ability to cause a car crash.
Problem #2- Car crashed happen quite regularly, and it would appear that they are all the more likely at this intersection.

Mrs Smith is stating the propitiousness of a stop sign for safety, but there is no reason to suspect her involvment in the crash, since she has no means of influencing it, and it is not that unlikely an occurence. Both of which points are diametrically opposed to the reality which we are debating.

To address Problem 1, anyone can go online and learn how to cut a brake line. Don't like that? Fine, suppose instead that Mrs Smith is a mechanic.

To address Problem 2, planes crash all the time, and it would appear that they are all the more likely to in a busy airspace such as over New York City.

Mr. Bush is stating the propitiousness of going to war in Iraq for safety (whether you believe that or not is a separate matter), but there is no reason to suspect his involvement in the crash.

 

[aggle-rithm]

Okay, I was gonna leave for a sec, but I did want to address this first.

It's a pretty horrific analogy, but one that is all too frequently used. 2 catastrophic problems:

Problem #1- Mrs Smith does not have the ability to cause a car crash.

Why? Is she bed-ridden?

This was my analogy. How are you privy to inside information of which I am unaware?

Never mind. Let's move on.

I would agree with you if you said she did not have the ability to cause a car crash in such a way that it would not be possible to trace it back to her. The same can be said of any hypothetical perpetrator within the US government who would fake a terrorist attack.

So, the analogy remains apt.

Problem #2- Car crashed happen quite regularly, and it would appear that they are all the more likely at this intersection.

...and it would appear that a terrorist attack on US soil was all the more likely, given that the FBI and CIA had been worried about it for some time.

Using the same sort of logic you have demonstrated here, I could argue that the 9/11 attacks constitute a "horrific" analogy for Pearl Harbor. The PH attacks took place on an American territory, not the continental US or even one of the states, they were military attacks against a military target, they had been predicted for almost twenty years prior to the attack by military planners, and they served a specific strategic purpose for the attackers. None of this was true for the 9/11 attacks.

Of course, you will counter that these differences are not relevant. By the same logic, I could say the the differences that you brought up in my analogy are not relevant.

Prove me wrong.

 

[aggle-rithm]

In the interest of full disclosure, mjd1982 and I have a history and we don't much like each other. Don't take his sniping at me as an insult toward the rest of you. To me his insults, however thinly veiled, are like water off a duck's back.

...it wasn't the insult so much as the hypocrisy that bothered me.

Really, he seems like an intelligent fellow. Why can't he use his powers for good instead of evil?

 

[nicepants]

...it wasn't the insult so much as the hypocrisy that bothered me.

Really, he seems like an intelligent fellow. Why can't he use his powers for good instead of evil?

Mjd uses a lot of big words, but his capacities in the areas of logical thinking and the scientific method appear to be lacking.

 

[DGM]

Now Mrs. Smith had motive and ability. An investigation has found no factual evidence to connect her to the crash. Is she still guilty?

 

[uk_dave]

She is a mechanic specializing in brakes.



Her house is near the intersection. Where no accident has ever happened (hence no sign) but she needs to wait on traffic to get out of her driveway.

Vested interest and ability

I say put that bitch on ice!

 

[jab712]

Now Mrs. Smith had motive and ability. An investigation has found no factual evidence to connect her to the crash. Is she still guilty?

Add to that...there is significant evidence that someone else was the perp.

No evidence pointing to Mrs. Smith and significant evidence pointing to someone else = Mrs. Smith not guilty. Heck, I think even the OJ jury could get that one right.

 

[HeyLeroy]

Add to that...there is significant evidence that someone else was the perp.

No evidence pointing to Mrs. Smith and significant evidence pointing to someone else = Mrs. Smith not guilty. Heck, I think even the OJ jury could get that one right.

You mean like, all the evidence points to a guy who was thrown out of another town and is hiding in a third town where the citizens hate the town, citizens and town council in which Mrs. Smith lives; and the evidence shows that this guy recruited a fanatacist to deliberately cause the crash in a suicide/homicide attack?

Yeah, this analogy tends to fit.

 

[jab712]

You mean like, all the evidence points to a guy who was thrown out of another town and is hiding in a third town where the citizens hate the town, citizens and town council in which Mrs. Smith lives; and the evidence shows that this guy recruited a fanatacist to deliberately cause the crash in a suicide/homicide attack?

Yeah, this analogy tends to fit.

Yeah yeah, that's the perp!

And now my friends, we have the "perfect" analogy.

 

[DGM]

Yeah yeah, that's the perp!

And now my friends, we have the "perfect" analogy.

Not quite. Her neighbor hates her because her dog poops in his petunias. Now he has a DVD, Web site and t-shirts saying she did it.

 

[uk_dave]

Sooooo, what was the, like, public document which preceeded the OK bombing?

Was there a public document prior to the unabombers exploits?

Was there a public document prior to the great pennsylvania dam disaster of 1889?

Was there a public document prior to the great tennessee rail disaster of 1918?

Was there a public document prior to the exxon valdez in 1989?

Was there a public document prior to the wisconsin fires of 1871?

Sure there wasn't someone, somewhere who just knew all that real estate had to be cleared?

 

[SpitfireIX]

. . . From 2001 to 2003, the defense budget increased by 33%- an unprecedented amount. . .

US military spending, 1916: $0.48 billion

US military spending, 1917: $3.14 billion (+654%)

US military spending, 1918: $6.79 billion (+216%)

(1916 dollars)

Source: EconomicHistory.net



US military spending, 1940: $1.66 billion

US military spending, 1941: $6.13 billion (+269%)

US military spending, 1942: $22.05 billion (+260%)

US military spending, 1943: $43.98 billion (+99%)

US military spending, 1944: $62.95 billion (+43%)

(1940 dollars)

Source: EconomicHistory.net



US military spending, 1950: $133.0 billion

US military spending, 1951: $225.7 billion (+70%)

US military spending, 1952: $408.5 billion (+81%)

(1996 dollars)

Source: Center for Defense Information



US military spending, 1965: $266.5 Billion

US military spending, 1966: $296.8 Billion (+11%)

US military spending, 1967: $349.6 Billion (+18%; 2-year + 31%)

US military spending, 1968: $380.2 Billion (+9%; 2-year + 28%)

(1996 dollars)

Source: US Government Printing Office


Now, mjd1982, please explain again how a 33% increase in US military spending in two years is "unprecedented."

Ook! Ook! Eee! Eee!

 

[mjd1982]

That's nice to know; however, I'm not at all impressed with the quality of your arguments, or your comprehension of the data you use in them.

I can read maps quite well, thanks. Iraq's access to the Persian Gulf proper is at best nominal:

although it is generally accepted as a Persian Gulf State:


Iraq's tenuous connection to the Gulf was one of the main reasons it invaded Kuwait, hence my point: while Iraq may generally be considered a Persian Gulf State, you'd need to redraw a map to considere it connected to the Gulf in a physical sense.

You argued that the PNAC called for a military base in Iraq, yet your included documentation doesn't support your argument; it calls for a base in the "Persian Gulf". The US has maintained a base in Saudi Arabia since at least 1991 (again, one of the main reasons Usama bin Ladin has issued many fatwas calling for the killing of any Americans anywhere). The map I included was to show you the different Persian Gulf states, in case you weren't familiar with them.

http://liveu-83.vo.llnwd.net/vidilife/image/2006/10/10/946639/1217783L.jpg

Errr... I suggest you go home and dont come back

And I suggest you keep things civil. Address the argument; don't attack the arguer.

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

 

[mjd1982]

This:


Followed by this:


Subtlety does not impart civility. In fact, I consider this type of sniping to be less civil than an outright insult, because it's underhanded and cowardly.

You might wanna learn about the use of the conditional tense, since you clearly missed out in 4th grade.