The 9/11 Conspiracy Facts

[HyJinX]

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

Now that's a strong retort.

You're doing about as well here as you do at the SLC forum.

 

[mjd1982]

How could it possibly be a valid opinion? If you're correct, and the perpetrators of 9/11 were bumbling fools, how could any investigation fail to uncover the conspiracy, as was easily done with Watergate, the Iran-Contra Affair, Clinton's infidelity, etc, etc?

Unless you're...dare I say it...WRONG?

Read my post on the 911 Comm and u will be enlightened.

 

[mjd1982]

False. The question is, "Did they make it happen." Their wants and desires have no bearing (other than being a fallacious appeal to motive) on their actual actions.

No, you're getting ahead of yourself. Calm down. If you read my OP, which you should have had the time to do, you would know that the relevant question for the moment, is was a new PH propitiou to policy.

Straw man combined with a false premise. The premise your argument operates on is the idea that the PNAC would maliciously advocate their goals so as to choose the most expedient option. That, once again, is something you have yet to show, yet underscores all of your arguments.

Errr... sorry, how does advocating ones goals aid the choosing of the most expedient option?

Again you are getting ahead of yourself- it is irrelevant whether they were maliciously advocating death and destruction- concentrate on the detail. Did they state that a new PH was propitious to policy. It's a very simple point, it has a yes or no answer, and the argument I have made is very clear.

 

[mjd1982]

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.

I'm sorry, but this is so little substance and so much hot air. To glean what meat there is on your skeletal refutation, to state that "There is no place where a clearly stated intent for a new PH to happen", and then to follow it by stating that all they meant was a new PH had to happen (to create pressure/ increase spending etc), well...

That is a really, really stupid idea.

 

[Unsecured Coins]

wow, mjd... you're getting smoked here too

 

[mjd1982]

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.

Excuse me. I thought it was evident that what was meant was overtly causing the crash. Sure she has the means to overtly cause the crash, but then if she did that, say by the means you state, she would most likely be hauled in within 48 hours.

The point, which you miss, is about covertly causing, it to happen, which is the thrust of all the points I have made on this forum. This is not something that Mrs Smith could do. The gov however could- all it has to do, remember, is get a few heads of foodchains in line, get a load of warnings, and do nothing. This cannot be applied to your ana;ogy. Hence y it is horrific.

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.

Yes, but if she had said that "this road is so dangerous that a black 2001 Ford Taurus with Wyoming license plate ABC-123 is going to crash into a pink 2005 VW Bug with Wyoming license plate CBA-321 at exactly 22.21 miles per hour.", then your analogy would be more accurate, though still way off for the reasons mentioned, as well as others.

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

As above.

 

[332nd]

<snip> Did they state that a new PH was propitious to policy. It's a very simple point, it has a yes or no answer, and the argument I have made is very clear.

Oh, ok then. No.

 

[Gravy]

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

You call yourself a debunker? You failed to show a 33% increase in any of those years.

 

[HeyLeroy]

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.

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

We'll take that as your way of admitting that you've argued outside of your league; you didn't quite think about what you wanted to say.

 

[Foolmewunz]

This is like arguing with PDOH after he discovered a thesaurus on his mom's bookshelf! A soupcon of bogus material, mix in a few well-mined quotes, wrap it in a pretentious vocabulary, and when in doubt, sling pooh!


ook ook ook



ook ook ook

 

[mjd1982]

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.

ahah, thank you

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.

Ok, well, we're debating PNAC now to illustrate that a mass terror attack on US soil was deemed useful to policy, in order, parenthetically, to catalyse a series of military radicalisations now known as the WOT, known back then as RAD.

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.

True

(2) Showing that more could have been done is not proof that anyone's actions or omissions were criminal offenses.

Not de facto, no

(3) It has not yet been shown that more could have been done.

But this is not true. We are going to get onto foreknowledge, as per my OP, after PNAC, but just for the moment, you might wanna ask yourself, what was done? and hold that thought.

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:

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).

No, that's not quite right. That 66% is so large, principally because there is such a large contingent within it that does believe in gov complicity, which relates to my point.

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.

thank you

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

But this is true precisely the other way around. Danny Bonaduce, Fox News, Troy Sexton and others have been guilty of precisely the same inflammatory garbage as the CTers. Very little difference. Even I have been told "I hope you burn in hell" and other such comments by members of this forum, some of whom are on this thread. And in terms of rational discussion, well, as you can see from the corresponding thread on the SLC, the OTers I have run into, have zero regard for facts, and zero regard for logic and common sense, and zero regard for evident conclusions when they get reached. So my patience is pretty thin too with the OTers, don't forget the principal of universality here my friend.

And in general terms, the OT is completely irrational and illogical in any case, but that's what we're gonna be illusrtating, right?

M

 

[mjd1982]

This is like arguing with PDOH after he discovered a thesaurus on his mom's bookshelf! A soupcon of bogus material, mix in a few well-mined quotes, wrap it in a pretentious vocabulary, and when in doubt, sling pooh!


ook ook ook

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_11085466f25b5a031b.jpg[/qimg]

ook ook ook

A soupcon??? Could there be a more ironic post??!

 

[beachnut]

Read my post on the 911 Comm and u will be enlightened.

If you would read the posts you would be enlightened to your wrongness many times over. Over.

Got anything about pilots and flying stuff, or energy things? Or what about something new? Got some new stuff? Original new stuff, looking for input, got some?

 

[Foolmewunz]

A soupcon??? Could there be a more ironic post??!

Wink wink nudge nudge. Er her! Ya got it, did ya?

(Is the "I" page missing from said thesaurus or does Oxford teach a different meaning for ironic nowadays?)

 

[T.A.M.]

The other posters here are correct, almost all of your points have been discussed repeatedly here. If I have the time later today, and if noone else has done so, I might have a few comments, but it is basically the same old tire tripe we hear here all the time.

Since it is clear you already have your mind made up, I will not waste your time with links to reliable evidence, as I am sure you consider the 9/11 commission report, NIST, FEMA, Moussaoui Trial all "Govt Shill" type material.

Good luck. I am sure if we all tell you we are tired of addressing the issues, you will claim victory...good for you.

TAM

Yes well then get a group of european CD experts to come to america, go over the details of the investigation, go over all the data and variables, and see what they come up with...because the counselled/heavy handed/forced opinion from one european CD expert that the fall of WTC7 "looked like" CD, does not cut it by a mile, against the NIST report.

In the end, this guy will clearly call "shill" on NIST/FEMA/ASCE anyway, so what is the sense in arguing with him.

TAM

the 9/11 commission report, that dastardly collection of big bad brother lies, makes MULTIPLE References to the warnings given both to on the ground investigators, and the higher ups...

TAM

Jowenko, IMO, made a statement based on a video he watched, when asked to do so, without knowing the context of the video. He had no background at the time, in terms of the circumstances (ie a 20 storey hole on the opposite side of the building, 7 hours of uncontrolled fires, firemen testifying it was leaning to the side) at the time of his opinion.

Then, also just my opinion, his pride took over, and he has since refused to not only retract his statement, but refuses to discuss the issue.

Funny though, this is the one guy the truthers should be going gangbusters to get for an interview to "prove their case" yet they have not gotten any more out of him...I suspect it is because either (A) he knows he has stepped in it, and figures if he lets it slide it will go away, or (B) none of the truthers actually want to get a full interview with him, because he may take back their little kernal of gold, that little nugget they have been beating to death.

TAM

it is sad, but funny. About 7 months ago, on the smasher blog I posed a question to a truther, it went like this...

"If there were warnings, which we are in agreement there were, what specifically should the govt had done, in order to PREVENT 9/11, given that the legitimate threats that led to legitimate warnings were in amongst a plethora of false ones?

You know what his insane reply was...

SHUT DOWN THE AIRLINES/AIRPORTS!!

I asked, for how long?

He said, FOR AS LONG AS IT TAKES!

Well I almost wrote out my laughter at the insanity of this reply.

TAM

and in so doing he is calling into question the integrity and honesty of NIST/FEMA/ASCE, which in total has members numbering in the thousands...but as they are american and govt affiliated, they are all accomplices in the murder of 3000 people, according to the truthers...right?

TAM

awesome, and relevent, as usual Myriad...well done.

TAM

Alex Jones - Director
Stephen Jones and Judy Wood Chief Investigators.
Dylan Avery - PR

TAM

If it is Gravy you wish to discuss/debate the issues with, than that is great. He can hand you your arse as well or better than anyone here, should he choose to do so.

So far, i haven't really seen you focus in on a particular point or issue, which is about the only way you are going to get anyone here to discuss anything with you.

TAM

Above is a quote of all my posts on this thread. Please show me where I told someone not to respond to you?

I have said that most unlikely will respond to you, and that there is just cause for them not to, but I have told noone NOT TO POST TO YOU.

You are behaving like an elitist, pompous A**hole. I could care less if you are an Oxford/Harvard/MIT grad, it only changes the location of where you likely developed your arrogance. As far as I am concerned you can take your old, long ago debunked, silly, ridiculous claims and post them elsewhere, but it is not my board, so do as you like twirp.

TAM

TAM

 

[mjd1982]

Why? Is she bed-ridden?
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.

This has been dealt with, but I'll do it again. She has no capacity to cause the crash covertly. Whereas the gov does. Ive illustarted how twice now.

...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.
[/quote

Terror threats have been worrying FBI and CIA for many many years.

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.

Very simple. Yu need to look for the import of the statement. So when it states "a new PH", wat is it saying? An attack on mainland US/US territory? Military/civilian? By Japanese people? No. We have to interpret obviously, but we're sensible, we can do this. The purported aim of the new PH is to catalyse a radical military transformation. In this light, the characteristics of a new PH become clear- it needs to be something engrained on the public consciousness, involving a foreign element, cause mass devastation. And there you have your answer.

 

[Unsecured Coins]

DUDE!!! We forgot about the FLYING HAMSTER OF DOOM. It rained coconuts on our pitiful city! See?

9/11 was an inside job!

 

[mjd1982]

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?

???

 

[T.A.M.]

Ok good. Now we have 2 1/2 points that need addressing:
1 (preliminary). The investigation
2. PNAC
1/2. The validity/effectiveness of the 911 Commission

Just to frame where we are at.

To deal with a couple of other issues 1st that I dont wanna leave lying- there seem to be a couple of people here who post constantly, telling people not to post, e.g. Conspiraider and TAM. Why are you doing this? If you dont want to debate me, then don't. There are plenty of other threads. Go on them.

Secondly, the issue of civility/condescension etc. I would want nothing more than a civil debate of the facts. Hence my opening few posts. But this was not to be from certain members here. This was no surprise, since I have seen the discourtesy you display towards those who disagree with you. This is fine; we can have it either way. Just don't complain when it gets thrown back at you, a little harder.

Oh, and one other thing- HeyLeroy, though I am impressed at your use of a big word like cartography, please learn to read maps before typing it.

In case you forgot where you made the accusation.

TAM

 

[mjd1982]

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!

Excuse me, that was an error on my part; careless. Not very relevant, but well done in any case!

ETA- My quote related to "the amount", not the proportion, which, according to your figures, has only been beaten once, though I'm sure there are more examples.