The 9/11 Conspiracy Facts

[Hokulele]

Well, at least you get to the heart of the matter. Incidentally, like many of the things i reply to, this has been addressed by me here already.

Addressed, but not refuted.

I have stated that with the qualification that a vital transformation happening over mths/yrs is preferable to it happening over decades, then a new PH is propitious to policy. With that qualification; I think this is something that we here can all settle on, and sensible people can come to their own conclusions.

Again, the qualification is simply your opinion, not supported by the rest of the document.

However, we can examine this in closer detail.

1stly, what is the aim of PNAC? It is pretty clear just from their name- create a platform (militarily) for US hegemony, that serves to allow US interests to dominate throughout the 21st century. As such, it is logical that that platform, which is the subject of RAD, should be created as early as possible in that century. Hence we cn conclude that such a transformation is preferable to happen earlier rather than later.

No, once again you are imposing your opinion regarding timeline onto the document. Since the document primarily addressed technological issues, one could equally argue that September 11 happened too soon, before enough time had passed to purchase, train personnel, and implement the technology.

2ndly, look at what is stated about the 2001 QDR. Such a transformation is going to have to have been crystalised in the mind of decision makers by that time, in order to dictate subsequent US military posture from that stance.

This has been covered a few times now.

Again, this can also be used as an argument to conclude that events happened too quickly. Assertion without foundation.

 

[Gravy]

It would appear not

Although I suppose this poll was also done at a bad PR moment for Bush?

Er, hello? You once again failed to read or understand your own source:

The national survey of 1,010 adults also found that anger against the federal government is at record levels, with 54 percent saying they "personally are more angry" at the government than they used to be.

 

[Gravy]

Errr... no, it would appear to be you who had the reading difficulties. I said how many questions were answered

This should not have been hard to understand.

And I gave you the source where the Jersey Girls say 95.

If you ask me what I think of your 9/11 claims and I tell you, and you don't like my reply, that means I haven't answered you? Really?

 

[David Wong]

And I gave you the source where the Jersey Girls say 95.

If you ask me what I think of your 9/11 claims and I tell you, and you don't like my reply, that means I haven't answered you? Really?

Don't you get it? HE HAS ALREADY ADDRESSED THOSE POINTS.


Though... now that I think about it, it seems like all of his points have also been addressed. Over and over and...

 

[David Wong]

It works like this:

Him: Blind assertion
You: Debunk point or request clarification
Him: Repeat blind assertion.


"I think reptillian nanolasers brought down the towers. We need a new investigation."

"What evidence do you have for the reptillian nanolaser theory?"

"Addressed above."

 

[WildCat]

mjd1982, it is obvious to all here that you actually have no facts whatsoever to tie anyone other than than al Qaeda and their 19 suicide terrorists to the events of 9/11. You could even prove (though you haven't by a long shot) that 9/11 was everything the PNAC wanted, and it would still not implicate them in 9/11. You have no evidence whatsoever of foreknowledge, of bombs, of a controlled demolition, of a "NORAD stand down", of a LIHOP or MIHOP in any way, shape, or form. All you have brought to the table so far is unsupported speculation, aggravated by your own ignorance.

So, about those "9/11 Conspiracy Facts": Got any?

 

[DGM]

mjd1982, it is obvious to all here that you actually have no facts whatsoever to tie anyone other than than al Qaeda and their 19 suicide terrorists to the events of 9/11. You could even prove (though you haven't by a long shot) that 9/11 was everything the PNAC wanted, and it would still not implicate them in 9/11. You have no evidence whatsoever of foreknowledge, of bombs, of a controlled demolition, of a "NORAD stand down", of a LIHOP or MIHOP in any way, shape, or form. All you have brought to the table so far is unsupported speculation, aggravated by your own ignorance.

So, about those "9/11 Conspiracy Facts": Got any?

If he had any FACTS this thread wouldn't be 320+ post long and it wouldn't be almost 6 years later.

 

[mjd1982]

Addressed, but not refuted.
Again, the qualification is simply your opinion, not supported by the rest of the document.

Please understand the meaning of "qualification", and you will understand better.

No, once again you are imposing your opinion regarding timeline onto the document. Since the document primarily addressed technological issues, one could equally argue that September 11 happened too soon, before enough time had passed to purchase, train personnel, and implement the technology.

I'm sorry, but that betrays a horrendous understanding of the document. Please read my response to Gravy's looschange guide to find out what the true import of the document is.

Or, read the document.

Again, this can also be used as an argument to conclude that events happened too quickly. Assertion without foundation.

Hmmm... Look, I know that some of my posts are long, but please try and read them before you reply to me, it will save all of us a lot of time.

The events of 9/11 were of great influence in the QDR. You can read it for yourself and find out- I have posted the link before. So it didnt happen too quickly. Moreover, nearly all the changes called for in the doc have been carried out under the aegis of 911/wot. So it didnt happen too quickly. The assertion is based in the reality of what we have seen, you just need to look.

 

[gumboot]

I have a question about the PNAC.

Richard Cheney was, by all accounts, a Signatory to the Statement of Principles.

One of the specific things mentioned in the September 2000 "Rebuilding America's Defenses" was the V-22 Osprey project.

Yet in 1988 Richard Cheney (then Secretary of Defense) zeroed the budget for the project, but was overridden by Congress.

In addition, a cornerstone of the PNAC was regime change in Iraq, yet when Cheney was Secretary of Defense during the Gulf War he was strongly opposed to entering Iraq.

-Gumboot

 

[mjd1982]

Er, hello? You once again failed to read or understand your own source:

Er, hello? I'm pretty pissed off with them as well... does this mean that my analysis of them re: 911 is flawed because of it? Or them re: Iraq? WOT? etc

Learn to differentiate between cause and effect please, you'll have fewer problems.

 

[Myriad]

The plan they [the neocons] are actually following appears to be:
Step 1: New Pearl Harbor
Step 2: Declare war on an undesired emotion
Step 3: Start quagmire war in Persion Gulf unrelated to said undesired emotion
Step 4: Under-equip U.S. Military to fight quagmire war, while alienating international allies
Step 5: Lose control of Congress
Step 6: 34% approval rating

If you want me to think that they're following this PNAC document as a plan, show me where it lays out steps 2 through 6.

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[mjd1982]

And I gave you the source where the Jersey Girls say 95.

If you ask me what I think of your 9/11 claims and I tell you, and you don't like my reply, that means I haven't answered you? Really?

Oh boy...ok, well firstly 28 + 68=95, so it would appear that your skill in maths is little better than that in basic comprehension.

Secondly, 95 addressed or answered. only 28 answered. The difference between this is something that a child would understand, and it's pretty worrying, but unsurprising that you, as on of the OT flag bearers, cannot understand the difference. But I'll explain it to you.

If I state "Do you like football", and you say" I might do, I might not", then my question has been addressed, but it hasnt been answered. If you say "Yes i do", then it has been answered. If you say nothing, then it has been "ignored/omitted", to quote from your own source, which you should maybe read.

This is pretty basic stuff; if you cannot understand it then ... we might have some problems here.

 

[T.A.M.]

decided to keep of the derogatory/insulting tone have we?

You are the one behaving like a child.

TAM

 

[aggle-rithm]

Wow, that is a fantastic argument! What a bright soul you are. A credit to your movement, that much is true.

Reality isn't a "movement". It's just the way things are.

 

[mjd1982]

Pearl Harbor was not a terror attack. It was a legitimate military action against US military forces located in the self-governing US territory of Hawaii.

-Gumboot

Sorry, this is not too relevant, but why was it legitimate?

 

[T.A.M.]

mjd:

you know you are right, us simpletons are not smart enough to understand the points you are trying to make. I think you should take your theories and your "facts" and go over to the "Scholars for 9/11 truth" and show them. I can guarantee you they will understand your points, and agree with them.

Seeya

TAM

 

[JimBenArm]

Sorry, this is not too relevant, but why was it legitimate?

Obvious things military are beyond you.

 

[aggle-rithm]

Once again, another lucid, cogent point. How well you address the facts! You must realise that stating "it didn't happen" again and again, though clearly a preferred MO for you, isn't gonna carry much weight here...

He's not saying "it didn't happen". He's saying, "You claim it happened, prove it."

Do you have any proof, other than the circumstantial evidence you've provided so far?

And by the way, since you continue to say we need a new investigation, how do you propose dealing with all the problems of getting the type of investigation you want, totally independent of the government yet with powers that only the government can provide?

(And remember, if you're planning to say "the people can vote for it", members of the government were selected in exactly the same way; the ones with the most money got the vote. Do the people with the most money fit your profile of the ideal investigator?)

 

[aggle-rithm]

Sorry, this is not too relevant, but why was it legitimate?

Militarily, the PH attacks had a specific and rational purpose: To disable the US fleet and allow Japan to go ahead with their expansion plans in SE Asia. In fact, Japan intended to declare war BEFORE the attacks, it was only poor execution by their diplomats that prevented this from happening.

The 9/11 attacks were less rational. The purpose was to piss people off and make heroes of the terrorists back home.

 

[Cuddles]

Oh boy...ok, well firstly 28 + 68=95, so it would appear that your skill in maths is little better than that in basic

Ironic that you complain about this while at the same time apparently claiming that 27=28, since you claimed that Gravy's link, stating 28, supported William's claim of 27.

In addition, you do appear to be seriously confused. Gravy's link states very clearly that they answered 96 of the questions. The people who asked them didn't like a lot of the answers, but that does not mean that they were not answered.

Yes, I rejected it myself, subsequently, and said well done to the person who had pointed it out.

Incidentally, though you are getting caught up in the excitement, the point is not whether the rise was unprecedented, rather whether it was what PNAC wanted. They state that spending had to increase to 3.5%-3.8% of GDP, which you have illustrated quite nicely. So well done to you too!

You alos appear to have a problem here. According to this source spending is currently estimated at about 3.4% of GDP. In 1997 when the statement was published spending was at 3.3% of GDP. Is this really what you consider a massive increase in spending that could only be brought about by a major attack on the US? To contrast this with previous spending, until 1995 the defence budget had not dropped below 4% since 1948. So apparently PNAC orchestrated 11/9 in order to maintain military spending at the lowest level since the end of WWII.

Seriously, please give up with this argument now. You have not just been proven wrong, this entire line of attack involving the PNAC proves your whole argument utterly nonsensical. PNAC did not say they want a new Pearl Harbour, they did not get a new Pearl Harbour and they did even get what they said would happen if a new Pearl Harbour had actually happened. No motive, no opportunity and no result. Possibly the most ineffective conspiracy ever. In fact, it's almost as though the conspiracy didn't actually exist.