The 9/11 Conspiracy Facts

[mjd1982]

Actually that's precisely how it is most commonly defined.

The best way to establish whether an act is terrorism is firstly, was it against civilians, or the military/government?

The second is to ask "What was the objective of the attacks?"

The objective of the Pear Harbor attack was to cripple the US fleet so that they could not project any force across the Pacific, leaving the region open to Japanese expansion.

In contrast the objective of 9/11 was to terrorise the American public, in order that they put pressure on their government to follow a policy that is more to Al Qaeda's liking (i.e. withdraw from the Middle East, especially Saudi Arabia).

Yes I am aware that this is a side issue, but it is important to make precise distinctions. The similarity between Pearl Harbor and 9/11 is merely that both involved significant unexpected attacks against US interests that killed thousands of people.

Other than this, they are quite different, and the US's response to each attack was likewise quite different.

For what it's worth, I fell the USA's response to the 9/11 attacks was absolutely correct and appropriate, and that the later decision to invade Iraq was neither correct nor appropriate.

-Gumboot

Not strictly correct actually. The UN consensus is:

Terrorism is an anxiety-inspiring method of repeated violent action, employed by (semi-) clandestine individual, group or state actors, for idiosyncratic, criminal or political reasons, whereby — in contrast to assassination — the direct targets of violence are not the main targets. The immediate human victims of violence are generally chosen randomly (targets of opportunity) or selectively (representative or symbolic targets) from a target population, and serve as message generators. Threat- and violence-based communication processes between terrorist (organization), (imperilled) victims, and main targets are used to manipulate the main target (audience(s)), turning it into a target of terror, a target of demands, or a target of attention, depending on whether intimidation, coercion, or propaganda is primarily sought

Maybe the semi-clandestine could be problematic re: PH, but its not too important.

 

[mjd1982]

Did Cheney just wake up one day between 1991 and 1997 and decide to be evil? Or was it a gradual change?

-Gumboot

Well no, he decided that that overthrow of Saddam would be good. I dont think there is too much controversial about this?

You could always email him and ask him?

 

[volatile]

Maybe the semi-clandestine could be problematic re: PH, but its not too important.

Why do you keep dismissing all the gaping holes in your "argument" as "irrelevant" and "not important".

Did they let you get away with that at Oxford?

 

[mjd1982]

I sense you don't know much about PH, or 911. The two are not the same, any way you want to slice it. This has been explained to you already in this thread, and numerous times.

Seeing as we're now going round in circles, I'd like to propose that you advance your thoughts a little. Say that the PNAC did want 911 to happen. They had a meeting, and decided that a "false flag" attack was the best way to achieve their objectives.

What happened next?

No, the reason why we may be going round in circles is because you are missing the oft stated point.

Was a new PH propitiosu to policy for PNAC.

Simple.

Now, there is actually a very simple way of ascertaining what characteristics of PH were meant to be mirrored in the new PH- look at the doc. The characteristic imputed to the new PH are 2. "catastrophic", and "catalysing".
Very simple.

So, given that 911 was both catastrophic and catalysing, it was a new PH in the sense that PNAC meant.

 

[volatile]

No, the reason why we may be going round in circles is because you are missing the oft stated point.

Was a new PH propitiosu to policy for PNAC.

Meaning - "If I explain what I thought happened next, I'd be in even more trouble than I am now".

It wasn't a "new PH" and it wasn't propitious to PNACs gains, as explained at http://www.911myths.com/html/new_pearl_harbour.html, and that's before you consider the 34% approval rating and the Republicans losing Congress, and, no doubt, the next election. This isn't the "NAC" envisioned, is it?

But, let's play some. Come on, say I believe you about PNAC. What happened next? I hate cliffhangers...

 

[gumboot]

Well no, he decided that that overthrow of Saddam would be good. I dont think there is too much controversial about this?

I'm more interested in the transition point at which he decided murdering 3,000 fellow citizens would be a great idea. I think you might find most people would find that somewhat controversial.

-Gumboot

 

[mjd1982]

No not at all. If you ask "Do you like football?" and I reply "I might do, I might not", I have answered the question, however possibly not to your satisfaction. If I say "Yes I do" I have also answered the question, and likewise I may not have answered it to your satisfaction. For example you may already have decided for yourself that I do not like football, and may only be satisfied if I answer "No I do not", regardless of what the truth is. Indeed, I may present photographs of myself playing football, watching football, and generally enjoying football, and depending on how set you are in your preconceived notions, you still may not find my answer satisfactory.

This should give you a clue about the problems with the Family Steering Committee's dissatisfaction with the 9/11 Commission Report.

-Gumboot

No, I dont agree with that at all.

If I say "I might or I might not", I could conceivably, and congruously add the phrase, "...but I don't feel like telling you". This would clearly be an evasion of the question, rather than an answer, but still an address. It is perfectly congruous with and reflective of, the latter phrase.

With regard to preconceived notions, if you want to make the assertion that the Jersy Girls reacted irrationally to the coherent responses that were given to them, you should provide some proof of such.

 

[mjd1982]

I'm more interested in the transition point at which he decided murdering 3,000 fellow citizens would be a great idea. I think you might find most people would find that somewhat controversial.

-Gumboot

Well, though he seems to have little problem with causing the deaths of 10s/100s thousands of Iraqis, I dont know him, and neither do you, so let's just leave our character judgements on him and others to the side I suggest.

 

[mjd1982]

Meaning - "If I explain what I thought happened next, I'd be in even more trouble than I am now".

It wasn't a "new PH" and it wasn't propitious to PNACs gains, as explained at http://www.911myths.com/html/new_pearl_harbour.html, and that's before you consider the 34% approval rating and the Republicans losing Congress, and, no doubt, the next election. This isn't the "NAC" envisioned, is it?

But, let's play some. Come on, say I believe you about PNAC. What happened next? I hate cliffhangers...

Excuse me , I have given you an explanation of how 911 was a new PH. Either accept it, or refute it, please dont just send me to some nonsense webpage.

 

[gumboot]

Not strictly correct actually. The UN consensus is:

That's the UN's Academic Consensus Definition, written by Alex P Schmid.

Alex P Schmid also proposed a shorthand definition:

"peacetime equivalent of a war crime."


Another definition of "terrorism" is any act:

"intended to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants with the purpose of intimidating a population or compelling a government or an international organization to do or abstain from doing any act."

In Larger Freedom: Towards Security, Development And Human Rights For All
Report of the Secretary-General of the United Nations
March 21, 2005

Or perhaps:

"Criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public, a group of persons or particular persons for political purposes are in any circumstance unjustifiable, whatever the considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or any other nature that may be invoked to justify them."

General Assembly resolution 49/60, December 9, 1994

The key phrase in virtually all state legislation is "unlawful"; in other words for an act to be considered terrorism, as well as the aspects of trying to intimidate the population, it must also be an illegal act.

It is not illegal for one state's armed forces to attack another state's armed forces. It is, however, illegal for anyone in any situation whatsoever to attack a state's civilian population.

-Gumboot

 

[T.A.M.]

Just a quickie- I do accuse the OTers of behaving like NASA chimps, but seriously, to state that there was no new PH... I havent heard that one before. I'm guessing you have been floating in a tub in outer space for the last 6 years, eating bananas maybe?

Do you think this is a personal insult to cuddles? Are you calling he/she a "chimp" here? Are you inferring it, not to cleverly?

Is this not a breech of your membership agreement? Should I report it?

TAM

 

[gumboot]

No, I dont agree with that at all.

If I say "I might or I might not", I could conceivably, and congruously add the phrase, "...but I don't feel like telling you". This would clearly be an evasion of the question, rather than an answer, but still an address. It is perfectly congruous with and reflective of, the latter phrase.

With regard to preconceived notions, if you want to make the assertion that the Jersy Girls reacted irrationally to the coherent responses that were given to them, you should provide some proof of such.

You've moved the goal posts. You changed the response from an unsatisfactory answer to a blatant refusal to provide an answer.

I do not recall the Family Steering Committee at any point claiming the 9/11 Commission Report explicitly refused to answer any of their questions.

As for the Jersey Girls... at least one of them thinks there was a NORAD stand down on 9/11. Their unfounded accusations spit in the face of the thousands and thousands of people who tried to stop the attacks and then worked tirelessly to investigate them. Losing a loved one in such a horrific way makes acting irrational understandable, but it does not make acting irrational right.

-Gumboot

 

[gumboot]

Well, though he seems to have little problem with causing the deaths of 10s/100s thousands of Iraqis, I dont know him, and neither do you, so let's just leave our character judgements on him and others to the side I suggest.

You believe that the death of thousands of Iraqis was a fundamental element of the PNAC's plans for regime change in Iraq? Did they have a target range, or was there just a minimum goal, and anything above that was just gravy?

-Gumboot

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Assume, for the sake of argument, that 9/11 was carried out in the manner portrayed by the MSM (I know you don't agree with this, but this if for the sake of argument). Who was the nation that made the unprovoked act of aggression against the US on that day?

This has relevance, please answer.

 

[volatile]

Excuse me , I have given you an explanation of how 911 was a new PH. Either accept it, or refute it, please dont just send me to some nonsense webpage.

It's been refuted, on that website and elsewhere. A terrorist attack is not the same as a military attack, despite the semantic twisting you're trying. But as I said, we're going round in circles. So, please, let's move this on a step.

Please humour me. After the PNAC was published, and the members agreed to precipitate the 9/11 events as a means to fulfil their goals, what happened next?

 

[CurtC]

Not strictly correct actually. The UN consensus is:

Interesting that the UN definition you provided completely supported gumboot's description, and invalidated yours. A terrorist attack is against random civilians, and its purpose is to cause terror (anxiety) in other people.

On the other hand, Pearl Harbor was a military attack, for the purpose of sinking ships and killing the soldiers who would be in a position to fight against Japan. There was no anxiety intended - in fact, Yamamoto even fretted that the attack, while militarily smart, would eventually be a bad thing because of the emotional response to it.

The 9/11 attacks can in no way be compared to Pearl Harbor.

 

[rwguinn]

No, I dont agree with that at all.

If I say "I might or I might not", I could conceivably, and congruously add the phrase, "...but I don't feel like telling you". This would clearly be an evasion of the question, rather than an answer, but still an address. It is perfectly congruous with and reflective of, the latter phrase.

With regard to preconceived notions, if you want to make the assertion that the Jersy Girls reacted irrationally to the coherent responses that were given to them, you should provide some proof of such.

so, in the little closed world you have created for yourself, the answer "None of your business" is not an answer at all, "I don't know" is an evasion, and "That cannot be determined with the data we have" is a lie.

So, have you quit beating your wife and girlfriend yet? please do not evade the issue. Yes or no, and why or why not is all that is acceptable.

 

[Hokulele]

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

Please review the definition of "assumption" and "assertion", then provide proof to elevate the ones you have presented to the level of "evidence".

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.

I never said it did. I said the argument can be made that it did, just as you are attempting to argue it did not.

BTW, in your response to Myriad, you attributed several of those quotes to me. Although I certainly respect Myriad and the quality and content of those quotes, I would suggest you be a little more careful in their attribution so as to avoid confusion on the part of the reader.

 

[Belz...]

Okay. Let's start with, what does the "C" in "PNAC" stand for?

This has been dealt with numerous times here, and it could not prove the CT point much better. Their aim is to create, militarily, a platform from which US hegemony can thrive, thus making the 21st the American Century. Hence it is all the more crucial for the transformations which will create this platform, to be executed quickly. It will be not good, or less for their stated aims, for them to be ready by 2050.

So what does the "C" in "PNAC" stand for?

All that is aiming to be illustrated for now is that the neo-cons stated that a new PH would be propitious to policy.

In a retarded, emotionless, objective kind of way, yeah it would help that policy. They still didn't say they were going to cause it.

The 2 are similar since they were mass terror attacks against the US that galvanised the public consciousness into approving drastic military action.

Pearl Harbor was NOT a terror attack, it was a military operation.

Damn. Gumboot beat me to that.

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.

There's that hyperbole, again.

Sorry, but I have addrssed this in my OP. I am not looking to prove that they were complicit, i am showing sufficient evidence pointing to their compliity to warrant a new independent investigation.

 

[David Wong]

And he's missing the elephant in the room:

Even if the PNAC statement said, "WE NEED TERRORISTS TO FLY BUILDINGS INTO PLANES IN THE FALL OF 2001" the subsequent investigation after 9/11 turned up ZERO evidence of PNAC involvement and 100% evidence of 19 terrorists.

So it literally doesn't matter what that document says because the evidence is in. 19 terrorists did it.

Case closed.