The 9/11 Conspiracy Facts

[Belz...]

As I said before, it is a plan for transformation that needs to be speeded through if PNAC want to achieve their aim of an American Century. The transformations will create a platform for such to happen, and this platform needs to be created quickly.

Why do you think it "needs" to be created quickly ? This seems to be an assumption on your part.

The WOT is an incredibly clever device for ensuring never ending wars, lots of fear, and thus a perfect pretext to do everything that the doc asks. Terrorists! Let's invade that oil rich country.

Yeah, Afghanistan's got lots of oil.

Of course, there are evident disconnects that rationla people can see, but this does not matter when it is working effectively, and people are buying it.

This is an argument from Gallileo. Basically, you can see it but others can't. History will prove you right, etc. etc.

What is essential, and the point that is missed by many on both sides of the fence, is that the war in Iraq is just a fraction of the spectrum of what is being pursued as part of the wot. Again read my riposte for details of what else.

What the hell is WOT, anyway ? What's this obsession with acronyms ?

But its irrelevant. The wot is so well conceived, because it will never end;

This reads more like paranoia than fact.

So in short, I think you need to be more careful in your understanding of PNAC's aims, and how they are being achieved.

In this case, being "more careful" means "adding meaning to words"...

I dont think that terrorism is defined by who carries it out, or even who are the targets. It's a side issue to the point at hand, i hope you realise, but it may be worth debating.

... or changing their definition.

 

[Myriad]

But its irrelevant. The wot is so well conceived, because it will never end; the majority of the plans have been putin place, and a president would be loath to go soft on terror in the current environment. It's just not conceivable.

Moreover, if the GOP wins, as they may well do, then nothing will change. Note that in the CT scenario, Giuliani would have been very much involved. Yet he is the GOP frontrunner. Under him, it would be full steam ahead.

So in short, I think you need to be more careful in your understanding of PNAC's aims, and how they are being achieved. This is a long term strategy, and the effects of 9/11 will easily be felt many years into the future.

Here's why I'm not impressed by the argument based on PNAC aims outlined in "Rebuilding America's Defenses."

Because, in the end, it's typical think tank pap. Not because it's false, but because most of it (with a few exceptions, such as thumbs-up thumbs-down on specific weapons development programs) is bleeding obvious. Of course forces should be based closer to where they're most likely to be needed. Of course the U.S. needs to act to avoid being outflanked technologically, what use are tanks if the country's economy can be crippled by a computer virus or an antisatellite weapon? Of course having to swap working parts or available crewmen between weapon systems, in order to get one of them up and running, is a bad thing and should be corrected. Of course a bigger army can take on more simultanous missions at once. Of course the miliary should not be the only human enterprise on the planet not seeking to exploit new information technology to improve its effectiveness. Duh!

All the unjustified accusations about PNAC and 9/11 are rooted in the erroneous idea that these ideas, instead of being patently obvious, constitute some kind of radical agenda that would never be accepted without a major galvanizing event causing fundamental political change. (I can see the protest signs now: "Don't give our troops computers!" "No more spare parts!") It's a pro-military agenda, to be sure, which is traditionally part of the Republican party platform. But otherwise, it's common sense stuff that an administration subscribing to a generally pro-miliary philosophy, such as the that had just taken office, would support, that a large segment of the American population would be expected to agree with, and it's on a modest scale. It's about as controversial, and as specific, as recommending that getting tougher on crime would require more police officers and more prisons.

So, the observation that various objectives outlined in PNAC have in fact been pursued and in some cases achieved means only that the current administration is pro-military (no surprise) and that the generals are not total idiots when it comes to perceiving what changes were needed. ("Let's see, if we're going to be expected to send troops in to avert genocide every time some unstable country goes pear-shaped, do we need more troops or fewer troops? That's a toughie, let's convene some more think tanks.")

Did they exploit 9/11 to make those objectives easier politically? Probably. Politicians exploit events whenever and however they can. They're rather good at it. They don't need to cause the events in order to exploit them, any more than umbrella sellers have to cause the rain.

You can't make a LIHOP or MIHIP case on motive alone, based on ex post facto run-of-the-mill opportunistic political behavior. (Though that behavior might certainly justify wanting to vote people out of office, which the American public did.) You need actual evidence that someone actually did something illegal.

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[Belz...]

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.

No one's missing this point. They are arguing about it.

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

Except that the US dollar has dropped significantly since 2001. I wonder why. I'd think these NWO neocon child-molesters would know what they are doing.

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.

I think you're a little fuzzy on the definition of "answer".

Well, though he seems to have little problem with causing the deaths of 10s/100s thousands of Iraqis

So the fact that a country can go to war and cause death abroad means that they wouldn't have a problem killing their own citizens ?

 

[Stellafane]

No Stella, you're confused. Your point was that the 911 commission had done a good job. My point was that it hadnt. It lacked completeness and efficacy, to a serious degree. This is illustrated by the points. Nothng more.

Actually, I don't think I'm confused at all. In fact, I believe I see things quite clearly. What it all boils down to is, you're stating your opinions as fact. Then you're challenging anyone who doesn't agree with you, calling them "confused" or otherwise intellectually muddled. This is typical CTer behavior.

I once refrained from doing this earlier, but I will do so now: from what I've seen in this thread, you appear to be a typical 9/11 CTer. Your arguments are typical, and so are your methods. And in my opinion, they've all been typically demolished.

ETA: Is it "ook ook ook!" time yet?

 

[JimBenArm]

Actually, I don't think I'm confused at all. In fact, I believe I see things quite clearly. What it all boils down to is, you're stating your opinions as fact. Then you're challenging anyone who doesn't agree with you, calling them "confused" or otherwise intellectually muddled. This is typical CTer behavior.

I once refrained from doing this earlier, but I will do so now: from what I've seen in this thread, you appear to be a typical 9/11 CTer. Your arguments are typical, and so are your methods. And in my opinion, they've all been typically demolished.

ETA: Is it "ook ook ook!" time yet?

Ook! I mean, Yes!

 

[pgwenthold]

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

Actually, it was just another case of you using hyperbole to try to make your argument look stronger than it is. Kind of like your statement in the initial post that "Top generals were warned not to fly on the morning of Sept 11," which, as I've found to be at best a complete distortion of the truth.

For someone who starts a thread called, "The 9/11 Conspiracy _FACTS," you do play fast and loose with them.

 

[aggle-rithm]

Here's why I'm not impressed by the argument based on PNAC aims outlined in "Rebuilding America's Defenses."

Because, in the end, it's typical think tank pap. Not because it's false, but because most of it (with a few exceptions, such as thumbs-up thumbs-down on specific weapons development programs) is bleeding obvious. Of course forces should be based closer to where they're most likely to be needed. Of course the U.S. needs to act to avoid being outflanked technologically, what use are tanks if the country's economy can be crippled by a computer virus or an antisatellite weapon? Of course having to swap working parts or available crewmen between weapon systems, in order to get one of them up and running, is a bad thing and should be corrected. Of course a bigger army can take on more simultanous missions at once. Of course the miliary should not be the only human enterprise on the planet not seeking to exploit new information technology to improve its effectiveness. Duh!

All the unjustified accusations about PNAC and 9/11 are rooted in the erroneous idea that these ideas, instead of being patently obvious, constitute some kind of radical agenda that would never be accepted without a major galvanizing event causing fundamental political change. (I can see the protest signs now: "Don't give our troops computers!" "No more spare parts!") It's a pro-military agenda, to be sure, which is traditionally part of the Republican party platform. But otherwise, it's common sense stuff that an administration subscribing to a generally pro-miliary philosophy, such as the that had just taken office, would support, that a large segment of the American population would be expected to agree with, and it's on a modest scale. It's about as controversial, and as specific, as recommending that getting tougher on crime would require more police officers and more prisons.

So, the observation that various objectives outlined in PNAC have in fact been pursued and in some cases achieved means only that the current administration is pro-military (no surprise) and that the generals are not total idiots when it comes to perceiving what changes were needed. ("Let's see, if we're going to be expected to send troops in to avert genocide every time some unstable country goes pear-shaped, do we need more troops or fewer troops? That's a toughie, let's convene some more think tanks.")

Did they exploit 9/11 to make those objectives easier politically? Probably. Politicians exploit events whenever and however they can. They're rather good at it. They don't need to cause the events in order to exploit them, any more than umbrella sellers have to cause the rain.

You can't make a LIHOP or MIHIP case on motive alone, based on ex post facto run-of-the-mill opportunistic political behavior. (Though that behavior might certainly justify wanting to vote people out of office, which the American public did.) You need actual evidence that someone actually did something illegal.

Respectfully,
Myriad

Excellent points, Myriad. This underscores the main problem with mjd's, and all other conspiracy theorists, beliefs: they are unfalsifiable.

A world in which the PNAC actively brought about the 9/11 attacks looks exactly the same as a world in which PNAC's reference to a "New Pearl Harbor" was simply rhetoric. To skeptics, this indicates that the notion of "they benefited, therefore they caused it" is completely worthless.

If some really compelling information were to appear to lend credence to this notion, we would consider it. However, mjd hasn't offered any.

 

[aggle-rithm]

BAD THINGS THAT HAPPENED AND THE PEOPLE WHO BENEFITED:

Bad thing: The Great Depression
People who benefited: Employment Agencies
How they benefited: More unemployed means more clients.
Conclusion: Employment Agencies caused the Great Depression

Bad thing: World War II
People who benefited: The Catholic Church
How they benefited: The Church has long been in favor of large families. After the war, people settled down and procreated like never before. (there were nine kids in my Catholic baby-boom family.)
Conclusion: The Catholic Church caused World War II.

Bad thing: The Holocaust
People who benefited: Swiss bankers
How they benefited: Displaced Jews put their wealth into Swiss banks, then disappeared into concentration camps. Swiss banks kept the money.
Conclusion: Swiss bankers caused the Holocaust

Bad thing: Super Bowl XIII
People who benefited: Those who bet on the Steelers
How they benefited: Steelers won
Conclusion: People who bet on the Steelers caused them to win.

And so on, and so on...

 

[lapman]

Actually, it was just another case of you using hyperbole to try to make your argument look stronger than it is. Kind of like your statement in the initial post that "Top generals were warned not to fly on the morning of Sept 11," which, as I've found to be at best a complete distortion of the truth.

For someone who starts a thread called, "The 9/11 Conspiracy _FACTS," you do play fast and loose with them.

But that's what mj does. He distorts the facts in order to make himself look more intelligent. He only cares about the "facts" that support his case. Everything else is just part of the cover-up. Just try discussing with him why there isn't a single audio recording of the so-called explosives that supposedly brought down WTC 7.

 

[SpitfireIX]

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

You rejected the claim that the increase was unprecedented. You then edited your post to add that you hadn't actually been referring to the increase; rather you had been referring to the amount, which you claimed (according to my figures) had only been exceeded once, though you expected it had been exceeded other times.


Your original quote:

. . . 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. . . .

What you wrote clearly refers to the "increase" as unprecedented; however, I'll grant that that's not what you meant to say.

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 appear to believe that I've scored some sort of an "own goal," but in fact you have merely demonstrated that you use "statistics the way a drunk uses a lamppost--for support, rather than illumination." (variously attributed) According to a Congressional Research Service report, DoD's costs for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, plus the costs of additional security (e.g., increased combat air patrols) in FY 2003 totalled US $77.4 billion. Deflating that back to Year 2000 dollars yields about US $72 billion. Looking at my source figures, it appears that I neglected to deflate the original FY 2003 defense budget back to Year 2000 dollars, which makes the 2003 increase even less remarkable. So let's also reconsider your purported 33% increase from FY 2001 to FY 2003.

2001 military spending: $297.5 (3.0%)

2002 military spending: $330.8 (3.4%)

2003 military spending: $374.5 (3.7%)

Billions of US dollars (percent of GDP)

Now, we see that the actual, inflation-adjusted increase from 2001 to 2003 is $77 billion, or about 26%, not 33% as you claimed. (Penalty kick for exaggerating by using non-inflation adjusted numbers! ) Further, of that $77 billion, $72 billion is directly traceable to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and increased security costs. Most of this money is sunk and has contributed little or nothing to the PNAC goals (unless I missed the part in the report about fighting extended ground wars in the Middle East as one of the goals).

This entire issue serves to illustrate your twisting of the PNAC memo to support your conspiracist agenda. You claim that the September 11 attacks brought about the PNAC objective of increased military spending--however, the objective was not increased military spending for its own sake; it was rather the military transformation that would have required this increased military spending.

Also, you are committing the logical fallacy of affirming the consequent.

"If the PNAC plan had been implemented, military spending would have increased substantially."

"Military spending increased substantially."

"Therefore, the PNAC plan was implemented."

Ook! Ook! Eee! Eee!

 

[mjd1982]

...

 

[mjd1982]

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

Right, well 1stly your last paragraph does nothing to illustrate that they are wrong in stating that the comm didnt answer their questions when they say they addressed them. You would still have to illustrate that.

Secondly, the goalposts have been moved, but not by me. The original point was "how many questions of the 167 did the Comm answer". I said 27. Gravy said, no, that's what Willie Rodriguez said, and its false, later going on to claim that the Jersey Girls said 95 were answered. However, the JG's state quite clearly that ~27 were answered, ~68 were addressed, and ~72 were ignored. This is what they said.

There should be no need to argue this.

 

[mjd1982]

This has relevance, please answer.

I dont think it does. Why does it?

 

[HeyLeroy]

All that is aiming to be illustrated for now is that the neo-cons stated that a new PH would be propitious to policy. This is based on the fact of what is in black and white in their document. If you want to argue this point, then please address the document.

"...based on..." indicates your interpretation. Interpretation + opinion. Opinion =/= Fact.

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!

[sound of brakes screeching as a deft Rockford turn is executed]

Do I understand correctly that you are setting aside the MIHOP argument ?
(snip)

Wait. Just wait'll he gets to WTC7 and his contention regarding "they" knew exactly where the fires weren't going to be burning, so that's where "they" planted explosives.

Given that
a) 7 was taken down by explosives
and
cool.gif there were fires in parts of the building

This brings us to the conclusion that the explosives were either planted away from the fires, or that the fires were not strong enough to hinder the explosives (either due to qualitie of the fires/qualities of the explosives)..

I

Neither am I, but even if the behaviour of explosives is limited to both our slight understandings of them, we can see that the bombs could have easily been placed where the fires were slight/non existent.

◊◊◊◊

As I have stated, not B,C or D. But yes to A- they would have placed the explosives where the fires would not reach.

you

Regardless, I will be kind (for your 1st question anyway). They wuold have known that the fires would not affect the locations where the explosives were placed. This is not too hard to work out, since the fires were highly localised.

not.

In this case, being "more careful" means...
...changing their definition.

Now you see, in the 1st quote, I am illustrating to you how the terms "exploded/blown up/brought down" are synonymous with "imploded", and hence, to respond to your point, there is no need for them to go further, and state, "Oh and by the way everyone, this means that its gonna be imploded!"

Argues that "implode" is synonymous with "explode".

 

[mjd1982]

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.

Please address where these answers were given to the Jersey Girls.

 

[mjd1982]

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.

Good! So we have one person with a modicum of common sense on this board. This is the starting point. The rest will be addressed in a second (has already been in any case).

 

[HyJinX]

I dont think it does. Why does it?

This coming from the guy who wants to know why some questions were left unanswered by the commission.

 

[beachnut]

All that is aiming to be illustrated for now is that the neo-cons stated that a new PH would be propitious to policy. This is based on the fact of what is in black and white in their document. If you want to argue this point, then please address the document.

So it does not have a thing to do with 9/11. What do you have then? The PNAC stuff is just talk? Where is the arguement for something, and what is that something you believe? The OP was a mess, and it has not improved with your 78 posts. What is you point, and why are there no facts to back it up?

There is such a chasm between the facts of this day, and what has been reported in the mainstream media, that the majority of people are not even aware of the most rudimentary facts of the day, one of the most newsworthy days any of our lives. I will address 2 smoking guns.

I was reading your OP again, still zero stuff there, you need to redo it. It is factually wrong. No sources, etc.

I was hoping you would present these smoking guns soon. They were not mentioned in your OP. Come on show us what you have. What were the smoking guns?

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Right, well 1stly your last paragraph does nothing to illustrate that they are wrong in stating that the comm didnt answer their questions when they say they addressed them. You would still have to illustrate that.

Secondly, the goalposts have been moved, but not by me. The original point was "how many questions of the 167 did the Comm answer". I said 27. Gravy said, no, that's what Willie Rodriguez said, and its false, later going on to claim that the Jersey Girls said 95 were answered. However, the JG's state quite clearly that ~27 were answered, ~68 were addressed, and ~72 were ignored. This is what they said.

There should be no need to argue this, it is either dishonesty or stupidity, and should be retracted.

Unless you are going to demonstrate in this specific case why "answered" and "addressed" should be lumped together then you are committing equivocation. Specifically, if the Jersey Girls' questions that were not unanswered have been dealt with to their satisfaction or not.

 

[T.A.M.]

Debating tactic 49b. "Control the debate/discussion". Whether it is appropriate, or in proper form or etiquette, the key to winning a debate, is to be the one in control of it. Deciding the agenda, the questions to be answered, and not answered, as well as the time of answering, and content of the answer, are all ways in which control of the debate may be taken.

Look like anyones MO to you?

TAM