The 9/11 Conspiracy Facts

[lapman]

a) The aim of PNAC is to militraily create a platform that will project US hegemony and make the 21st Century the American Century. Thus, it is logical that they would want this platform to be created soon, so they could actively project US hegemony and create an American 21st Century, rather than wait, have it potentially jeopardised by other elements.

We already had this. So how would a new PH make things different?

b) The fact that the QDR was in Oct 2001, and the elements upon which it was to be based would have to be crystalised in decision makers minds by then; i.e. early, rather than late.

See above.

c) A revolutionary change in the geo-political landscape, creating, in the eyes of the authors, stability, peace, security and democracy for the world, is preferable, certainly to power hungry politicians, sooner, rather than later.

So you are saying that the WOT/PNAC is somehow linked to this, yet provide no proof of this.

The only thing the new PH would do, according to the PNAC, would help speed up military R&D. It has nothing to do with your point c).

 

[aggle-rithm]

Oh boy.

Now look. I posted very clearly in #416 and #419, crystalising the arguments about 1) How 9/11 is a new PH, and 2) Why according to RAD, a new PH would be propitious to policy. I asked for responses. I have had none, none that address the points.

You have crystallized nothing. You have only stated and restated your opinions.

Let me ask you, if you were on trial for murder, and the only evidence against you was that you benefited from it somehow (such as through a life insurance policy), would you rather be tried according to YOUR standards of evidence, or the standards used by people in the real world?

 

[T.A.M.]

The argument to that would be no, it is not enough to convict someone with, but that benifiting in such a way should be enough to warrant further investigation...which is correct. However, in 6 years of reviewing all the details, no evidence has surfaced implicating an inside job, just speculation, opinion and heresay, so I say, that isnt enough, cas dismissed.


TAM

 

[aggle-rithm]

PH had many characteristics. It wasnt just the fact that it was one nation attacking another; it was done by Japanese, it was done on a fleet, it was done by air etc etc.

The question is, which of these many characteristics are pertinent to the analogy between 9/11 and PH. The answer is very simple, since it is given in the doc: #1 catastrophic, #2 catalysing(militarily).

Indeed, strictly speaking, to say that what they were talking about was a new PH, is not completely accurate, since the term "new PH" is used in a comparative clause. The direct clause is "a catastrophic and catalysing event".

Hence the analogy between 911 and PH is valid, and to dispute such would be brainless.

I think this is quite simple.

**********

And the latter:

the aim of this section is, as has been stated many times, simply to show that a new PH was propitious to policy for PNAC/The Bush Admin. One person has admitted so, but that is all so far.

But after that, the question is, did they want the transformation to happen over decades, or over mths/years. I think that ordinarily would be obvious, but we can argue it here on the basis that:
a) The aim of PNAC is to militraily create a platform that will project US hegemony and make the 21st Century the American Century. Thus, it is logical that they would want this platform to be created soon, so they could actively project US hegemony and create an American 21st Century, rather than wait, have it potentially jeopardised by other elements.
b) The fact that the QDR was in Oct 2001, and the elements upon which it was to be based would have to be crystalised in decision makers minds by then; i.e. early, rather than late.
c) A revolutionary change in the geo-political landscape, creating, in the eyes of the authors, stability, peace, security and democracy for the world, is preferable, certainly to power hungry politicians, sooner, rather than later. If anyone is going to argue why this is not the case, I will be very interested to read it.

******

Now PLEASE address these points. Also, the LC guide riposte delivered very early on, has not been touched by any of you "truth seekers". Please don't be evasive. Address the points, and we will all make some progress.

You're right. I accept everything you have said here as 100% true.

Now, please explain how you make the cognitive leap from here to "inside job"?

 

[aggle-rithm]

The argument to that would be no, it is not enough to convict someone with, but that benifiting in such a way should be enough to warrant further investigation...which is correct. However, in 6 years of reviewing all the details, no evidence has surfaced implicating an inside job, just speculation, opinion and heresay, so I say, that isnt enough, cas dismissed.


TAM

Yes, I'm sure that will be his next tactic, talking about all the neat stuff the new investigation will find. Although he has never addressed the unsurmountable obstacles to the kind of investigation he wants.

 

[Belz...]

Now look. I posted very clearly in #416 and #419, crystalising the arguments about 1) How 9/11 is a new PH, and 2) Why according to RAD, a new PH would be propitious to policy.

What about the argument that was presented to you that showed that, in fact, it was the opposite ?

The question is, which of these many characteristics are pertinent to the analogy between 9/11 and PH. The answer is very simple, since it is given in the doc: #1 catastrophic, #2 catalysing(militarily).

Such a definition is far too broad, and would include almost all major military operations.

Hence the analogy between 911 and PH is valid, and to dispute such would be brainless.

I think this is quite simple.

That's an argument from personal preference and incredulity.

the aim of this section is, as has been stated many times, simply to show that a new PH was propitious to policy for PNAC/The Bush Admin. One person has admitted so, but that is all so far.

Just in case Mjd is ignoring me, could someone quote this back to him:

I've only admitted that, by your own logic, yes, it was beneficial to that policy. Of course, that policy is a strawman, as I've tried to show you. Please remove me from your list of persons that have admitted anything.

 

[HeyLeroy]

And tell us WHAT HAPPENED NEXT!

 

[mjd1982]

Come on people, don't be shy now...

 

[Unsecured Coins]

... what is this? 3rd grade dodge ball?

 

[DGM]

The list of people that he has convinced:

1-Himself

 

[aggle-rithm]

Come on people, don't be shy now...

Once again -- you've sold me! I believe that 9/11 was the historical equivalent of Pearl Harbor, and that the policies of PNAC were fortuitously facilitated by the attacks.

What I'd like to know now is, how do you go from here to "inside job"?

 

[jab712]

... what is this? 3rd grade dodge ball?

I was thinking the same thing.

 

[Belz...]

Come on people, don't be shy now...

Uh oh. It isn't a good sign when the poster starts to talk to himself. It's a clear indication that he's about to start evading any and all posts, and eventually either commit suicide by mod, or leave, plain and simple.

 

[MIKILLINI]

I,m wondering what happened next, too. This is the crucial area for you mjd, for your point to be made. Where is that bridge? Since PNAC, as you say is the master design, and 9/11 was the execution of said plan. What happened to move this from the PNAC plan to 9/11?

 

[DGM]

Why do I get the feeling that the PNAC and PH are a pivotal part of his smoking guns?

 

[MIKILLINI]

Why do I get the feeling that the PNAC and PH are a pivotal part of his smoking guns?

Yes they are favorable conditions, I mean they are propitious, yeah thats the word.

 

[Gravy]

I think it would be best if you read my posts before you respond to them. I have nowhere stated that PNAC where relying on a catastrophic and catalysing event; so why do you impute this to me? Is it deceit or ineptness; it must be one or the other.

You are a truly inept liar, and the biggest backpedaler that I've ever seen on this forum.

mjd1982:

It is stating that we need a new PH- a mass terror attack on US soil, ingrained on the public’s consciousness- in order to catalyse hegemonic aims. Not that we need to prevent a new PH ever happening- this is in fact the opposite of what is said.

Gravy, in Loose Change Viewer Guide:

Is it plausible that these "conspirators" would publicly announce a plan to kill thousands of Americans?

mjd1982:

This is pretty silly. The idea that "they wouldnt say it, so they didnt say it". is pretty worthless in discussion- it is there in black and white.

Gravy:

By gosh, you're absolutely right: in 2000 prominent neocons published their plan to kill thousands of Americans in a Pearl Harbor-like attack! I don't know how I could have missed it!

mjd1982:

Oh, sorry, hahaha, yep there it is.

 

[Unsecured Coins]

I love when Gravy shows up in threads like this. People are in it, handling there business, and then HE Shows up... It's like the mother of all "wait til your father comes home" moments.

 

[Swing Dangler]

Advancement in military technology has been going on as long as there has been armys. How does this mean that it had to happen right away.

Just quoting from the document!

 

[Swing Dangler]

So are you speaking to the implausibility of the survival of the passports, or the implausibility that the individual I spoke of, survived the impact of UA175, which brushed right over his desk, but did him no harm?

So your opinion is what? They fabricated the passports? And the single piece, just one, of evidence that proves they fabricated the passports is? And do you have a particular individual you feel is behind this fabrication, that you could accuse here?

As for the guy who survived the 175 impact, is he a liar. He states he watched the plane come toward the building, and hence the reason he was able to leap under his desk, which saved him. Is he a liar? A paid Shill?

TAM

Edit: by the way swing, your demeanor here, for a truther in a den full of debunkers, is so far commendable.

TAM

Thanks for the compliment. I told you long ago over at SLC you were one of the few there I respected because of your demeanor.

Not the individual. Sorry for the confusion.
As far as the passport, I find it highly improbable that a piece of paper (on the hijacker?) survived but the body or relevant parts of the body failed to survive. I'm not an expert, but the last time I checked my body did not burn as quickly as paper nor was the paper stronger than my body.

I can't prove they fabricated the passport, nor have I seen empirical proof that a passport on a person could survive an impact into a tower and its explosion, but the body did not. I believe the Guardian said it very eloquently:

We had all seen the blizzard of paper rain down from the towers, but the idea that Atta's passport had escaped from that inferno unsinged would have tested the credulity of the staunchest supporter of the FBI's crackdown on terrorism.

Source: Guardian
Wrong name of the terrorists I believe but the point is made.
In order for me to accept the passport survived (which to my knowledge isn't in the public domain), I would have to see empirical evidence.

Why do you accept that the passport did survive and was not a piece of planted evidence?

Why do you think I would suggest that a survivor is a shrill or a liar? I don't think the two are related. And for the record, no I don't think he was lying at all. He survived as some did and some didn't. To paraphrase my favorite band RUSH, roll the bones!

On a side note, I find it fascinating that as a doctor, you believe in luck.