The 9/11 Conspiracy Facts

[aggle-rithm]

Glad you asked!

Since 2001, the Administration has:
*Begun to transform our Nation’s defenses and increased spending by 26 percent, the largest increase in the Defense budget since the Reagan Administration;
*Increased research and development funding by 56 percent
Source: Office of Management and Budget

Read "Imaginary Weapons" by Sharon Weinberger to get a glimpse of the bottomless rat hole this money is being poured into...

 

[Brainache]

So is MJD saying that he can tell that the PNAC wanted a new Pearl Harbor because the PNAC didn't say that they wanted a new Pearl Harbor?

If that isn't what he is saying, can someone please clarify it?

I've tried to follow the whole thread, but as I only went to Wollongong Uni, I'm obviously not qualified to criticise an Oxford graduate.

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

This has been dealt with before.

They are advocating the only thing that they can advocate openly. They have a choice- either state "we advocate a new Pearl Harbour", or what they did state. They are clearly not going to state the former, they are not that stupid; but this does not mean that they have not stated that a catastrophic and catalysing event is not propitious to policy.

If you want to dispute my argument on that, it has been made explicit for you twice now- please refer to it

Post hoc rationalization. You are continuing to conflate correlation and causation.

 

[aggle-rithm]

(Sorry, I have now decided to go through even those who havent addressed my points, since this is not too hard.)

To repeat myself, this has been addressed, but it is not strictly speaking a new PH that was called for, rather a catastrophic and catalysing event. PH was the comparative clause.

Your point is therefore, that 911 was either not catastrophic, or not catalysing. Please tell me which.

We've moved beyond that. I have posted twice conceding ALL your points, and asking you to explain the logical steps you took that led you to the conclusion that 9/11 was an inside job.

But you aren't going to do that, are you? Because this tactic of harping on semantics over a small portion of your argument, all the while sniping at anyone who attempts to engage you in conversation, works far better for your purposes. And that purpose is not to further understanding or stimulate intelligent discussion, for you or for anyone else. It is to draw attention to yourself, to make you feel good about yourself.

You are an attention whore, an intellectual coward, and a troll.

I'm sorry if that seems uncivil, but it's the truth. Please feel free to prove me wrong.

 

[T.A.M.]

As I suggested near the very beginning of this thread, I will do so again...

mjd1982 is antagonizing, and is not serious about engaging in any form of CIVIL or rational debate. He is feeding off our replies and insulting at will. I suggest we let this thread die, and hopefully he will either (A) become civil, or (B) simply go away. Lets do this now, as he is clearly dragging some of our more civil posters down into the mud with him.

TAM

 

[8den]

I've tried to follow the whole thread, but as I only went to Wollongong Uni, I'm obviously not qualified to criticise an Oxford graduate.

Wollongong Uni is singularly the best name for a institute of higher learning ever. Wollongong is actually just the best word ever. It sounds so insane I had to google it just to make sure it existed.


Oh and MJD, to borrow from Reg Kin,

Edited by Lisa Simpson: 

Inappropriate remark removed.

Do not use insults to argue your point.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Lisa Simpson

 

[volatile]

So is MJD saying that he can tell that the PNAC wanted a new Pearl Harbor because the PNAC didn't say that they wanted a new Pearl Harbor?

If that isn't what he is saying, can someone please clarify it?

I've tried to follow the whole thread, but as I only went to Wollongong Uni, I'm obviously not qualified to criticise an Oxford graduate.

Well, I'm doing a PhD in philosophy, and I can't make head nor tail of it either. Don't be too worried.

It certainly seems to be something along those (rather wiggly) lines!

 

[mjd1982]

We've moved beyond that. I have posted twice conceding ALL your points, and asking you to explain the logical steps you took that led you to the conclusion that 9/11 was an inside job.

But you aren't going to do that, are you? Because this tactic of harping on semantics over a small portion of your argument, all the while sniping at anyone who attempts to engage you in conversation, works far better for your purposes. And that purpose is not to further understanding or stimulate intelligent discussion, for you or for anyone else. It is to draw attention to yourself, to make you feel good about yourself.

You are an attention whore, an intellectual coward, and a troll.

I'm sorry if that seems uncivil, but it's the truth. Please feel free to prove me wrong.

That is uncivil, and it is not correct. I appreciate you for stating your assent with my point. I wish that others could be as honest. If this were a debate between me and you, I would move on. But it is not; there are about 20 other people here, and so I have to wait for one of 2 things:
1. A degree of common assent, stated or implied. This will allow for clarity later, and avoid reneging on points already agreed upon.
2. In the absence of this, a concrete refutation to my argument, which has been elaborated in #419, and again in #493. I don't think I have received one, i.e. one that refutes my argument. There has been the odd repetition of one's own argument, but pretty much no direct response to mine.

I find the absence of the former, and certainly the latter, both astonishing and worrying. I appreciate what you have said; I hope you can appreciate why, for the moment, you must just hold on.

 

[T.A.M.]

If you wish to have a private debate, you have come to the wrong forum, unless you wish to do it via Private Messages.

If you and someone here wish to be the only two involved, than simply start a new thread dedicated to THE TOPIC you wish to debate, and request that noone else post within it.

TAM

 

[T.A.M.]

and..mjd.

I agree, the last few posts have also been uncivil, but they are clearly in response to your posts, not without cause. That said, I think we should all remember the stricter rules of this subforum, as others have pointed out in this thread.

TAM

 

[mjd1982]

So is MJD saying that he can tell that the PNAC wanted a new Pearl Harbor because the PNAC didn't say that they wanted a new Pearl Harbor?

If that isn't what he is saying, can someone please clarify it?

I've tried to follow the whole thread, but as I only went to Wollongong Uni, I'm obviously not qualified to criticise an Oxford graduate.

Gladly.

The argument that has been made is that they stated that a new PH would be propitious to policy. Nothin else.

If you want to dispute this, please refer to either post #419/#493.

 

[mjd1982]

As I suggested near the very beginning of this thread, I will do so again...

mjd1982 is antagonizing, and is not serious about engaging in any form of CIVIL or rational debate. He is feeding off our replies and insulting at will. I suggest we let this thread die, and hopefully he will either (A) become civil, or (B) simply go away. Lets do this now, as he is clearly dragging some of our more civil posters down into the mud with him.

TAM

Err, excuse me? I find this utterly bemusing. I have stated at the top, I want nothing more, than to have a civil, rational debate. This was vitiated pretty much from the get go: #5, #6, #12, #19 etc etc.

Nonetheless, I am civil to those who are civil to me. And vice versa. I have no problem either way; if you want to be discourteous, then I will do so back. To try and discourage people from posting on this thread for the 2nd time now just from you, is behaviour that is very much beyond me; i would not like to speculate as to why you do it.

So, I will repeat. If people want civil discourse, then engage in it. If you dont, then don't.

 

[T.A.M.]

So you are saying not once has your tone been insulting or demeaning unless someone was the same to you first? Is that what you are saying?

TAM

 

[stateofgrace]

That is uncivil, and it is not correct. I appreciate you for stating your assent with my point. I wish that others could be as honest. If this were a debate between me and you, I would move on. But it is not; there are about 20 other people here, and so I have to wait for one of 2 things:
1. A degree of common assent, stated or implied. This will allow for clarity later, and avoid reneging on points already agreed upon.
2. In the absence of this, a concrete refutation to my argument, which has been elaborated in #419, and again in #493. I don't think I have received one, i.e. one that refutes my argument. There has been the odd repetition of one's own argument, but pretty much no direct response to mine.

I find the absence of the former, and certainly the latter, both astonishing and worrying. I appreciate what you have said; I hope you can appreciate why, for the moment, you must just hold on.

As for it being uncivil and incorrect you are wrong on both counts. You have been asked repeatedly to move forward with your agruement; you have failed to do so.

I am sure there are many people that lurk around and rather than contribute to the discussion simply refer to watch as it unfolds, as such a person I have to say I find your constant stalling, constant belittling of those who try to engage you in civil debate and your constant dodging somewhat frustrating. Maybe you can now move forward, rather than simply restating the same points over and over again.

Please deliver your punch line. It is like listening to somebody trying to tell a very long joke, hoping that the punch line will excuse the tediously long wait and it will all be worth it in the end. From where I stand this thread as stalled and it is down to you to move it forward, nobody is interested in reading the same things over and over again.

So are you actually going to proceed or subject everybody to further boredom and tedious repetition?

 

[lapman]

Ok, we'll try this again.

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.

So I will post them again. Anyone who is interested in arguing this point, please refer to them- click the reply button, and go through them. To recap the former:

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".

That whole thing is blatantly false. The "new PH" is simply a surprise military attack by a technologically Superior force. The is shown it the following passage from PNAC:

"Absent a rigorous program of experimentation to investigate the nature of the revolution in military affairs as it applies to war at sea, the Navy might face a future Pearl Harbor – as unprepared for war in the post-carrier era as it was unprepared for war at the dawn of the carrier age".

Just because 9/11 was a "catastrophic and catalysing event," doesn't mean that it is what the PNAC was referring to.

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

No, to equate the two is brainless.

I think this is quite simple.

**********
(snip)

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.

False. The aim of the PNAC is to insure our technological advantage over every other military force to keep the US hegemony as it is throughout the 21st century and beyond.

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.

False. The PNAC's vision did not include the WOT. A paradigm shift needed to occur to fight a stateless war.

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.

Again. Another baseless statement trying to provide some sort of link between the PNAC and 9/11.

 

[T.A.M.]

As to "why i do it", I find feeding trolls to be useless, serving only the needs of the troll, and as a result I SUGGEST to others, that doing so is counter productive, and that they perhaps should stop.

TAM

 

[Brainache]

Gladly.

The argument that has been made is that they stated that a new PH would be propitious to policy. Nothin else.

If you want to dispute this, please refer to either post #419/#493.

But they actually state the opposite. Their stated aim is slow and steady change with an emphasis on new technologies. A new PH was described as catastrophic. Nowhere do they state that a new PH would be propitious.

You have said that they would never state that they wanted a new PH and are using the lack of such a statement to somehow prove that a new PH is advantageous for them.

My brain hurts. Ook

 

[HyJinX]

I completely agree with TAM on this one. Nothing worthwhile can come of this thread. We've all been infected with Christophera Syndrome.

So.....LET'S MOVE ALONG....NOTHING TO SEE HERE

 

[Pardalis]

But they actually state the opposite. Their stated aim is slow and steady change with an emphasis on new technologies.

But of course that's the part where they lied... they are not idiot enough to divulge their entire plan.

 

[Kage]

mjd1982,

Here are some questions that your theory fails to answer:

How many Osama bin Ladens are there? If there is one, why hasn't the government produced hime before either of the last two elections? If there is two, why hasn't eh real Osama come forward?

If the purpose of the 9/11 attacks was to garner support for a war in Iraq, why were the hijackers from Saudi Arabia? Why did the Bush Admin want to put suspicion onto one of their biggest backers in the region instead of putting it squarely on the head of the country they wished to overthrow?

If the Bush Admin was willing to spend billions of dollars and countless man hours on a hugely difficult and unwieldy plan to attack the WTC, why then did they not fake WMDs in Iraq? Why spend so much money on one side of this plan and yet refuse to spend money on an arabic typewriter and a vial of antrax?