The 9/11 Conspiracy Facts

[mortimer]

mjd,

please move on to your next point. you can't stay on this point until everyone, or even a certain number, agrees with you. just stay on a point until everyone understands your point. your point #1: 9/11 was a new Pearl Harbor that was propitious to the plan laid out by PNAC. everyone understands that is what you believe, even if they don't agree with it. so now it's time for your next point, please.

 

[HyJinX]

Until we turn to another topic.....I present to you...BUBBA!

 

[mjd1982]

This is the thrust of your arguments about the PNAC, from your OP. Note that this is just an extended argument from incredulity. You find it unlikely that such events would happen in, as you see it, such a beneficial order for the government. You say this alone builds a "robust case" for the Truth Movement.

Well, in that it is an argument framed by "It is unlikely that... is not the case". In this sense, any cause for criminal investigation would be based on an argument from incredulity. Sprinter X has been seen hanging round Balco Labs, has had his 100m pb up by .5 of a second, and is going bald- it is unlikely that he is not on drugs. Cause for investigation into whether he is or isnt. My argument is the same.

However, this says absolutely nothing. While the probability of an event such as 9/11 occurring is indeed extremely low, the fact is that it did occur. Thus, any arguments about its liklihood are essentially worthless. The probability of all events that have already occurred is 1. Even if the probability of the events happening in sequence again would 1 in a trillion, the point is that those events did occur.

No, you're confused I'm afraid. I am not arguing the probability that a new PH did happen. I am arguing the probability that one might happen, absent goverment complicity, retroactively, in light of the factors that make one so unlikely. Think about it for a second.

This is why I say that, absent other evidence, this means nothing. For you to say things like this it implies that you don't work with probability much, and certainly not with risk probability. The simple point is that ◊◊◊◊ happens. On a long enough time line, or with a big enough sample, you're very likely to see a few highly improbable events.
Even something, as so say, as improbable as someone alluding to a catalysing event, having the power to theoretically create it (or allow it to happen) and, just a few months later, there it is!

Yes, I am not denying such. Hence, as you will now be aware, the argument is that PNAC stated such was propitious, and then the gov were criminally negligent on an unimaginable scale in failing to stop it. Thus we have openly stated motive for an action, plus gross criminal negligence in failing to stop such action, which is a robust case for investigation.

But so what? It doesn't prove anything. It doesn't even mean anything. No more than someone really needing money and winning to lottery the next day. It's simply a coincidence. It's not like you found damning evidence - say, a memo talking about staging terrorist attacks or something.

A really bad analogy. For a start, no one has the power to make themselves win the lottery.

ETA: Did I address your argument sufficiently for your liking, mjd? It appears that it's essentially a gussied-up argument-from-incredulity, or perhaps you might call it an argument-from-improbability. Unless you can dig up something more direct, all you're left with is "gee whiz, this was really unlikely and therefore suspicious." And you're claiming that this is important to your point? Oy.

Dealt with. Plus, you havent addressed the argument I have referred you to. Why dont u do this?

I'm begging you, and your colleagues, to do it![ #493!/U]

 

[MortFurd]

I'm about a millisecond away from posting cat pictures.

I'd much rather you posted pictures of your avatar in action with his film partners - but that won't fly here at JREF. Gotta keep it clean.

 

[mjd1982]

mjd,

please move on to your next point. you can't stay on this point until everyone, or even a certain number, agrees with you. just stay on a point until everyone understands your point. your point #1: 9/11 was a new Pearl Harbor that was propitious to the plan laid out by PNAC. everyone understands that is what you believe, even if they don't agree with it. so now it's time for your next point, please.

M8, as I have said countless times, I dont care if people agree, all i want is for people to address the argument. Y dont they? Y dont u? 225 posts, pretty much nothing.

The level of self deception is staggering.

 

[Pardalis]

I'd much rather you posted pictures of your avatar in action with his film partners - but that won't fly here at JREF. Gotta keep it clean.

I didn't know[SIZE=-1] Khalid Sheikh Mohammed[/SIZE] made porn movies.

 

[HyJinX]

I'd much rather you posted pictures of your avatar in action with his film partners - but that won't fly here at JREF. Gotta keep it clean.

Tis true. I'm afraid that Bubba is about as good as it'll get.

 

[mjd1982]

Yes...tis true. However, this has happened repeatedly on this thread. Many participants have points, counterpoints and rebuttals. Most debates do not end with all parties agreeing on one point. You've made you case. Many others have made theirs. I think there has been enough information from both sides that firmly state each opposing view. It's now time to move on and let the readers decide for themselves on which side to agree with. That is how debates work...no?



Read above.



It has been done. No new information is being presented. Let the reader decide now.



Many, many people here have answered your posts. Those who did not reply to directly may feel as though someone else has made a statement that supports their own personal belief on this subject. You certainly don't expect everyone with an apposing view to state it if somebody has already stated it...correct.

It's a dead horse.

Simple request- please give me the post numbers where my posts have been directly replied to, and where they have not been responded to.

If there are none, please tell me why this is.

And I will also ask you- y dont u reply to the post? #493, very easy.

 

[Unsecured Coins]

Until we turn to another topic.....I present to you...BUBBA!

 

[HyJinX]

I didn't know[SIZE=-1] Khalid Sheikh Mohammed[/SIZE] made porn movies.

Uhh....ew. The thought of that, ALONE, is a terrorist attack on my senses.

 

[lapman]

The next step will come shortly.

The attack that was being referenced was an attack that would permit the changes envisaged in RAD to take place. Such has, to a massive extent, occurred. Hence 9/11 wasa propitious attack for PNAC. The facts that back this up are on the link I gave to you.

Nowhere does it say that a new PH is required or even recommended. You don't provide any evidence that shows that without 9/11, nothing would have been accomplished. In other words, you provide no basis for comparison or anything that would show that without 9/11 or the WOT, none of the recommendations of the PNAC would have been carried out in a timely manner.

 

[MortFurd]

mjd,

please move on to your next point. you can't stay on this point until everyone, or even a certain number, agrees with you. just stay on a point until everyone understands your point. your point #1: 9/11 was a new Pearl Harbor that was propitious to the plan laid out by PNAC. everyone understands that is what you believe, even if they don't agree with it. so now it's time for your next point, please.

Yes, for crap's sake we get the point:
You believe that 9/11 was part of the PNAC plan. Got it. Next.

 

[HyJinX]

Simple request- please give me the post numbers where my posts have been directly replied to

Sure...virtually every post that wasn't yours.

And I will also ask you- y dont u reply to the post? #493, very easy.

Because I agree with virtually every post that wasn't yours. No need to recreate the wheel.

So...are we going to move on OR do I need to bring out every cat picture I own?

 

[Unsecured Coins]

do I need to bring out every cat picture I own?

heheh... I dare you

 

[JonnyFive]

No, you're confused I'm afraid. I am not arguing the probability that a new PH did happen. I am arguing the probability that one might happen, absent goverment complicity, retroactively, in light of the factors that make one so unlikely. Think about it for a second.

That is irrelevant. As I mentioned, the probability of any event happening that has already happened is always one. It doesn't matter how unlikely it was before, or how likely it was to happen with or without government intervention. The point is that it did happen, however unlikely, and without additional proof, the fact that it did happen is meaningless.

On a long enough time line, you will see outliers of probability. Unless you can come up with something more than you have, this looks like nothing more than a coincidence. Sorry, mjd, you're just not very convincing. All you give me is speculation and "but it was convenient!" So what? It was convenient this morning that I found a nice spot by the train right as someone was pulling out, and the probability of that occurring again would be quite low. That doesn't suggest that I got out of the car and threatened the person until they left. It's certainly within my power to do so, and it really helped me out this morning to not be running late.

Yes, I am not denying such. Hence, as you will now be aware, the argument is that PNAC stated such was propitious, and then the gov were criminally negligent on an unimaginable scale in failing to stop it. Thus we have openly stated motive for an action, plus gross criminal negligence in failing to stop such action, which is a robust case for investigation.

That's not what you said, though. You said that the PNAC alone was sufficient. If that's not what you meant, then stop obsessing over the PNAC and talk about the evidence you have for "gross negligence."

A really bad analogy. For a start, no one has the power to make themselves win the lottery.

Actually, it's a perfectly apt analogy. Ability to influence results has nothing to do with their a priori probability of happening, which has nothing to do with what it means when something did happen. The government certainly could rig the lottery in one person's favor, but the fact that their winning is unlikely isn't evidence that such a thing happened. Even if it would be in the government's favor (it would make them look so nice to help old Ms. Jones out with her rent... ever notice how many old and poor people win the lottery, mjd?), it still doesn't provide evidence.

Dealt with. Plus, you havent addressed the argument I have referred you to. Why dont u do this?

I'm begging you, and your colleagues, to do it![ #493!/U]

Several people have addressed the arguments you're referring to. You are starting to break down, and are not debating rationally. Screaming at us will not help make your case.

 

[aggle-rithm]

I'm going to steal a phrase I read in a different forum:

"Dude, stop re-inventing the dead horse and beating it with a wheel!"

 

[calebprime]

Operator, please connect me with 1982
I need to make apologies for what I didn't do
I sure do need to tell him that I've thought the whole thing through
And now it's clear that he is what I should have held on to


Chorus
They say eyesights's twenty-twenty
But I'm nearly goin' blind
From starin' at his photograph and wishing he was mine
It's that same ole lost love story
It's sad but it's true
There was a time when he was mine in 1982


Verse 2
Postman can you sell me a special kind of stamp
One to send a letter from this crazy lonely man
Back into the wasted years of my living past
I need to tell him now I know how long my love will last


(Chorus)

Losin' my mind, goin' back in time to 1982


http://www.utm.edu/staff/dkeown/m/Randy Travis - 1982.mp3

this link may be toxic...

 

[stateofgrace]

M8, as I have said countless times, I dont care if people agree, all i want is for people to address the argument. Y dont they? Y dont u? 225 posts, pretty much nothing.

The level of self deception is staggering.

There is no self deception only self delusion. This comes from you, you are deluding yourself that anybody cares anymore what you have to say about this subject, and you have stated your case, period.

It as been requested of you countless times to move on and move this debate forward.

Now stop the self delusion, stop pretending that you have thrashed everybody into the ground, people are simply tied of repeating themselves to you. In a debate, you state your case, people who disagree state theirs, and a compromise is eventually reached. In as such the compromise is that you wish to force your views down other peoples throats, other people refuse to allow you to do this.

Stop flogging the dead horse, bring something new into this debate or suffer death by cats.

Now, your next point is?

 

[MortFurd]

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".

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

I think this is quite simple.

Acknowledged. Message heard. Disagree. I've read the PNAC document. Your paranoia is clouding your interpretation of the written words.

**********

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.

You believe PNAC wanted to get a jump start on their plan. Message acknowledged. Disagree. They are planning for the long term. The follow up to 9/11 has cost money that would (according to PNAC) have been better spent on R&D and deployment of improved weapons systems instead of having been blown over the Iraqi desert.

******

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.

Addressed. Acknowledged. We have your standpoint.

Next point please. Make it march. I want to see what you've got before the sun burns out.

 

[sleahead]

Dear me, mjd has turned out to be a troll. How disappointing.