The 9/11 Conspiracy Facts

mortimer · Jun 15, 2007

mjd1982 said:
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.

Y Kant MJD Read?

People HAVE addressed the argument. They don't agree with your theory that 9/11 was a new PH, nor that it was a propitious event for PNAC's policy. They do understand that you think that it was.

Now move on, please.

aggle-rithm · Jun 15, 2007

mortimer said:
Y Kant MJD Read?

People HAVE addressed the argument. They don't agree with your theory that 9/11 was a new PH, nor that it was a propitious event for PNAC's policy. They do understand that you think that it was.

Now move on, please.

I think the problem is that the responses aren't formatted correctly. He wants us to use the quote function, and to alternate our responses with each point that he has made, one by one. If that isn't done properly, he will send it back for revisions.

So, get cracking, people! We don't want an angry troll on our hands, do we?

DGM · Jun 15, 2007

I stand with and agree with MortFurd's post #659

Can we move on now?

Dave Rogers · Jun 15, 2007

mjd1982 said:
A pont about hegemony- military hegemony is clear for the US right now (not that I would state defeating Iraq andf Afghanistan is a measure of that), but the point of PNAC is to ensure it is invulnerable. Such will be hindered by a growing superpower, such as China, militarising space, and controlling cyberspace as a defense/offense tool. I incidentally have a friend who works for BAE, and he tells me that no one in the weapons industry cares for Islamic terrorism; it is chinese cyberterrorism tht has got everyone scared. Similar was stated by Dick Clarke.

Precisely. And yet 9/11 has taken everyone's eyes, and huge amounts of money and manpower, off the serious long term threat to US hegemony and concentrated them on Islamic terrorism, which, although capable of taking many lives and destroying property, presents no long term threat to the national integrity of the United States. You have very strongly supported the point that 9/11 was the wrong attack to further the aims of PNAC.

Dave

WildCat · Jun 15, 2007

T.A.M. said:
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

Understood T.A.M., but some of us like throwing them a peanut just out of their reach so we can snicker at their funny antics as they try to get at it.

jab712 · Jun 15, 2007

aggle-rithm said:
I think the problem is that the responses aren't formatted correctly. He wants us to use the quote function, and to alternate our responses with each point that he has made, one by one. If that isn't done properly, he will send it back for revisions.

So, get cracking, people! We don't want an angry troll on our hands, do we?

I think you are right.

So which posts are we replying to again? 416, 419 or 493???

mjd1982 · Jun 15, 2007

lapman said:
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.

Yes, I have provided you this. Indeed I have provided you everythign you have asked. Go to p3, where I have posted an as yet unreplied critique to gravys lc guide, and you will see (i'm pretty sure it is there) links to documents stating what is being carried out (e.g. nuclear weapon build up), and why it is being done (9/11, WOT). Here is another example for you, agai lifted from the doc, the need to transform the DoD.

http://www.defenselink.mil/transformation/about_transformation.html

The Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks on the United States accelerated the need to transform to better meet the challenges of the 21st century, thus, sustain American competitive advantage in warfare.

This is one example amongst a load. The rest I have given you already.

As for stating that "nowhere does it say", it is overwhelmingly implied. I have shown how. You have contested, I have refuted. Now you go back to saying "It just didnt". That comment has zero value.

mjd1982 · Jun 15, 2007

HyJinX said:
Sure...virtually every post that wasn't yours.

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?

Don't worry, I'll bear your evasion in mind.

It wasnt a tough request.

Edited by Lisa Simpson:

Personal attack removed.

Never mind.

mjd1982 · Jun 16, 2007

JonnyFive said:
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.
[/quote]

I repeat: you are confused. No one is arguing whether it did happen. The point is whether it happened with government complicity. Think about this, and it should help you.

JonnyFive said:
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."

Show me where i said this please.

JonnyFive said:
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.

Yes, but your point wasnt about the government rigging the lottery; it was about Mrs Jones influencing the lottery results.

JonnyFive said:
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.

Hehehe... I am screaming at you to answer my points. Nothing else. Please show me the people who have done so; please note the difference between answering a point and restating one's own.

Unsecured Coins · Jun 16, 2007

mjd1982 said:
You are a coward.

Oh my word.. you just didn't go there, you stole every bathrobe and towel in the place, peed on the bed, and kicked in the TV screen on your way out the door

mjd1982 · Jun 16, 2007

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

You believe PNAC wanted to get a jump start on their plan. Message acknowledged. Disagree. They are planning for the long term.

Having a jump start on something does not negate planning for the long term. PNAC have a long term plan; but they want it implemented early. Simple.

MortFurd said:
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.

As has been addressed too many times here, the money has gone to precisely what they wanted. Please see my rebuttal to the LCGuide on p3 if you want to learn more.

But thanks for the response.

Unsecured Coins · Jun 16, 2007

bottom line, you're a LIHOPer? right?

Pardalis · Jun 16, 2007

Unsecured Coins said:
Oh my word.. you just didn't go there, you stole every bathrobe and towel in the place, peed on the bed, and kicked in the TV screen on your way out the door

WildCat · Jun 16, 2007

WildCat said:
From dealing with him the last few months at SLC...

1. Post the extremely long "blizzard of BS" post.
2. Challenge anyone to debunk it.
3. Point 1 is debunked.
4. mjd1982 calls you a chimp and drops a 100 links that may or may not have anything to do with the points raised.
5. You go through the first 5 links, and are unable to see where any of them support his points.
6. mjd1982 calls you a chimp.
7. repeat ad nauseam.

We're now in the ad nauseam phase.

mjd1982 · Jun 16, 2007

mortimer said:
Y Kant MJD Read?

People HAVE addressed the argument. They don't agree with your theory that 9/11 was a new PH, nor that it was a propitious event for PNAC's policy. They do understand that you think that it was.

Now move on, please.

I think debate works by one side making a point, and the other side addressing the others point, and so on, until a conclusion. It doesnt work by one side stating his point. the other stating his own point, and repeat. This is, unfortunately, what has been happening. You provide another instance of such.

mjd1982 · Jun 16, 2007

Dave Rogers said:
Precisely. And yet 9/11 has taken everyone's eyes, and huge amounts of money and manpower, off the serious long term threat to US hegemony and concentrated them on Islamic terrorism, which, although capable of taking many lives and destroying property, presents no long term threat to the national integrity of the United States. You have very strongly supported the point that 9/11 was the wrong attack to further the aims of PNAC.

Dave

That is completely wrong. Please go and read the links I have provided on p3. The resources for pursuing hegemony as per pnac have been provided, under the aegis of the WOT/911. This is where so many "debunkers" fall down.

Please read the links.

stateofgrace · Jun 16, 2007

mjd1982 said:
I repeat: