The 9/11 Conspiracy Facts

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Thanks for the offer. First, a question: is that your sister in your avatar?

Uh, that's Dimebag Darrell; guitar odG of Pantera, Damage Plan and Rebel Meets Rebel. R.I.P.

 

[WildCat]

While we're waiting for mjd1982 to find a single 9/11 Conspiracy Fact enjoy this video:

 

[MIKILLINI]

I Read PNAC again, and, again I understand the intent of the Project is how America will remain as a global power, the procedures required and steps to be taken are spelled out along with the estimation of time that will be needed for this to be realized.
The point your attempting to make, MJD, is to show the intent of the PNACers as agreeing on, or to use another word, conspiring that a catastrophic and catalyzing event would be more beneficial than the process over the course of time, as spelled out in the document. Ok. Got that
Now if you ask the question; Since a catastrophic and catalyzing event happened re; 9/11, would this be favorable to their stated policy of the new PH event to expedite these transformations? The simple answer for that is yes, it would speed up the process, since time and events have answered this question.
But the question I would like you to answer is; Did the Bush/Neocons intend to expedite this transformation or was it just a noted exception that, if it happened, would alter their blueprint for transformation?

What I believe the PNAC document to be is what their policy is;

The project proceeded by holding a series of seminars. We asked outstanding defense specialists to write papers to explore a variety of topics: the future missions and requirements of the individual military services, the role of the reserves, nuclear strategic doctrine and missile defenses, the defense budget and prospects for military modernization, the state (training and
readiness) of today’s forces, the revolution in military affairs, and defense-planning for
theater wars, small wars and constabulary operations. The papers were circulated to a
group of participants, chosen for their experience and judgment in defense affairs.
Each paper then became the basis for discussion and debate. Our goal was to use the papers to assist deliberation, to generate and test ideas, and to assist us in developing our final report.
While each paper took as its starting point a shared strategic point of view, we made no
attempt to dictate the views or direction of the individual papers. We wanted as full and as diverse a discussion as possible. Our report borrows heavily from those deliberations. But we did not ask seminar participants to “sign-off” on the final report. We wanted frank discussions and we sought to avoid the pitfalls of trying to produce a consensual but bland product. We wanted to
try to define and describe a defense strategy that is honest, thoughtful, bold, internally
consistent and clear. And we wanted to spark a serious and informed discussion, the
essential first step for reaching sound conclusions and for gaining public support.

This seems propitious for a long term plan.

 

[twinstead]

Oh for crying out loud mjd just smack us down with your NEXT incontrovertible bit of evidence that 911 was an inside job already, huh!

Just keep in mind that in RATIONAL company, what you may think is a smoking gun just may not be all that smokin', nicht wahr?

 

[stateofgrace]

While we're waiting for mjd1982 to find a single 9/11 Conspiracy Fact enjoy this video:

If anybody gets bored during the intermission here is another video.

 

[Brainache]

Which poster was it, a while back, who had the same MO as mjd? remember, he came here, said he was going to convince us that 9/11 was an inside job, but we had to follow precise steps, addressing one point, then he would "allow" us to move on. Same "better than everyone" tone. Who was that? Was it 28th kingdom? I cannot remember, anyone??

TAM

Might have been Scooby. Or 28th.

 

[T.A.M.]

Yah his last post, where he made the comment about "This is how it is going to work" (paraphrasing) kind of really gave it away for me. This is either a sock puppet of one of the former posters, or their MO is near identical.

TAM

 

[twinstead]

Yah his last post, where he made the comment about "This is how it is going to work" (paraphrasing) kind of really gave it away for me. This is either a sock puppet of one of the former posters, or their MO is near identical.

TAM

Actually, there appears to be an entire sect of arrogant, condescending truthers.

I've always thought that the only thing worse than being wrong and not trying to learn is being wrong and not trying to learn in an arrogant and condescending way.

 

[Mobyseven]

I would disagree with that. A debate should start by establishing premises. This is what is occurring here.

Forgive me for being blunt, but if it takes a person 16 pages to establish a basic premise, that premise needs to be better thought out.

Of course, if what you mean is that you have a strawman argument that is disconnected from reality, and that you want people to accept as a true premise as the rest of your argument depends on it...well, that is going to take a hell of a lot more time than the universe has to spare.

 

[Mobyseven]

You are eaten by wasp infected bear-wasps.

The End​

 

[Mobyseven]

So...I would like everyone who believes 911 wasnt a new PH to respond to #416; those who believe PNAC didnt deem it propitious to policy, respond to #493.

You find yourself at a crossroads. Down one road simply leads you in a circle, arguing the same points over and over again. Down another path lies a different fate, and one that seems preferable to the circular path.

To go down the circular path go to post #416 or #493.

To take the preferable path, go to post #710

 

[aggle-rithm]

Forgive me for being blunt, but if it takes a person 16 pages to establish a basic premise, that premise needs to be better thought out.

Or he simply needs to explain it more clearly. However, his tactic is to do the opposite, and therefore keep the discussion in limbo, where he can pretend he is superior to everyone else until everyone gets bored and leaves.

It's all about feeding his ego.

 

[AZCat]

You find yourself at a crossroads. Down one road simply leads you in a circle, arguing the same points over and over again. Down another path lies a different fate, and one that seems preferable to the circular path.

To go down the circular path go to post #416 or #493.

To take the preferable path, go to post #710

What is this - a Choose Your Own Adventure story?

 

[Myriad]

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.

I agree with your description of what the aim of this section is, and that you've stated it many times.

One person has admitted so, but that is all so far.

It's not clear whether the person you're referring to was convinced, or simply agreed "for the sake of argument," which many others have also done. This appears to be a minor point, though, so there's no need for me to contest it.

However, I agree completely with the claim that "The aim of this section is... simply to show that a new PH was propitious to policy for PNAC/The Bush Admin." That does indeed appear to be the aim of this section.

But after that, the question is, did they want the transformation to happen over decades, or over mths/years.

I'm not sure whether that's the question, but it certainly is a question. So, I accept this claim that the question is what you say it is.

I think that ordinarily would be obvious.

I disagree with this claim. There is no reason to believe that a question regarding the plans and motives of a large group of individuals with complex political agendas (and with, you seem to have posited in your OP, a penchant for conspiracy, misrepresentation, and outright treason) regarding an issue with complex technical, strategic, economic, and geopolitical dimensions should be "obvious." You will have to show evidence that the answer is obvious.

but we can argue it here

I tentatively agree that that is a hypothetical possibility, if by "we" you mean "you." However, "we" (you) have not been very successful arguing it here so far, so I would need to see evidence to support the claim that "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.

I agree that this is a possible basis on which you might argue your claim. However, it will be quite difficult to do so successfully, as you will have to show evidence that this particular speculation about their state of mind regarding how to achieve their aims is more likely to accurately reflect their state of mind than other alternative speculations that have also been offered in this thread.

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.

I agree that this is a possible bases on which you might argue your claim, but I would advise against it, as it sets an extremely high bar for your claim. It would require you to show evidence that (1) the decision makers not only wanted to act quickly in the long time scale (that is, early in the century) but quickly in the short term time scale of four years, (2) they believed that laying the necessary short-term groundwork for the program required influencing the QDR beyond the enormous influence the PNAC members already had over the content of the QDR and over policy decision-making within the administration in office during the subsequent quadrennial. Evidence of the thoughts and beliefs of politicians and policy-makers whose honesty is in question is going to be difficult to produce.

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.

I agree that this is a possible basis on which you might argue your claim. However, it will again be a difficult challenge to do so, because it requires you to find evidence to support this speculation about the thinking of "power hungry politicians" regarding complex technical, economic, and geopolitical issues. Without such evidence, other speculations appear just as plausible.

If anyone is going to argue why this is not the case, I will be very interested to read it.

I disagree with this claim. People have argued why this is not the case, and you have shown no sign of taking interest in reading it.

Now PLEASE address these points.

I disagree with the implied claim, that you wish people to address these points. You appear to only wish people to agree with your opininons and unfounded speculations, which is not "addressing" the points according to the standard of discourse on this board.

Also, the LC guide riposte delivered very early on, has not been touched by any of you "truth seekers".

I disagree with this claim. It has indeed been touched on.

Please don't be evasive.

I agree with this claim. That you don't want people to be evasive appears to be an accurate description of your desires.

Address the points, and we will all make some progress.

I disagree with this claim. People have addressed the points, yet we have all made no progress.

Summary: I have now responded to every claim that you made in the relevant (latter) half of post 493, giving my own honest assessment of each one. I hope you find those responses satisfying. I believe others have refrained from responding directly to your claims, because they felt that you would not find the respnses satisfying, but I have taken you at your word and responded precisely to each part of each claim you made.

To sum things up in general, the post claims that you hold certain opinions. With the exceptions and reservations detailed above, I agree that you do hold those opinions.

Now, can we move on to the next stage of discussion, in which you reveal why the fact that you hold these opinions is of any significance?

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[Stellafane]

Actually, there appears to be an entire sect of arrogant, condescending truthers...

I noticed that. They remind me of the kind of drivers who run a stop sign, cut you off, nearly cause an accident -- and then swear and flip you off like it's all your fault. I guess if they're stupid enough to do it in the first place, they're stupid enough to think you're to blame.

Arrogance and stupidity: a particularly deadly and frustrating combination.

 

[Mobyseven]

What is this - a Choose Your Own Adventure story?

It immediately popped into my head when I read mjd's post.

 

[MIKILLINI]

Just before we get into things, I will state that I do believe that those who are not “Truthers” fall into 2 categories- ill informed (~90%) and deluded (the rest).

Well here was his problem right away, he believes that us "non-believers" have shoddy information or the sources of info We use are of a dubious nature, and the rest of us "non-believers" are delusional.

 

[Jocce]

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.

No, it is not necessarily logical that they would want it to be created soon. In the document it is said that they prefer the transformation to take place over the comming decades. Sometimes slower is better in the long term and nothing in the document points to a fast change being necessary.

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.

Yes, correct. Those elements were laid out in PNAC and advocated a long, gradual change. 911 was unexpected and most likely led to recommendations in QDR that wasn't part of the long term strategy laid out in PNAC. But sh** happens.

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.

Again, a revolutionary change is not asked for in PNAC. A power hungry politician would certainly want changes to take place within his own life time so he would benefit from it but since the PNAC writers advocates a gradual change over decades it seem like they're not really power hungry but actually wants to create something good, no?

There, point by point answered as you wanted.

 

[Belz...]

If I have understood you correctly (tell me if not), you are stating that the Bush admin would have had to be dastardly clever to pull of 9/11, whereas they are totally stupid, given the Iraq no WMD thing?

Actually, they'd have to be completely mindless to plan this in the first place. They'd have to be incredible geniuses for actually pulling it off without any person with relevant expertise noticing. But with the "clues" you guys claim to see, they have to be absolute BLUNDERING, mindless geniuses. Know anyone like that, Mjd ?

This has been addressed; I dont think that this attack is particularly clever; i think it is as bungled and obvious an inside job as could be conceived.

Then why can't any of us see it ?

I am not stating that mean+motive=inside job. [...] I am aiming to show that there is suficient evidence of government complicity to warrant a new investigation into such.

So what you ARE saying is that "mens+motive=suspicion".

I want people to reply to my point- is this too much to ask?

We have ALL replied to your points several times. We said that the new PH you keep talking about was NOT "propitious" to policy, and that even if it were (that's the part where you misquote me) it wouldn't make it suspicious. That is the WHOLE of it. Since we disagree completely that the PNAC document brings an important point about 9/11, you'll have to show us the rest of your reasons to believe that event was an inside job. Forget the document, we (I) do not agree with your interpretation of it. Let's move on, shall we ?

The attack that was being referenced was an attack that would permit the changes envisaged in RAD to take place.

But those changes didn't occur. How do you explain that ?

I am arguing the probability that one might happen, absent goverment complicity, retroactively, in light of the factors that make one so unlikely.

Ah! Good. What are those factors ?

I'm begging you, and your colleagues, to do it

"Collegues" ?

 

[Belz...]

Gravy, if you're not married, feel free to come down here and take one of my sisters off my hands. You crack me up

Question: How many of those sisters do you have ?