The 9/11 Conspiracy Facts

[DGM]

Hahaha...its not speculation, its debate my friend. You can either engage in it, or not. Sitting there saying "it didnt happen, your wrong", just wastes your time more than anyone else.

So 1000 post later what have you got everyone/anyone to agree on.

 

[volatile]

Right. So "BASE" have a plan to do all this. How is this relevant? I dont dispute their involvement, nor their assuming a large weight of guilt. We all know that. Of course, this does not mean anything about PNAC/Bush admin, which is what the argument relates to.

It's been explained before - you can't believe in LIHOP and MIHOP at the same time; they're mutually exclusive!

How can Al-Qaeda have been involved at the same time as the Bush government, if, as you contend, PNAC shows evidence of government complicity?

 

[MortFurd]

Right. So "BASE" have a plan to do all this. How is this relevant? I dont dispute their involvement, nor their assuming a large weight of guilt. We all know that. Of course, this does not mean anything about PNAC/Bush admin, which is what the argument relates to.

Well, gee. They've explicitly said that they plan to do all of these things.

You've got a single vague reference that you've tortured and stretched to make it sound like 9/11 was PNAC's plan.

Al Queda: Clear "we are going to kick your ass."
PNAC: "It'd fark up our plans if someone kicked our ass."


Who would any reasonable person figure did it? Al Queda.

 

[mjd1982]

"Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor. Domestic politics and industrial policy will shape the pace and content of transformation as much as the requirements of current missions.

A decision to suspend or terminate aircraft carrier production, as recommended by this report and as justified by the clear direction of military technology, will cause great upheaval. Likewise, systems entering production today - the F-22 fighter, for example - will be in service inventories for decades to come. Wise management of this process will consist in large measure of figuring out the right moments to halt production of current-paradigm weapons and shift to radically new designs. The expense associated with some programs can make them roadblocks to the larger process of transformation - the Joint Strike Fighter program, at a total of approximately $200 billion, seems an unwise investment. Thus, this report advocates a two-stage process of change - transition and transformation - over the coming decades."

For your convenience i bolded some parts that points out some reasons why you would sometimes want a slower process. I also took the liberty to italize (sp.) and bold the last line which tells what this report actually recommends/calls for/deems propituous to plan.

Anything else is speculation on your part that they are lying when they say they prefer a process of change rather than an immediate transformation.

Ok, the answer has been given a thousand times already, but i'll do it again. 1stly, I dont say that they are calling for immediate change.

More to the point, they have a choice. The change can happen soon with a new PH, or long absent a new PH. So, when they state what they advocate, they can either say
1. "this report advocates a two-stage process of change - transition and transformation - over the coming decades."
or
2. "This report advoates the occurence of a new PH which should occur ideally before the 2001 QDR".

It is not going to do the latter. This does not mean that it doesnt deem the latter propitous; it just means that the former is the option that it has opted to openly advocate, unsurprising, since the other option is insane.

If you bear this fact in mind, your interpretation of the rest of the quote should be clearer.

 

[Gravy]

Is he having a laugh? He's having a laugh! </Extras>

The irrational side of me wishes that he's having a laugh. The rational side offers $20 that he's not. Any takers?

 

[mjd1982]

So 1000 post later what have you got everyone/anyone to agree on.

I'm not looking to "get people to agree" with me. I state the facts, I debate them, and people , if they are honest and sensible, will come to honest and sensible conclusions. If they are not, then they wont. If they are cowardly, they wont even bother engaging. seriously. I think the latter can be said for most participants on this thread.

 

[Gravy]

Hahaha... ok, my bad.

Holy crap.

 

[mjd1982]

The irrational side of me wishes that he's having a laugh. The rational side offers $20 that he's not. Any takers?

And right on cue look who we have! Well timed Gravy. Youve been busy amending your LC Guide i presume.

Quick question- in your foreknowledge section, you omit any reference to Bush being offered OBL in feb 01, or that he was warned by Tenet 40 times, or that he demoted the main hindrance to an AQ attack, pretty much as soon as he got into office.

Why did you do this? To quote yourself, was it cowardice or incompetence?

 

[mjd1982]

It's been explained before - you can't believe in LIHOP and MIHOP at the same time; they're mutually exclusive!

How can Al-Qaeda have been involved at the same time as the Bush government, if, as you contend, PNAC shows evidence of government complicity?

LMAO... This is getting desperate, SLC levels.

I have explained this too many times. The PNAC doc shows that they deemed a new PH propitious to policy. The forewarnings showed they knew that one was coming, and did nothing to stop it.

Stop getting confused by acronyms, and concentrate on the facts.

 

[mjd1982]

Well, gee. They've explicitly said that they plan to do all of these things.

You've got a single vague reference that you've tortured and stretched to make it sound like 9/11 was PNAC's plan.

Al Queda: Clear "we are going to kick your ass."
PNAC: "It'd fark up our plans if someone kicked our ass."


Who would any reasonable person figure did it? Al Queda.

How would it "fark" them up??! Read the document please.

And how the hell is it "vague"? I think we have another HL in disguise here...

Oh, and I agree that a reasonable person would think AQ did it, assuming that reasonable person had no idea of the facts. If they did, they would come to the conclusions that are evident from this thread.

I note, btw, that no one wants to argue foreknowledge. Why is this?

 

[Gravy]

state the facts, I debate them, and people , if they are honest and sensible, will come to honest and sensible conclusions.

No, you state your opinion, which you mistake for fact. Then you lie about what you've said. Then you ignore tough questions. That's all disturbing behavior.

Honest and sensible people here have come to sensible conclusions about your claims. Your inability to see that, and that the burden of proof for your claims remains with you, is your problem.

 

[Jocce]

Ok, the answer has been given a thousand times already, but i'll do it again. 1stly, I dont say that they are calling for immediate change.

Well, actually you did say that on many ocassions and I can point you to those posts if necessary.

More to the point, they have a choice. The change can happen soon with a new PH, or long absent a new PH. So, when they state what they advocate, they can either say
1. "this report advocates a two-stage process of change - transition and transformation - over the coming decades."
or
2. "This report advoates the occurence of a new PH which should occur ideally before the 2001 QDR".

Ehh, actually there are many shades of grey but for the sake of this discussion, agreed.

It is not going to do the latter. This does not mean that it doesnt deem the latter propitous; it just means that the former is the option that it has opted to openly advocate, unsurprising, since the other option is insane.

And here begins your speculation again. You are speculating that they deem a rapid transformation preferable but are lying because they can't tell the truth. Interpretation, speculation, fantasies, call it what you want but it's not a fact.

If you bear this fact in mind, your interpretation of the rest of the quote should be clearer.

You mean if I accept your speculative interpretation I will "understand" the rest of the quote as you do. Nice try.

 

[Gravy]

And right on cue look who we have! Well timed Gravy. Youve been busy amending your LC Guide i presume.

Feel free to point out any errors when you find them. I don't own the website and didn't do the coding, but if there's a major error I'll get it fixed. There are some minor errors, but no one has pointed out anything major that I've gotten wrong yet. I made it 2/3 of the way through a huge revision of that document after LC2ER was released, but got bored with it when it was over 250 pages.

Quick question- in your foreknowledge section, you omit any reference to Bush being offered OBL in feb 01, or that he was warned by Tenet 40 times, or that he demoted the main hindrance to an AQ attack, pretty much as soon as he got into office.

Why did you do this? To quote yourself, was it cowardice or incompetence?

Can you point out where in Loose Change that appears? I thought I knew that video extremely well, and in fact I included a transcript of its narration.

 

[volatile]

LMAO... This is getting desperate, SLC levels.

I have explained this too many times. The PNAC doc shows that they deemed a new PH propitious to policy. The forewarnings showed they knew that one was coming, and did nothing to stop it.

Stop getting confused by acronyms, and concentrate on the facts.

What? You either believe:

a) that the government (or a cabal within it) MADE 9/11 happen as a means to their nefarious ends (MIHOP), and actively orchestrated the events, either by hiring the hijackers or by more exotic means (explosive detonations etc.)

b) the government discovered what Al-Qaeda were planning, and deliberately hid this knowledge from the relevant parties (TSA, for example) in order that the plan would succeed. (LIHOP)

You can't believe both of these scenarios, as they are mutually exclusive. Your "facts" swing violently between these two positions, although in the quote above you seem to be settling into LIHOP.

Is it your contention, then, that the US government had NO HAND WHATSOEVER in planning or carrying out the Al-Qaeda sponsored hijackings of 9/11 (and that they were indeed hijackings, and that there was no other nefarious technological involvement such as explosive charges in the WTC buildings), just that once the plan was uncovered by the intelligence services, those intelligence services members conspired to prevent their discovery from coming to the notice of the police, TSA and other appropriate agencies because the Al-Qaeda plan would be useful to the government's pre-stated political aims?

Please clarify. If this is indeed your position (and you've been quite coy about it), then please state as such and we can move on.

 

[Belz...]

That is speculation on my part, but it is based in fairly sound reasoning. 1stly, all major actiond (e.g accepting the hand over of OBL; dealing with the CSG etc) will be done by the Executive Branch. People lower down the chain can kick and scream, and did, but this comes to nothing if the people at the top of this particular tree are committed to doing nothing.

You're forgetting their ability to go to the media. Or make a web site.

Now this is a silly question. Are you expecting me to pull a number out of a hat? The reason for calling for a new investigation is to determine minutiae such as that; as you will be aware, stating that the conspiracy would have had >100 people involved is zero basis for stating that it did not happen.

Actually, it is. Since thousands of people would have to be involved, we KNOW, historically, that the secret would not have remained hidden for long. Since NO ONE has spoken out, it's a safe bet that said conspiracy does not exist. Otherwise we have to add ANOTHER assumption as to why no one spoke out.

Hahaha... oh boy, what a seeker of truth you are.

We don't seek the truth. That usually boils down to circular reasoning.

How is that hand waving?

Well, you didn't respond. Perhaps you can correct this perception of mine by answering it now, in summary.

1. I have dealt with this a million times already
2. It is an horrific analogy, since the person has little capacity to cause a car crash by himself covertly. This is very hard.
3. It was good, since it has enabled PNAC to achieve a huge degree of what they wanted.

1. Irrelevant.
2. You have no idea how she could cause an accident. You've decided to alter the parameters of the scenario to make it impossible, but that changes NOTHING about the analogy. You're coming right back to your assumption that means entails action.
3. What they wanted ? How exactly have those changes been good ?

Oh God... please start improving the quality of your posts if you want me to spend time replying to them.

Your condescending tone is noted.

2nd, when OBL was offered on a plate in feb, he could have said yes.

You keep claiming that. Source, please ?

when Bush was told in June/July that AQ had cells in the US, he could have had people scope them out

This isn't a movie, mjd. Just because you think something's coming doesn't mean you can magically sweep these people from where they are and bring them to justice.

I assume you are a yank? If so, does the fact that your pres did neither of these things not get you a tad peeved?

I'm Canadian.

Read and understand

Yeah, so ? What was this link supposed to accomplish ?

 

[volatile]

Right. So "BASE" have a plan to do all this. How is this relevant? I dont dispute their involvement, nor their assuming a large weight of guilt. We all know that. Of course, this does not mean anything about PNAC/Bush admin, which is what the argument relates to.

How would it "fark" them up??! Read the document please.

And how the hell is it "vague"? I think we have another HL in disguise here...

Oh, and I agree that a reasonable person would think AQ did it, assuming that reasonable person had no idea of the facts. If they did, they would come to the conclusions that are evident from this thread.

I note, btw, that no one wants to argue foreknowledge. Why is this?

My emphasis.

You've gone from stating that you didn't doubt Al-Qaeda's involvement, to doubting it again in less than a page.

Can you see why we're not really buying your "argument"?

 

[Belz...]

PNAC show that 911 was deemed propitious to policy.

Nonsense, since they don't mention 9/11 in the document.

This has been dealt with in my OP to this section ,and illustrates that the probabiltiy that 911 could have happened absent gov complicty is very very very slim.

You have STATED it, but not shown it.

Letters saying what- "I was a co-plotter in 911"? Who the hell is going to write that? This is yet another argument from incredulity

No, it's a historical fact.

Cos they had the intel warnings, telling them exactly that.

Exactly ?

I dont think that this is of much importance. Stick to my arguments, and point out holes in them if there are such. Acronyms mean nothing.

Acronyms mean something, bloke. Obviously, since they represent words. I don't like them, myself, but then your username is "mjd1982".

Hahaha... ok, my bad.

So, do you agree that 9/11 was propitious to Al Qaeda's policy ?

 

[H'ethetheth]

As above, just focus on Bush et al

But Bush doesn't enter into the shortcomings uncovered by this senate committee. Lots of the errors in passing along foreknowledge never got to the level of Bush because the people who screwed up were generally much farther down the ladder and generally tried to cover their tracks because of possible consequences for their livelyhood and reputation etc. There are very few instances that would hinge on Bush remaining inactive. That is the point I'm trying to get across.
But, you got me interested at least, which is good. I'll read through the reports later. I'm supposed to be working, you see.

And about sociopaths: I'm not talking about presidents. I'm not talking about soldiers killing foreign guerilleros or civilians in a silly war against global communism or terrorism or drugs or whatever.
I'm talking about people who would kill or be part of a secret plot to kill 10,000 innocent civilians in their own country, just to increase defence R&D spending and prolong their nation's hegemony.
I believe you will not find a lot of people who will do this kind of dirty work, especially since the plot you announced seems to involve blowing up at least one building without making too many people suspect that it was in fact blown up, as part of a secret plot to kill up to 10,000 civilians, just to increase defence R&D spending and prolong their nation's hegemony.

 

[WildCat]

That is not the point. FBI agents did go and investigate certain things, but were prevented from taking any concrete measures by people higher up. I, since the simple rebuttal is "intel failures are normal", am looking just at Bush for the moment, and what he did.

Unsupported speculation.

So, he was told that there were AQ cells in the US, plotting a terror attack. What did he do in response. And why.

What should have been done? You've provided no evidence whatsoever that they knew who the terrorists were, where they were, when they planned to attack, how they would attack, etc etc.

Guess what? Somewhere in the Chicago area, a bank robbery will occur in the next week. What should be done mjd1982?

 

[WildCat]

sorry, who the hell is base?

Perhaps the Arabic translation can help you out a bit... not as informed as you think you are, are you?