The 9/11 Conspiracy Facts

[mjd1982]

Welcome to the new angle, DR, of twoofer circular reasoning.

It's WOCS; War On Common Sense. It's long, drawn out and protracted. Designed to exasperate the persons senses from all the excessive insensible nonsense thereby rendering people to a "Whatever" statement making the CTer believe they had convinced same exasperated person to agree with them.

Hahaha, nice gag! Since you havent been following very closely, you will not have noticed that although this is getting frustratingly protracted, this is due to the reason that none of your ilk wish to seriously contest the major points that get raised, despite numerous exhortations. Such posts, the key ones in the thread, include #95, #493, and #750. Few of your ilk appear to have the balls to address these points seriously; yet they are quite happy to rabbit on about no planes, CD of the TT's etc.

So yes, this is going on longer than it should, but were your friends more amenable to honest debate, this would not need to be the case.

 

[mjd1982]

Dear MJD, please read the following VERY carefully:

In the post you were answering to, I was attempting to make you understand the meaning of the Afghan claim by using an analogy. Specifically, I meant to explain to you that if you don't verify a claim, you cannot say whether it is true or not, and therefore you cannot claim that it is a racial slur.

Your post above merely confirms what I've suspected since the OP; namely that you cannot interpret what you read. It is obvious that you either did not read my post, did not understand what it meant, or simply ignored its content.

Such an attitude towards other people's statements make it impossible to engage in a debate with you, since the only voice you are hearing is your own.



Circular reasoning.



You don't understand the meaning of the word "LET" ? That's hardly surprising.

Mjd, you should take my advice and take English lessons. Your ability to understand what you read is laughable.

An assertion that is by definition a racial slur (i.e. one that tars a race with a pejorative brush), is not one that any reasonable person will waste time investigating. This is a pretty simple concept, i'm afraid to say.

 

[DGM]

Incidentally, you still have not dealt with the claim, put forward by some of your colleagues against my claim, that the Taliban offered to hand OBL to a US stacked court in Saudi. Please give an explanation as to why this would have been rejected, in addition to the above.

There is no proof the offer was in good faith, Remember. Please keep up.

 

[mjd1982]

Man, I'm away for a couple of weeks and you're still talking about PNAC and Pearl Harbour? I'll repeat what I said before.



PNAC did not say they wanted a new Pearl Harbour. They said something on the scale of Pearl Harbour would have to happen for massive changes in the military to happen quickly. This does not mean that they want this to happen.

A new Pearl Harbour did not happen. A military attack by military forces on a military base with a military objective as part of a military war is not even close to the same thing as a civilian attack on civilians with a political objective. Terrorism is not the same thing as war.

The supposd objectives that would be achieved by a new Pearl Harbour did not happen. As demonstrated by the figures I have once again quoted, military spending has remained at its lowest level since the end of WWII.

Seriously mjd, please just stop spouting such utter nonsense. PNAC didn't want Pearl Harbour, they didn't get Pearl Harbour and they didn't get anything that might have happened with a new Pearl Harbour. You have nothing.

I'm sorry, but I dont think you're being serious.

1stly, this has been debated to conclusion, very few of your colleagues wish to seriously contest it, but you can flick back and see how it has gone, I think it is pretty conclusive. 1stly, you make the elementary mistake that what PNAC strictly wanted was not a new PH, but a catastrophic and catalysing event. If you deny that 911 was the sort of event PNAC were referring you, then you are denying that 911 was either catastophic, or catalysing. Since this would have to be the case, I repeat my assertion that you are not being serious.

2ndly, if you wish to contest the similarity between RAD and WOT, then there is a very simple way to do it. Go to post 95, as has Darth Rotor, and see what the contentions are in this regard. There you will see that RAD is an almost blow by blow replica of the WOT. This will be very simple for you to understand, should you be posting on this thread in a serious vein.

 

[mjd1982]

There is no proof the offer was in good faith, Remember. Please keep up.

That's not the point. The point is that there was no discussion on the US side of whether to accept. This is what needs explanation.

 

[SpitfireIX]

An assertion that is by definition a racial slur (i.e. one that tars a race with a pejorative brush), is not one that any reasonable person will waste time investigating. This is a pretty simple concept, i'm afraid to say.

All right, mjd1982, let me pose the following example. Suppose I state that "All the Dutch who were hiding or would have hidden Jews during World War II would have shaded the truth, or even lied, rather than hand them over to the Nazis." By your logic, this is clearly an ethnic slur. Please comment.

 

[DGM]

That's not the point. The point is that there was no discussion on the US side of whether to accept. This is what needs explanation.

We have shown with a high degree of probability that the offer did not exist. How does one go about discussing this?

 

[WildCat]

I'm sorry, but I dont think you're being serious.

1stly, this has been debated to conclusion, very few of your colleagues wish to seriously contest it, but you can flick back and see how it has gone, I think it is pretty conclusive. 1stly, you make the elementary mistake that what PNAC strictly wanted was not a new PH, but a catastrophic and catalysing event. If you deny that 911 was the sort of event PNAC were referring you, then you are denying that 911 was either catastophic, or catalysing. Since this would have to be the case, I repeat my assertion that you are not being serious.

In all seriousness: Who ya crappin'?

 

[MIKILLINI]

Hahaha, nice gag!

Since you havent been following very closely,

How are you determining this? By the amount of postings? Or do you consider "following closely" as a consensual agreement between people here and you
by way of your arguments?

you will not have noticed that although this is getting frustratingly protracted, this is due to the reason that none of your ilk wish to seriously contest the major points that get raised, despite numerous exhortations.

Here's something you don't know, mjd, but now you will; I argued the very same points you are arguing, and argued them here, just like you are now.
Those people (as you call them My ilk) you give the ad-hom attack to, have researched the points you are arguing, as have I. The problem is You. Read that again, the problem is you and I'll reasonably tell you why.
You are so convinced that the Neocons had written PNAC with the intention of making these transformational changes in the short term, with their expression as a catastrophic and catalyzing event to be the trigger. 9/11 turned out to be that event. I'm not saying your completely wrong as far as the intentional acts of corruption leading to up 9/11, it's just that any acts of corruption are indirect in causing 9/11 to happen. The larger context of corruption was seized upon after 9/11. Note here that it's a key point.

Such posts, the key ones in the thread, include #95, #493, and #750. Few of your ilk appear to have the balls to address these points seriously. So yes, this is going on longer than it should, but were your friends more amenable to honest debate, this would not need to be the case.

They have been addressed, countless times. there's no fear here to do that.
As I've stated previously, I was making these arguments you are now, in the past. I realized and was shown 9/11 was not an inside job, just that incompetence, corruption, indifference, bureaucratic procedure all had contributed to the conditions. Honest debate means you can agree to disagree. Here is the BIG problem though: Who is going to allow a new investigation?

 

[mjd1982]

All right, mjd1982, let me pose the following example. Suppose I state that "All the Dutch who were hiding or would have hidden Jews during World War II would have shaded the truth, or even lied, rather than hand them over to the Nazis." By your logic, this is clearly an ethnic slur. Please comment.

No, because lying to save people from genocide is different to lying to protect a mass murderer. Pretty simple, hence the use of the word "pejorative".

In addition, there would also be the issue of the veracity of your statement which would be questionable, which again illustrates the haplessness of the arguments being put forth here.

 

[mjd1982]

How are you determining this? By the amount of postings? Or do you consider "following closely" as a consensual agreement between people here and you by way of your arguments?

I'll show you in a second

Here's something you don't know, mjd, but now you will; I argued the very same points you are arguing, and argued them here, just like you are now.

Hmmm... well you probably didnt argue them as I did, but if you can show me a link, I will be able to say that with more certainty

Those people (as you call them My ilk) you give the ad-hom attack to, have researched the points you are arguing, as have I.

Let's make a distinction here. Ad hom is a bad tactic in an argument since it stands, usually to take the place of addressing the point. You attack the arguer, instead of the argument. Now I will not hide from the fact that I can be a bit waspish here, a little bit intolerant with certain people possibly, but I always address people's points. The same cannot be said of your "ilk", this is beyond question.

The problem is You. Read that again, the problem is you and I'll reasonably tell you why.

ok...

You are so convinced that the Neocons had written PNAC with the intention of making these transformational changes in the short term,

Ok, here we have our 1st example of you not following. I have not ever said, and have explicitly denied in response to DR above, stating that PNAC wrote RAD with the intention of causing a new PH to catalyse these changes. This is a nuance that very few people on this board appear to be capable of understanding; hence a reason for the hold ups. I have stated, as you well know, that the doc illustrates the propitiousness of a new PH to policy. Think about that before you post again in this regard.

with their expression as a catastrophic and catalyzing event to be the trigger. 9/11 turned out to be that event. I'm not saying your completely wrong as far as the intentional acts of corruption leading to up 9/11,

with what intention? I dont understand you.

it's just that any acts of corruption are indirect in causing 9/11 to happen. The larger context of corruption was seized upon after 9/11. Note here that it's a key point.

Right. Well as above. If you are interested in the truth, think about my bolded point above, and read #750. Then come back to me and tell me there's no need for a new investigation.

They have been addressed, countless times. there's no fear here to do that.

Instance #2 of you not following. DR is the 1st one to address #95, no one has fully contested #493, and no one has come close to responding to #750.

As I've stated previously, I was making these arguments you are now, in the past. I realized and was shown 9/11 was not an inside job, just that incompetence, corruption, indifference, bureaucratic procedure all had contributed to the conditions.

as above

Honest debate means you can agree to disagree.

After you have laid your cards on the table

Here is the BIG problem though: Who is going to allow a new investigation?

Instance #3 of you not following. This was discussed at the top of the thread, in an exchange with Myriad.

 

[Dave Rogers]

No, because lying to save people from genocide is different to lying to protect a mass murderer. Pretty simple, hence the use of the word "pejorative".

What about lying to save a valued ally and friend from the clutches of American imperialism? And what is your evidence that the Taliban considered OBL to be a mass murderer, other than the assertion that they were willing to hand him over (the honesty of which offer is, of course, the point in dispute)?

In addition, there would also be the issue of the veracity of your statement which would be questionable, which again illustrates the haplessness of the arguments being put forth here.

Let's take that apart and have a look at it. You're suggesting that the statement "All the Dutch who were hiding or would have hidden Jews during World War II would have shaded the truth, or even lied, rather than hand them over to the Nazis" is questionable. Are you questioning whether any Dutch people hid Jews in World War Two (which calls the personal history of, IIRC, Audrey Hepburn into question, among others), or are you suggesting that some of those who hid Jews would, if asked directly by a German official, have immediately and openly admitted to the fact that they were hiding Jews? In other words, are you ignorant of 20th century history, or of human nature and intelligence? As regards hapless arguments, this is one of the best.

Dave

 

[Belz...]

An assertion that is by definition a racial slur (i.e. one that tars a race with a pejorative brush), is not one that any reasonable person will waste time investigating. This is a pretty simple concept, i'm afraid to say.

You didn't read what I said very carefully:

In the post you were answering to, I was attempting to make you understand the meaning of the Afghan claim by using an analogy. Specifically, I meant to explain to you that if you don't verify a claim, you cannot say whether it is true or not, and therefore you cannot claim that it is a racial slur.

Your post above merely confirms what I've suspected since the OP; namely that you cannot interpret what you read. It is obvious that you either did not read my post, did not understand what it meant, or simply ignored its content.

Such an attitude towards other people's statements make it impossible to engage in a debate with you, since the only voice you are hearing is your own.

Mjd, even if I were to agree that this was a racial slur, it doesn't follow that the claim itself is FALSE. How could you know unless you CHECK ?

 

[Belz...]

1stly, this has been debated to conclusion, very few of your colleagues wish to seriously contest it

That's a lie. Many people contested it.

The point is that there was no discussion on the US side of whether to accept. This is what needs explanation.

But we HAVE provided explanations. Please keep up.

No, because lying to save people from genocide is different to lying to protect a mass murderer. Pretty simple, hence the use of the word "pejorative".

Absolutely irrelevant. It all depends on how you consider your guest. It's clear that you only consider it racial slur when it suits you.

I have not ever said, and have explicitly denied in response to DR above, stating that PNAC wrote RAD with the intention of causing a new PH to catalyse these changes. This is a nuance that very few people on this board appear to be capable of understanding; hence a reason for the hold ups. I have stated, as you well know, that the doc illustrates the propitiousness of a new PH to policy. Think about that before you post again in this regard.

Then you have not only no proof, but no means, no motive, and no point.

 

[SpitfireIX]

No, because lying to save people from genocide is different to lying to protect a mass murderer. Pretty simple, hence the use of the word "pejorative".

Go read about the "crimes" of which the Nazis considered all Jews collectively guilty. How do you know the Taliban considered bin Laden guilty of mass murder?

In addition, there would also be the issue of the veracity of your statement which would be questionable, which again illustrates the haplessness of the arguments being put forth here.

In your zeal to attack my argument, you are implying that a statement must be true in order to be an ethnic slur. I'd characterize that as worse than hapless.

 

[JonnyFive]

1. By repute

So we can determine which journalists have the most repute by their repute?

That is a statement of kirkmanesque circularity.

2. Cockburn and St Clair, [url="http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn11012004.html"the link[/url] has been provided 1000 times, do keep up

Yeah... we know.

3. Journalists dont include links to offline documentation in their articles

That's so weird. Right now I'm reading this book on the history of the United States, and it has this crazy thing in the back labelled "bibliography" with all these weird titles and authors and stuff, but I don't see any web links. It's crazy, because I don't have a clue what to do with these things, them not being on the internet and all.

 

[Cuddles]

1stly, this has been debated to conclusion, very few of your colleagues wish to seriously contest it, but you can flick back and see how it has gone, I think it is pretty conclusive.

Firstly, I'm pretty sure none of my colleagues post on this forum so I don't see how this is at all relevant. Secondly, the people who do post on this forum not only contest it, but have spent most of this thread showing how incredibly wrong you are. If this is your idea of not contesting then I can only assume you have serious problems with the English language. It certainly is conclusive, but apparently not in the way you seem to think.

1stly, you make the elementary mistake that what PNAC strictly wanted was not a new PH, but a catastrophic and catalysing event.

No, it is you who make the mistake when you assume that PNAC wanted anything. They said what they thought would happen if something happened, and what they thought would happen if it did not. At no point does it say what they want to happen, or even which of the two they think would be better.

If you deny that 911 was the sort of event PNAC were referring you, then you are denying that 911 was either catastophic, or catalysing. Since this would have to be the case, I repeat my assertion that you are not being serious.

Again, I have said quite clearly that 11/9 was not anything like a new Pearl Harbour. I was not the first person to say this. Once again, a civilian terrorist attack on civilians is in no way similar to a military operation against military forces during a war.

2ndly, if you wish to contest the similarity between RAD and WOT, then there is a very simple way to do it. Go to post 95, as has Darth Rotor, and see what the contentions are in this regard. There you will see that RAD is an almost blow by blow replica of the WOT. This will be very simple for you to understand, should you be posting on this thread in a serious vein.

Ooo, yes, post 95. That would be the post 95 where you lied about "unprecedented" increase in military spending, yes? The post 95 where you tried to claim that keeping military spending at its lowest level since the end of WWII was a valid reason for the US government to murder its own people? And you claim it is me who isn't being serious?

Seriously, instead of trying to make snide remarks and very bad arguments to popularity, try actually addressing my posts. I made three points. Here they are nicely summarised:

1) PNAC did not want a new Pearl Harbour. Please provide your evidence that they actually did want it. Not that they discussed what could happen if one occured, show me where it actually says that they wanted it.

2) A new Pearl Harbour did not occur. Please provide your evidence that 11/9 was in any way similar to Pearl Harbour. You know, the attack by a sovereign nation on another. The military operation. The military targets. Not "lot's of people died and the government was upset". That just doesn't cut it.

3) PNAC did not get anything out of 11/9. The whole argument was that PNAC said a new Pearl Harbour would be required to increase defense spending to what they considered appropriate levels. Defense spending is at about the same level it has been for over a decade and is still lower than it has been since the end of WWII. It is simply ridiculous to try to use PNAC's objectives as evidence that they did it because they didn't achieve their objectives.

 

[nicepants]

1. By repute

1 - Who are "the most reputable journalists in the US", and how is this determined?

So, is there a list somewhere, or did you make this determination yourself that these 2 men were "2 of the most reputable journalists in the US"?

 

[Belz...]

11/9

Isn't the international date standard YYYY-MM-DD ?

Or is it the other way around ?

 

[nicepants]

An assertion that is by definition a racial slur (i.e. one that tars a race with a pejorative brush), is not one that any reasonable person will waste time investigating. This is a pretty simple concept, i'm afraid to say.

Cultural beliefs and practices are not "racial slurs".

For example: in American culture, it is considered offensive to raise your middle finger. This is not a racial slur, it's culture.

In some asian countries, your left hand is considered unclean, and should not be used to touch other people. This is not a racial slur, this is culture.