The 9/11 Conspiracy Facts

[Cuddles]

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

Or is it the other way around ?

DD-MM-YYYY is standard. I've seen templates for YYYY-MM-DD, but I've never seen it used, although it does seem just as logical. The only format that seems to make no sense at all is the American MM-DD-YYYY.

 

[Belz...]

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

Why do you hate Americans, nicepants ?

 

[Belz...]

The only format that seems to make no sense at all is the American MM-DD-YYYY.

Indeed, I've never understood that. It's just very confusing.

Why do you hate Americans, Cuddles ?

 

[nicepants]

DD-MM-YYYY is standard. I've seen templates for YYYY-MM-DD, but I've never seen it used, although it does seem just as logical. The only format that seems to make no sense at all is the American MM-DD-YYYY.

Typically, we say "on September 5" or "on July 4"...so I'm guessing that's how MM-DD became standard practice here.

Why do you hate Americans, nicepants ?

You're right, I shouldn't have stereotyped like that. We Americans are so rude.

 

[lapman]

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

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

This is a completely false statement. Nowhere in the PNAC document does it state this or infer that this is a requirement. Your only reasoning for this is that it "makes sense."

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.

9/11 was a catastrophic and catalyzing event. However, the PNAC never stated or implied that such an event was required or desirable. The PNAC was simply stating a military fact of life when it comes to development of new systems, not a needed change of policy. Of course you're going to say "read post XXX for proof." Yet none of those posts contain any real evidence, only your speculations, conjectures and opinions based on coincidences that only you and the "Truth Movement" claim are related. Your PNAC - RAD - WOT relationship is no different than the Mercury Insurance - Aliens from the planet Mercury relationship. Both are bogus. Now can we finally move on to your next equally bogus point about WTC 7 being a CD?

 

[Belz...]

Typically, we say "on September 5" or "on July 4"...so I'm guessing that's how MM-DD became standard practice here.

Well it still isn't very useful.

Like the imperial system. Stupid pounds and feet and miles...

 

[Newtons Bit]

Well it still isn't very useful.

Like the imperial system. Stupid pounds and feet and miles...

Blasphemer!

 

[JimBenArm]

Well it still isn't very useful.

Like the imperial system. Stupid pounds and feet and miles...

Man, we Americans just can't win! First, we fix your spelling so it makes sense, and you whine about how we don't stick to the "mother tongue". So, we stick to your units of measure, and you whine about us not using the metric system!
Y'all are just anti-American, ain't ya!

 

[JonnyFive]

Well it still isn't very useful.

Like the imperial system. Stupid pounds and feet and miles...

Why do you hate the Empire, Belz? I find your lack of faith... disturbing.

 

[nicepants]

Well it still isn't very useful.

Like the imperial system. Stupid pounds and feet and miles...

It's what we grow up on :-/. I remember learning metric in grade school, and our teachers telling us "we'll be switching soon".

One thing I've always wondered. Britian is all on the metric system...yet the monetary unit is "pounds"?

 

[rwguinn]

Well it still isn't very useful.

Like the imperial system. Stupid pounds and feet and miles...

May you feast in heaven, foul shade...*








*Since I assume "Rot in He%%" is just another day in paradise for you...

 

[Belz...]

Man, we Americans just can't win! First, we fix your spelling so it makes sense, and you whine about how we don't stick to the "mother tongue". So, we stick to your units of measure, and you whine about us not using the metric system!
Y'all are just anti-American, ain't ya!

I'm French, Jim. The mother tongue's the tongue of Voltaire, to me.

Blasphemer!

Why do you hate the Empire, Belz? I find your lack of faith... disturbing.

It's what we grow up on :-/. I remember learning metric in grade school, and our teachers telling us "we'll be switching soon".

May you feast in heaven, foul shade...

My, my. Struck a chord, didn't I ?

*Since I assume "Rot in He%%" is just another day in paradise for you...

 

[JimBenArm]

I'm French, Jim. The mother tongue's the tongue of Voltaire, to me.

Don't know why, but I always thought you were French Canadian.

Must be the graceful way you smack down the morons around here.

 

[JonnyFive]

My, my. Struck a chord, didn't I ?

It's not my fault that you don't accept the power of the Dark Side.

 

[MIKILLINI]

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.

According to what you say above, PNAC was written with no intention of any Americans causing a catastrophic and catalyzing event, correct? You've never said this, correct?

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.

But, according to what you say above, the document presents how it would be favorable for a catastrophic and catalyzing event to cause transformations to happen sooner, correct?
Now, explain to Me your evaluation on coming to this conclusion, since you are saying that there was no intention of causing a catastrophic and catalyzing event, but you are claiming the Bush Administration saw this as an opportunity, or in other words, the documents illustrative propitiousness to policy. Since over half of the signees of the document ended up in the Bush Administration, how and where do you draw the line on the propitiousness to policy and the non-intentional policy of a catastrophic and catalyzing event at the time the document was written.
Think about that before you post again in this regard.

 

[MIKILLINI]

Again, I’m sorry, but this just betrays a gross misunderstanding of the document. It is stating that we need a new PH- a mass terror attack on US soil, ingrained on the public’s consciousness- in order to catalyse hegemonic aims. Not that we need to prevent a new PH ever happening- this is in fact the opposite of what is said.

A follow up for the previous post..Your words.

 

[Darth Rotor]

"Frivolous"?

Yes. Quite.

Who among the EU Nations had the largest standing army in Europe, other than the Russians, in 1992? In 1995?

How many brigades did they send to Bosnia?

In 1992
In 1995
in 1998?

Excuse me, why did Americans need to be there, at all? Not sure if you were paying attention to security/defence matters in those days, but if you heard the rhetoric from Paris and Berlin, and sometimes from Rome, and moreso in Brussels. there was quite a lot of talk about the EU, WEU, Eurocorps, and the Independent European Security Identity.

Funnily enough, when push came to shove, Europe as so envisioned found its political will lacking. The Danes, Spanis, Brits and Turks, found ways to send their lads to Bosnia, but the richest and strongest member of the EU didn't, and wouldn't. The Frogs showed up, even the Danes and Dutch. But not the economic pillar of the EU.

There was no need for Americans in Bosnia, except perhaps for a regiment to work with the Russians as a pure political foil to lubricate NATO - CIS relations, and as a lever for Partnership for Peace efforts.

Frivolous. Why? It was reassuring to some American political egos that "they still need us" which is what alcohol and drug counsellors call "enabling behavior."

DR

 

[Darth Rotor]

I'm sorry, I presume you have not been on this thread before, but i will state my position pretty clearly on RAD since there appear to be crossed wires here.

The RAD document illustrates that PNAC, composed significantly of members who were to assume important positions in the Bush admin on and up to 911, deemed a catastrophic and catalysing even, a new PH, to be propitious to policy, that policy of military radicalisation as outlined in RAD.

No. Pearl Harbor was presented in two different places, and the first piece of analysis was the threshold of how big a shock America needed to get on a war footing. America is still not on a war footing the way it was after WW II, and if you note some of General Batiste's remarks, bitter in tone, about his return from Iraq in 2005 and how "America isn't at war, the Army is" you might just get a sniff of a clue as to where the perceptual error is that you keep insisting upon.

This policy is now, to an overwhelmingly accurate degree, now being pursued under the banner of the WOT.

The policy may have been that way had the WOT stayed in Afghanistan, but having switched courses to Iraq, the policy that included transforming the military has hit an immense snag. The Iraq War has been an obstacle to the planned transformation.

I do not state that RAD constitutes a plan; it merely gives us a framework within which to analyse the behaviour of Bush et al in the lead up to 911,

In presenting the next defense budget, yes.

given that they had deemed such an even to be propitious.

No, this is your core error, and apparent dishonesty, unless my still not quenched, and very cynical, suspiscions on LIHOP are right. There just isn't enough evidence to support those suspiscions, only some possible threads that don't make much of a weave.

Ok, so you state that it may have been an inside job, but because an independent investigation might be too hard, you dont support it?

No, I suspect, don't state, that the terrorist activity, and potential for an attack on the US (don't forget, some rag heads went after the WTC in 1993, it's not as though terror attacks on America were anything new, FFS) might have been assessed, and counter terror efforts allowed to atrophy a bit until an attack occurred. This suspiscion is a stretch, and is only thinly supported by Clarke and Scheuer, and some FBI feedback (which can also be explained in part by "dodging blame actions") on pre 9-11 decisions in the counter terror policies that frustrated their efforts.

As for "an independent investigation: "who is going to talk that hasn't already? What possible motive could anyone "on the inside" have to talk now? I don't see the point. Perhaps some more generals will retire and say some things I don't expect to hear. The recent comments by Major eneral Tabuga on Gitmo and Abu Ghraib were quite candid, though not unexpected.

Ok good! Well seeing as a CTer can be broadly defined as someone who thinks there is sufficient evidence of gov comlicity in 911 to warrant a new independent investigation into such, would you thus be a CTer?

No, I am a cynical son of a gun was on the pointy end of American policy for 20+ years, and who has seen any number of questionable choices made by the suits in DC. See Reagan in Beirut, Kosovo, Somalia.

The transformations they talk about implementing would take several decades to implement, according to them:

It is eight years later, and it hasn't happened to any extent. The tank is still around, twelve CVBG's still around, and so on.

But, the dastardly nature of the WOT is such that, as explained, it will persist beyond 2009, indeed indefinitely, as Terror can never be vanquished.

Now you are playing word games, but hell, so was Bush with his War on Terror gambit, so you are even. You suck as bad as he does. Happy now?

If the batteries ever start to run thin, and US hegemony looks set to be threatened, all that needs to happen is another inside job attack, say pinned on Venezuelan terrorist, or Iranian, or whoever, and the WOT starts up all over again,

Only as long as the GOP/neocons can keep

The White House
A majority in Congress

This is how a war can last forever, despite its initiators and founding ideologues only being around for 4 or 8 years.

There is ample precedent for ending a rotten war. Ever heard of Viet Nam?

This is why the WOT makes no sense; even if 911 wasnt an inside job, they could have called it a War on AQ, or a War on Jihadist Terrorism.

That's what they did, explicitly.

The WOT is so flexible and regenerative, that it is the perfect construct, political and not media, note that, to ensure the sustenance of US hegemony through military means throughout the 21st century, just as PNAC has set out to achieve.

PNAC departed from any "war on terror" the day the troops crossed the LD into Iraq from Kuwait. Any rhetoric conflating the two is immensely foolish, and intellectually dishonest. Yours and Bush's.

As I have said many times, RAD is a strategy proposal, one that will ~save the world for America; it is inexplicable that initiators of such would want such an occurence to wait awhile and then hope someone else would implement it;

Their statement was in how the transformation was to begin, within the next QDR. That's in the text, mj.

or that they would not want such to be implemented as firmly and as quickly as possible.

Your words, not theirs. What they most wanted was to reverse the declining trend, and position the decision makers to have a tool available to use to influence events in the Middle East, and elsewhere. That was a logical follow up to 12 years of build up, from 1991 through 2003, of infrastructure and basing in the Persian Gulf. See the US Army's On Point, the first third of the book, for an excellent treatment of the consistency of American Persian Gulf defense policy from 1991 to 2003.

Lol, this is exaclty the point! They wanted the end strength to go up, and a war would spur that change!

They didn't need a war to spur a change to end strength of that small a magnitude in 2001-2005. that one percent would be achieved by the end of the first term, if not sooner.

Hence, maybe, why he was replaced.

Nope.

Nonetheless, many of the elements of the WOT, outlined many times already, have been pursued under the aegis of this war, Iraq or no Iraq.

Nope. WOT was undertaken in Afghanistan, whose operational method is very different from Iraq, and was summarily abandoned upon the commencement of the Iraq War. All that remained was bad rhetoric.

I wouldnt go along with "extra national" at all; if a government blows up a civilian building/plane, this is terrorism too.

I guess you don't understand terrorism then. It is the tool of the weak and unable to (in legitimate means) act political faction.

The fact that PH is mentioned in another context in the doc is completely meaningless; what is your point?

That you cherry pick PH because it fits your bias.

No its not. As I have said before, if you want to argue that the neo cons wanted this change that would in their eyes, secure US hegemony for the century to come, to happen slowly, rather than as soon as would be possible and feasible, then i think you have some work to do.

PNAC's aim, in that document, was to reverse the decline in defense spending, and correct a hollow force in the making. This did not need a war to do, but needed a 3.5% GDP DoD budget to do, given the decay under Clinton.

Just because we are after the event, you cannot just throw the term "post hoc" at any efforts to use RAD as evidence.

Just because we are after the event does not make the PH reference evidence of what you claim it is. You seem to confuse coincidence, cause, and correlation.

Correct! And hence how such would be propitous to policy. Where is the problem here? I cant see whats so hard to understand.

Had the WoT effort stayed with Afghanistan, and further discrete actions purely against terror and extra national groups, I'd agree with you, as that effort would have matched perfectly the transformation themes Rummy brought into the Pentagon with him. I lived with this crap, mj, as part of my work.

As it was, the decision to go into Iraq undermined the transformation plan, or at least broke it badly.

Again a matter of execution, rather than design; though I would like to see the specific figures, since I cannot believe that significant amounts arent going into the other programmes mentioned here so far.

Given what you have convinced yourself of, I am not sure I care to spend the time to dig up 7 years of Pentagon programatic changes. Death to Comanche was a major one, but Comanche was part of the transformation of Force XXI!

(Not sure why I bother, really.)

It is evidence of propitiousness to policy, nothing more for the moment.

Opportunism is as good an explanation, with no need to infer any other motive.

This is the point; the execution is irrelevant, particularly under this bunch of bumblers.

Nope. The point is that the Iraq War was a departure from the transformation.

Hence why it would be propitious to policy. Are we agreed?

No. 9-11 provided an opportunity, public sentiment was harnessed, and then thrown away into Iraq.

In a broad sense yes, but as it was called for in PNAC, and is being done under the Global Posture Review.

We sort of agree on that.

In short, you seem to agree that a new PH would speed the changes, as military changes in a wartime environment are a lot easier to implement than in peacetime.

No. The changes were going to come in the QDR, and Rummy was supposed to take the bull by the horns and force the Pentagon out of their paradigms. Had the war been kept at the modest resource level, 20-30,000 troops in Afghanistan, this would have been manageable, and Afghanistan a good test bed for some of the exotic ideas Rummy had. Going to Iraq screwed the entire transformation. Again, Rummy's first 120 days as Sec Def sent a bit of a shock through DoD. The word trickling down to the field was "it's gonna change, get to work."

Are you stating that even taking this ease into account, PNAC would rather such changes be pursued in peacetime?

Yes, that is was RAD was written for.

I think if you are serious, you do not, and if you do not, you must agree with my assertion that a new PH was deemed propitious to policy.

No. See above.

Further, I am not sure that you are too far away from a CT position, given your comments on LIHOP; maybe you can inform me on this.

A CT asserts with little to no evidence, and I, a cynical old salt, suspect, but am not fool enough to think I have the kind of evidence to make that any more than a suspiscion.

Please don't insult me further regarding CT modes. Osama and his gang did just fine in taking care of their agenda, regardless of the talent the PNAC crowd has displayed in their attempts to implement their somewhat more complex agenda.

DR

 

[Belz...]

Don't know why, but I always thought you were French Canadian.

I am. See the word "French" in "French Canadian" ?

Must be the graceful way you smack down the morons around here.

I'd be just as graceful if I came from any other continent.

Except Antarctica.

 

[Unsecured Coins]

I am. See the word "Freedom" in "Freedom Canadian" ?

ARRRGH!! Stupid Congressional Version of Windows Vista!!