The 9/11 Conspiracy Facts

[Belz...]

 

[JonnyFive]

So, Belz, can you speak FREEDOM or does not everyone in FREEDOM Canada know how to speak FREEDOM?

Personally, I've never been to FREEDOM Canada before. Is it FREE?! DO YOU LOVE GEORGE BUSH! I LOVE GEORGE BUSH! HE IS TOTALLY AWESOME AND LOVES FREEDOM!

God damn this piece of crap. I knew I shouldn't have used Windows upda... I LOVE FREEDOM AND GEORGE BUSH. I LOVE WINDOWS TOO. WINDOWS IS FREEDOM!

Oh, FREEDOM it, I'm going to go eat something. Maybe I'll have some FREEDOM fries.

Are we going to get any actual 9/11 conspiracy FREEDOM yet? I'm sick of waiting for I LOVE GEORGE BUSH I LOVE FREEDOM!

__________________
"wake up with some real FREEDOM, called FREEDOM." -GeorgeBush

"I would like to start a thread, Johhny Five, you appear to be FREE." -wizentub

 

[T.A.M.]

So I am reading through the first, very very dry, pages of the PNAC document, and I am thinking to myself,

"For such a large, detailed document, allegedly about starting wars for the purpose of increasing Defense revenue, they spend very little, strike that, almost no time in this document discussing how they are going to start this war, etc..."

But what do I know...I am not mjd1982

TAM

 

[Myriad]

With due respect to everyone's noble efforts in engaging in debate in this thread, it's clear that you're all wasting your time. Mjd is playing a game of "disprove my opinion." The only claim he is actually making is that he holds certain opinions, and the only reasonable response is to first agree with him that yes, he does indeed hold those opinions, and then regretfully inform him that the fact that he holds those opinions is irrelevant to the rest of the world.

The trick is that he appears to be attempting to offer evidence to support his opinions, but when the validity of any part of that evidence is questioned, or the logic of forming the opinion he holds based on the evidence he presents is questioned, he denies that he has implied any such connection between the information he's presented, and his opinion.

mjd: "I don't want that sandwich. It has pickles in it."
you: "Why don't you want pickles? Are you allergic, or do you just not like the taste?"
mjd: "I never said I don't want pickles. Please pay attention."

I admit it's a good trick, it has some originality to it which makes it effective, but endless repetition of it has gotten very tedious. So let's take his word for it that the evidence he offers does not, and was never intended to, support his claims, so arguing against it is useless. His only claim is that he has certain opinions. The only counter-argument he could possibly accept as relevant is an attempt to show that he does not actually have the opinions he claims to have, which even if that were the case would be impossible to show. Furthermore, there's been no evidence that he's in any way interested in our opinions on the same topic, whether supported by evidence and logic or not.

So, mjd, having followed your advice to follow the thread, keep up, read carefully, pay attention, etc. and having come to the above conclusions as a result, I request that we now move on.

What other opinions of yours would you like to inform us of?

And for what reason do you want to do so?

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[Belz...]

So, Belz, can you speak FREEDOM or does not everyone in FREEDOM Canada know how to speak FREEDOM?

Personally, I've never been to FREEDOM Canada before. Is it FREE?! DO YOU LOVE GEORGE BUSH! I LOVE GEORGE BUSH! HE IS TOTALLY AWESOME AND LOVES FREEDOM!

God damn this piece of crap. I knew I shouldn't have used Windows upda... I LOVE FREEDOM AND GEORGE BUSH. I LOVE WINDOWS TOO. WINDOWS IS FREEDOM!

Oh, FREEDOM it, I'm going to go eat something. Maybe I'll have some FREEDOM fries.

Are we going to get any actual 9/11 conspiracy FREEDOM yet? I'm sick of waiting for I LOVE GEORGE BUSH I LOVE FREEDOM!

__________________
"wake up with some real FREEDOM, called FREEDOM." -GeorgeBush

"I would like to start a thread, Johhny Five, you appear to be FREE." -wizentub

What in the blue HELL are you talking about ???

 

[Brainache]

What in the blue HELL are you talking about ???

I think he updated his software to the new and improved Windows FREEDOM version which has been released as part of the evil Neo-con plan for FREEDOM I LOVE FREEDOM AND GEORGE BUSH global domination.

 

[JonnyFive]

What in the blue HELL are you talking about ???

ETA: What he said:

I think he updated his software to the new and improved Windows FREEDOM version which has been released as part of the evil Neo-con plan for FREEDOM I LOVE FREEDOM AND GEORGE BUSH global domination.

You shouldn't have kept the fake sig line in the quote though, it gives it away.

Come on, you know this thread is gone. Er... I mean... FREEDOM.

 

[Belz...]

What freedom version ?

What are you talking about ?

Why are there keebler elves in my cereals ?

What's this microphone doing there ?

 

[JonnyFive]

What freedom version ?

What are you talking about ?

Why are there keebler elves in my cereals ?

What's this microphone doing there ?

Bet you're wishing you listened to mjd now, eh?

I think all of this is quite propitious to United States foreign policy.

By the way, for some reason my animated paper clip in Word is telling me to tell you to stand two feet to the left, over by the large window. I really don't know why, but it says it's urgent.

 

[mjd1982]

What about lying to save a valued ally and friend from the clutches of American imperialism?

This is another point, and the validity of it is based quite simply in the assertion that all Afghans/half Afghans (note it is Mohabbat here that we are talking about, striclty, not the Taliban), would a) view things in the same light as yourself, and b) that they would all lie systematically in such a context, the majority of which assertions here have been couched in a pretty gross bigotry.

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)?

Ok, well either a mass murderer, or an accessory to mass murder. This would be based on the fact that he was, undeniably, the head of AQ, which is an organisation that perpetrates mass murder.

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.

This, due to a lack of complete understanding of the instance cited, was a slight misapprehension on my part; I wasnt aware of the historical detail. But it was of no matter, as we shall see...

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),

no, tho I wasnt fully aware of the story

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

No. Completely wrong. Think of the context. This is that all Afghans behave in a certain, negative way. This is a stupidity that does not need to be elaborated upon. The example of the dutch would be more accurate to this situation if all dutch people housed jews during ww2, and were subsequently pressed by Nazis (since you are trying to pin a slur on all Afghans). In this situation, no one with a degree of sanity would state that no dutch would admit to having jews in their house; there would surely be a few. We can indeed make this statement more accurate. Not only does every Dutch person house jews, but every half dutch person as well. And none of them will have an inclination to squeal, according, I presume, to you, since they have 50% dutchness in them. And although your analogy has fallen apart like a chinese motorcycle, it is still a million miles from the truth, since hiding jews from nazis is not comparable in any respect to hiding/protecting OBL from the US, unless you are to make your next logical step, which you have already intimated, that being that the relation of jews-nazis equates in the minds of all Afghans to that of OBL-US.

 

[mjd1982]

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

That is a statement of kirkmanesque circularity.



Yeah... we know.



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.

Please find a bibliography in a newspaper, or magazine, or online article, even in reputable papers. Does this make them untrustworthy? No.

 

[JonnyFive]

Please find a bibliography in a newspaper, or magazine, or online article, even in reputable papers. Does this make them untrustworthy? No.

They can, and do, still cite sources. Due to the nature of the work, they are almost invariably primary sources. My point was that not having a "link" to sources because they are offline does not preclude having sources.

Guess what, when a paper prints:

“This is an important step in this Iraqi process,” said Philip Reeker, spokesman for Ryan Crocker, the United States ambassador. (NY Times, 7/4/2007)

It's exactly the same as if I were to write:

According to a spokesman for US ambassador Crocker, this is an important step in this particular stage of Iraqi national policy (Reeker, 2007)


References

Reeker, P. (details of speech or interview date)

As I am quoting a primary source on the matter, as most current events papers do. Because they don't include a bibliography doesn't mean they don't include in-line citations. If a magazine talks about someone's book or interview, they will refer directly to the source in the article.

Most of your articles corroborate very well... about something that is the opposite of what you suggested. Your Counterpunch article seems to mainly cite one source without corroboration that he is a primary source.

Darth Rotor really ripped you a new one, mjd. You came out of that one looking bad. Maybe you have some radical new evidence that will show us all. Or maybe you could link to the Counterpunch article again - that worked real well for you the last twenty times you did it.

 

[mjd1982]

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.

Well, this is an opinion. Luckily, it is one that can be easily verified, and done so by yourself. It will take you 2 minutes. Please go to post 95 and 493, and then show me where someone has debated this seriously, i.e. to some form of conclusion. Then tell me who. I will wait.

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.

Good. Once again, this is something that has been made very clear, and will be taken to heart by all people who are here for serious discourse.

PNAC made a statement. I have inferred a conclusion, incredible basic, from that statement. The standard, hapless refutation from your camp, is that "They didnt say it (in so many words), so you cannot say thats what they meant". I think this is a pretty uncontroversial summation of your colleagues' arguments here.

Now as has been shown many times by me, this is a pretty explicit tactic of someone who has zero interest in honest discourse. This is because it is asserting that inference, even basic inference, is inadmissible to debate. Of course, this is garbage, since inference is a perfectly standard tool in any sort of discussion. To say that this should not be the case is stupid, and anyone who would utter such does not take themselves seriously.

In this light, if you want to debate the inference, you can do what I have urged your friends to do, many times, with i think zero success, and that is to go to #493, and debate this inference, seriously, with me to conclusion. Very easy.

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.

I know you have said this. Subsequently, i disagreed, stating why I disagreed. The next step, in adult debate, is for you to come up and say why you disagree with my contentions. And so on. Eventually we reach some semblance of conclusion.

Unfortunately the way you are you ilk like to perform on this forum, runs along the lines of I make a point, you state that I am wrong, and that is that. I exhort you to address the points, you say you have, and little progress gets made.

If you are a serious person here for serious discussion, which judgement I will suspend, you will go and do as I have suggested.

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?

No, that was the 2200 word post (including quotes) where 1 word was put down in error. This was pointed out to me, and I apologised. This is because I am interested in serious debate, hence I will admit to beng wrong. Incidentally your calling me a "liar" in this regard is a perfect instance of an empty ad hom the type that I described above.

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.

They didnt say "We want a new PH". They implied it overwhelmingly, in stating that their revolutionary, peace love and happiness bringing changes would take decades, absent such. This is all outlined in #493. Read 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.

Oh boy... how mind numbing. Why must I repeat myself over and over again? We have just been through this. It is, again, in #493. To be quick- strictly speaking, they were not referring to a new PH, but a catastrophic and catalysing event. If you deny the link to 911, then you are suggesting taht such was eother not catalysing, or not catastrophic. In this light, we can conclude that you are not on this board for serious purposes.

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.

Oh boy oh boy... read post 95 again, find out about what PNAC really wanted and what the WOT actually constitutes. It is a rebuttal no Gravy's LC guide PNAC section, and of course, he has no interest in defending his dismantling, neither has anyone else, save DR just now, over 1600 posts. This says a lot.

 

[mjd1982]

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.

This is not a description of Afghan culture; it is a pejorative trait limited by ethnicity- an ethnic slur- that is being applied to a half Afghan in order to defend the OT.

 

[mjd1982]

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."

Excuse, me, getting ahead of myself. I meant, as I just stated to someone else, "what they were referring to was..."

9/11 was a catastrophic and catalyzing event.

Hence it was what they were referring to

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.

i.e. that to get a change to happen in timely fashion, rather than several decades, it will be propitious for there to be a war environment. Are you going to seriously dispute this?

Of course you're going to say "read post XXX for proof."

No, I will say read #493 for my argument on this.

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.

how dull...

Good. Once again, this is something that has been made very clear, and will be taken to heart by all people who are here for serious discourse.

PNAC made a statement. I have inferred a conclusion, incredible basic, from that statement. The standard, hapless refutation from your camp, is that "They didnt say it (in so many words), so you cannot say thats what they meant". I think this is a pretty uncontroversial summation of your colleagues' arguments here.

Now as has been shown many times by me, this is a pretty explicit tactic of someone who has zero interest in honest discourse. This is because it is asserting that inference, even basic inference, is inadmissible to debate. Of course, this is garbage, since inference is a perfectly standard tool in any sort of discussion. To say that this should not be the case is stupid, and anyone who would utter such does not take themselves seriously.

In this light, if you want to debate the inference, you can do what I have urged your friends to do, many times, with i think zero success, and that is to go to #493, and debate this inference, seriously, with me to conclusion. Very easy.

 

[Billdave2]

With due respect to everyone's noble efforts in engaging in debate in this thread, it's clear that you're all wasting your time. Mjd is playing a game of "disprove my opinion." The only claim he is actually making is that he holds certain opinions, and the only reasonable response is to first agree with him that yes, he does indeed hold those opinions, and then regretfully inform him that the fact that he holds those opinions is irrelevant to the rest of the world.

The trick is that he appears to be attempting to offer evidence to support his opinions, but when the validity of any part of that evidence is questioned, or the logic of forming the opinion he holds based on the evidence he presents is questioned, he denies that he has implied any such connection between the information he's presented, and his opinion.

mjd: "I don't want that sandwich. It has pickles in it."
you: "Why don't you want pickles? Are you allergic, or do you just not like the taste?"
mjd: "I never said I don't want pickles. Please pay attention."

I admit it's a good trick, it has some originality to it which makes it effective, but endless repetition of it has gotten very tedious. So let's take his word for it that the evidence he offers does not, and was never intended to, support his claims, so arguing against it is useless. His only claim is that he has certain opinions. The only counter-argument he could possibly accept as relevant is an attempt to show that he does not actually have the opinions he claims to have, which even if that were the case would be impossible to show. Furthermore, there's been no evidence that he's in any way interested in our opinions on the same topic, whether supported by evidence and logic or not.

So, mjd, having followed your advice to follow the thread, keep up, read carefully, pay attention, etc. and having come to the above conclusions as a result, I request that we now move on.

What other opinions of yours would you like to inform us of?

And for what reason do you want to do so?

Respectfully,
Myriad

I totally agree on this.

I am going to wait until MJD1982 provides at least one actual "fact". I do not consider his assumptions, guess's, hunches, or things he finds to be "overwhelmingly implied" to meet that standard. So please, can we have the promised facts now? If not there is nothing else to say here.

 

[mjd1982]

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






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

Ben, dans ce cas la, "cultivez votre jardin", mon pote! T'en as vraiment besoin, je crois...

 

[mjd1982]

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?



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.

We know, with the most simple inference, that such an event would be propitious to policy. It may be the case that the plan was conceived then, but we have no way of gauging such minutiae.

Hence how we can make the distinction.

 

[mjd1982]

With due respect to everyone's noble efforts in engaging in debate in this thread, it's clear that you're all wasting your time. Mjd is playing a game of "disprove my opinion." The only claim he is actually making is that he holds certain opinions, and the only reasonable response is to first agree with him that yes, he does indeed hold those opinions, and then regretfully inform him that the fact that he holds those opinions is irrelevant to the rest of the world.

The trick is that he appears to be attempting to offer evidence to support his opinions, but when the validity of any part of that evidence is questioned, or the logic of forming the opinion he holds based on the evidence he presents is questioned, he denies that he has implied any such connection between the information he's presented, and his opinion.

mjd: "I don't want that sandwich. It has pickles in it."
you: "Why don't you want pickles? Are you allergic, or do you just not like the taste?"
mjd: "I never said I don't want pickles. Please pay attention."

I admit it's a good trick, it has some originality to it which makes it effective, but endless repetition of it has gotten very tedious. So let's take his word for it that the evidence he offers does not, and was never intended to, support his claims, so arguing against it is useless. His only claim is that he has certain opinions. The only counter-argument he could possibly accept as relevant is an attempt to show that he does not actually have the opinions he claims to have, which even if that were the case would be impossible to show. Furthermore, there's been no evidence that he's in any way interested in our opinions on the same topic, whether supported by evidence and logic or not.

So, mjd, having followed your advice to follow the thread, keep up, read carefully, pay attention, etc. and having come to the above conclusions as a result, I request that we now move on.

What other opinions of yours would you like to inform us of?

And for what reason do you want to do so?

Respectfully,
Myriad

What a pernicious and nasty little post. If you have a sensible point to contribute to the discussion, then go ahead. If you simply wish to discourage people from posting here, then you would apparently be as pernicious as your post suggests you are, and you should maybe take your own advice.

 

[jab712]

What a pernicious and nasty little post. If you have a sensible point to contribute to the discussion, then go ahead. If you simply wish to discourage people from posting here, then you would apparently be as pernicious as your post suggests you are, and you should maybe take your own advice.

ouch, looks as though the truth hurts.