The 9/11 Conspiracy Facts

[lapman]

post #493, lapman... it explains EVERYTHING...

 

[Unsecured Coins]

maybe it's me. maybe it's because I'm a smart ass. or maybe it's a combination of both, but mjd's posts are starting to look like old Dianetics commercials redone in forum form. And my fellow children of the 80's know what I'm talking about. Watching TV after school with your friends, and during a commercial right after Cobra Commander has unleashed his plot to take over the world, you hear that keyboard going, and a question appears on the screen, then the page number.

Then, a VOLCANO. It has to be true. You can't argue with liquid hot MAG-MA.

Fast forward a couple of years. The subject is PNAC. Where is this Plan for 9-11 discussed?
Post #493

How exactly did it help out the transformation of the military?
Post #493

OH CRAP. Where are my keys?
Post number four niner three. Yes, I said niner, and no, I don't have a walkie talkie. And if you're a scientologist, I'm really sorry about that.

 

[MIKILLINI]

Instruction Manual to dedicate circular reasoning:

1.) Read PNAC document

2.) Select post- 9/11 actions suitable to short term transformation.

3.) Assume "absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event- Like a new Pearl Harbor" as the only message of policy within PNAC document, and thus assume everything else within the document are merely details.

4.) Post message in thread, determined to be # 493.

5.) Infer message has not been challenged, repeatedly.

6.) Refer people back to # 493.

7.) Repeat steps 4-6

 

[mjd1982]

False.

ROFL

These posts are getting just a tad ridiculous. The assertion that you are claiming is "false" is that that PNAC were referring to an event that was catastrophic and catalysing. This does not merit response.

PH was just one of many events that happened on or around Dec 7, 1941. PH was simply used as a rallying cry, like the Lusitania and the Alamo, to gain public support for the war that FDR had already started preparing for.

I hope you are not arguing taht PH was not the catalyst for US involvement in ww2....

That is not true of 9/11.

I equally hope you are not stating 911 has not catalysing the WOT

The PNAC document was not specifically written to counteract terrorism.

I know. Where did i say it did?

Instead, the recommendations have, for the most part, been thrown out the door which has been shown in many posts by others that you have ignored.

You are out of your mind!!!

Unbelievable self deception! Show me one post that I have ignored in response to my points regarding similarities between RAD and WOT, encapsulated in #95. You will not find one. So why have you lied like this?
[/quote]

Again, another false statement. The PNAC or RAD never require or inferred any type of need for a never ending engagement. The PNAC document recommendations were to PREVENT such an engagement to occur. Therefore the WOT and Iraq are not what the PNAC wanted. So the "new PH" was not propitious to the PNAC policy since the policy of the PNAC was to prevent war, not start it.

They required a long lasting military transformation that would project american hegemony throughout the 21st century, What better way to do it than a potentially neve ending war.

Understand one thing, and do tell me if you disagree, as i will be able to gauge your apparent mental illness- in a wartime environment, military radicalisations are much easier to pursue, especially with the help of scare tactics, such as are being used by the Bush admin. Tell me if you disagree with that please.

The inference is yours and the "Truth Movements," not the PNAC. The PNAC was simply stating a fact of military life, not a need for a new PH.

Yes, the fact that changes are easier and quicker to pursue in a wartime environment than in peace!!! How hard is this to understand??! And if you do understand it, tell me why, instead of having the change happen easily and timely, they would want them to happen with difficulty, and not timely!!?

Again, where does it specifically state that the recommended changes need to happen sooner than later?

Basic, nursery level inference my friend, take some lessons in honesty, and you will find this thread a lot easier for yourself.

 

[mjd1982]

What a clownish post...

Instruction Manual to dedicate circular reasoning:

1.) Read PNAC document

yes

2.) Select post- 9/11 actions suitable to short term transformation.

what the hell are you talking about? I went through the "key points" at the start of the doc. why have you lied?

3.) Assume "absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event- Like a new Pearl Harbor" as the only message of policy within PNAC document, and thus assume everything else within the document are merely details.

Lol, where have i said it is the only message of the doc?

4.) Post message in thread, determined to be # 493.

right, among others

5.) Infer message has not been challenged, repeatedly.

Haha, nice gag. Show me where it has been contested fully, you liar.

6.) Refer people back to # 493.

7.) Repeat steps 4-6

Had you a shred of honesty in your body, you would not post such tripe.

Can we please have some semi intelligent OT posters on this thread, please, it is getting depressing!

 

[SpitfireIX]

I hope you are not arguing taht PH was not the catalyst for US involvement in ww2....

It wasn't. Japan would have gone to war with the United States whether the Pearl Harbor attack had taken place or not. The Japanese high command was generally opposed to the operation; Admiral Yammamoto had to threaten to resign in order to get the plan approved. Even without Pearl Harbor Japan still would have invaded the Philippines, Guam, and Wake.

As for Germany, the US Navy was already in a hot war with the Kriegsmarine in the Atlantic; one US destroyer had already been sunk, and another damaged by U-boats, and FDR had ordered the US Navy to shoot on sight any German or Italian warships encountered.

Roosevelt's political advisors told him that he had the votes in Congress for declarations of war againt both German and Japan before Pearl Harbor; however, his military advisors were begging him to delay entering the war as long as possible, in order to give them more time to prepare.

As lapman stated, from a political and morale standpoint, Pearl Harbor was primarily a rallying cry. The point that you seem to be missing, and others have attempted to point out to you, is that the "cataclysmic and catalyzing" effect of Pearl Harbor referred to in PNAC is not on American public opinion; rather it is on military thinking, in terms of the shift from battleship-oriented to aircraft carrier-oriented naval strategy. Personally I feel this effect is often exaggerated; the US Navy was already well on its way to adopting the aircraft carrier as its main weapon (at the time of Pearl Harbor, 13 Essex-class carriers had been on order for over a year). However, this is clearly the sense that the the authors of PNAC meant to convey.

 

[Horace Wheeljack]

Can we please have some semi intelligent OT posters on this thread, please, it is getting depressing![/quote]

I'm only semi-intelligent if your getting depressed with the intelligent people running rings round you.

This is how i see it.

The PNAC document was written by neo-cons, it supported increases in military spending. In a section regarding new technologies a pearl harbour reference is made. You have deemed this line as important in stating the claim that 911 was propitious to policy. Its not that simple. Its been pointed out throughout this thread why not. You have failed to recognise the points made and will continue to claim that it was propitious to policy. Other posters have now abondoned any hope of progressing the discussion and are now pulling your chain.

 

[MIKILLINI]

Lol, where have i said it is the only message of the doc?

Repeat steps 4-6 in My post. You are using it for a lynchpin. Let Me show you.

In your very first post;

Coincidence? No. All design and no luck; that is almost certain. For the document is very specific about how such transformations should be achieved. They should not occur one by one by one; that would be useless. There needs to be a global framework for all these changes, aligned, moreover, with domestic policy. How long will it take for these crucial changes to happen? Many decades; we as readers can gauge that this would potentially vitiate the goal of the 21st Century being an American one; so how to do it quickly? Well, the document does tell us.

“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.”

This is the only sentence in the doc that covers how, soon. Given that such crucial transformations happening in months/years, rather than decades is favourable to PNAC/the neo conservative ideologues who formed the heart of the Bush administration, then we can conclude that a new Pearl Harbour is deemed propitious to policy for the Bush administration as of September 2000.

In post #95;

It states that for such a transformation, crucial, to occur within a timeframe shorter than decades, a new Pearl Harbour would need to happen. Given that for such to happen within years/months, rather than decades is propitious, especially bearing in mind the aims of the "Projects for the new american century", then we can equally conclude that they deem a new PH propitious to policy.

Post #194;

So the question is, did they want the changes to happen in a "longer" timeframe (specified later as "several decades"), or shorter, i.e., presumably, monthr or years?

So we can already make the qualification that given that such a crucial transformation taking mths/yrs, is preferable to it taking decades, then a new PH is propitious to policy. This should not be controversial, or hard to understand.
Reminder that the aim of my points re PNAC is to show that there was clearly stated intent for a new PH to happen on the part of the neo cons, with the implication that such should happen before October 2001.

Just as an aside, was psychology part of your education?

No, there is a difference here. They are stating as to how a change will occur over a long period of time; this does not mean that they do not want it achieved over a shorter one. Think- what is the alternative to what you are saying, that they state "This will be long absent a new PH... so we better start planning one!" No. They are not that dumb. So to say that they are content with it happening over a long period of time, due to the fact that they talk about how it would happen over such a period, overlooks the fact that practically speaking, they have no alternative, as well as paying zero attention to the fact that they may be more content with it happening over a shorter period.

Incidentally, you have forgotten the important point of what is the raison d'etre of PNAC? You can hazard a guess from their name; thus the idea that they would want such a hegemonic transformation to occur early in the century is 100% congruous with their raison d'etre; the opposite is 100% incongruous.

So, to reframe your point, the question is when will the process get underway. Ideally, it will happen after a new PH, since this will catalyse the policies set out in the doc. Absent 911, it would have been pretty tough to get some of the changes that have come about

# 270 IS post- 9/11 action/policy;

In short, we are left where we started with- a new PH would be propitious to policy, since it would catalyse a chain of radicalisations, as outlined by PNAC, starting with the 2001 QDR, and allow them to happen in years rather than decades.

In post #304;

All that is aiming to be illustrated for now is that the neo-cons stated that a new PH would be propitious to policy. This is based on the fact of what is in black and white in their document.

In post#309, post# 317 (Which was a response to a post of mine);

It starts with PNAC, where the propitiousness of a new PH for policy is stated.

Post # 328;

The events of 9/11 were of great influence in the QDR.

The quote above is post-9/11 actions that you have attempted to use as evidence pertaining to the minds of those who wrote PNAC. The "propitious" connection.

Post #364;

Now, there is actually a very simple way of ascertaining what characteristics of PH were meant to be mirrored in the new PH- look at the doc. The characteristic imputed to the new PH are 2. "catastrophic", and "catalysing".
Very simple.

So, given that 911 was both catastrophic and catalysing, it was a new PH in the sense that PNAC meant.

Post #410;

And finally, as I have stated, the actual changes themselves do not matter so much in their detail; what is important is the broad import, to be sped up by a new PH, since we are arguing design rather than execution.

These are 10 posts reflecting your argument. Now do you have evidence of somebody, anybody, doing something illegal within the US Government that would make relevance to your arguments?
Or just repeat steps 4-6?

 

[Belz...]

because it is the concept that is deemed propitious

Circular reasoning.

cos its in the doc!!! Cultivez votre jardin Belz!

Would you please stop speaking French ? Only a very few people here understand what you're saying, and this isn't a PM, so please make it so that MOST people can understand you.

Breach of Rule 8

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: chillzero

.

I see you have no intention of answering my question.

Encore une commentaire de genie. Bravo!

"Commentaire" is a masculine word, Mjd.

this has been discussed before, please keep up

That's not an answer: Who would fund such an investigation, that would make it "independent" ?

encore un bel argument!

I was a comment meant to indicate that your statement was irrelevant to the issue. Simply ignoring what other people say does not make their points dissapear, Mjd.

Hmmm... tres malin

And again you completely ignore the point. Why are you reading this forum if you are not interested in what other people have to say about your theory ?

yes... so?

Then it would be.

Vraiment, tu me fais chier!

Sorry if the truth hurts, but you're the one who started that inane argument about "even" and "absent" as though they meant more than they do.

As above

Seriously there's nary a post where you don't say that.

plus the war in Iraq ia but 1 element of the WOT, as has been told to you many times.

Answer the question: where are the front lines in Iraq ?

Voltaire te plait? Tu serais bien conseille de suivre son conseil- Cultivez votre jardin!

Apprends à écrire en Français convenablement et on en reparlera.

 

[Belz...]

Ok, 1st problem here. I am not confusing interpretation with fact, since I have stated on this thread many times that my point about PNAC is based on inference.

Err, no, the propitousness of change is not something taht I hope you will be debating, since the need for this change is the subject of the doc

You've just shot yourself in the foot, Mjd.

If you've INFERED your conclusion from the doc, it follows that it is not the SUBJECT of the doc, otherwise it wouldn't have to be infered.

Admittedly this is the most basic inference, so basic that amongst honest, non self deceptive people, it may even be taken as fact

How is it "basic", if you can't even convince anyone that you are correct in its interpretation ?

These posts are getting just a tad ridiculous. The assertion that you are claiming is "false" is that that PNAC were referring to an event that was catastrophic and catalysing. This does not merit response.

Mayhap you should read the REST of his post before answering to the first word.

They required a long lasting military transformation that would project american hegemony throughout the 21st century, What better way to do it than a potentially neve ending war.

Except that they DON'T have a never ending war.

Basic, nursery level inference my friend

Just because you think so doesn't make it "basic". Perhaps you should get to proving it instead of stating it. Oh, wait. You already did, and failed.

 

[SpitfireIX]

It wasn't. Japan would have gone to war with the United States whether the Pearl Harbor attack had taken place or not. The Japanese high command was generally opposed to the operation; Admiral Yammamoto had to threaten to resign in order to get the plan approved. Even without Pearl Harbor Japan still would have invaded the Philippines, Guam, and Wake.

As for Germany, the US Navy was already in a hot war with the Kriegsmarine in the Atlantic; one US destroyer had already been sunk, and another damaged by U-boats, and FDR had ordered the US Navy to shoot on sight any German or Italian warships encountered.

Roosevelt's political advisors told him that he had the votes in Congress for declarations of war againt both German and Japan before Pearl Harbor; however, his military advisors were begging him to delay entering the war as long as possible, in order to give them more time to prepare.

As lapman stated, from a political and morale standpoint, Pearl Harbor was primarily a rallying cry. The point that you seem to be missing, and others have attempted to point out to you, is that the "cataclysmic and catalyzing" effect of Pearl Harbor referred to in PNAC is not on American public opinion; rather it is on military thinking, in terms of the shift from battleship-oriented to aircraft carrier-oriented naval strategy. Personally I feel this effect is often exaggerated; the US Navy was already well on its way to adopting the aircraft carrier as its main weapon (at the time of Pearl Harbor, 13 Essex-class carriers had been on order for over a year). However, this is clearly the sense that the the authors of PNAC meant to convey.

I just noticed that I wrote "cataclysmic" rather than "catastrophic." Sorry--I was in a rush to finish my post before the end of my dinner break.

 

[aggle-rithm]

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.

YYYY-MM-DD works best for reporting because it's alpha-numeric order is the same as the chronological order. DD-MM-YYYY has the most significant numeric unit (the year) last, so it's not much use at all.

MM-DD-YYYY persists because it mirrors the conversational date format ("January the first, two-thousand seven").

In programming the date is represented by both a numeric value and a character representation, so as long as you keep those straight it doesn't matter what the format is.

 

[JonnyFive]

(snip)

In programming the date is represented by both a numeric value and a character representation, so as long as you keep those straight it doesn't matter what the format is.

At least in the Microsoft family of OS's, the date can be stored internally as an integer value (where 1 = January 1, 1900... except in the 1904 date system used by some older MS programs for some reason), so you can choose whatever format mask you goddamn well please and the program will be able to compare, transform, or translate the date regardless.

Today is 39242, and we like it that way.

 

[Myriad]

At least in the Microsoft family of OS's, the date can be stored internally as an integer value (where 1 = January 1, 1900... except in the 1904 date system used by some older MS programs for some reason), so you can choose whatever format mask you goddamn well please and the program will be able to compare, transform, or translate the date regardless.

Today is 39242, and we like it that way.

That's all well and good, when the software that's manipulating dates knows it's manipulating dates, such as for date fields in a database or date stamps in an OS. But dates often get written into data that's subsequently treated as text, such as file names with leading dates (e.g. 2003_03_29_images.dir) in an OS directory. Those will only sort correctly if in YYYY-MM-DD format.

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[nicepants]

Today is 39242, and we like it that way.

Storing dates in that format is not propitious to my programming.

 

[JonnyFive]

That's all well and good, when the software that's manipulating dates knows it's manipulating dates, such as for date fields in a database or date stamps in an OS. But dates often get written into data that's subsequently treated as text, such as file names with leading dates (e.g. 2003_03_29_images.dir) in an OS directory. Those will only sort correctly if in YYYY-MM-DD format.

That's true. It also causes problems when a program ends up trying to parse a date from text, or stores it as a non-date type... or is written in a language that doesn't use that kind of date type. It's a good idea, anyway. Sometimes.

Bagh, we should all start using the integer dates. It would be propitious to starting the global empire, I think.

 

[Belz...]

YYYY-MM-DD works best for reporting because it's alpha-numeric order is the same as the chronological order. DD-MM-YYYY has the most significant numeric unit (the year) last, so it's not much use at all.

MM-DD-YYYY persists because it mirrors the conversational date format ("January the first, two-thousand seven").

In programming the date is represented by both a numeric value and a character representation, so as long as you keep those straight it doesn't matter what the format is.

Checked. YYYY-MM-DD seems to be the international format, after all.

 

[JonnyFive]

Storing dates in that format is not propitious to my programming.

Why do you hate America, freedom, and apple pie, nicepants?

 

[nicepants]

Why do you hate America, freedom, and apple pie, nicepants?

SHHHH! Don't blow my cover.

Actually, I LOVE apple pie, though it's not propitious to my abs.

 

[JonnyFive]

SHHHH! Don't blow my cover.

Actually, I LOVE apple pie, though it's not propitious to my abs.

Eating too much apple pie causes catastrophic changes to mine.