The 9/11 Conspiracy Facts

simakperrce said:
First off: if you decide to continue to discuss this matter in this condescending kind of manner with sprinkling your replies with patronizing comments, ad hominems and "LMAO"s you might consider ignoring me altogether.

Next: there is no such thing as "my ilk". I am a relative scarce poster around here and the opinion I express is solely my own and is not endorsed by anyone around here. We are not a group of people who form a movement. We are individuals who are interested in facts.

I have refrained from calling you names or trying to derail your arguments with childish Internet abbreviations. If there is something funny for you about my English it might be that it is not my first language.

Can we thusly agree upon refraining from such childish nonsense and take a look at our arguments instead?



I was referring to your original post. In that, as I pointed out earlier, you mention the word "fact" or "evidence" a good number of times without actually providing such. That you "infer" anything from anything is your good right. But you do not do so in your OP. You build an entire case around why 9/11 MUST HAVE BEEN an inside job based on a few statements in a document which you INTERPRET in a certain way. While this approach might be a valid approach for a political essay it is not something that you could use in any court or something that will give you a case that holds water.




I am not debating the propitiousness of change. I am debating that 9/11 was the consequence of said mentioning, which you claim is the logical conclusion, hence fact.



Condescending, childish BS



If it was for me you can debate this point for another 1700 posts. I don't care. The document, as I understand it (interpret it just as you), states that IN CASE of a catalysing event the policy of change will eventually have to be adjusted (accelerated). That 9/11 THEREFORE MUST HAVE BEEN *THAT* catalyzing event that is mentioned in this doc is your inference. As I said before it is an inference that is not subject to falsifiability. Hence it is worthless, unless you produce another document in which any of the undersignees explicitly states that THIS (911) WAS THE CATALYZING EVENT that PNAC referred to and that "we" have been waiting for.


<snipped more condescending rubbish>




As for the "ilk"-remark see above. You obviously did not understand the analogy. You cited a document, which contains vague and general guidelines for American policy over the next decades to be EVIDENCE for an inside job on 911. I tried to explain to you, that contrary to what you said in your first post, your inference and interpretation of this document is opinion and not facts.

It is not a fact that the catalystic event mentioned in PNAC was 911. I agree in so far that it COULD have been. Pure and simple. By the same token, the earth COULD have been created by god rather than by the big bang and ensuing gravitational forces. We have good evidence that the latter was the case, but it is still an inference which doesn't entirely exclude the belief that it could have been god after all. One of the central creationist arguments that earth was IN FACT created by god is the document called Bible, which, in vague and general terms describes the creation of earth by god. Without implying that you are actually a creationist, your train of thought in regard to 9/11 being a major event, predicted, orchestrated and executed by some specific, powerful entity (God, the GOV, Cheney, the CIA) is the exact same.



Again, condescending bullcrap. Next time, before you post, please strip your contributions of this patronizing rubbish or stop replying at all.
Click to expand...

In the context of cherry picking, it seems that mjd has overlooked those points in the document. But they are not propitious to his case, therefore they don't matter to him since a catastrophic and catalyzing event happened on 9/11. So he bends the parameters to fit the arguments. Perhaps the logic is to grade the wot with a curve? :con2:
 
And this letter from the PNAC to the president. Dated 1/23/2003

In sum, there is an increasingly dangerous gap between our strategic ends and our military means, and the Bush Doctrine cannot be carried out effectively without a larger military force.

By every measure, current defense spending is inadequate for a military with global responsibilities. Ten years ago, America's defense burden was 4.8% of GDP. Although the decline in defense spending has been halted, we have not done nearly enough to make up for this decade of neglect. The modest increase planned for next year will still leave Pentagon spending at about 3.4 % of GDP, and Congressional Budget Office projections are that the proportion will decline to approximately 3% by 2007.

Inadequate funding results in an inadequate force. Today's military is simply too small for the missions it must perform. A reduced active-duty force means an increasing reliance on reserve troops, not just in times of war but to meet daily presence requirements. Inadequate modernization programs have also slowed the normal and necessary replacement of planes, ships and equipment; indeed, to make up for the "procurement holiday" of the past decade, tens of billions more over the next decade will have to be spent than is currently budgeted. And, finally, inadequate research spending has hampered the development of missile defenses and is delaying the transformation of our conventional forces and the exploitation of new technologies.
Click to expand...


It sure doesn't seem like the WOT was what they had in mind. Maybe Bush didn't get the memo on how he was supposed to do things.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/defense-20030123.htm
 
jab712 said:
Maybe Bush's reading skills parallel MJD's? Why read when you can pick a few words and interpret....yeah!
Click to expand...
:D

Now there's a point to consider; Bush doesn't like to read, so he has advisers to "brief" him. Possibly Mjd is using "advisers" to brief his arguments. The bottom of each page must read;
Reminder: PNAC is not PNAC without a catastrophic and catalyzing event-Like a new Pearl Harbor, only this can be applied as propitious to policy.
 
mjd1982 said:
Oh boy, another dull minded, ill thought out utterance...

Listen, the Japanese may well have been going to war with the US come hell or high water, but there was still a catalysing event that precipitated US involvement. This is quite simple to understand.
Click to expand...


No, the event that precipitated the US's going to war with Japan was Japan's going to war with the US. The Pearl Harbor attack was merely one manifestation of Japan's action. My point is that the US and Japan would still have been at war even if the Japanese had only attacked the Philippines, Guam, and Wake, rather than Pearl Harbor. Do you dispute this? If not, then you must concede that Pearl Harbor was not required for the US to enter the war against Japan, and thus clearly cannot by itself be considered "a catalyzing event that precipitated US involvement." Also, please explain how you believe that Pearl Harbor precipitated war between the other Axis powers and the US.

Hehe, this is too bad! How can you seriously write the stuff you do?
Click to expand...


Because I have a BA in American history, and have extensively studied World War II with particular emphasis on the Pacific War. But that's beside the point--the majority of knowledgeable, professional historians would tell you something similar. I imagine that doesn't matter to you, though, as you've evidently got everything all figured out.

This para relates to japanese motives for waging war- what relevance does it have to catalysts for US involvement?
Click to expand...


The point is that the US would have joined the war whether Japan had attacked Pearl Harbor or not. See above.

Right! But to get fully involved in the war required, ultimately the catalysing event taht was PH!
Click to expand...


No, this was not required, which was the point I was trying to make. FDR could have had a declaration of war without Pearl Harbor, or any Japanese attack at all; however, he elected to wait, in order to allow the Army and Navy more time to prepare.

I get tired of telling you how basic this is, your posts just go to show
Edited by chillzero: 
Edited for civility
, or you have no respect for what you write.
Click to expand...


Frankly, you would do well to climb down from your high horse of condescension, because you are simply wrong, as is easily demonstrated by both facts and the inference of which you are clearly so fond.

Ok, so there were movements for war in Congress. How does this contradict the fact that PH was the event that catalysed full US engagement in the war?
Click to expand...


It shows that Pearl Harbor was not required for the US to enter the war; Roosevelt could have simply asked for a declaration of war when he felt the military was ready. Also, I didn't say there were "movements for war in Congress"--I said that FDR "had the votes" had he chosen to ask for them.

Woah woah woah... think about what you are saying. Who was it a rallying cry for? Its victims? How the hell can an attack be a rallying cry by its victims? Think before you post this nonsense.
Click to expand...


You are clearly attempting to twist what I wrote in an effort to belittle my argument. Pearl Harbor was a rallying cry for all Americans, both servicemen and -women and civilians. Perhaps you've heard the expression, "Remember Pearl Harbor?"

wwiip259.jpg


It served as a rallying cry to get the social and political machinery behind full US engagement in WW2- hence it was the catalyst for it!
Click to expand...


Are you saying that Pearl Harbor was necessary for actual declarations of war on the Axis powers, or are you saying that American participation in the war would have been half-hearted without Pearl Harbor? If the former, this is wrong, as I have shown; if the latter, this is at best questionable.

This is astonishingly, astonishingly basic.
Click to expand...


This is astonishingly, astonishingly oversimplified.

For you to try and argue that PH didnt catalyse US involvement in ww2, the most basic historical fact, is perfectly illustrative of your self deception, denial, and utter dishonesty in approaching this issue.
Click to expand...


This is not a "basic historical fact." It is a popular misconception, a point that you seem unable to grasp because of your deep emotional investment in believing that the PNAC report is some sort of "smoking gun."

Ah, inference we have here! So it is admissible to debate after all, I dont expect you to use that evasion again.
Click to expand...


Please show an example where I claimed that inference is not admissible in a debate. Further, it's not an inference--it's clear from the following passage, as has been noted:

. . . the Navy might face a future Pearl Harbor – as unprepared for war in the post-carrier era as it was unprepared for war at the dawn of the carrier age.
Click to expand...


Of course, your point debunks itself- as has been pointed out by many on this thread already, along with now yourself, the shift in military thinking was already in place; what was needed was a coherent framework, including domestic, and foreign policy (if you had read the doc carefully, you would not need me to tell you this), which would allow the full aims of RAD, which went beyond mere military gains, and included global posture review and agressive control of strategic interests.
Click to expand...


What was and is needed for the PNAC plan, first and foremost, is much more money, both from increased defense spending, and from canceling certain expensive programs. As shown below, this has not really happened.

This WOT offers the perfect subterfuge for all such elements to be achieved; and as it offers us a wartime environment, the changes, in general backed by the political and social machinery, are easy to push through, just as the PH para in RAD states.
Click to expand...


Yes, that's why the JSF and the CVX have been canceled, because the PNAC plan has been so easy to push through, right? :rolleyes: Also, you're not making any sense here. Why is a subterfuge needed to achieve this transformation? You've claimed that a shift in military thinking had already taken place, so who is being fooled?

This should all be very, very simple to understand, so much so that I am certain it is honesty here, not intellect, that is lacking.
Click to expand...


Well, let's consider your honesty, mjd1982. Just as one example, you claimed that the large increase in defense spending after September 11 somehow achieved a goal of the PNAC plan, even after you were shown that virtually all of the money went for increased security (such as combat air patrols) and operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, and not into transformation of the military. How can you claim with any degree of intellectual honesty that this is achieving the goals of PNAC?
 
mjd1982 said:
This is astonishingly, astonishingly basic.
Click to expand...

Only because you see this issue in basic terms where others try to see the whole picture.

This should all be very, very simple to understand, so much so that I am certain it is honesty here, not intellect, that is lacking.
Click to expand...

Typical from a truther. You think your conclusions are so evident that only a dishonest shill could disagree.
 
mjd1982 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Opinion? What is? The fact that it has been contested? Have you not noticed how long this thread is? Seriously? And you still think you are not being contested?

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.
Click to expand...

Exactly. You infered. They very clearly do not say what they want, they simply say what they think will happen given two different scenarios. All the rest is entirely your own opinion. Feel free to give some actual evidence to support it at any time, but simply claiming that you are the only serious person here does not magically make it true. Also, please note that there are still none of my collegeagues on this forum, so you really need to stop imagining that there are.

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.
Click to expand...

Yep, very easy. This is not a debate. We like facts and evidence, not waffling arguments about what kinds of opinion should be allowed. If you can't support your opinion then it carries no weight whatsoever. No-one is going to bother debating your inferences because that is all they are. Please bring some actual evidence to the table or just admit that you have nothing.

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.
Click to expand...

Yes, the next adult step would be to say why. Oddly enough I did exactly that in the post you just replied to. I thought the bit where I said "a civilian terrorist attack on civilians is in no way similar to a military operation against military forces during a war" was fairly explicit really. Care to actually answer that point? After all, that's what an adult debater would do.

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

If you are a serious person here for serious discussion you will stop the pathetic patronising manner, since it is clear that most people here know far more than you about the events at hand.

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.
Click to expand...

For someone who tries to give the appearance of knowing so much about debate, you don't seem to know much about logical fallacies. That was not an ad hom attack. An ad hom would be saying that your arguments are wrong because you are a liar. I am saying that your arguments are wrong and you are a liar. There's an important difference. As for whether it was a lie or not, either you were lying or you made a claim having done absolutely no research whatsoever. Either way, it really doesn't make you look good.

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.
Click to expand...

Read it. There's nothing in it except your own personal opinion. No facts, no evidence.

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.
Click to expand...

Catastrophic in what sense? Military? Certainly not. Pearl Harbour was a military event. Which part of this do you find hard to understand? PNAC was talking about the military. A catastrophic military event could provide the impetus to drive military funding. No military catastrophy occured. Catalysing? Not really. Has there been a massive change in military funding? No. Has there been a change in how the military operates? No. In fact, 11/9 was actually the opposite of catalysing, since the changes planned for more technical wars were found not to work in the modern guerilla environment and so they have had to revert to older tactics.

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.
Click to expand...

No, that is what you think PNAC really wanted. Your own inferences are not necessarily truth. Please stop pretending that you either know more than anyone else or are more intelligent than anyone else. You're only making yourself look silly.
 
mjd1982 said:
Originally Posted by lapman
Every post by everyone else since. Yes, you acknowledge and quote the posts, but you ignore the content
Click to expand...
Please give me 1 example.
Click to expand...
Post #89 is a perfect example. You had plenty of places to go for your answers instead of this ridiculous thread. This only shows that you have no intention of looking for answers. You just want to argue for arguments sake. To belittle others to boost your own ego.
Read #95, the one that only 1 person has had the courage to respond to, and all will be clear to you.
Click to expand...
This is a lie. Gravy, WildCat, Gumboot, Hokulele, DJM and Belz responded. You talk about honesty, yet you haven't shown much yourself.

Your PNAC's "new PH" = 9/11 theory has been totally proven false. It has been shown that 9/11 has not been the "catastrophic and catalyzing" event to speed up it's recommendations when in fact the opposite has happened which has been shown in the above memos. So, can we now move on to WTC7?
 
mjd1982 said:
This should all be very, very simple to understand, so much so that I am certain it is honesty here, not intellect, that is lacking.
Click to expand...
And by "honest", you mean "agreeing fully with your inferences", as you previously stated.

Real conducive to civilized discourse. :rolleyes:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom