The 9/11 Conspiracy Facts

[Belz...]

Bah. Army. Navy. Air force. They ALL have neat vehicles.

 

[Unsecured Coins]

yeah, but I like my TANK better.



please note, that is not MY tank.

 

[lapman]

yeah, but I like my TANK better.



please note, that is not MY tank.

Umm, I only see a white box. So we have a stealth tank? Camo'ed tank during a white out? Or a sleeping polar bear during a snow storm?

 

[Unsecured Coins]

SHUT UP!! I's a tank in a snowstorm.

 

[simakperrce]

BTW, mjd, have you ever entertained the idea that 9/11 was indeed a catalyzing event, albeit one orchestrated and executed by Al Quaeda with the propitiousness of a worldwide Muslim uprising and asynchronous warfare in mind? The testimony of the ringleaders and the evidence at hand certainly makes this version more plausible than one which relies merely on a single document (see how I used the word "plausible" here instead of claiming it was "a fact"?)

But I guess I forgot how educated and enlightened liberals tend to agree that "some bearded guys in a cave" would never be able to analyze propitiousness or anything as complicated as it in the way we smart Westerners would.

 

[Belz...]

Simak, mjd doesn't realise that EVEN IF he were right about propitiousness, it wouldn't prove a thing about 9/11 being an inside job.

 

[MIKILLINI]

You're not a high-enough order of Freemason for me to tell you that particular information. Sacrifice more puppies to Moloch and we'll talk.

I'm workin' on it, absent some catastrophic and...well, you know.

 

[MIKILLINI]

Simak, mjd doesn't realise that EVEN IF he were right about propitiousness, it wouldn't prove a thing about 9/11 being an inside job.

EXACTLY!! But some person just skips over that point, endlessly.

 

[Darth Rotor]

2 points. 1stly, the US is militarising space, transforming cyberspace into a defense mechanism, undergoing a global redeployment of troops, transforming the DoD,

All initiated before 9-11, and before Bush even took office.

Increasing military budgets, had the patriot act, the military ommissions act and more, all under the aegis of the War on Terror.

Since 9-11.

Please tell me given all this, how the US is not on a war footing.

The military is, and their families, and the bulk of America goes on about its business. What sacrifice in the here and now is being asked of Americans? None, the war is being paid for On Credit. At least FDR did the hard work of raising war bonds.

2ndly, and importantly for you, you might want to differentiate between design and execution. It is not the executon we are concerned about, rather the execution. This is the main point, and as I have mentioned many times, issues of execution are rather irrelevent.

That made no sense, at all.

Now tell me how an invasion/overthrow/war in Iraq was not part of the transformation/deemed propitious to the transformation.

That made no sense. As I understood Wolfowitz, Bennet's, and Woolsley's soundbytes in the summer and fall of 2002, in the information campaign to the war, the idea they had was that transforming Iraq would be a catalyst to transforming the entire middle east. This was no secret, regardless of how many people in the DoD, to inlcude me, a peon, and people like Shinseki and LTGEN Odom (USMC) didn't see things as rosily as those members of PNAC.

Which would have been easier to pursue in a war environment. I don't think that this is a controversial point.

Perhaps if the "war" was kept cheap, per Rummy's original plan; (3-15 billion, that's what he told Congress it would cost) this would have been true, but the risk, known in the Pentagon if nowhere else, was that it would be a lot more like Bosnia, but bigger, and a lot harder, for obvious reasons of METT-T differences between Bosnia and Iraq.

Ok. Well then tell me why they would want such world changing, peace love and happiness bringing changes to occur over decades, rather than mths/years; or why any sane person would want such, all else being equal.

Your strawman, you answer it.

rag heads? I would hope you are not meaning that term in a racist sense...

I don't care much what you hope. Dealing with terrorists is something a certain generation of military men, mine, had in front of them for an entire career. Mine began in 1980, and if you recall BGEN Dozier, you will note that not all terrorists are rag heads, only some of them are. At least the IRA have calmed down a bit.

Atrophy to what purpose? To stimulate anti-terror efforts? By invading Iraq? And if you have such suspicions, then why do you not feel there should be an investigation into such? Your suspicions, if true, would lead to the Bush admin being put in front of a firing squad, as with any CT.

Who do you think will talk, beyond Tenet, Clarke, Scheuer? Who is still holding out who will talk? I don't see Scooter Libby talking, do you? Rummy? Cheney? No. Why? Fear of that same firing squad, if there is indeed something there to hide, which is an unknown.

as above, differentiate between execution and design.

More misdirection.

The point about the war on Terror is that it can never end.

This is only true if all succeeding administrations continue the policy. Now, if the WoT is going to be as attractive as the War on Drugs, perhaps, but given its current ill standing, your presumption of inertia is based on

What? Exactly?

Lol, I'm not talking about a rotten war, I'm talking about a war that cannot conceivably end.

I can conceive of it ending, and returnig to a policy more similar to the Clinton era law enforcement style approach. Not hard to do. Look for a change in 2008.

No, they explicity called it the "War on Terror".

Yes. But what has been undertaken is a war on two nation states.

Oh please. You are starting to get a bit over excited i think. Stick to the facts and stop the childish aspersions, if you want to debate like an adult.

Likewise.

The war in Iraq is part of the WOT, according to the neo cons. I take it you do not dispute this.

I most certainly dispute that complete mischaracterization of my words, as I do not concur, at all, with BushCo on that, and never have since the Iraq war began.

"We're at war, do what we say, else you will all be nuked".

In what world did this get spoken?

execution, not design

More misdirection.

The Iraq war is, in the eyes of the neo cons, an integral part of the WOT. If you are serious, you will not dispute this.

That the neocons feel that way is so, that I feel that way is completely false.

No, PH is used as an analogy. Analogies have different contexts. This is pretty damn simple!

By you, them, or both?

They also wanted to defend US strategic interests, e.g. oil and gas:

As has every US administration since Nixon in 1973. This is not news.

I am simply stating that it illustrates that a new PH was in their eyes propitious to policy, since under war conditions, military transformation is easier to push through.

Rummy found otherwise, in practice.

This is the most elementary of common sense.

No, it's Ivory Tower, Silver Bullet, head in the sand rubbish.

The new PH provided an opportunity.

Hence it was propitious to policy.

Opportunity, or design? You really love "propitious" as a word. Opportune is less fancy.

Now why do you then say that in the PNAC doc, the envisioning of a new PH would not have been propitious to policy. This isnt very serious i dont think.

Still beating that horse?

RAD didnt say "We need to cause a new PH".

Correct.

But it states what all people with common sense know, that if such changes occur catalysed by a new PH, they will happen soon, rather than over several decades.

But those of us who actually aren't eggheads, unlike Paul Wolfowitz for example, know that such pie in the sky rhetoric is just that, rhetoric, spewed out by Think Tanks as part of their usual regurgiation of Ivory Tower policy recommendation.

Further, in a war environment, they should happen much easier, and roadblock and other issues should be easier to deal with. Why they, or any sane person, would not want this to happen, is something that would take a hell of a lot of explaining, I'm afraid.

Nope, the reality of war is that the war drives the transformation, not the eggheads. See, for example, the armored HUMMV's, NOT in Rummy's transformation plan. See also the counter IED measures: not in the transformation plan Pre Iraq War.

An empty wagon rattles the most. See ya, mj, and enjoy.

DR

 

[mjd1982]

MJD1982,

A question for you.

Some posters in this thread, including myself, have suggested that offers from the Taliban to hand over Osama bin Laden to the USA for trial may not have been entirely sincere. Our suggestion is that Afghan diplomats, in negotiations with a foreign country both potentially hostile and possessed of overwhelming military force, may have prevaricated, concealed information, uttered half-truths and hinted vaguely at offers they had no intention of making good - all of these fairly common tactics in any negotiation. I would suggest that they did this in order to further what they saw as their country's best interests, by avoiding giving the appearance before other Islamic nations with extremist tendencies of having given in to America and failed to preserve the safety of a guest, while at the same time avoiding an open conflict with America which could only have one possible ultimate outcome - the entire destruction of their form of government, and quite possibly their own personal extinction.

You have countered this with the assertion that it is unthinkable for Afghan diplomats to have acted in such a manner, and that even to suggest that they were in any way dishonest is a racist slur against the Afghan people.

My question is this: What is it, in the world you inhabit, that diplomats actually do?

Dave

Ok, well no, I have not suggested that to imply that they were in any way dishonest is racist- I have countered the oft repeated assertion here that Mohabbat is half Afghan (note, half), Afghans have a kind of cultural code of deceit, thus Mohabbat is being deceitful, as being bigoted. I trust there will not be any sensible disputes with this.

That correction aside, my point is what it always has been- regardless of whether you think that the chap was lying or telling the truth, the fact as reported by MSNBC is that there was no discussion within in the US government as to whether to take up the Afghan offer of handing over OBL to the US. Moreover, Mohabbat is an important witness, as important a witness as can be found regarding such a question as US-Talibam dynamics over OBL pre 911, and his opinion is unequivocal. Thus, whereas OTers may scuttle about scraping barrels for the latest subterfuge to muddy the issue (he may have been lying, is Cockburn really reliable, Olbermann has an agenda to list some that have been raised just for this issue), this does not deflect away from the core issue that his crucial testimony is another point which adds to the call for investigation of connivance. Saying that he must have been lying cos he contradicts the State dept is neither here nor there. The point stands.

 

[Unsecured Coins]

The point stands.

Under who's authority? I'm starting to think that this is less and less your wish to "show us the truth" as it is a marathon on why you refuse to believe what we believe. Even after your points are dismantled, you brush them off as "irrelevant" and continue on like nothing happened.

Dare I say, you have ignorance down to an artform.

 

[mjd1982]

WRONG The catalyzing event is based purely on a military level, not public opinion level.

Why? Explain yourself, dont just make assertions. These assertions look all the more silly given that PH catalysed public and political opinon, not just military, which is the point of RAD. Again, very simple to understand.

And the PNAC document is not about engaging in a war, but being prepared in case such an engagement is needed.

right, well why is there then so much sabre rattling of invasion of Iraq? Again, a catastrophically slack reading of the doc

Because the PNAC was not talking about, inferring or giving any impression that such an even was require, needed or wanted.

Other than to make the changes happen quicker. And of course, what is the corrollary to quicker? Easier. So if you are arguiing that they wanted the changes to happen slower, you are also saying they wanted the process to be harder. Explain.

Oh, and learn the difference between imply and infer

This one

this one

neither of which were examples of anything. I assume a typo.

You have dramatically illustrated that you have no intention of arguing any point. Your statements have been proven wrong over and over again and you refuse to admit that.

Well, interesting, but since there is nothing of substance there, I cannot really say anything more

I have read your posts. The faults of Vietnam and Iraq were faults of both execution and design. You are the one that refuses to even try to understand that.

How was Vietnam a fault of design- the design in question being that the establishment of a US client regime in S. Vietnam would help US interests in the area and check communist expansion? How is this design wrong?

Which hasn't happened.

Haha, which is very much on its way to happening!

And you are 100,000% WRONG! That is what we have all showed you time and time again. You are wrong, period. Anything you post after this, including your reply is wrong. Just plain wrong on every level. You have zero idea what you are talking about. You are completely clueless on the working of the military. You have no idea what radicalization of the military is. Yet you will continually repeat the wrong statements over and over again and continually refer to posts that were wrong and have been proven wrong, over and over again.

Once again, since you have chosen to post with zero substance, I dont know what you expect me to say

Either way, the "new PH" that the PNAC is referring to is a military, not public opinion, catastrophic and catalyzing event. Nothing else. The second reference to PH in the document proves it.

Oh really? And how so?

Incidentally, if I refer to 2 broad analogies separately in a document, or indeed a piece of literature, you do know that this does not mean that both have the same import dont you?

I suspect you dont, but understand this, and the point will become clearer to you.

WRONG. The only things that have been pursued are the programs that were already in place when the document was written with the exception of the Comanche, which was canceled. Programs like the JSF were kept even though the PNAC recommended canceling it.

Again, understand the difference between a project being pursued in peacetime, and in wartime, and the haze will clear from your thinking. If it doesnt, let me know and I will try and explain it more simply for you.

WRONG The catalyzing event is based purely on a military level, not public opinion level.

Why? Explain yourself, dont just make assertions. These assertions look all the more silly given that PH catalysed public and political opinon, not just military, which is the point of RAD. Again, very simple to understand.

And the PNAC document is not about engaging in a war, but being prepared in case such an engagement is needed.

right, well why is there then so much sabre rattling of invasion of Iraq? Again, a catastrophically slack reading of the doc

Because the PNAC was not talking about, inferring or giving any impression that such an even was require, needed or wanted.

Other than to make the changes happen quicker. And of course, what is the corrollary to quicker? Easier. So if you are arguiing that they wanted the changes to happen slower, you are also saying they wanted the process to be harder. Explain.

Oh, and learn the difference between imply and infer

This one

this one

neither of which were examples of anything. I assume a typo.

You have dramatically illustrated that you have no intention of arguing any point. Your statements have been proven wrong over and over again and you refuse to admit that.

Well, interesting, but since there is nothing of substance there, I cannot really say anything more

I have read your posts. The faults of Vietnam and Iraq were faults of both execution and design. You are the one that refuses to even try to understand that.

How was Vietnam a fault of design- the design in question being that the establishment of a US client regime in S. Vietnam would help US interests in the area and check communist expansion? How is this design wrong?

Which hasn't happened.

Haha, which is very much on its way to happening!

And you are 100,000% WRONG! That is what we have all showed you time and time again. You are wrong, period. Anything you post after this, including your reply is wrong. Just plain wrong on every level. You have zero idea what you are talking about. You are completely clueless on the working of the military. You have no idea what radicalization of the military is. Yet you will continually repeat the wrong statements over and over again and continually refer to posts that were wrong and have been proven wrong, over and over again.

Once again, since you have chosen to post with zero substance, I dont know what you expect me to say

Either way, the "new PH" that the PNAC is referring to is a military, not public opinion, catastrophic and catalyzing event. Nothing else. The second reference to PH in the document proves it.

Oh really? And how so?

Incidentally, if I refer to 2 broad analogies separately in a document, or indeed a piece of literature, you do know that this does not mean that both have the same import dont you?

I suspect you dont, but understand this, and the point will become clearer to you.

WRONG. The only things that have been pursued are the programs that were already in place when the document was written with the exception of the Comanche, which was canceled. Programs like the JSF were kept even though the PNAC recommended canceling it.

Ok, my response is: YOU ARE WRONG. There, now 2 people have responded. So, are you finally ready to tackle WTC7?

I suspect that you are not aware of the true meaning of "response". Equally I suspect it is you who are not ready to "tackle" WTC7, in any useful meaning of the word.

 

[MIKILLINI]

Under who's authority? I'm starting to think that this is less and less your wish to "show us the truth" as it is a marathon on why you refuse to believe what we believe. Even after your points are dismantled, you brush them off as "irrelevant" and continue on like nothing happened.

Dare I say, you have ignorance down to an artform.

I dare you do say he has it down to an artform. As I see it, it's really the only evidential thing presented here. Used as a wear 'em down, exasperate them untill they post no more, and then go to some other site and claim victory. Even though he is dishonestly saying none of his posts (other than #95) are being challenged, he is either ignoring deliberately the challenges made and the slayer ing of his case, or as you say UC, the refusal to believe everyone else's evidence. Or he thinks we don't "see" it as he "sees" it, we prefer to use evidence to prove what's real and validate it, he uses evidence to invalidate what has been proven right and wrongfully apply it for his purpose. It's more like an abstract artform.

 

[Unsecured Coins]

ask and ye shall recieve

 

[twinstead]

Personally, I'm sick of mjd trying to cram his interpretation of a single document and world view down our throats as some kind of evidence that 911 was an inside as if it is the word of Jesus Christ Himself.

 

[Unsecured Coins]

side note - you have the greatest ave ever. I will be stealing it for use at another forum

 

[mjd1982]

If they wanted it to happen in months/years, rather than decades, why do they keep advocating "over the next several decades" or "over the next two decades?" Seriously, the general theme of the document is that it needs to happen over the next several decades.

The transformation, in its totality, will, even now, post new PH, take decades. This is a reality that would never have been able to have been avoided. Nonetheless, this is not to say that it would not have been wanted to happen sooner; to understand why quickly, realise that the corollary to a quick transformation in this context is, necessarily, an easy one. To argue that they did not want this, is to make the absurd statement that they wanted a difficult and complex process of transformation.

Now, to address the point about their statement of the "2 stage transition process over decades" (has already been addressed many times btw). They have an option here. They have stated that they can have a quick (quicker), easy transformation process via a new PH. Now, when it comes onto the inevitable stage of the logistics of the changes they envisage, they have a choice- either they state, "We advocate a slow process over the coming decades", or "We advocate the engineering of a new PH". As sensible people, we know they can only go for one. This is of course, not to say that they do not deem a new PH, which will create the wartime environemtn for their changes to happen easily,propitious. It just means that they cannot publicly, overtly, call for the mass murder of US civilians, which is something we all know.

While, maybe it would be better to have it happen sooner, there is no indication in the document that was the sentiment. If anything, the new PH sentence suggests that it isn't something they would want.

As above

Let's rephrase shall we "Our plan will take decades, absent something absolutely horrible happening (catastrophic) that forces us to move faster on this (catalyzing), like a new PH." How does that sound? Does that sound like something they are calling for? Does it seem propitious?

no, but it doesnt say that

You keep saying that no one is addressing your point. Your point doesn't make sense based on the text in the document. Why do we need explain when the text itself does not read the way you say it does? The document suggests a time frame of decades. Decades. Not sooner. I don't see sooner implied either. Why imply months/years, then throughout the document say decades? Decades is throughout the document. Over the next two decades, over the next several decades. What the heck part of that do you not understand? Why do you not understand that catastrophic is a bad thing?

as above. Incidentally, you do not contest the point that no one has contested my points. I will agree with you on that, sad tho it is.

No matter how you spin it, why on earth can you jump to the conclusion that ANYONE would call for something bad? "Well Bubba, we need to have this happen sooner. We need a catastrophe that forces our hand to move faster." How on earth does that make sense???? This seems pretty elementary to me.

Errr... Politicians do kill people, you know that? Much of the time

We aren't in immediate threat of a rival superpower. Therefore, we have time to act on our plan, which will be the next couple of decades. Read the document again, its pretty clear.

Not strictly true. It has been forecast by Goldman Sachs that by 2050 the US will be the 5th economy in the world, behind China INdia Russia and Brazil. Economically it can no longer be guaranteed top spot in the short to mid term. This is also discounting the growth and increasing integration of the EU block. So all the more priority on the US to exercise military radicalisation to press this advantage home. Hence why, in the eyes of PNAC, these changes should be the centrepiece of policy for the new administration by October 2001, such as happened.

 

[MIKILLINI]

Mjd, please respond to posts#1853, #1855, and #1867. These are from PNAC.

 

[mjd1982]

How again is the WOT and this administration carrying out the wishes of the PNAC?







http://www.newamericancentury.org/defense-20050128.htm

Letters an statements

http://www.newamericancentury.org/lettersstatements.htm

Statement of principles

http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm

The US military has been increased in size, as I have illustrated before. Not significantly, but this is an illustration, again, of execution rather than design. The execution has, nonetheless, been remarkable in its precision to RAD, as illustrated in #95. Read it and be enlightened.

 

[Unsecured Coins]

and stop respond with "as above" just lump all the [rule 8] into one quote box and address it.

or not.