The 9/11 Conspiracy Facts

[mjd1982]

The catastrophic and catalyzing event that the PNAC is talking about has nothing to do with war. It is neither implied or inferred as such. The "new PH" the PNAC is referring to is the type of catastrophic and catalyzing event that causes the requirement of a radical change of military technology and doctrine. War and public opinion have nothing to do with it. 9/11 was not such an event. In fact, 9/11 and the ensuing WOT and Iraq war have had the opposite effect. The memos that have been posted is proof of that. 9/11 could not have been what PNAC was referring to, "by design," since it was a low tech attack. One other thing. Design mean nothing when the execution fails.

Tho I tire of telling u this, I will do so again.

Go and read #95, and see what is being pursued under the WOT. You will see the astonishing correlation with RAD. Then, and only then, you may continue with your argument, since in any other circumstance, it would be pointless.

ETA- Oh, and incidentallym think of some of th disconnects in the WOT that illustrate the absurduty ofyour argument, tho this has been illustrted by me too many times now. Iraq had nothing to do with 911. They knew that, yet they went. Space defense systems, which are being pursued more radically under the aegis of 911, have nothing to do with 911. Securing cyberspace has nothing to do with 911. Yet it is being pursued under the WOT.

THINK!!!

 

[mjd1982]

Here again you show a complete lack of understanding of design and execution. The design and execution of the Iraq war and Afghanistan worked perfectly. It the lack of design of what to do afterwords that has kept us in Afghanistan and especially Iraq for so long. In Afghanistan, the capture of OBL was the only failure. However the overthrow of the Taliban succeeded. In Iraq, the mission was to overthrow Saddam and the Baath party. It was a complete success. It's the lack of any planing of what to do afterward, the constabulary role, that failed. Therefor the PNAC recommendations were not followed, so the "new PH" is irrelevant.

1) You misunderstand the use of the term "design". It does not mean the strategy for doing something, it means the intent of doing something

2) You misunderstand the use of the term "execution". This applies to everything from the war at the start, to the way ot has been carried out post mission accomplished, both in Iraq and Afghanistan.

We are interested in intent (design) and not in performance (execution).

Try, again, to understand this please.

 

[mjd1982]

Looks like we can add politics and economics to the list of things mjd doesn't understand. Quicker means easier? On which planet exactly? We are talking about proposed changes to the funding, organisation and operation of one of the entire US military, one of the biggest organisations on the planet. And you seriously believe that it is easier to quickly, as opposed to, say, over several decades as set out in the PNAC document? Ever wondered why governments and companies have 5 and 10 year plans rather than 5 week plans? Could it be because doing things very quickly is not the best way of doing them? This question just betrays your utter lack of comprehension about how the world actually works.

I said in this context, quicker means easier. You will notice in the PH para, it goes on to talk about why it would take a long time. There are programmes in place which should(absent a new PH) take ages to shift, etc. In order to get the shift in gear, grease the wheels, a new PH would have to happen, since this would provide a strong reason for such shifts to happen- a was against a deadly, implacable enemy. These hindrances can be got rid of, hence the transformation will be easier, and quicker for it.

 

[Pardalis]

Again with that "sooner than later" bullspit?

I'll come back again in fifty pages...

 

[mjd1982]

Now you're nearly getting it. This is not a forum for pointless semantic arguments, which is what you seem to mean when you say "debate". It is a forum for evidence and debate about that evidence. If you think you have joined some kind of university debating society that is in any way interested in what you think is "admissable" then you are sadly mistaken. Please stick to actual facts, not your opinion about what something says that no-one else agrees with.

evidence is the pnac doc. It is evidence regarding the belief of the propitiousnes of a new PH to policy. Inference is admissible to sensible debate. Hence, if you want a sensible debate, you can debate the inference.

You can keep saying this as much as you like, you still haven't actually answered it. A military act of war is not a civilian terrorist attack and never will be.

One of Bush's 1st words to his principals post 911? "We're at war".

Go to the post and see how 9/11 was a catastrophic and catalysing event. Your argumment is absurd, since it presupposes that if any of the characteristics of PH were missing from 911, then 911 would nt bt what the neo cons were referring to. I.e. eventually, you could, under that tactic, say that it wasnt a new PH since it wasnt done by japanese.

You said that a 33% increase in spending was unprecedented. You were proven wrong by a simple Google search. Either you knew it was not unprecedented and lied about it or you failed to do the most basic research that a primary school student could be expected to manage. There is nothing vaguely ironic or hypocritcal in me pointing this out.

There was when your comment stumped itself by your failure to do a simple jref search

No, it hasn't. As I pointed out in my original post, which you still haven't actually tried to respond to despite your repeated claims, military spending has remained at its lowest levels since the end of WWII.

Riiiight... well explain this please

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Budget/upload/table1_lg.gif

I have still read it. Despite your apparent delusions, once I have read something I cannot go back an un-read it. I read it when it was posted and I will still have read it at every point in the future. Please stop telling everyone to go back and read things that they have already read and responded to.

And once again, just in case you actually didn't read the post you just replied to, the changes that were being put in place prior to 11/9 have actually had to be undone in many cases because it was found that they were not at all appropriate to the realities of war in the 21st century.

such as?

As I have told many of your friends, realise the difference between a military strategy being pursued in war time, and being pursued in peace time. This wil help your confusion.

No. It is your opinion and is not supported by any evidence or any other person. It is up to you to support it or it will just be ignored.

Lol, how cute. The evidence is the document; I am making simple inferences from it. Inference is admissible to adult debate, if you are a child, you do not have to participate

 

[mjd1982]

Yes, simple to understand, but irrelevant when it comes to the PNAC reference.

Lol, again, a substanceless post. I will ask you again- tell me where RAD states that the catalysing does not have to be done in relation to public opinion.

...on your part. Iraq and the PNAC document have nothing in common.

*Sigh*, for the 100th time...

In the Persian Gulf region, the
presence of American forces, along with
British and French units, has become a semipermanent
fact of life. Though the
immediate mission of those forces is to
enforce the no-fly zones over northern and
southern Iraq, they represent the long-term
commitment of the United States and its
major allies to a region of vital importance.
Indeed, the United
States has for
decades sought to
play a more
permanent role in
Gulf regional
security. While
the unresolved
conflict with Iraq
provides the
immediate
justification, the
need for a
substantial
American force
presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of
the regime of Saddam Hussein.

The continuing challenges from
Iraq also make it unwise to draw down
forces in the Gulf dramatically. Securing
the American perimeter today – and
tomorrow – will necessitate shifts in U.S.
overseas operations.

and more

Wrong. Quicker is not necessarily easier. In terms of R&D and doctrine change, it's immensely harder, especially when the need of radical change in not required. Either way, the PNAC document did not make any type of implication that this was required, needed or wanted. You have been asked several times to show this in the document and you have yet to do so.

see post 1983

Noted, and you do the same.

???

A perfect example of how you ignore the content. You simply refuse to admit when you are wrong. Your post are becoming more and more condescending, which shows that you are losing the battle, so you switch tactics and claim that nobody is responding.

Lol, let's read your original post:

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

Substanceless.

The design was to use military advisers to accomplish this. When this design was executed, it was found to be faulty so they had to change the design to include US troops and air power in a limited sense, which also proved faulty when executed.

Design in this context=intent

Not necessarily true. Please provide proof.

http://www.globalissues.org/Geopolitics/ArmsControl/Space.asp#USSeeksMilitarizationofSpace

Read: O crap, he's right. I better blow this off somehow.

Again, to illustrate your substanceless post:

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.

I think that is a world record for saying "You're" and "wrong" in a single post. What do you expect to accomplish with crap like this? What do you expect me to reply?

The second reference illustrates how PH required a radical change in both technology and doctrine. Since the first reference also strictly refers to the military, it is directly related to the second reference.

The whole doc refers to the military. This doesnt mean that every analigy in the doc is homogeneous, that's a slightly dull assertion.

Yes I do. Let me educate you:

In saying that your post #95 is a response, by definition, hence, by the true meaning.

Not english. I know i've written here in french and german, but just hitting the keyboard randomly is not a language I understand

Read: You debunked me on SLC, I'm not ready for you to do it again here.

Errr.....

 

[mjd1982]

#1983

 

[mjd1982]

So:
quicker = easier
slower = harder?

Can you solve a Rubick's cube, Mjd? If so, you would then agree that solving it in 5 seconds should be EASIER than solving it in 60 seconds.

Likewise, solving it in .0001 seconds should be much easier than solving it in 5 seconds.

Likewise, if brain surgery typically takes 18 hours (a long time), it would be much EASIER if the surgeon completed it in just 5 minutes (faster).

Sorry...your correlation is completely incorrect.

#1983

 

[mjd1982]

This is pointless, folks. mjd has already stated that you are lying if you don't agree with him. How can you carry on a rational debate with someone who says things like that?

Where have I ever said that?

I will however, call you a liar.

 

[mjd1982]

To this I reply:
SO WHAT!
Why even mention the federal government if this is all you mean?

Because if they deemed it propitious, it will allow us to view their subsequent actions within a more accurate framework. This has been stated from #1.

 

[mjd1982]

So the PNAC designed 9/11 but the federal government did not execute it.

Design/ execution of the plan (WOT/RAD), not 9/11...

 

[lapman]

Duplicate

 

[lapman]

Go and read #95, and see what is being pursued under the WOT. You will see the astonishing correlation with RAD. Then, and only then, you may continue with your argument, since in any other circumstance, it would be pointless.

Except that your post #95 is astonishingly wrong.

ETA- Oh, and incidentallym think of some of th disconnects in the WOT that illustrate the absurduty ofyour argument, tho this has been illustrted by me too many times now.

Correction, wrongly illustrated by you.

Iraq had nothing to do with 911. They knew that, yet they went.

Hey, you actually got something right. Since 9/11 was not the catalyzing event that let up to the invasion, the point is irrelevant.

Space defense systems, which are being pursued more radically under the aegis of 911, have nothing to do with 911.

False statement. It is not being pursued more radically. The systems were designed long before 9/11 as part of the SDI.

Securing cyberspace has nothing to do with 911. Yet it is being pursued under the WOT.

Again, the WOT and 9/11 are two different things. 9/11 was used to get public support the WOT. Since the new PH that the RAD refers to has nothing to do with war or public support, 9/11 and the PNAC's new PH are not one in the same.

So, where is your "sensible" response to my WTC7 arguments?

Ya, know, the editor does have a spell check function. Please try using it.

 

[DGM]

Because if they deemed it propitious, it will allow us to view their subsequent actions within a more accurate framework. This has been stated from #1.

Because if I deemed it propitious, it will allow me to view their subsequent actions within a more accurate framework. This has been stated from #1.

Fixed that for you.

 

[mjd1982]

Which you have now shown that the "new PH" did not occur since 9/11 did not cause the rapid radicalization as the PNAC document claims. Hence, since this did not occur, 9/11 was not propitious to policy since said policy was not able to be carried out. The design vs execution argument is irrelevant. Only the outcome is relevant.
Your statement that I quoted completely nullifies the hundreds of posts you have done attempting to equate 9/11 to the PNAC's new PH. Therefore you have done nothing to show that a new, independent investigation needs to be done.

I'm sorry, are you completely blind??

Actually, no, are you completely, doubly blind?

I have told you a million times to go and read #95, where the similarities are outlined. I have explained to you the disconnects with the WOT and 911, making the only sense of them that can be made. And I have explained to you, at great labour, the difference betweem design of a plan, and its execution. And yet all you, and the rest of your ilk, can do, is come to me and say "Your wrong. You havent proved anything", like a record of school children on repeat.

If you are serious about having a debate and finding out the truth about this matter, then you will go and read #95, and reply to it. You will note that only one person has attempted to do so so far, and he has revealed himself to be a vile jingoist. The author of the doc to whom #95 was a response has not dared to respond to it coherently, and none of you will either. You will just remain paralysed in your make believe world, and you will come back again, with your "You're wrong"s. Well, bear in mind the content of #1992. I feel i will be referring you back to this quite regularly.

 

[mjd1982]

From post #95



As I have showed you from the letters, the PNAC does not consider the WOT to be in keeping with the plan.

Do you think the democrats on the commission would have let this go if it had any merit?




Clearly this is not the case. The PNAC sent three letters to Bush before finally sending a letter to congress due to Bush's inaction.

This is due to 1 issue in the totality of the plan, and moreover, most of the members of PNAC c. RAD had left to become members of the Bush admin.

 

[mjd1982]

You have yet to provide such evidence that could be used in a court of law to sue for such an investigation.
Wrong. Evidence and facts are the standard tools in an adult debate. Inference has never been accepted as any type of real evidence except in the twoofer fantasy world. Even if a new, independent investigation did occur with people that you would accept, if the results showed that there was no government complicity in 9/11, you would find other inferences to try to prove that the investigation was faulty. So, what is you "sensible" response to my WTC7 argument?

Evidence would be, for one example, the testimony of the middle man between the US and the Taliban.

Inference is not being presented as evidence, you should be able to understand this if you have the capacity to type. It is being presented as the tool to analyse evidence which is admissible in a court of law as well as in a debate.

 

[mjd1982]

But you infer that they do, to make your case;

It's then followed by a disclaimer;

Please think before you debunk yourself;

Read all the post b4 you reply to it. It will take decades- you cannot militarise space in a week- this does not mean that it is not happening quicker than it woudl have done absent a new PH. As I have stated, the creation of a war environment makes it easier for military changes to be pushed through, hence a war environment is propitious for a policy of military change, and hence a new PH, a catalys for a war, is propitious to the policy of military radicalisation.

Trust me when i tell you that a child could understand this.

 

[DGM]

This is due to 1 issue in the totality of the plan, and moreover, most of the members of PNAC c. RAD had left to become members of the Bush admin.

Their plan will happen regardless making your whole argument pointless. It provides zero evidence to point to a new investigation.

 

[mjd1982]

Now what was your response when I pointed out your own racist remark?

Dave

How pathetic. Deeming "it fell apart like a chinese motorcycle", a widely used simile, to be racist, much less comparing it to calling Muslims "rag heads", is symptomatic of the self deception and lack of honesty that is present in spades on this forum