The 9/11 Conspiracy Facts

[DGM]

"it fell apart like a chinese motorcycle"

I've never heard that racial slur before.

 

[mjd1982]

I will say that 911 was in fact a catalyzing event such as Pearl Harbor was,as far as it made America want to kick someone in the balls.
One million men (as I remember) volunteered to fight after the PH attack.

I can understand how you could (through theory) say they wanted to do this to get oil or whatever you want to say, but I do not understand how you can view the document as evidence that they wanted it done in the manner to which you imply. The document does not seem to support your claim.

What I understand from you is this....

They set a plan and draw it up. They then create 9/11 to get public support, and then support to go to war to get oil and all that, right?

And your only evidence is the PNAC document?
I can understand how you're drawing your conclusion, but I hope you understand it is false.
Because you're reading your personal opinion into what the document is saying by looking for motive for another event you believe to be a conspiracy.
If you were to view the document without an agenda in mind, you would see the document does not support your theory.

No.

The PNAC doc is the 1st stage in the illustration of how there is sufficient evidence of complicity to warrant an investigation into such. For ifit can be shown that the US deemed 9/11 to be an event that would be propitious to policy, we can look at actions e.g. their 40 failures to act on PDBs warning of the threat of an OBL attack on the US, and come to some rigorous conclusions as to the need for investigation.

 

[mjd1982]

They still pay for it, so I don't see how you could say that.

read:

http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/RRiraqWar.html#fn56

 

[mjd1982]

Except that your post #95 is astonishingly wrong.

Lol, you just dont wanna show me how, right? Its a secret!

Correction, wrongly illustrated by you.

More air

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

No? So there was no link made by the admn between 911 and Saddam?
http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/093003C.shtml
And Iraq wasnt part of the WOT?

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

They were designed, but since we are in a war environment, it cn safely be assumed that military radicalistions that are germane to the war will be pursued more readily than in peace. By adults, that is.

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.

Oh boy... this is like swatting flies, I think i could reply to these posts in my sleep now.

Show me where the PH in RAD has nothing to do with public/political support, refer to the 2nd half of p4

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

If you and your friends are honest, we should have no need to even discuss it by the time this section is over

 

[mjd1982]

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

What the hell are you talking about? "Their" is the PNAC in question. "Their" plan happening is precisely what is being debated here. Please keep up.

 

[Pardalis]

we should have no need to even discuss it by the time this section is over

And when will that be btw?

 

[DGM]

What the hell are you talking about? "Their" is the PNAC in question. "Their" plan happening is precisely what is being debated here. Please keep up.

provides zero evidence to point to a new investigation

At the rate your going you'll get you investigation in 2101.

Try to make a point!

 

[BillyRayValentine]

Interestingly I have just spent an evening with Scott Forbes (and Willie Rodriguez), and so I am well aware of how implicit intimidation and repression campaigns can work, and are well in place in this situation.

You spent an evening with Willy Rodriguez and Scott Forbes? And you admit this publicly?

Though Scott Forbes is by far my favorite character in this entire charade. His "power-down" claim is such an absurd whopper, it can't help but make me chuckle. Though my amusement is partially offset by the knowledge that some among us are dimwitted enough to attach even a shred of credibility to such shear and utter nonsense.

Oh well, as the saying goes, better them (you?) than me. I'll just focus on the humorous aspect of his tale and leave it at that.

 

[lapman]

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.

The second reference to PH shows this. Read it again and the brown ooze will clear

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

You missed one important part of your RAD quote:

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.

So, Iraq, in and of itself, has nothing to do with the RAD.

see post 1983

Your post 1983 shows your complete ignorance in how the military works. War, in and of itself does not make it easier to make radical changes if there is no need. The Gulf war did not result in any radical change in the military. The Korean war did not result in any radical change in the military. Vietnam actually reversed several radical changes that were made due to the cold war. Rapid radical change only occurs when the need is there, war or peace time. Understand this and you'll understand why your posts 1983 and 95 are complete wrong.

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

This illustrates what I said above:

But because space-based weapons have been on the agenda long before September 11, and the War on Terror, the fight against terrorism is not the sole justification, though it may now add to the reasons.

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

It may be dull, but it's the 100% correct assertion. Only someone with an agenda would say otherwise.

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

Sorry about that. I got interrupted before I was able to edit that. What I meant to say is that saying that your post #95 is wrong is a response, by definition. You originally said that only one person had the courage to respond to your post #95. You then moved the goal post by claiming "sensibly" respond.

 

[nicepants]

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,

That's where you're wrong. The PNAC discusses transformations that will happen happen over a long time, the only difference being that "a new PH" might cause it to happen sooner.

These hindrances can be got rid of, hence the transformation will be easier, and quicker for it.

Quicker does not mean easier

"Absent a debilitating injury, my retirement is at least 20 years away"

A debilitating injury would cause me to retire sooner...that in no way means that's what I want. Though this situation would cause it to happen sooner, there is no inference that it would be any easier.

I'm sorry, are you completely blind??
Actually, no, are you completely, doubly blind?

What's the difference between completely blind and "doubly" blind?

Kind of like the difference between a glass being "completely" empty and "doubly" empty?

 

[lapman]

They were designed, but since we are in a war environment, it cn safely be assumed that military radicalistions that are germane to the war will be pursued more readily than in peace. By adults, that is.

correction, by adults with and agenda. Any adult that knows anything about the military would know that radicalizations are not germane to war. Radicalizations are germane to need, which may be necessary in war, but could also happen in peace. There were huge radical changes made in peace time during the "cold war." We were not at war, but there was a need for radical change. Radical programs like the SR-71, Stealth, SDI and others were created during peace time with many done in a very short period of time. Research this and you will finally understand what we are saying.

Show me where the PH in RAD has nothing to do with public/political support, refer to the 2nd half of p4

Again, the second reference to PH in the RAD. Read this again and you will understand.

 

[mjd1982]

You spent an evening with Willy Rodriguez and Scott Forbes? And you admit this publicly?

Though Scott Forbes is by far my favorite character in this entire charade. His "power-down" claim is such an absurd whopper, it can't help but make me chuckle. Though my amusement is partially offset by the knowledge that some among us are dimwitted enough to attach even a shred of credibility to such shear and utter nonsense.

Oh well, as the saying goes, better them (you?) than me. I'll just focus on the humorous aspect of his tale and leave it at that.

Hmmm... How interesting.

I dont want to get too diverted, but since I am interested in the psychology of OTers, please tell me why you think he is telling a "whopper"?

 

[BillyRayValentine]

Hmmm... How interesting.

I dont want to get too diverted, but since I am interested in this, please tell me why you think he is telling a "whopper"?

Sorry, not trying to derail the thread, but I didn't expect you to defend this clown.

Now, why do I think he's telling a whopper?

To my knowledge, the first time anyone heard from Scott Forbes was when he wrote this letter in April of 2004: http://www.serendipity.li/wot/forbes01.htm

What an absolute joke. His claims (at least the significant ones) are laughable. Rather than my taking the time to address them individually, take a look here: http://www.911review.com/errors/wtc/forbes.html

It's another truther site, ironically enough. But even they poke enough holes in his story to realize it's a complete fairy tale.

Of course, the most damning piece of evidence is that not a single person who worked in the towers has corroborated his story. In an office building of that size, particularly one that houses a number of investment firms, hundreds, possibly thousands of people would have gone into the office at some point over the weekend. You'd think at least one other person would've noticed the lack of power; the elevators not working; the security locks not working, etc., etc., etc.

If this crapola comes even close to passing the sniff test with you, it's time to have your nose examined.

 

[MIKILLINI]

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.

Then why don't you reread all of the posts Darth Rotor has put out there. He
knows the logistics of what it takes for transformation, and he tells you, from experience, what that entails. I understood everything he described and there wasn't anything propitious for your case.

But you missed that one, didn't you? While you were "terrorized" from Darth's "vile jingoist" comment, you closed your mind to his astute evaluation.
The obvious thing your doing here is using the PNAC doc as a written conspiracy, while using the 2001 QDR as a deadline for the catastrophic and catalyzing event to ascribe PNAC as a written conspiracy. The reason? To make transformation more propitious, easier in a wartime environment. Yeah, thats it. So, to ask the question again that many have asked before Me, what happens next (Since you believe this catastrophic and catalyzing event has to happen before the 2001 QDR comes out)?

 

[WildCat]

68 pages, zero "conspiracy facts". Just sayin'.

 

[lapman]

No? So there was no link made by the admn between 911 and Saddam?
http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/093003C.shtml
And Iraq wasnt part of the WOT?

Nice try, but again you fail. Now try to keep up. The decision to invade Iraq was because it was thought that Saddam had possession of or equipment to produce WMD's. The 9/11 link and WOT excuses were added later after the WMD argument lost steam. So, instead of just trying to nit-pick and over analyze every little sentence, try looking at the overall picture. When you do, you'll finally see the light and the error in your statement. Of course, you won't, but I thought I might suggest it anyway.

 

[MIKILLINI]

68 pages, zero "conspiracy facts". Just sayin'.

Same theory, different day. Just agreein'.

 

[Garb]

Mjd, what was the PNAC paper written for? Long change over many decades, or short change after a catalyzing event?

 

[Dave Rogers]

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

It's not a simile I've ever heard used before, nor is it one that I'd ever stoop to using. It is by definition racist, in that it attributes mechanical incompetence to the Chinese, a specifically definable racial group. It's significantly more insulting than the racist term "rag heads", which is a relatively non-judgemental comment on a particular style of headgear. I find your use of the term only mildly offensive, but your inability to understand that you too are capable of misbehaviour is symptomatic of the "self-deception and lack of honesty" that has pervaded all your writings on this forum.

MJD1982, you need to take a long, hard look at yourself and your approach to debate. Everyone here is extremely antagonistic to your approach, and you seem unable to understand that the common factor in all these interactions is you.

Dave

 

[twinstead]

MJD1982, you need to take a long, hard look at yourself and your approach to debate. Everyone here is extremely antagonistic to your approach, and you seem unable to understand that the common factor in all these interactions is you.

hmmmm. Arrogance, condescension, and a refusal to give in on any point, no matter if shown to be totally wrong.

Nope. I don't know what you mean. Nothing to be antagonistic to there...