How do Truthers explain the cooperation/coordination needed within the US govt...

[caveman1917]

Was in fact quite a significant figure in the design provision of war ships to governments around the world at the time, even after their parent company was nationalised.

The point is, wars are not necessarily good for providers of military hardware.

I notice that Boeing didn't have any kind of stellar performance in the years following 9/11 and the invasion of Afghanistan.

Why don't you go ahead and name the companies you have in mind that made huge profits during that time and we will see if it is plausible that they could have thought that murdering thousands of Americans was a good business plan to get those profits.

A quick google search will get you this data immediately. For example this, this, and this. The first source sums it up as:

The top five U.S. defense contractors generated almost $129 billion in revenues and $8 billion in profits in 2006, double the revenue and profits in 2000 when George Bush became President. The War on Terror has been a windfall for the defense industry and their shareholders.

The fact that 9/11 was one of the most profitable events for the defense industry in recent history is hardly contentious. You even indicated as much yourself by pointing out how expensive the war on terror was - one man's expense is another man's revenue.

 

[Fonebone]

My Dad was an international arms dealer. I could never work out why we weren't rich. I mean we weren't poor none, but just an ordinary house in the suburbs and a Holden Kingswood. Not even a swimming pool.

I guess he wasn't trying hard enough with sinister plots to start wars and suchlike.

Come to think of it, the company made a loss while the Vietnam war was still going and became profitable afterwards.

There are "arms" dealers and then there are "arms dealers". One type of
"arms dealers" made ample profits from the wars and some - well - not so much.

https://www.collectorsweekly.com/articles/war-and-prosthetics/

 

[Dave Rogers]

People who rob banks can obtain large amounts of money. This is not, in itself, sufficient evidence to convict everyone of bank robbery.

Dave

 

[Robin]

A quick google search will get you this data immediately. For example this, this, and this.

Cherry picked figures on an infographic are not much use to anyone. Only the last is of any use.

Nevertheless, is it safe to say that you are nominating Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, General Dynamics and United Technologies as the kind of company that might, plausibly, be suspected of using mass murder of innocent American citizens as a business strategy?

 

[Robin]

Which department of these companies would be tasked with plotting mass murder with the Government?

Or would there be a secret society of CEOs having meetings with government or intelligence figures?

How exactly would it happen?

 

[caveman1917]

People who rob banks can obtain large amounts of money. This is not, in itself, sufficient evidence to convict everyone of bank robbery.

Dave

Dave stop the charade already. Robin claimed that it would be hard to believe that people in the US government would long for a pretext to engage in an expensive engagement.

 

[caveman1917]

Cherry picked figures on an infographic are not much use to anyone.

Show the infographic you are talking about and show that the figures are cherry picked.

While you're at it, show that you didn't engage in cherry picking by telling us the story of your father working for a local branch of a company which lost money during the period. In particular, you will need to show that losing money during the period was true of the defense industry in general, and not just limited to a few select companies, one of which happened to employ your father.

Nevertheless, is it safe to say that you are nominating Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, General Dynamics and United Technologies as the kind of company that might, plausibly, be suspected of using mass murder of innocent American citizens as a business strategy?

I think it is plausible that at least one such company could have thought that mass murder was a good business strategy to gain said profits.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Dave stop the charade already.

There is no charade here. Means, motive and opportunity are irrelevant when there is no evidence that a crime has been committed. As I said above, this sort of time-wasting speculation is a classic outcome of accepting the reversal of the burden of proof. There is still no credible evidence suggesting the involvement of the US government in the 9/11 attacks.

As for what Robin claimed, I'm contending that the claim was pointless and irrelevant too. You've been complaining that I don't disagree enough with people who disagree with you; are you now demanding that I agree with them?

Dave

 

[beachnut]

Person A: "The US government overthrew the Iranian government to protect the profits of the oil industry."

Person B: "Well my dad owned a little gas station once and we weren't rich. Guess he wasn't trying hard enough with sinister plots to overthrow governments."

Person A: "The US government propped up dictatorships in South America to protect the profits of the sugar & banana industries."

Person B: "Well my dad once sold bananas at a market stall and we weren't rich. Guess he wasn't trying hard enough with sinister plots to prop up South American dictatorships."

What does your gish gallop of Pseudoskepticism and off topic nonsense have to do with 19 terrorists who murdered thousands of Americans on 9/11, they were buddies with UBL

Why can't you get on topic and stop doing the quibble gish gallop of BS

Back to the topic...

caveman1917 - Rather something like 50% mainstream, 45% MIHOP, 5% everything else.

What is everything else?

You claim it is 45% the government made it happen, is that based on {}?

Explain your claim of 50/45/5? It would be interesting.

Explain the 5%. What is it?

Explain what is the 45% MIHOP.

I guess the reality plot of 9/11 is too complex for some...
Complex Plot of 9/11
1. Take planes - fake a hijacking, gee, like DB Cooper, get money, oops, kill
2. Crash planes - unlike DB Cooper these idiots killed themselves and thousand

The complex plot of 9/11 which has you pulling a conspiracy theory out of thin air at best

caveman1917 - Rather something like 50% mainstream, 45% MIHOP, 5% everything else.

Your plot is so easy to make up, takes no effort, research, or time, you just say it is so.

Your evidence is = {}

UBL is

 

[caveman1917]

There is no charade here. Means, motive and opportunity are irrelevant when there is no evidence that a crime has been committed. As I said above, this sort of time-wasting speculation is a classic outcome of accepting the reversal of the burden of proof. There is still no credible evidence suggesting the involvement of the US government in the 9/11 attacks.

The point is that nobody claimed that possible motive, in itself, constitutes evidence of US government involvement in 9/11. So why bring it upon yourself to dispute something which nobody claimed? The discussion is about whether it is plausible that a defense industry company could have thought it a good business plan to gain some profit. A discussion initiated by Robin's claim to the contrary. Of course Robin is always free to stop that discussion by retracting his claim.

As for what Robin claimed, I'm contending that the claim was pointless and irrelevant too. You've been complaining that I don't disagree enough with people who disagree with you; are you now demanding that I agree with them?

Rather, I've complained about you being uneven in applying the burden of proof, exempting some claims from having a burden of proof for no discernible reason other than perhaps that you happen to agree with them, and your willingness to support nonsensical justifications (as per smartcooky's post) for it. The only reversal of the burden of proof that has been accepted in this thread is the assertion that so-called "negative claims" somehow do not incur a burden of proof.

 

[bknight]

<snip>
I think it is plausible that at least one such company could have thought that mass murder was a good business strategy to gain said profits.

Your experience with major corporations is as bad if not worse than your experience with revolutions.

 

[Axxman300]

A quick google search will get you this data immediately. For example this, this, and this. The first source sums it up as:


The fact that 9/11 was one of the most profitable events for the defense industry in recent history is hardly contentious. You even indicated as much yourself by pointing out how expensive the war on terror was - one man's expense is another man's revenue.

There are two assumptions you made which lack context.

Ike was right.

The Defense Industry would not have made this money without Iraq or Afghanistan.

First, Ike was full of crap. His Military Industrial Complex speech was a swipe at the incoming President (JFK), who planned to double the size of the US Military to counter the Soviet threat. Thanks to Vietnam Ike's MIC has been the bogey man for a generation of hippies, anti-American peace-nicks, and other folks who clutch their pearls anytime there's saber-rattling. What EVERYONE forgets is that Ike's military strategy was to use nuclear weapons to counter the Soviet and Chinese threats.

The difference was this:

Ike: Nuke 'em until they glow.

JFK: Flexible response based around a large, robust military force.

Call me a war monger but I'd go the JFK route every time.

Even with the Vietnam War most defense contractors barely made money and this would be true until the mid-1980's as the old guard CEO's of those companies retired and younger men took their place. The new blood understood business whereas the old guard were all about the next super weapon. The new blood changed the management cultures in places like Lockheed, Raytheon, and others where weapons could still be designed and built but with less overhead, and flat out waste.

To be blunt, the defense industry is making more profits because they're run by smarter people.

If your claim was true, why hasn't Colt Firearms benefited from this windfall? They make the M-16A2's and M-16A4's and the M-4 battle rifles. Where are the dump trucks full of cash leaving the Colt factory on their way to the bank?

Colt is what old-school defense industry management looked like.

Walmart makes more in profits each year than the entire defense budget without selling a single tank, submarine, or missile system. Peace is more profitable than war. And even had we not invaded Iraq and Afghanistan the defense industry would still be making money as old weapons are replaced, new weapons systems are sold, and weapons are exported.

No need to risk your bottom line by murdering 3,000 Americans to start a war against an NON-STATE ACTOR.

 

[Allen773]

I think it is plausible that at least one such company could have thought that mass murder was a good business strategy to gain said profits.

Cool. Which one? Mass murder is as horrible a crime as it gets. Are you going to name names and provide credible, direct evidence of their involvement in murdering 3,000 people, or is this just more wishful thinking and ideological tunnel vision based on classic edgy "US military-industrial complex = bad!" sentiment?

 

[beachnut]

...
I think it is plausible that at least one such company could have thought that mass murder was a good business strategy to gain said profits.

projection? which such company did 9/11? UBL inc

Lucky for the world you are not the CEO/President/MFWIC of one such company.

How did you come up with the 50/45/5?

What is the 5 percent?

 

[Allen773]

There are two assumptions you made which lack context.

Ike was right.

The Defense Industry would not have made this money without Iraq or Afghanistan.

First, Ike was full of crap. His Military Industrial Complex speech was a swipe at the incoming President (JFK), who planned to double the size of the US Military to counter the Soviet threat. Thanks to Vietnam Ike's MIC has been the bogey man for a generation of hippies, anti-American peace-nicks, and other folks who clutch their pearls anytime there's saber-rattling. What EVERYONE forgets is that Ike's military strategy was to use nuclear weapons to counter the Soviet and Chinese threats.

The difference was this:

Ike: Nuke 'em until they glow.

JFK: Flexible response based around a large, robust military force.

Call me a war monger but I'd go the JFK route every time.

Not only that, but Eisenhower put the Manichean and uber-hawkishly anti-Communist DULLES BROTHERS in charge of his foreign policy (State and CIA). And they were there for all eight years of his Presidency. If Ike had a problem with them, he certainly didn't show it.

Grimly, JFK's assassination and Oswald being shot two days later because the dumb Dallas PD paraded Oswald out before the cameras with minimum security (letting Jack Ruby exact vigilante justice on live TV), and the later assassinations of JFK's brother and MLK, Jr., convinced everyone that "They" offed these men because "They" felt threatened by them.

JFK LOVED the CIA and black ops (modern US Special Operation Forces owe a lot to Kennedy's efforts), and he and especially his brother kept pushing the CIA to take insane risks in covert programs like Operation Mongoose - you know, the obsession with killing Castro. Compared to the Kennedy brothers, many in the CIA were doves. The same views led to JFK greatly increasing the number of military "advisers" and CIA officers in Vietnam, from several hundred to the order of 15,000 WITHIN (less than) THREE YEARS. Counterinsurgency!

And the same excesses manifested in Operation Mongoose led directly to the violent coup against the Diem brothers just weeks before Kennedy's assassination, which left LBJ holding the bag. And note that LBJ had wanted to keep Diem in power and was privately convinced from the beginning that Vietnam would be a major problem for his Presidency - but he felt that he needed to stay the course in Vietnam to satisfy the many hawks in Congress, along with the Silent Majority of the American people, so that he could get his liberal Great Society programs through. LBJ couldn't afford to "lose" Vietnam like Truman "lost" China, for example.

Of course, the Viet Cong and the North Vietnamese didn't need to win outright, just wait out the Americans for as many years as it took for them to get sick of it and go home. And that's precisely what they did.

 

[Robin]

Show the infographic you are talking about and show that the figures are cherry picked.

Check your second link and look at the infographic on it. Do you consider that any kind of useful presentation of relevant information?

In your first link it has a comparison between CEO salaries in 2000 and 2007. So what? In order to say anything useful it would have to show annual realised renumeration over a longer period compared with that if CEOs in general.

CEO renumeration goes up and down and is often at the mercy of the market.

While you're at it, show that you didn't engage in cherry picking by telling us the story of your father working for a local branch of a company which lost money during the period. In particular, you will need to show that losing money during the period was true of the defense industry in general, and not just limited to a few select companies, one of which happened to employ your father.

The point was to get away from the idea that arms dealers are Bond villains licking there lips at the prospect of war.

But also to show that a war is not necessarily profitable for those in the arms industry. Procurement procedures, for example, can become longer and more difficult and therefore costly, share prices can become depressed.

I think it is plausible that at least one such company could have thought that mass murder was a good business strategy to gain said profits.

As I said I find it implausible that this could be a serious discussion in a business strategy meeting or agreed upon by a vote in the board room and I assume you are not suggesting this.

So if such a company could have thought that mass murder was a good business strategy to gain profit then it would have to be some individual or group that stood to gain from this action who could plausibly have colluded with the government (or perhaps directly with the intelligence services or some rogue element within the intelligence services).

I don't rule it out. I can think of a situation in Australia where a corrupt politician almost certainly colluded with a company to direct the intelligence services to carry out an operation on another country to benefit the company and eventually to benefit the politician. So, yes, it does happen.

This case didn't involve murder but again I don't rule out that such collusion might involve deliberate acts of murder.

But we are talking about the cold blooded murder of thousands of citizens of their own country.

So some individual or group would have discussed this with someone in two successive administrations, someone with power to direct the intelligence services to commit a serious crime in their own country and to cover up if necessary.

I say possible, but not particularly plausible.

If we were talking about collusion with the Russian government to do this, then the plausibility increases.

If the covert action involved infiltrating the network of Islamic extremists and convincing gullible individuals to carry out this action then it doesn't have to be the US government doing it, it could be any number of countries. The Russian leaders would seem to have the best motive and much easier to hide kickbacks to the Russian President.

 

[Axxman300]

So if such a company could have thought that mass murder was a good business strategy to gain profit then it would have to be some individual or group that stood to gain from this action who could plausibly have colluded with the government (or perhaps directly with the intelligence services or some rogue element within the intelligence services).

I don't rule it out. I can think of a situation in Australia where a corrupt politician almost certainly colluded with a company to direct the intelligence services to carry out an operation on another country to benefit the company and eventually to benefit the politician. So, yes, it does happen.

This case didn't involve murder but again I don't rule out that such collusion might involve deliberate acts of murder.

The problem with a business strategy that involves the 911 attack is the down-side, and every business strategy takes in the down-side. The down-side is discovery and revelation of the plot. Here we're talking about the CEO and Board of Directors being executed or getting life in maximum security prison. Their personal assets are confiscated, their families and friends are aggressively investigated. The company is seized by the Federal Government and sold piece meal to their competitors.

The beauty of Al Qaeda is that they're a formidable enemy. Any communications between them and the theoretical evil-doers would have been recorded and documented. By now it would have been released onto the internet and Al Jazeera. Iran has a capable intelligence agency and since Ayman al-Zawahiri has been hiding out in Iran (allegedly) they've had his place and communications monitored, mostly for internal security reasons. But if they had something on the US along the lines of 911 being a false flag they would make that public just as they exposed the Iran/Contra scandal back in the 1980s.

The be blunt: There are many countries who would benefit from the revelation of 911 being an inside job.

The next problem is that counter-terrorism isn't conducive to a healthy bottom-line for the defense industry. Just take a look:

Ratheon:

https://www.raytheon.com/capabilities

Lockheed-Martin, and Boeing, and General Dynamics have more products in the fight, but all of these products would be made anyway because that's what they do:

https://www.lockheedmartin.com/en-us/products.html

https://www.boeing.com/defense/

https://www.gd.com/our-businesses/combat-systems

Boeing and General Dynamics have a thriving civilian product range:

https://www.boeing.com/commercial/

https://www.boeing.com/space/

https://www.gd.com/our-businesses/aerospace

https://www.gd.com/our-businesses/information-technology

Ignored in the MIHOP theory is the fact that no CEO will risk a multi-billion dollar company - or his life, conspiring with Jihadists to kill Americans on American soil.

The claim shows a gross lack of understanding of money.

 

[Robin]

The problem with a business strategy that involves the 911 attack is the down-side, and every business strategy takes in the down-side. The down-side is discovery and revelation of the plot. Here we're talking about the CEO and Board of Directors being executed or getting life in maximum security prison. Their personal assets are confiscated, their families and friends are aggressively investigated. The company is seized by the Federal Government and sold piece meal to their competitors.

Yes, that also supports what I am saying.

Also, it is hardly strategic for a high tech weapons company to want to engineer a war that could only ever end in the US, armed with all their high tech weaponry, surrendering to a bunch of low tech warlords.

Great advertisement for them.

 

[pgimeno]

P(mass murder | false-flag) =/= P(false-flag | mass murder)

You've estimated the former rather than the latter.

Fair enough, yes I made that mistake.

Semantics, the net result is 250k of their own people dying each year for the country's supremacy.

Defence expenditure is not just for the country's supremacy. It's also, well, for defence. Moreover, the people who plan the budgets are quite different from the people who perform the military actions.

This strongly counters your heuristic argument that those in power care so much about their own people they wouldn't kill them for the country's supremacy.

You haven't established that the focus of the people planning the budgets is supremacy and not protection, therefore no, the argument isn't countered.

Axxman has provided more heuristic arguments about one of the potential actors: the CIA.

 

[Leftus]

projection? which such company did 9/11? UBL inc

Lucky for the world you are not the CEO/President/MFWIC of one such company.

How did you come up with the 50/45/5?

What is the 5 percent?

That 5% is clearly Rodan.