• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

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

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.

That's the main problem with US defense spending, the military doesn't always have a say in what they get. The US Army just got more M1 Abrams tanks that it didn't request and does not need. The flip side is that tank building, fighter building, and submarine building is a rarefied skill-set, and there is a very real threat to national security if they are allowed to dwindle. The real threat from China is missiles, their strategy seems to bee all-missiles all the time.

Few of the big ticket items comes in handy for hunting terrorists, which as 95% HUMINT (people-driven), and 5% drones, bombers, and Hellfire missiles.
 
That's the main problem with US defense spending, the military doesn't always have a say in what they get. The US Army just got more M1 Abrams tanks that it didn't request and does not need. The flip side is that tank building, fighter building, and submarine building is a rarefied skill-set, and there is a very real threat to national security if they are allowed to dwindle. The real threat from China is missiles, their strategy seems to bee all-missiles all the time.

Few of the big ticket items comes in handy for hunting terrorists, which as 95% HUMINT (people-driven), and 5% drones, bombers, and Hellfire missiles.

Which should drive new programs of ballistic missile interceptors.
 
Check your second link and look at the infographic on it. Do you consider that any kind of useful presentation of relevant information?

The infographic shows the increase in spending on private defense contractors after 9/11, which is exactly the relevant information. Granted, I don't like its presentation either, but I simply linked you to the first 3 google results I got to show how easy it was to get those numbers and demonstrate that, indeed, 9/11 was highly profitable for the defense industry.

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.

It also has a lot more comparisons than just CEO salaries, for example it also has comparisons for total defense spending as well as for profit of the largest private contractors. You're cherry-picking one irrelevant datapoint among many relevant ones.

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.

Something which could have happened does not refute something which did happen. It's a demonstrable fact that 9/11 was hugely profitable for the defense industry as a whole.

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.

It needn't even be a country. If there's anything those FBI "sting" operations show, it is how easy it actually is to convince the right people to engage in terrorist attacks. Any reasonable wealthy stock owner of some defense company may have been able to pull it off.
 
Last edited:
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.



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.

A comparison of the US military budget to other countries' budget, the amount of military bases abroad, as well as the numerous wars of aggression waged, shows that it is about the country's supremacy and not about protection. Though, of course, any empire justifies its own imperialism in terms of defense and protection - this was even true of the Roman Empire, reading the Roman senate's discussions one can only be amazed at how they managed to defend themselves into an empire.
 
A comparison of the US military budget to other countries' budget, the amount of military bases abroad, as well as the numerous wars of aggression waged, shows that it is about the country's supremacy and not about protection. Though, of course, any empire justifies its own imperialism in terms of defense and protection - this was even true of the Roman Empire, reading the Roman senate's discussions one can only be amazed at how they managed to defend themselves into an empire.

But this does not support the idea of MIHOP.

The size of our military is merely a reflection of the fact that there's always another conflict around the corner.

In the case of Iraq, why fake an attack to start a war that was going to happen anyway?
 
... It needn't even be a country. If there's anything those FBI "sting" operations show, it is how easy it actually is to convince the right people to engage in terrorist attacks. Any reasonable wealthy stock owner of some defense company may have been able to pull it off.
Not evidence for your fantasy version of 9/11 you can't explain.
caveman1917 - Rather something like 50% mainstream, 45% MIHOP, 5% everything else.

what is the 5 percent - why can't you explain what you made up
 
The major stock holders in the defense companies seem to be investment companies or banks.

Again you have the problem of identifying individuals who would, even if they were psychopaths, have the financial motive to invoke this huge risk.

I can't see that the price movement in these companies was anything spectacular, some of them continued a previous rising trend and then fell soon after 9/11 and took a long time to recover, Lockheed Martin for example.

image-5.png


The bit rise came much later, maybe 2013 but it wasn't anything the market wasn't doing.

Perhaps General Dynamics showed most growth over that period, but still had a price fall in the aftermath of 9/11 and took a long time to catch up to where the previous trend was taking it.

image-6.png

If this eventuated in a huge pay-day for some investor that would be worth that risk, then I suppose it would not be too difficult to find that person.

But again, I think this is drawing a long bow.
 
The major stock holders in the defense companies seem to be investment companies or banks.

Again you have the problem of identifying individuals who would, even if they were psychopaths, have the financial motive to invoke this huge risk.

I can't see that the price movement in these companies was anything spectacular, some of them continued a previous rising trend and then fell soon after 9/11 and took a long time to recover, Lockheed Martin for example.

[qimg]https://robinsrevision.files.wordpress.com/2020/04/image-5.png?w=848[/qimg]

The bit rise came much later, maybe 2013 but it wasn't anything the market wasn't doing.

Perhaps General Dynamics showed most growth over that period, but still had a price fall in the aftermath of 9/11 and took a long time to catch up to where the previous trend was taking it.

[qimg]https://robinsrevision.files.wordpress.com/2020/04/image-6.png?w=826[/qimg]
If this eventuated in a huge pay-day for some investor that would be worth that risk, then I suppose it would not be too difficult to find that person.

But again, I think this is drawing a long bow.

You and your facts. and your bleedin' rational arguments.
You've killed this conversation!
Can we go over again how it's logical to hold two diametrically-opposed beliefs at the same time, with room for a few more on this side? We need more unfounded percentages, and fewer facts. The 9/11 Sub-Forum has a proud tradition of fact-free posting to uphold.
 
I prefer the term false-flag terror attack myself over inside job. However, I recently came across a bit of information that I had not been aware of.

Ron Unz in his American Pravda series recently wrote on Mossad Assassinations. He covered events detailed in the books By Way of Deception by Victor Ostrovsky and Rise and Kill First by New York Times reporter Ronen Bergman.

Ron Unz writes,

"Of these famous incidents, Bergman only includes mention of the King David Hotel bombing. But much later in his narrative, he describes the huge wave of false-flag terrorist attacks unleashed in 1981 by Israeli Defense Minister Ariel Sharon, who recruited a former high-ranking Mossad official to manage the project.

Under Israeli direction, large car bombs began exploding in the Palestinian neighborhoods of Beirut and other Lebanese cities, killing or injuring enormous numbers of civilians. A single attack in October inflicted nearly 400 casualties, and by December, there were eighteen bombings per month, with their effectiveness greatly enhanced by the use of innovative new Israeli drone technology. Official responsibility for all the attacks was claimed by a previously unknown Lebanese organization, but the intent was to provoke the PLO into military retaliation against Israel, thereby justifying Sharon’s planned invasion of the neighboring country.

Since the PLO stubbornly refused to take the bait, plans were put into motion for the huge bombing of an entire Beirut sports stadium using tons of explosives during a January 1st political ceremony, with the death and destruction expected to be “of unprecedented proportions, even in terms of Lebanon.” But Sharon’s political enemies learned of the plot and emphasized that many foreign diplomats including the Soviet ambassador were expected to be present and probably would be killed, so after a bitter debate, Prime Minister Begin ordered the attack aborted. A future Mossad chief mentions the major headaches they then faced in removing the large quantity of explosives that they had already planted within the structure."

False-flag terror attacks by the Mossad seem to be standard operating procedure. So who was the Prime Minister of Israel when the 9/11 false-flag attack occurred?

Ron Unz has also written on 9/11 Conspiracy Theories as part of his American Pravda series. He wrote:

"Sharon was a notoriously bloody and reckless leader, with a long history of undertaking strategic gambles of astonishing boldness, sometimes betting everything on a single roll of the dice. He had spent decades seeking the Prime Ministership, but having finally obtained it, he now had his back to the wall, with no obvious source of rescue in sight.

The 9/11 attacks changed everything. Suddenly the world’s sole superpower was fully mobilized against Arab and Muslim terrorist movements, especially those connected with the Middle East. Sharon’s close Neocon political allies in America used the unexpected crisis as an opportunity to seize control of America’s foreign policy and national security apparatus..."

Of all the false-flag attacks, 9/11 is the easiest to discern. It is clear why it was done, for what reason, and who benefitted. But the mass media propaganda that came out of 9/11 continues down to the fake news era of our own time. The media is not about "reporting" the news, it is about the wholesale creation out of cloth of entirely false narratives.
 
... Of all the false-flag attacks, 9/11 is the easiest to discern. It is clear why it was done, for what reason, and who benefitted. But the mass media propaganda that came out of 9/11 continues down to the fake news era of our own time. The media is not about "reporting" the news, it is about the wholesale creation out of cloth of entirely false narratives. ...

Oops, more lies, no evidence. Where is your proof? Dog ate it? Where"?
 
Caveman1917,

If a defence barrister brings up an alibi as evidence of non-guilt, he is not trying to prove the negative of the accusation, he is giving positive evidence of the alibi.

#Potato is Innocent
 

Back
Top Bottom