The 9/11 Conspiracy Facts

[mjd1982]

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

I dont want to be antagonistic, but I have to say that the comment "the racist term "rag heads", which is a relatively non-judgemental comment on a particular style of headgear." is mind blowing.

So if I call a black person "******" that's not an issue since the word is just a derivate of the colour of their skin? Or a Jew "yid" is just a derivate of one of their languages? Just an astonishing comment!

 

[mjd1982]

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

An urgent change that needs to happen as soon as possible, hence needing to be crystallised in the minds of decison makers by Oct 2001, and forming the core of neo con policy for the next administration. This policy is one that will have long term consequences (which is where your getting confused), and of which some elements will unavoidable last a long time (e.g. the militarisation of space), but it needs to get going as soon as possible, needs to be given significant impetus by the incoming administration, and should proceed with minimal hindrance, due to its crucial importance.

 

[Revolutionary91]

MJD, have you seen the archive footage of CNN from the evening of 911? There is some very suspicious stuff related to PNAC. One very shifty guy comes on and says that this pearl harbour event will help transform the military after years of neglect. He even specifically mentions fighter planes etc.

 

[mjd1982]

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.

You are a liar, and you have zero regard for the truth. Read the article.

On Dec. 9, 2001, Cheney said on "Meet The Press" that "it's been pretty well confirmed that he (Atta) did go to Prague and he did meet with a senior official of the Iraqi intelligence service in Czechoslovakia last April, several months before the attack."

This is ~18mths before the invasion!!! So Iraq was linked to 911, since its invasion was a part of RAD, the plan which was to be catalysed by 911, regardless of its disconnects, to repeat myself.

 

[mjd1982]

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.

Ok, so your main point is that no one corroborates his story. I'm sorry, but this is a standard OTer tactic, or indeed of anyone who has no interest in debating honestly- muddy the issue. If you do that, then you maynot win, but neither will the other guy. The answer, my truth seeking friend, is right in from of your own nose. There is a reason why Forbes didnt come out for moths afterwards to speak his mind- when something like that happens, it is not the immediate propensity to come out and suggest something that might cause an earthquake in terms of its ramifications. Even the fact that he has only whispered it has caused him a measure of problems in terms of job security, slander from the likes of yourself, nudge nudge calls from HR telling him to keep quiet, etc. And it is this dynamic that means that other people are reluctant to speak out as well. This is the structure that allows such to happen. No company wants its employees intimating that the US government killed 3000 of its own people. And so, it is much easier to do what the majority of people at FT are doing- just forget about it, or tell themselves that it wasnt anything serious- just another power down. Note, that even in Scott's mind, it is not the power down that makes him think 911 was an inside job; it is the reaction to it, the cover up, the intimidation, and now, the denial of it ever happening, in many official corners, including the 911 Commission report who he corresponded with, that has made him a Truther. Ditto Wille Rodriguez, incidentally.

OTer psychology is astonishing. Another link for you, read it!. This is a guy who has no pretence to fame or notoriety, not even keen to stand up in front of a hall of people, and yet when he simply relates his experience which may lead to an unpalatable truth for some, that some jump on him like hounds. Its a pretty tragic indictment.

 

[mjd1982]

MJD, have you seen the archive footage of CNN from the evening of 911? There is some very suspicious stuff related to PNAC. One very shifty guy comes on and says that this pearl harbour event will help transform the military after years of neglect. He even specifically mentions fighter planes etc.

Well I believe it was said pretty widespread post 911, in political and media circles, that this was a new PH. This is, to all with an above average intelligence, because it was.

 

[Revolutionary91]

Well I believe it was said pretty widespread post 911, in political and media circles, that this was a new PH. This is, to all with an above average intelligence, because it was.

Yes, and they kept referring to it as an opportunity. This guy on CNN was really precise and he looked excited, and spoke of the opportunity it gave. He may aswell have been reading RAD on air.

 

[mjd1982]

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

A piece of common sense for you buddy- 2 analogies, dozens of pages apart, do not necessarily have the same import. Think (about your levels of honesty)before you post

You missed one important part of your RAD quote:

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

ROFL....

One of the best quotes yet. I know you guys have your "Stundies", I think I may start a similar one for your guys, you have just made a good pitch for them to be called "The Lapmans", tho "The Belz" probably still leads.

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.

Hence even when Saddam is gone, US interests in the Gulf (oil) are such that a substantial US force will still be needed there. Duh!

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.

So because war happened and military advancement did not ensue, that means that war is not propitious to military advancement. Duh!

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

Another substanceless post

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.

Oh, damn, how presumptious of me. How audacious indeed to hope that someone on this hilarious forum would respond to my post "sensibly". Dont worry, I hold out little hope for that any more.

 

[mjd1982]

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.

As I have said already, the changes will in any situation, take many years. They will last many decades. This is where you are getting confused. The need to start implementing them with urgency and haste, is manifest in the document, since they are what will preserve peace and democracy for the world, and that is why the next admin needs to start putting the measures in place by Oct 2001.

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.

Read the post before you respond to it. In this context, quicker means easier. This is because the delay would be casued by programmes which woul otherwise cause mass upheaval to change, by structures that represenet deep set hindrances etc. Read the rest of the PH para. These are the factors that will delay the plan, factors which wil be obviated by the ocurrence of a new PH. Elementary.

 

[calebprime]

Hmmm... How interesting.

Ipsychology of OTers,

Yes, it would be more interesting if you got diverted more often.

quote from your link:

"...it remains a fact that in almost every act of our daily lives, whether in the sphere of politics or business, in our social conduct or our ethical thinking, we are dominated by the relatively small number of persons—a trifling fraction of our hundred and twenty million—who understand the mental processes and social patterns of the masses."

end quote

This kind of statement is common in conspiracy thinking. It just ain't so.
There is amazing, unsummarizable diversity of activity and thinking going on everywhere, all the time.


Rather than respond to the "structural bias" thread, I'll give my 2 cents.

-Conversation is more interesting than debate. What happens here is not really debate, nor should it be. It's an exchange of views. It's persuasion.
It's lots of things. But it's not a debate.

-Write each post as if your readers were coming to it alone and the subject for the first time: Make positive assertions with enough background info.

-Avoid jargon. Don't say POTUS. Don't say 'propitious' more than twice.

-Don't respond to the other posts except by making relevant positive assertions: don't call the other posters stupid, or tell them to keep up.

-Make the same point no more than 4 or 5 times. Then move on.

-Don't be so concerned about what the subject of the thread is. Somewhat concerned, yes.

-eta: Don't ever accuse someone of racism unless that's his/her agenda. Don't report someone's post unless they are really spamming. Let them be uncivil.

Last time I looked, the post count was above 2,000, and the subject remains whether a new 'PH' (no, not acidity) was 'propitious' to policy as described in a 'PNAC' document.

 

[mjd1982]

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.

I have replied to all his comments, until he showed himself to be a reprehensible human being. Hence I will not respond to him any more. Jingoism in the military is an ugly sterotype, particularly US (see front page of yesterdays Independent), and so to see it face to face, is pretty repellent.

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)?

Simply put, criminal negligence occurs to ensure that despite a mass of warnings, nothing happens to stop the attacks, since they are propitious to policy.

 

[mjd1982]

Yes, it would be more interesting if you got diverted more often.

quote from your link:

"...it remains a fact that in almost every act of our daily lives, whether in the sphere of politics or business, in our social conduct or our ethical thinking, we are dominated by the relatively small number of persons—a trifling fraction of our hundred and twenty million—who understand the mental processes and social patterns of the masses."

end quote

This kind of statement is common in conspiracy thinking. It just ain't so.
There is amazing, unsummarizable diversity of activity and thinking going on everywhere, all the time.

I'm afraid that, firstly, the person you are quoting is the father of the PR industry, political and business, and he knows precisely how public opinion is manipulated. His opinions were echoed by the legendary Walter Lippmann in 1921, in the other article I have linked to, and agai today by Chomsky and Herman in the seminal "Manufacturing Consent" (a quote from Lippmann). If you read any of these texts, esp Lippmann, you will see how public opinion can only be formed by the few, if a democracy is to function smoothly (in the eyes of the few).

Of course, the failure to understand this dynamic, by the majority of people esp on this board, is a major barrier to understanding; not helped by the labelling of it as conspiratorial which is just parrotted evasion.

 

[mjd1982]

Yes, and they kept referring to it as an opportunity. This guy on CNN was really precise and he looked excited, and spoke of the opportunity it gave. He may aswell have been reading RAD on air.

And I think Bush said the same when he spoke of ~"an opportunity we must not let pass" post 911.

 

[Belz...]

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.

Oh, like in the following conversation:

Person 1: "I am going to kill you, person 2"
Person 2: "Did you just say you were going to KILL ME ??"
Person 1: "No, no. Er.... you misunderstand the use of the term "kill"... I meant, loan. Yeah. Loan some money! No interest!!!"

 

[Belz...]

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.

Amazing. After all these posts you have learned NOTHING. You bathe in your own ignorance, oblivious to the world around your little pond.

Substanceless.

Indeed.

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.

Childish. You have nothing to offer to any debate.

 

[WildCat]

mjd1982, are you ever going to present some "conspiracy facts"? or is conjecture, speculation, misinterpretation of documents that have nothing to do with 9/11, etc etc all you have?

Do you know what facts are? Do you know what evidence is? Don't even bother answering, it's obvious to all here that you do not.

 

[Revolutionary91]

mjd1982, are you ever going to present some "conspiracy facts"? or is conjecture, speculation, misinterpretation of documents that have nothing to do with 9/11, etc etc all you have?

Do you know what facts are? Do you know what evidence is? Don't even bother answering, it's obvious to all here that you do not.

When are you guys going to present the hard evidence against OBL? Oh I forgot, you don't have any. You just stick to your conjecture and speculation.

 

[volatile]

Of course he's not going to present facts. He's had ample opportunity to do so, but has failed.

When given numbers (on military spending, for example), he dismisses them as irrelevant. The facts are inconvenient to his speculation.

 

[T.A.M.]

When are you guys going to present the hard evidence against OBL? Oh I forgot, you don't have any. You just stick to your conjecture and speculation.

Last I checked, the AUTHORITIES are the ones who find and keep evidence for crimes...has this changed? Why do you expect us to have the EVIDENCE?

As for why OBL doesnt have the 9/11 crimes up on the FBI wanted poster, blah blah blah blah...

How many Mobster leaders get convicted of actually pulling the trigger on mob hits??? OBL is the equivelent of a MOB LEADER, he is responsible, but it is EXTREMELY difficult to show enough evidence to connect them directly to the trigger pulling. But you knew that, you just like to throw this shaite out there.

TAM

 

[Dave Rogers]

I dont want to be antagonistic, but I have to say that the comment "the racist term "rag heads", which is a relatively non-judgemental comment on a particular style of headgear." is mind blowing.

So if I call a black person "******" that's not an issue since the word is just a derivate of the colour of their skin? Or a Jew "yid" is just a derivate of one of their languages? Just an astonishing comment!

You really, really need to work on your reading comprehension. You're confusing the concepts "judgemental" and "offensive". Of course the term "rag heads" is offensive. Your "Chinese motorcycle" comment is judgemental, but possibly less offensive to the people you've insulted because it's got less history to it; not being Chinese, I can't be certain of that.

In any case, you're avoiding the point. You have used a racist insult to make a point, while berating others for using racist insults to make a point. Everything you say to attempt to excuse yourself simply makes your own hypocrisy more evident.

Dave