The 9/11 Conspiracy Facts

[mjd1982]

And he's missing the elephant in the room:

Even if the PNAC statement said, "WE NEED TERRORISTS TO FLY BUILDINGS INTO PLANES IN THE FALL OF 2001" the subsequent investigation after 9/11 turned up ZERO evidence of PNAC involvement and 100% evidence of 19 terrorists.

So it literally doesn't matter what that document says because the evidence is in. 19 terrorists did it.

Case closed.

Case closed! Nice one.

This, David, is why we are debating the 911 Comm. You hadnt noticed this clearly. Never mind.

ETA- Join in if you like!

 

[Belz...]

In this case, being "more careful" means...
...changing their definition.

QUOTE MINING!!! QUOTE MINING!!!

 

[mjd1982]

Unless you are going to demonstrate in this specific case why "answered" and "addressed" should be lumped together then you are committing equivocation. Specifically, if the Jersey Girls' questions that were not unanswered have been dealt with to their satisfaction or not.

Errr... no, it is you who is lumping the 2 together, not me, so it is you who is going to have to prove why they should be.

 

[Belz...]

...

Stumped, I see.

Secondly, the goalposts have been moved, but not by me.

Of course, by you. You changed the whole scenario to mean something else. That's moving the goalposts. You change the rules to accomodate your debunked conclusion.

Good! So we have one person with a modicum of common sense on this board. This is the starting point. The rest will be addressed in a second (has already been in any case).

Common sense had nothing to do with it. You said:

All that is aiming to be illustrated for now is that the neo-cons stated that a new PH would be propitious to policy.

Assuming said policy is increasing funding to the military, then yes. But that says absolutely nothing, so your point is still unproven.

I don't think you know what "common sense" means.

 

[mjd1982]

Why do you think it "needs" to be created quickly ? This seems to be an assumption on your part.

For the reasons I stated. They are there in the post to which you are replyng. You can address them if you like.

Yeah, Afghanistan's got lots of oil.

Natural gas, excuse me.

This is an argument from Gallileo. Basically, you can see it but others can't. History will prove you right, etc. etc.

Errr... no. My point is one that is often stated by OTers- what has nuclear weapon upgrades and global missile defenses got to do with terrorism? nothing. This is an argument from your own camp; but if you would like to debunk it, then go ahead.

What the hell is WOT, anyway ?

War on Terror

What's this obsession with acronyms ?

Theyre shorter, and thus quicker to write.

 

[beachnut]

For the reasons I stated. They are there in the post to which you are replyng. You can address them if you like.

Natural gas, excuse me.

Errr... no. My point is one that is often stated by OTers- what has nuclear weapon upgrades and global missile defenses got to do with terrorism? nothing. This is an argument from your own camp; but if you would like to debunk it, then go ahead.

War on Terror

Theyre shorter, and thus quicker to write.

And still no smoking gun or clarification on what the OP mess of words was all about? No proper quotes, hard, if not impossible to figure out what is your BS and what is quoted stuff.

You did miss that day in 3rd grade with cause and effect, and you missed the

button

.

What are the two smoking guns you teased us with and where are the facts to back them up? Cause there were no facts in the OP. Are you holding back? If you have time avoiding questions, then you could fix the OP and present those smoking guns. I am interested in them, but you failed to make the point in the OP, you mentioned some lies from the truth movement, but no real smoking gun. Do you understand, there was no stuff in you OP that has not been debunked many times over? Are you reading what everyone has said more than 50 times, that you basically have zero stuff to present on 9/11 that makes sense?

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

I dont think it does. Why does it?

When defending your assertion that Pearl Harbor and 9/11 were analogous, you stated, "Yes, but it was an unprovoked act of aggression in a state of peace between 2 nations. " To this, I replied, "Assume, for the sake of argument, that 9/11 was carried out in the manner portrayed by the MSM (I know you don't agree with this, but this if for the sake of argument). Who was the nation that made the unprovoked act of aggression against the US on that day?" It's relevence is directly tied to the definition of 'terrorism' that you are using in this discussion, your claims of Pearl Harbor and 9/11 being analogous, and to your statement of "between 2 nations".

If the US was the first nation, what was the other nation on 9/11?

Errr... no, it is you who is lumping the 2 together, not me, so it is you who is going to have to prove why they should be.

In post #183, you committed equivocation when you chose to say, "As you know, they put 167 questions to the Commission , of which only 27 were answered. " In that statement you implicitly lump "This question has been addressed in the Report, but not adequately answered.", "This question has been addressed in the Report, but not adequately answered." into the same group and compare them against, "This question has been generally ignored in or omitted from the Report.".

Now, justify your, apparent, attempt at deception.

 

[jab712]

Originally Posted by Belz...
In a retarded, emotionless, objective kind of way, yeah it would help that policy. They still didn't say they were going to cause it.

Originally Posted by mjd1982...
Good! So we have one person with a modicum of common sense on this board. This is the starting point. The rest will be addressed in a second (has already been in any case).

Ahhhh FINALLY, you agree that this thought process is retarded!!!

Do you understand what I am doing here? I am pulling a mjd1982. I took a few words out these posts and assumed something. Belz said it was retarded and you agreed. So, I am assuming that you do, in fact, think that this thought process is retarded. I have assumed what your intent was based on the few words in these sentences. Ignoring ALL the other statements you have made to the contrary.

Later on, I will comment about how something is no longer relevant.

 

[HeyLeroy]

...please address the document.

It's apparent that we don't see (after ~405 posts) the sinister outlines in the PNAC document that's so clear to mjd1982.

Let's all close one eye and squint with the other, hold the paper at arms' length on the diagonal, agree to disagree and move on. Let's move on here, folks, we're holding mjd back.

Okay, mjd1982, for the sake of argument let's just say that the PNAC document is a published public document detailing Bushco's nefarious plans to attempt to murder 25,000-50,000 innocent Americans in a devastating attack on the World Trade Center Complex, and the actual cold-blooded murder of approximately 3,000 civilians in a calculated 'Pearl Harbor'-type false-flag operation. As others here have said, "what next?"

A note to mjd1982: I know you and I have been around this maypole before. I know you're not unintelligent, but the people on this forum don't tolerate speculation much, they evaluate facts. Once you recognize that you're erroneously trying to present your opinions as facts, you'll fare much, much better here.

Remember that kerfuffle we had about the 'bending' of facts to fit supposition and I told you that facts don't bend, they're rigid things? Please take that to heart.

Now on to the good stuff! If I remember correctly, your (abridged) version of what happened to 7 World Trade Center went something like this:

knew that terrorists were going to hijack planes and fly them into the Twin Towers.

knew exactly where chunks of WTC1 were going to impact upon WTC7, and had

plant explosives throughout WTC7, in places where

knew the raging fires wouldn't spread.

, for reasons unknown (but we can assume wasn't guilt, as

just did nothing to stop planes from smashing into buildings that could've potentially contained 50,000 innocent people) risked

or even

in the electric chair, and warned three fire-fighters of their nefarious plans, allowing them to... stay safe behind the collapse perimeter they'd set up, as the firefighters figured the building was gonna collapse anyways.

Did I miss anything?

 

[mjd1982]

Here's why I'm not impressed by the argument based on PNAC aims outlined in "Rebuilding America's Defenses."

Because, in the end, it's typical think tank pap. Not because it's false, but because most of it (with a few exceptions, such as thumbs-up thumbs-down on specific weapons development programs) is bleeding obvious. Of course forces should be based closer to where they're most likely to be needed. Of course the U.S. needs to act to avoid being outflanked technologically, what use are tanks if the country's economy can be crippled by a computer virus or an antisatellite weapon? Of course having to swap working parts or available crewmen between weapon systems, in order to get one of them up and running, is a bad thing and should be corrected. Of course a bigger army can take on more simultanous missions at once. Of course the miliary should not be the only human enterprise on the planet not seeking to exploit new information technology to improve its effectiveness. Duh!

All the unjustified accusations about PNAC and 9/11 are rooted in the erroneous idea that these ideas, instead of being patently obvious, constitute some kind of radical agenda that would never be accepted without a major galvanizing event causing fundamental political change. (I can see the protest signs now: "Don't give our troops computers!" "No more spare parts!") It's a pro-military agenda, to be sure, which is traditionally part of the Republican party platform. But otherwise, it's common sense stuff that an administration subscribing to a generally pro-miliary philosophy, such as the that had just taken office, would support, that a large segment of the American population would be expected to agree with, and it's on a modest scale. It's about as controversial, and as specific, as recommending that getting tougher on crime would require more police officers and more prisons.

So, the observation that various objectives outlined in PNAC have in fact been pursued and in some cases achieved means only that the current administration is pro-military (no surprise) and that the generals are not total idiots when it comes to perceiving what changes were needed. ("Let's see, if we're going to be expected to send troops in to avert genocide every time some unstable country goes pear-shaped, do we need more troops or fewer troops? That's a toughie, let's convene some more think tanks.")

Did they exploit 9/11 to make those objectives easier politically? Probably. Politicians exploit events whenever and however they can. They're rather good at it. They don't need to cause the events in order to exploit them, any more than umbrella sellers have to cause the rain.

You can't make a LIHOP or MIHIP case on motive alone, based on ex post facto run-of-the-mill opportunistic political behavior. (Though that behavior might certainly justify wanting to vote people out of office, which the American public did.) You need actual evidence that someone actually did something illegal.

Respectfully,
Myriad

Ok, a number of problems here, IMO.

1stly, I dont think that you've read the doc carefully enough. The changes it calls for are not banal like you make them out to be. I mean even to point to your example of the army, we can see how the doc describes the changes itself:

Terminating marginal programs like the
Crusader howitzer, trimming administrative
overhead, base closings and the like will not
free up resources enough to finance the
radical overhaul the Army needs

Design
and research on a future CVX carrier
should continue, but should aim at a
radical design change

halt production of current-paradigm weapons
and shift to radically new designs

when
the results of vigorous experimentation
introduce radically new weapons,

Yet this initial process of transformation
must be just the first step toward a more
radical reconfiguring of the Army.

And I could go on; and this is just one adjective.

Further, this does not even touch on the radical elements that are either stated or strongly implied in the doc- the overthrow of Saddam, militarisation of space, use of cyberspace as a defense tool etc, which would never be done normally.

Also, you miss the notion of quantity/specificity. So troops are going to be repositioned. Where? How many of them? How much to spend on bases? etc etc

You also, inexplicably, seem to contradict the documents own import:

All the unjustified accusations about PNAC and 9/11 are rooted in the erroneous idea that these ideas, instead of being patently obvious, constitute some kind of radical agenda that would never be accepted without a major galvanizing event causing fundamental political change. (I can see the protest signs now: "Don't give our troops computers!" "No more spare parts!")

But this is pretty much what is said in the doc, directly! I think the problem may be, as I have tried to illustrate, the fact that you underestimate the radical nature of the changes called for.

And finally, as I have stated, the actual changes themselves do not matter so much in their detail; what is important is the broad import, to be sped up by a new PH, since we are arguing design rather than execution.

 

[mjd1982]

BAD THINGS THAT HAPPENED AND THE PEOPLE WHO BENEFITED:

Bad thing: The Great Depression
People who benefited: Employment Agencies
How they benefited: More unemployed means more clients.
Conclusion: Employment Agencies caused the Great Depression

Bad thing: World War II
People who benefited: The Catholic Church
How they benefited: The Church has long been in favor of large families. After the war, people settled down and procreated like never before. (there were nine kids in my Catholic baby-boom family.)
Conclusion: The Catholic Church caused World War II.

Bad thing: The Holocaust
People who benefited: Swiss bankers
How they benefited: Displaced Jews put their wealth into Swiss banks, then disappeared into concentration camps. Swiss banks kept the money.
Conclusion: Swiss bankers caused the Holocaust

Bad thing: Super Bowl XIII
People who benefited: Those who bet on the Steelers
How they benefited: Steelers won
Conclusion: People who bet on the Steelers caused them to win.

And so on, and so on...

Except that none of the people who have benefitted had the capacity to covertly cause such events. This has been addressed eariler, do keep up pelase.

 

[mjd1982]

You rejected the claim that the increase was unprecedented. You then edited your post to add that you hadn't actually been referring to the increase; rather you had been referring to the amount, which you claimed (according to my figures) had only been exceeded once, though you expected it had been exceeded other times.


Your original quote:




What you wrote clearly refers to the "increase" as unprecedented; however, I'll grant that that's not what you meant to say.




You appear to believe that I've scored some sort of an "own goal," but in fact you have merely demonstrated that you use "statistics the way a drunk uses a lamppost--for support, rather than illumination." (variously attributed) According to a Congressional Research Service report, DoD's costs for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, plus the costs of additional security (e.g., increased combat air patrols) in FY 2003 totalled US $77.4 billion. Deflating that back to Year 2000 dollars yields about US $72 billion. Looking at my source figures, it appears that I neglected to deflate the original FY 2003 defense budget back to Year 2000 dollars, which makes the 2003 increase even less remarkable. So let's also reconsider your purported 33% increase from FY 2001 to FY 2003.

2001 military spending: $297.5 (3.0%)

2002 military spending: $330.8 (3.4%)

2003 military spending: $374.5 (3.7%)

Billions of US dollars (percent of GDP)

Now, we see that the actual, inflation-adjusted increase from 2001 to 2003 is $77 billion, or about 26%, not 33% as you claimed. (Penalty kick for exaggerating by using non-inflation adjusted numbers! ) Further, of that $77 billion, $72 billion is directly traceable to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and increased security costs. Most of this money is sunk and has contributed little or nothing to the PNAC goals (unless I missed the part in the report about fighting extended ground wars in the Middle East as one of the goals).

This entire issue serves to illustrate your twisting of the PNAC memo to support your conspiracist agenda. You claim that the September 11 attacks brought about the PNAC objective of increased military spending--however, the objective was not increased military spending for its own sake; it was rather the military transformation that would have required this increased military spending.

Also, you are committing the logical fallacy of affirming the consequent.

"If the PNAC plan had been implemented, military spending would have increased substantially."

"Military spending increased substantially."

"Therefore, the PNAC plan was implemented."

Ook! Ook! Eee! Eee!

Ook ook indeed.

Were you not so busy making chimp noise (I assume this is quite standard for you) you would have realised the point that has been made many times, i.e. that military increases are but one element of the WOT/PNAC plan. If you want to know the rest, and how they have been implemented, banana out of mouth, and read my dismantliing of Gravy's LC guide re: PNAC.

 

[lapman]

Except that none of the people who have benefitted had the capacity to covertly cause such events. This has been addressed eariler, do keep up pelase.

You're saying that the Catholic Church does not have the capacity to start a war?!?!? I guess history was not one of your subjects in school.

 

[Unsecured Coins]

Ook ook indeed.

Were you not so busy making chimp noise (I assume this is quite standard for you) you would have realised the point that has been made many times, i.e. that military increases are but one element of the WOT/PNAC plan. If you want to know the rest, and how they have been implemented, banana out of mouth, and read my dismantliing of Gravy's LC guide re: PNAC.

Re-po'ted

 

[HeyLeroy]

Ok, a number of problems here, IMO.

1stly, I dont think that you've read the doc carefully enough. The changes it calls for are not banal like you make them out to be. I mean even to point to your example of the army, we can see how the doc describes the changes itself:

radical...
radical...
radically...
radically...
radical...

And I could go on; and this is just one adjective.

Further, this does not even touch on the radical elements that are either stated or strongly implied in the doc- the overthrow of Saddam, militarisation of space, use of cyberspace as a defense tool etc, which would never be done normally.

Also, you miss the notion of quantity/specificity. So troops are going to be repositioned. Where? How many of them? How much to spend on bases? etc etc

You also, inexplicably, seem to contradict the documents own import:

But this is pretty much what is said in the doc, directly! I think the problem may be, as I have tried to illustrate, the fact that you underestimate the radical nature of the changes called for.

And finally, as I have stated, the actual changes themselves do not matter so much in their detail; what is important is the broad import, to be sped up by a new PH, since we are arguing design rather than execution.

Except that none of the people who have benefitted had the capacity to covertly cause such events. This has been addressed eariler, do keep up pelase.

Ook ook indeed.

Were you not so busy making chimp noise (I assume this is quite standard for you) you would have realised the point that has been made many times, i.e. that military increases are but one element of the WOT/PNAC plan. If you want to know the rest, and how they have been implemented, banana out of mouth, and read my dismantliing of Gravy's LC guide re: PNAC.

Okay, we get it; you see things we don't. Get to the good stuff.

I did a cryptoquote last night and I thought how apt it was; more words to keep in mind:

Accuracy of statement is one of the first elements of truth; inaccuracy is a near kin to falsehood.
--Tryon Edwards

 

[mjd1982]

When defending your assertion that Pearl Harbor and 9/11 were analogous, you stated, "Yes, but it was an unprovoked act of aggression in a state of peace between 2 nations. " To this, I replied, "Assume, for the sake of argument, that 9/11 was carried out in the manner portrayed by the MSM (I know you don't agree with this, but this if for the sake of argument). Who was the nation that made the unprovoked act of aggression against the US on that day?" It's relevence is directly tied to the definition of 'terrorism' that you are using in this discussion, your claims of Pearl Harbor and 9/11 being analogous, and to your statement of "between 2 nations".

If the US was the first nation, what was the other nation on 9/11?

This has been addressed earlier.

PH had many characteristics. It wasnt just the fact that it was one nation attacking another; it was done by Japanese, it was done on a fleet, it was done by air etc etc.

The question is, which of these many characteristics are pertinent to the analogy between 9/11 and PH. The answer is very simple, since it is given in the doc: #1 catastrophic, #2 catalysing(militarily).

Hence the analogy between 911 and PH is valid, and to dispute such would be brainless.

I think this is quite simple.

In post #183, you committed equivocation when you chose to say, "As you know, they put 167 questions to the Commission , of which only 27 were answered. " In that statement you implicitly lump "This question has been addressed in the Report, but not adequately answered.", "This question has been addressed in the Report, but not adequately answered." into the same group and compare them against, "This question has been generally ignored in or omitted from the Report.".

Now, justify your, apparent, attempt at deception.[/QUOTE]

Its understandable that I would lump those 2 sentences together since they are identical.

In any case, I am not equivocating anything; I am differentiating between 3 things: answering, addressing, and ignoring. None of them mean the same thing. You equivocate addressing with answering, since you feel that because 96 questions were addressed, 96 were answered. Since addressing a question can mean anything from "Dont ask such a stupid question", I do not do the same.

 

[David Wong]

For those of you following along, mjd says PNAC's suggestion that the CVX carrier be "radically" redesigned is one piece of evidence that they blew up World Trade Center 7.

 

[David Wong]

Hence the analogy between 911 and PH is valid, and to dispute such would be brainless.

And yet, it is disputed by many, many people far, far, far, far, far, far, far more intelligent and educated and qualified than you.

You have an over-inflated ego that borders on neurosis.

 

[mjd1982]

I think that, for the sake of clarity, we should do a quick heads up.

So, the aim of this section is, as has been stated many times, but many here find it hard to comprehend, simply to show that a new PH was propitious to policy for PNAC/The Bush Admin. One person has admitted so, but that is all so far.

Initially, there has been debate as to whether 911 was indeed a new PH. This has been addressed by me in #416. Anyone who wants to address this point, please refer to this post.

But after that, the question is, did they want the transformation to happen over decades, or over mths/years. I think that ordinarily would be obvious, but we can argue it here on the basis that:
a) The aim of PNAC is to militraily create a platform that will project US hegemony and make the 21st Century the American Century. Thus, it is logical that they would want this platform to be created soon, so they could actively project US hegemony and create an American 21st Century, rather than wait, have it potentially jeopardised by other elements.
b) The fact that the QDR was in Oct 2001, and the elements upon which it was to be based would have to be crystalised in decision makers minds by then; i.e. early, rather than late.
c) The fact that a (+ve) revolutionary change in the geo-political landscape is preferable to power hungry politicians soon, rather than later. I do realise that chimps wil cry "That's not in the doc", but I think that it is pretty much common sense.

Do not use insults to argue your point. This sub-forum is under stricter moderation than any other sub-forum. If you cannot post civilly, without insults, your posts will be deleted with no further warning.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Lisa Simpson

 

[beachnut]

I think that, for the sake of clarity, we should do a quick heads up.

So, the aim of this section is, as has been stated many times, but many here find it hard to comprehend, simply to show that a new PH was propitious to policy for PNAC/The Bush Admin. One person has admitted so, but that is all so far.

Initially, there has been debate as to whether 911 was indeed a new PH. This has been addressed by me in #416. Anyone who wants to address this point, please refer to this post.

But after that, the question is, did they want the transformation to happen over decades, or over mths/years. I think that ordinarily would be obvious, but we can argue it here on the basis that:
a) The aim of PNAC is to militraily create a platform that will project US hegemony and make the 21st Century the American Century. Thus, it is logical that they would want this platform to be created soon, so they could actively project US hegemony and create an American 21st Century, rather than wait, have it potentially jeopardised by other elements.
b) The fact that the QDR was in Oct 2001, and the elements upon which it was to be based would have to be crystalised in decision makers minds by then; i.e. early, rather than late.
c) The fact that a (+ve) revolutionary change in the geo-political landscape is preferable to power hungry politicians soon, rather than later. I do realise that chimps wil cry "That's not in the doc", but I think that it is pretty much common sense.

Does this mean you had no smoking guns as in the OP teased?

There is such a chasm between the facts of this day, and what has been reported in the mainstream media, that the majority of people are not even aware of the most rudimentary facts of the day, one of the most newsworthy days any of our lives. I will address 2 smoking guns.

I suspected you were just talk and now you prove it. No smoking gun will be clarified and you are off on some PNAC hunt which has not a darn thing to do with 9/11. Cause and effect seem to be a messed up system, in the fictional world of 9/11 truth. What do you think?