The 9/11 Conspiracy Facts

[Belz...]

You are eaten by wasp infected bear-wasps.​

...or dogs that shoot bees out of their mouths when they bark...

 

[Belz...]

Ok, here's the deal

Yes, mister president of the assembly!

Now I know many of you have come and said "We understand what your saying, and we disagree"

Count me in.

well, I'm afraid this isnt very "propitious" to a debate, is it?

Actually, we've shown you why we disagreed. We've shown you why you cannot build a case on such weak "evidence". We also said we awaited further evidence. So far, no good.

So...I would like everyone who believes 911 wasnt a new PH to respond to #416; those who believe PNAC didnt deem it propitious to policy, respond to #493.

No, I think I'll stick to answering the new posts. No use recycling old stuff.

NB- Those who decide to evade the point, well, your cowardice and dishonesty will be clear. Please dont do this.

<giggle>

 

[mjd1982]

Okay, a sincere thank you to all who did respond. To those who unforunately didnt, your cowardice will be evident for the rest of the thread.

I will now proceed as promised, answering those posts who responded, a couple of others, and then move on.

 

[mjd1982]

Simple? You said they wrote their plan to attack America into "Rebuilding America's Defenses." That's simple all right: simply batcrap insane. Ook, ook!

No I didn't, I stated that they clearly implied its propitiousness for policy. In any case this is another argument from incredulity, upon which much of your refutation of this point seems to be based. As you will know, this is of zero value.

Of course they did: like $400 billion for a ground war in Iraq against people armed with Fiat Pandas, old artillery shells, and cell phones, and $300 billion for the Joint Strike Fighter. That's "precisely" what the PNAC called for, isn't it, mjd?

Oh, wait....

That they are expening lots of money in Iraq is meaningless if they are still proceeding with the other elements of the plan. This is precisely what is happening, as has been outlined to you,

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=84473&page=3

but you have chosen not to address. This is unsurprising. Never mind, at least it is plain for all to see.

 

[mjd1982]

mjd, I did respond to your points. You then called me names and told me to go away.

Did widdle mjd get scawed by big bad wowds?

Called you names... how precious.

Please show me where you have offered an argument about the PNAC doc that is not merely one from incredulity, or one that has not been addressed in my dismantling of your lc guide.

 

[mjd1982]

I Read PNAC again, and, again I understand the intent of the Project is how America will remain as a global power, the procedures required and steps to be taken are spelled out along with the estimation of time that will be needed for this to be realized.
The point your attempting to make, MJD, is to show the intent of the PNACers as agreeing on, or to use another word, conspiring that a catastrophic and catalyzing event would be more beneficial than the process over the course of time, as spelled out in the document. Ok. Got that

More or less, yes, in that it would be expedited.

Now if you ask the question; Since a catastrophic and catalyzing event happened re; 9/11,

thank you!

would this be favorable to their stated policy of the new PH event to expedite these transformations? The simple answer for that is yes, it would speed up the process, since time and events have answered this question.

good!

But the question I would like you to answer is; Did the Bush/Neocons intend to expedite this transformation or was it just a noted exception that, if it happened, would alter their blueprint for transformation?

Significant evidence for this will be presented in just a tick.

What I believe the PNAC document to be is what their policy is;

"We wanted to
try to define and describe a defense strategy that is honest, thoughtful, bold, internally
consistent and clear. And we wanted to spark a serious and informed discussion, the
essential first step for reaching sound conclusions and for gaining public support."

This seems propitious for a long term plan.

In terms of sparking discussion, this refers to the discussion that led to the creation of the document. This is clear from the intro.

In terms of gaining public support, this has, as implied in the PH statement, and as I have touched upon a few times, been expedited by the new PH. This is one of the factors that would cause the transformation to occur more expediently.

 

[mjd1982]

Forgive me for being blunt, but if it takes a person 16 pages to establish a basic premise, that premise needs to be better thought out.

Of course, if what you mean is that you have a strawman argument that is disconnected from reality, and that you want people to accept as a true premise as the rest of your argument depends on it...well, that is going to take a hell of a lot more time than the universe has to spare.

It has taken so long because no one wanted to address my points. Note the difference betweem addressing my points, and re-stating one's point in connection to the general argument.

You have, incidentally, done just the same.

 

[volatile]

Significant evidence for this will be presented in just a tick.

For pity's sake, man! You have "significant evidence" that the US government conspired to kill 3000 of its own citizens and you're *waiting* to tell us?!?!?

Get on with it! This is important!

 

[volatile]

It has taken so long because no one wanted to address my points. Note the difference betweem addressing my points, and re-stating one's point in connection to the general argument.

You have, incidentally, done just the same.

You mean "Note the difference between agreeing with me, and disagreeing with me", don't you?

 

[mjd1982]

I agree with your description of what the aim of this section is, and that you've stated it many times.

Thank you

It's not clear whether the person you're referring to was convinced, or simply agreed "for the sake of argument," which many others have also done. This appears to be a minor point, though, so there's no need for me to contest it.

ok

However, I agree completely with the claim that "The aim of this section is... simply to show that a new PH was propitious to policy for PNAC/The Bush Admin." That does indeed appear to be the aim of this section.

indeed

I'm not sure whether that's the question, but it certainly is a question. So, I accept this claim that the question is what you say it is.

I think it is the most important question, since the aim of a new PH is to make the tranformation occur sooner.

I disagree with this claim. There is no reason to believe that a question regarding the plans and motives of a large group of individuals with complex political agendas (and with, you seem to have posited in your OP, a penchant for conspiracy, misrepresentation, and outright treason) regarding an issue with complex technical, strategic, economic, and geopolitical dimensions should be "obvious." You will have to show evidence that the answer is obvious.

Because they have stated their goals on a uniform platform. These goals do perhaps involve complex issues, but they have all put their names to the doc, and so they all, apparently endorse it.

Their penchant for conspiracy, treason etc, is evidenced when they are pursuiing this goal, so I think that is a moot point.

Otherwise, they are people who believe that such a transformation will bring peace, security, democracy etc etc to the world, esp the American one. As Richard Perle said, in a related context, "Our grandchildren will be singing songs about is in years to come". So why would they not want such a change to ocur expediently? I.e. why would they want to wait until, say, 2020 for such changes to begin? It is sensible to believe that such beneficially revolutionary changes to the geo political lanscape would be wanted to occur as soon as they conceivably/reasonably could, rather than waiting for some point in the future.

I tentatively agree that that is a hypothetical possibility, if by "we" you mean "you." However, "we" (you) have not been very successful arguing it here so far, so I would need to see evidence to support the claim that "we" can argue it here.

Right, well I think I better leave this point!

I agree that this is a possible basis on which you might argue your claim. However, it will be quite difficult to do so successfully, as you will have to show evidence that this particular speculation about their state of mind regarding how to achieve their aims is more likely to accurately reflect their state of mind than other alternative speculations that have also been offered in this thread.

This is not speculation about their state of mind, it is inherent in the very name of the organisation. They want to ensure that the 21st century is the American Century. Hence why they would want to ensure that such measures which will ensure this, get put in place as expediently as is possible, thus allowing them to achieve their goal.

I agree that this is a possible bases on which you might argue your claim, but I would advise against it, as it sets an extremely high bar for your claim. It would require you to show evidence that (1) the decision makers not only wanted to act quickly in the long time scale (that is, early in the century) but quickly in the short term time scale of four years,

I think your getting confused between accomplishing the transformation (which will takm in absolute terms, a long time), and catalysing it, which can, and did, take a very short time.

(2) they believed that laying the necessary short-term groundwork for the program required influencing the QDR beyond the enormous influence the PNAC members already had over the content of the QDR and over policy decision-making within the administration in office during the subsequent quadrennial. Evidence of the thoughts and beliefs of politicians and policy-makers whose honesty is in question is going to be difficult to produce.

No, i think this is a perfectly reasonable assumption to make. Although I am not as aware of the workings of the US congressional system as you might be, policy decision making regarding funding needs to pass through Congress? Such would hamper the expediency of the transformation, absent a catastrophic and catalysing event that would get everyone on board behind the military measures needed. Hence the aptness of the new PH line.

Plus I believe that Congress is just one potential obstruction; there are many more, r there not?

I agree that this is a possible basis on which you might argue your claim. However, it will again be a difficult challenge to do so, because it requires you to find evidence to support this speculation about the thinking of "power hungry politicians" regarding complex technical, economic, and geopolitical issues. Without such evidence, other speculations appear just as plausible.

These "complex" issues have been endorsed by all such people via a uniform platform. So we do not need to speculate as to whether they think it is good or not. The point is, will such people, or will anyone, who has envisaged a revolutionary change that will transform the geo-political lanscape for the good, peace, and happiness of America and the world, want such a change to start at an arbitrary point a long way off in the future, or as soon as is reasonably possible. What is the basis for arguing against this claim? If I state, I can turn my house from a dump into a palace; I could start tomorrow, but I think I'll wait another 20 years, well, I would not say that. I would want to start as soon as is possible. There may be other factors that would influence my decision adversely; but these need to be evidenced.

Thus, the occurence of such a transformation soon, rather than late, is propitious, unless some extraneous factors can be illustrated showing that it would be better for such a transformation to start later than necessary.

I disagree with this claim. People have argued why this is not the case, and you have shown no sign of taking interest in reading it.

Please show me one example; noting the difference between addressing someone's points, and re stating one's argument which relates to the general point at hand.

I disagree with the implied claim, that you wish people to address these points. You appear to only wish people to agree with your opininons and unfounded speculations, which is not "addressing" the points according to the standard of discourse on this board.

I have made points that are interpretations of the case at point. I do not wish for anyone to agree with the points, rather to address them. This is what you, and a few others have done. Nearly all other people have not.

I disagree with this claim. It has indeed been touched on.

Show me where the argument, other than in fractional segments, has been rebutted.

I agree with this claim. That you don't want people to be evasive appears to be an accurate description of your desires.

ok

I disagree with this claim. People have addressed the points, yet we have all made no progress.

as above

Summary: I have now responded to every claim that you made in the relevant (latter) half of post 493, giving my own honest assessment of each one. I hope you find those responses satisfying. I believe others have refrained from responding directly to your claims, because they felt that you would not find the respnses satisfying, but I have taken you at your word and responded precisely to each part of each claim you made.

Thank you for your response. Your belief may or may not be true; in any case it is double speculation, and the weaker for it.

To sum things up in general, the post claims that you hold certain opinions. With the exceptions and reservations detailed above, I agree that you do hold those opinions.

thanks!

Now, can we move on to the next stage of discussion, in which you reveal why the fact that you hold these opinions is of any significance?

Respectfully,
Myriad

wil do.

 

[Unsecured Coins]

Question: How many of those sisters do you have ?

do you want me to count in laws too?

 

[mjd1982]

No, it is not necessarily logical that they would want it to be created soon. In the document it is said that they prefer the transformation to take place over the comming decades. Sometimes slower is better in the long term and nothing in the document points to a fast change being necessary.

Ok, well 1stly there is a difference between "advocating" slow change and "prefering" such. The alternative to what they openly advocated, would be for them to openly , i.e. state in so many words "We advocate a new PH". This, though implied, would not reasonably be stated.

2ndly, there is a difference between a transformation happening slowly, and happening as fast as can reasonably be achieved. Since they have stated that such a transformation can occur in a short timeframe, thus we can conclude that in their eyes, it can do so without vitiating any of its elements.

3rdly, there is a difference between the transformation taking a long time due the slowness of the process in and of itself, and it taking a long time due to the fact that it takes many years to start. One of the reasons why the transforamtion would, and is happening quickly, is since the catalysing event occured expediently.

Yes, correct. Those elements were laid out in PNAC and advocated a long, gradual change.

as above

911 was unexpected and most likely led to recommendations in QDR that wasn't part of the long term strategy laid out in PNAC. But sh** happens.

Errr... please read my posts, i think you will find them helpful.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=84473&page=3

Again, a revolutionary change is not asked for in PNAC.

Other than the phrase, "the process of tranformation, even if it brings revolutionary change".

This is but one example.

A power hungry politician would certainly want changes to take place within his own life time so he would benefit from it

true!

but since the PNAC writers advocates a gradual change over decades it seem like they're not really power hungry but actually wants to create something good, no?

as above

There, point by point answered as you wanted.

thank you in any case.

 

[Myriad]

To sum things up in general, the post claims that you hold certain opinions. With the exceptions and reservations detailed above, I agree that you do hold those opinions.

thanks!

You're quite welcome.

I have to say that I fail to understand why having other people comfirm that you believe what you believe was/is so important to you in this discussion. One might think that you could achieve the same comfirmation using a Ouija board, or perhaps simply by reading your own posts and deciding whether you agree with them.

However, if it is in fact helpful to you I'm happy to oblige, and perhaps it will help others in this thread to understand your thought processes as well.

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[WildCat]

7 more mjd1982 posts today, and still a grand total of zero "9/11 Conspiracy Facts". Of course, he hasn't presented any over at SLC either, so that's to be expected.

 

[T.A.M.]

He is never going to present more than speculation, opinion, and heresay. That is ALL HE HAS DONE since he first posted. He is a sock puppet, I just cannot remember which one was here a while ago, doing the same with the same MO, and I am too annoyed to go looking through the 8 Million threads here to figure it out.

TAM

 

[Jocce]

So mjd, you want everyone to agree with your interpretation of the documents you're talking about? Sorry, won't happen. You can not know that faster is better. When I was 19 I wanted to have my own family in the future but I planned for it to take a while absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event like a broken rubber.

 

[T.A.M.]

You're quite welcome.

I have to say that I fail to understand why having other people comfirm that you believe what you believe was/is so important to you in this discussion. One might think that you could achieve the same comfirmation using a Ouija board, or perhaps simply by reading your own posts and deciding whether you agree with them.

However, if it is in fact helpful to you I'm happy to oblige, and perhaps it will help others in this thread to understand your thought processes as well.

Respectfully,
Myriad

He thinks if you agree, that you are moving a step closer to conversion...treat it like one of those "Choose your Adventure" novels that came out in the 1980's...once you have agreed to choice (A) he will then move on to Proposition (B) and when you agree to that, to (C) until, in his mind, he has brought you to the only conclusion possible...9/11 was an inside job.

Good Luck

TAM

 

[Pardalis]

Sooner or later, mjd will give us some facts about 9/11...

That would be "later than sooner"...

 

[TjW]

Because they have stated their goals on a uniform platform. These goals do perhaps involve complex issues, but they have all put their names to the doc, and so they all, apparently endorse it.

Their penchant for conspiracy, treason etc, is evidenced when they are pursuiing this goal, so I think that is a moot point.
<large quantities snipped by TjW>

If I'm following this correctly, you are interpreting a document to advocate conspiracy, treason, etc.
The reason you give for this interpretation is that the signers of the document have a penchant for conspiracy, treason, etc.
As near as I can tell, you infer their penchant for conspiracy, treason, etc from the fact that they have signed the document.

That seems a little circular.

 

[Myriad]

He thinks if you agree, that you are moving a step closer to conversion...treat it like one of those "Choose your Adventure" novels that came out in the 1980's...once you have agreed to choice (A) he will then move on to Proposition (B) and when you agree to that, to (C) until, in his mind, he has brought you to the only conclusion possible...9/11 was an inside job.

Perhaps. Sort of like the prosecutor in some sort of Abbott and Costello courtroom scene:

PROSECUTOR: Were you present in this courtroom when I gave my opening statement?

DEFENDANT (on witness stand): Yes.

PROSECUTOR: And at the conclusion of that statement, what do you recall me saying that I would prove?

DEFENDANT: Why are you asking me that? I don't understand what that has to do with...

PROSECUTOR: Answer the question! What did I say I would prove?

DEFENDANT: You said you were going to try to prove...

PROSECUTOR: Did I say 'try'? I don't recall saying 'try.' Remember, you're under oath!

DEFENDANT: You said you'd prove that I am guilty.

PROSECUTOR: Stenographer, read back those last three words please?

STENOGRAPHER: 'I am guilty.'

PROSECUTOR: I rest my case!

Respectfully,
Myriad

PS: And don't get me started on branching novels. I not only read them, I wrote them. (Hmmm, gives me an idea for a new forum game. See you over in Humor!)