The 9/11 Conspiracy Facts

[twinstead]

Is it the minority view of the population in general, or the minority view of experts in the relevant fields who actually know what they are talking about?

I would suspect that both are a resounding NO, especially the latter where it really counts.

 

[nicepants]

And of course, what is the corrollary to quicker? Easier. So if you are arguiing that they wanted the changes to happen slower, you are also saying they wanted the process to be harder. Explain.

So:
quicker = easier
slower = harder?

Can you solve a Rubick's cube, Mjd? If so, you would then agree that solving it in 5 seconds should be EASIER than solving it in 60 seconds.

Likewise, solving it in .0001 seconds should be much easier than solving it in 5 seconds.

Likewise, if brain surgery typically takes 18 hours (a long time), it would be much EASIER if the surgeon completed it in just 5 minutes (faster).

Sorry...your correlation is completely incorrect.

 

[lapman]

here comes the 84% poll claim in 3, 2...

And NWO Kitty found that 100% of people bleed heavily when shot in the groin several times. So what.

 

[mortimer]

This is pointless, folks. mjd has already stated that you are lying if you don't agree with him. How can you carry on a rational debate with someone who says things like that?

 

[twinstead]

This is pointless, folks. mjd has already stated that you are lying if you don't agree with him. How can you carry on a rational debate with someone who says things like that?

It's all about the lurkers. mjd is the internet equivalent of that bearded, disheveled, wild-eyed old man ranting to shadows on most busy inner-city street corners; he will never be convinced.

So, if we can't make mjd understand that his position is untenable, we can sure make the more rational viewers of this forum realize it. All they have to do is follow the thread.

 

[DGM]

911 would have been viewed as propitious by AQ as well as PNAC. Hence it worked for both parties.

To this I reply:
SO WHAT!
Why even mention the federal government if this is all you mean?

 

[Darth Rotor]

DR, always enjoy your posts and experience. Did you see McCaffrey's recent report where he effectively said that the military needed to use 2008 as a planning horizon? What do you think about his assessment? I thought his report was pretty on-target, a lot of head-nodding on my end.

Not sure which of McCaffrey's writings you mean, I read a detailed piece by him some months ago. Good stuff, can't recall it in detail as of this moment.

Got a link?

I don't always agree with him, but I find his experience as both a general, and then a civilian trying to do that insane "Drug Czar" job interesting. His perspective is unique, and usually his suggestions adhere to the practical.

I concur that "out in 2008" has been a rational planning framework since about 2005, but the question is "early 2008 or late 2008?" Immense political implications to both domestically, and since the whole world watches our domestic game play, internationally as well.

A thought on Al Qeada, and the "Al Qaeda in Iraq" issue.

It was good for Al Qaeda that Zarqawi was so successful in Iraq, it wasn't good for Iraq. It was a disaster for the US. I am aware of multiple opportunities in the summer of 2004 when a strike similar to the strike that did him in, had him and one thing or another went wrong, and in a number of cases a "weapons tight" order was given. To say that killing him in 2004 would have saved hundreds, hell, thousands of Iraqi lives, a mosque in Sammara, and most likely advanced the successful dialogue and rapproachment with many Sunni factions is an understatement.

That it took two more years to actually "get him" is an immense defeat in the perception war, that the US is at War on Terror, and Terrorists, and will hunt them down and kill them with dispatch. The recruiting poster for the Al Q side can point to how well Osama has stayed at large, and how successful Mr Z was at destabalizing Iraq when the American intent was to stabilize Iraq.

Put in maritime terms, his "stability denial" mission was an immense success, as a lot of U Boat "sea denial" missions were successful in WW II.

DR

 

[JonnyFive]

And NWO Kitty found that 100% of people bleed heavily when shot in the groin several times. So what.

Statistics don't lie.

 

[Augustine]

Not sure which of McCaffrey's writings you mean, I read a detailed piece by him some months ago. Good stuff, can't recall it in detail as of this moment.

Got a link?

I don't always agree with him, but I find his experience as both a general, and then a civilian trying to do that insane "Drug Czar" job interesting. His perspective is unique, and usually his suggestions adhere to the practical.

I concur that "out in 2008" has been a rational planning framework since about 2005, but the question is "early 2008 or late 2008?" Immense political implications to both domestically, and since the whole world watches our domestic game play, internationally as well.

A thought on Al Qeada, and the "Al Qaeda in Iraq" issue.

It was good for Al Qaeda that Zarqawi was so successful in Iraq, it wasn't good for Iraq. It was a disaster for the US. I am aware of multiple opportunities in the summer of 2004 when a strike similar to the strike that did him in, had him and one thing or another went wrong, and in a number of cases a "weapons tight" order was given. To say that killing him in 2004 would have saved hundreds, hell, thousands of Iraqi lives, a mosque in Sammara, and most likely advanced the successful dialogue and rapproachment with many Sunni factions is an understatement.

That it took two more years to actually "get him" is an immense defeat in the perception war, that the US is at War on Terror, and Terrorists, and will hunt them down and kill them with dispatch. The recruiting poster for the Al Q side can point to how well Osama has stayed at large, and how successful Mr Z was at destabalizing Iraq when the American intent was to stabilize Iraq.

Put in maritime terms, his "stability denial" mission was an immense success, as a lot of U Boat "sea denial" missions were successful in WW II.

DR

http://www.mccaffreyassociates.com/pages/documents/AAR-Iraq032607USMA.pdf

Re: Zarqawi, no doubt his efforts towards destabilizing the country were very successful in the crucial years, and he beat the US at the PR game by running free for as long as he did. However, I think the "silver lining" for the US is that the benefit of Zark's sustained time as AQI's number one was that his brutal methods became ingrained into AQI TTPs, and it is precisely those methods that are recently alienating significant portions of the Iraqi population. (Zawahiri tried unsuccessfully to reign him in, rather savvy of the "Egyptian physician" IMHO.) Bottom line, it is what it is, deal with past mistakes and adjust fire accordingly - early indicators of the surge seem promising, but the real test will be whether it lasts and if we figure out how to make it work in the more diverse neighborhoods.

 

[mjd1982]

Simak, mjd doesn't realise that EVEN IF he were right about propitiousness, it wouldn't prove a thing about 9/11 being an inside job.

As I have told you an astonishing number of times, starting with the 2nd para of post #1, my task here is not to prove that 911 was an inside job, but to illustrate the validity of the CTer pov- i.e. that there is sufficient evidence of US complicity to warrant a new investigation into such.

 

[DGM]

As I have told you an astonishing number of times, starting with the 2nd para of post #1, my task here is not to prove that 911 was an inside job, but to illustrate the validity of the CTer pov- i.e. that there is sufficient evidence of US complicity to warrant a new investigation into such.

So quit screwing around and produce some credible evidence. What was not answered to the majority of humanity's satisfaction.

 

[twinstead]

Well, mjd, all we want is for you to show not only that you have enough evidence to warrant a new investigation, but exactly WHO will be in charge of this new investigation.

You can't even show these satisfactorily IMO, MUCH less prove that 911 was an inside job.

Also, I submit that ANY new investigation, from anybody, that comes to the same general conclusion as the official story will be categorically rejected by you and your 'movement'.

I would bet big money on that one.

 

[mjd1982]

All initiated before 9-11, and before Bush even took office.

Since 9-11.

I dont understand why you keep sayin this when I, and you, have both acknowledged the fact already- the pursuit of such goals in wartime is easier and quicker than in peace time. This is the point of the PH comment.

The military is, and their families, and the bulk of America goes on about its business. What sacrifice in the here and now is being asked of Americans? None, the war is being paid for On Credit. At least FDR did the hard work of raising war bonds.

They are sufficiently onside to allow the military radicalisations to be pursued, as has been outlined in the original post 95. This is all that has to be done.

That made no sense, at all.

I corrected it in the post below. I said differentiate between design and execution (I have told you this many times before as well).

That made no sense. As I understood Wolfowitz, Bennet's, and Woolsley's soundbytes in the summer and fall of 2002, in the information campaign to the war, the idea they had was that transforming Iraq would be a catalyst to transforming the entire middle east. This was no secret, regardless of how many people in the DoD, to inlcude me, a peon, and people like Shinseki and LTGEN Odom (USMC) didn't see things as rosily as those members of PNAC.

What does that have to do with anything? The point was that the invasion of Iraq was overwhelmingly intimated in RAD.

Perhaps if the "war" was kept cheap, per Rummy's original plan; (3-15 billion, that's what he told Congress it would cost) this would have been true, but the risk, known in the Pentagon if nowhere else, was that it would be a lot more like Bosnia, but bigger, and a lot harder, for obvious reasons of METT-T differences between Bosnia and Iraq.

Once again the cost of the war is a fault of execution not design. Understand this, and you will understand a lot more

Your strawman, you answer it.

Fine- if people have a plan to change the world for the better, it is sensible to believe they will want to happen easily, smoothly, and soon. To believe otherwise will take some explaining, and is beyond anyone on this forum.

I don't care much what you hope. Dealing with terrorists is something a certain generation of military men, mine, had in front of them for an entire career. Mine began in 1980, and if you recall BGEN Dozier, you will note that not all terrorists are rag heads, only some of them are. At least the IRA have calmed down a bit.

Ok cool, so you are a racist. How enlightening. It will be interesting to see what the mods make of this. I will not reply to the rest of your post, and I hope to never have to see you on this forum again.

 

[mjd1982]

I dare you do say he has it down to an artform. As I see it, it's really the only evidential thing presented here. Used as a wear 'em down, exasperate them untill they post no more, and then go to some other site and claim victory. Even though he is dishonestly saying none of his posts (other than #95) are being challenged, he is either ignoring deliberately the challenges made and the slayer ing of his case, or as you say UC, the refusal to believe everyone else's evidence. Or he thinks we don't "see" it as he "sees" it, we prefer to use evidence to prove what's real and validate it, he uses evidence to invalidate what has been proven right and wrongfully apply it for his purpose. It's more like an abstract artform.

Where am I ignoring your "challenges"?

Where have you, sensibly, addressed the posts I continually referred you to?

 

[mjd1982]

Mjd, please respond to posts#1853, #1855, and #1867. These are from PNAC.

I have replied to 53 and 55, and 67is identical to 55, and so warrants the same answer.

 

[mjd1982]

Why is it then that the PNAC does not agree with your assessment of the WOT. Do you know them better?

They state it should be increased more. What, bearing in mind the difference I have told you between design and execution, does this have to do with anything?

 

[mjd1982]

Always love the Hayek, and that pic is HOT!



Evidence of circular reasoning posted above ^



1. No they have not stated this as a "choice"
2. You are adding to the document, MJd
3. Stop using "We". This shows what you are really getting at Mjd, it was an inside job, the last sentence says it all.

1. I'm not stating they said it was a choice. Please think before you write
2. Where have I added to the doc?
3. Yes, I do think it was an inside job. I think we have quite a sleuth on our hands here...

 

[mjd1982]

Why does it appear to me that mjd started with a firm belief that 911 was an inside job and is subjectively interpreting the PNAC in such a way to confirm his predisposition?

If this is the case, go to #493, as you will not, and show me how this is wrong. You can add a 4th point to that- the corollary of quicker in this instance, is easier. Think. Go.

 

[DGM]

They state it should be increased more. What, bearing in mind the difference I have told you between design and execution, does this have to do with anything?

So the PNAC designed 9/11 but the federal government did not execute it.

 

[mjd1982]

Huh???? This makes no sense. Respond with something that actually makes sense. This doesn't. I will wait.

The transformation, in its totality, will, even now, post new PH, take decades.

The whole military transformation, as called for in RAD, will take decades, even tho the new PH has happened.

This is a reality that would never have been able to have been avoided.

This was always going to be the case

Nonetheless, this is not to say that it would not have been wanted to happen sooner;

This is not to say that the neo cons do not want it sped up

to understand why quickly, realise that the corollary to a quick transformation in this context is, necessarily, an easy one.

understand that the corollary to quick, in this context is, easy (it happens quickly since it happens absent complications, dissent etc

To argue that they did not want this, is to make the absurd statement that they wanted a difficult and complex process of transformation.

to take the opposite side is to say that they wanted a complex and difficult process, which is absurd.