The 9/11 Conspiracy Facts

[mjd1982]

blah blah blah

blah blah

Well contested! What was I saying about evasion?

That is my interpretation of what it says. I dumbed it down, of course.

Well you will have to justify your interpretation in the face of my points, rather than just stating it

Hello....MJD...**jab712 knocks on MJD's head** the posters in this thread have contested your points. You just have horrific reading comprehension skills and can't figure it out.

Ok, well we can do a little experiment to see who is right here. I have already done this with one of your ilk with a predictable result. Go to #95. Its nice and early, and crystallises many of the views that I am still having to repeat to you people now. Show me one person who, in ~1800 posts, other than Dart Rotor, who should hopefully be banned from this forum very soon, has contested this post, one of the most important and representative ones, coherently.

When you fail, tell me why this is the case.

Enough of their own citizens (civilians) to cause a catastrophic catalyzing event? How often is this happening that our government wouldn't bat an eye at offing potentially 10,000 of their own citizens? Holy friggen poo poo....that must be happening a lot for them to not even flinch about "calling for a new PH" and writing it down, no less, for the whole country to see. That is pretty brazen.

This is an argument from incredulity, and has zero value

Irrelevant to the topic we are currently discussing. In case you forgot, we are speaking of the PNAC document. My statement was according to the PNAC doc was saying. I don't give a tinkers toot what Goldman Sachs is forecasting for 2050. According to the PNAC document (which is what I was referring to), the US, at present, has no immediate threat of a rival superpower. It says it in the friggen document. Please keep up.

Ok, but it also alludes to a similar environment in europe in the 30's; this is one of the founding premises of the doc. This change could happen any time, and unseat us from our position as guarantors of peace and happiness. This leads to the overt suggestion of the urgency of such measures, and hence how they would need to be pursued expediently. Also note #493, and the corollary of quick in this instance, =easy

I know what the problem is. You aren't reading the actual document. You are only looking at a few paragraphs that are relevant to your points. Good grief. Go back to my post on page 47, click on the link that says PNAC document and read the dang thing...start to finish. Read the introduction, read the table of contents, read the boxes in gray that have the text bolded, even read the sassy little comments in italics. Be sure to read the ENTIRE document, not just your favorite paragraphs.

Then when you are finished, read it again, you apparently need to read it more than once. Feel free to print it out and highlight things that you want to address.

Believe me when I tell you I have read the doc more closely, and with more clarity, than you.

You have constantly demanded that people go back and read your post or reply to your post. Frankly, I am tired of it. I think it is safe to say that everyone is tired of it.

Haha, then respond to the posts. Do as I have said above, i will wait.

 

[mjd1982]

Coins, if you're no longer interested in posting in this thread, would you mind not spamming it ? Thanks.

Same to you Mikillini. The rules apply to everyone, methinks.

Your best post! I have alerted the mods, they do not care it would appear.

 

[lapman]

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

Which you have now shown that the "new PH" did not occur since 9/11 did not cause the rapid radicalization as the PNAC document claims. Hence, since this did not occur, 9/11 was not propitious to policy since said policy was not able to be carried out. The design vs execution argument is irrelevant. Only the outcome is relevant.
Your statement that I quoted completely nullifies the hundreds of posts you have done attempting to equate 9/11 to the PNAC's new PH. Therefore you have done nothing to show that a new, independent investigation needs to be done.

 

[mjd1982]

mjd, if you're really interested in having an honest debate about these issues, please respond to the matters addressed in posts #697, #415, #1417, and #832.

Ok, well #1417 is my post, #832:

But not catalysing in the way the PNAC discussed it.

Yes it was, a la #95.

Why ?

(Questioning why " zero action in face of unprecedented warning, followed by not even a demotion, should necessitate an investigation into complicity")

And you think that throughout history, people have not spoken about these things when threatened ? That seems monstrously naive.

Interestingly I have just spent an evening with Scott Forbes (and Willie Rodriguez), and so I am well aware of how implicit intimidation and repression campaigns can work, and are well in place in this situation.

Yeah, JFK CTers say the same thing 45 years later.

E Howard Hunt

*****

I responded to this post already come to think of it.

#697

They call her "The Shredder." She can twiddle my whammy bar any day.

dont know what you want me to say to this

#415;

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:

???

I

 

[mjd1982]

It appears that the only sensible responses are ones that aren't contrary to your opinion.



And YOU, as the rest of your camp, cannot distinguish between conjecture and fact. Do THAT, and YOU will understand.

I am arguing that there is sufficient evidence to warrant a new investigation. This is based, in part on inference, a standard tool in adult debate. Please dont make me havr to tell u this again.

 

[DGM]

From post #95

1. The doc states that the myriad of transformations needs to happen within one framework, i.e. under one banner. This is, clearly, the WOT. You think this is just a big coincidence not worth investigating?

As I have showed you from the letters, the PNAC does not consider the WOT to be in keeping with the plan.

Do you think the democrats on the commission would have let this go if it had any merit?

2. The doc also states that the defense policies it outlines need to be crystalised in the president’s mind by October 2001; the time of the QDR, thus implying that a new PH might have to happen by this date. Again, coincidence? I hope you would not think not.

Clearly this is not the case. The PNAC sent three letters to Bush before finally sending a letter to congress due to Bush's inaction.

 

[lapman]

I am arguing that there is sufficient evidence to warrant a new investigation.

You have yet to provide such evidence that could be used in a court of law to sue for such an investigation.

This is based, in part on inference, a standard tool in adult debate.

Wrong. Evidence and facts are the standard tools in an adult debate. Inference has never been accepted as any type of real evidence except in the twoofer fantasy world. Even if a new, independent investigation did occur with people that you would accept, if the results showed that there was no government complicity in 9/11, you would find other inferences to try to prove that the investigation was faulty. So, what is you "sensible" response to my WTC7 argument?

 

[Darth Rotor]

Ok cool, so you are a racist.

Another fool on the internet, using words he doesn't understand the meaning of.

How droll.

Having had a repeatedly reinforced, for about 26 years off and on, negative experience and impression of Islamist thugs and terrorists, aka rag heads in some circles, I now and again use it for shock value. I see that offends you. I suggest you invest in a thicker skin. Or, go cry in a corner.

I note that this excuse provides you with a convenient excuse to run away, but that hardly matters. You and I had reached the point of talking at one another, rather than to, and what we disagree on is not likely to change. You have plenty of other friends to play with here.

I don't think you have a clue at what military transformation entails, yet you pretend you do.

Good luck with your skin.

DR

 

[MIKILLINI]

1. I'm not stating they said it was a choice. Please think before you write

But you infer that they do, to make your case;

Now, when it comes onto the inevitable stage of the logistics of the changes they envisage, they have a choice- either they state, "We advocate a slow process over the coming decades", or "We advocate the engineering of a new PH".

It's then followed by a disclaimer;

This is of course, not to say that they do not deem a new PH, which will create the wartime environemtn for their changes to happen easily,propitious.

Please think before you debunk yourself;

The transformation, in its totality, will, even now, post new PH, take decades. This is a reality that would never have been able to have been avoided.

 

[Dave Rogers]

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.

Now what was your response when I pointed out your own racist remark?

Dave

 

[Belz...]

As I have told you an astonishing number of times

You're going to have to work on that attitude, mister.

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.

Saying that it was "propitious" to someone's policies does NOT constitude evidence of said person's complicity in anything. At most, it raises suspicion, which itself is NOT evidence.

the pursuit of such goals in wartime is easier and quicker than in peace time.

Quicker, usually. Easier, no.

The point was that the invasion of Iraq was overwhelmingly intimated in RAD.

And since the war in Iraq has little if anything to do with 9/11, we can safely forget that last sentence.

Once again the cost of the war is a fault of execution not design.

How do you know this ? How do you know that the design wasn't fundamentally flawed ? Or are you just saying this because you can't fathom admitting that you are wrong on this issue ?

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.

Not if "soon" means "worst results".

Ok cool, so you are a racist. How enlightening.

Do you even READ other people's posts ?

Mjd, you seem to have a very serious issue with interpreting what you read. I strongly, honestly suggest reading courses.

It will be interesting to see what the mods make of this.

Racist comments are not against the rules, so even if you WERE correct, WHICH YOU ARE NOT, it wouldn't matter.

 

[Belz...]

You can add a 4th point to that- the corollary of quicker in this instance, is easier.

Of course not. Since when does "quicker" mean "easier" ?

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

In that case, you have no argument, because the new PH did not accelerate anything. But thanks for playing.

Dart Rotor, who should hopefully be banned from this forum very soon

For what ? Having been misinterpreted by you ? Since when is that a breach of the rules ?

This is an argument from incredulity, and has zero value

Finally, it seems we agree.

I have alerted the mods, they do not care it would appear.

Mods are not required when civil debate is still possible. Please step down from that pedestal, you're making yourself look silly.

Interestingly I have just spent an evening with Scott Forbes (and Willie Rodriguez), and so I am well aware of how implicit intimidation and repression campaigns can work, and are well in place in this situation.

And yet, somehow, someone always speaks up.

Questioning why " zero action in face of unprecedented warning, followed by not even a demotion, should necessitate an investigation into complicity"

Yes. Why ?

inference, a standard tool in adult debate.

Since when ?

 

[Belz...]

Please think before you debunk yourself;

When fantasy is used in reality's stead, it's common to see one trip over oneself and simply cancel one's own argument out.

 

[Devil's Advocate]

I will say that 911 was in fact a catalyzing event such as Pearl Harbor was,as far as it made America want to kick someone in the balls.
One million men (as I remember) volunteered to fight after the PH attack.

I can understand how you could (through theory) say they wanted to do this to get oil or whatever you want to say, but I do not understand how you can view the document as evidence that they wanted it done in the manner to which you imply. The document does not seem to support your claim.

What I understand from you is this....

They set a plan and draw it up. They then create 9/11 to get public support, and then support to go to war to get oil and all that, right?

And your only evidence is the PNAC document?
I can understand how you're drawing your conclusion, but I hope you understand it is false.
Because you're reading your personal opinion into what the document is saying by looking for motive for another event you believe to be a conspiracy.
If you were to view the document without an agenda in mind, you would see the document does not support your theory.

 

[Belz...]

I can understand how you could (through theory) say they wanted to do this to get oil

They still pay for it, so I don't see how you could say that.

 

[Devil's Advocate]

They still pay for it, so I don't see how you could say that.

I did not say I subscribed to the theory, I said I understand the theory. It is a fairly common theory that the Iraq war is about oil. Understanding a theory and believing it are not inclusive. You understand the CT theory, what it entails, but that does not mean you support or agree with it.

 

[T.A.M.]

I will say that 911 was in fact a catalyzing event such as Pearl Harbor was,as far as it made America want to kick someone in the balls.
One million men (as I remember) volunteered to fight after the PH attack.

I can understand how you could (through theory) say they wanted to do this to get oil or whatever you want to say, but I do not understand how you can view the document as evidence that they wanted it done in the manner to which you imply. The document does not seem to support your claim.

What I understand from you is this....

They set a plan and draw it up. They then create 9/11 to get public support, and then support to go to war to get oil and all that, right?

And your only evidence is the PNAC document?
I can understand how you're drawing your conclusion, but I hope you understand it is false.
Because you're reading your personal opinion into what the document is saying by looking for motive for another event you believe to be a conspiracy.
If you were to view the document without an agenda in mind, you would see the document does not support your theory.

Your first few posts here, I didnt think you were living up to your name, as you were not playing the role "Devil's Advocate" as one would expect (believing A, but for the sake of argument, arguing for side B), but now I see you are...so well done.

TAM

 

[Belz...]

I did not say I subscribed to the theory, I said I understand the theory. It is a fairly common theory that the Iraq war is about oil. Understanding a theory and believing it are not inclusive. You understand the CT theory, what it entails, but that does not mean you support or agree with it.

Which is why I never implied that you subscribed to the theory.

 

[Belz...]

Your first few posts here, I didnt think you were living up to your name, as you were not playing the role "Devil's Advocate" as one would expect (believing A, but for the sake of argument, arguing for side B), but now I see you are...so well done.

The jury's still out on that one.

 

[nicepants]

Mjd - Still waiting for your response response to #1942

Faster:Easier
Slower:Harder