The 9/11 Conspiracy Facts

[Mobyseven]

This would get round the problem of having the government choose who would be investigating the government.

Ugh, see this is another one of the things that bugs me.

You say that we need to get around the issue of the government investigating the government.

To get to this point, you have used circular reasoning - you are basing all your assumptions on the notion that the government is guilty, and therefore they cannot be involved in the investigation because they will be investigating themselves. And not only that but you assume that every branch of the government is guilty, CIA, FBI, NSA, and so on.

And you are basing these accusations on what evidence?

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

The old flying spaghettie monster. But no- the poll i posted was a tad erroneous, since it only deals with NYers, but in any case illustrates my point. I am not sure whether "66% of New Yorkers" refers to citizens or residents, but of the citizens it is 41%, and of the res, 49%, believeing "some of our leaders "knew in advance that attacks were planned on or around September 11, 2001, and that they consciously failed to act,". So this illustrates what I am saying quite well.
http://www.zogby.com/search/ReadNews.dbm?ID=855
. . .

Appeal to numbers logical fallacy.

 

[beachnut]

Ok, sorry, but I have little idea of what on earth you are talking about. Err... my advice to you would be to read some of my lengthier posts, including the response to the loose change guide section, and see how it establishes that pnac state a new PH would be propitious to policy.

Oh, and as for being debunked by someone's little finger... You have apparently been hallucinating for a little while, but this hasnt happened, and though I am open to such, I dont think it will.

PNAC does not have anyone to execute a plot. So who done it? One finger typing is beating you. Of course you have made it easier by not having a single fact to support your elusive point.

You have posted zero facts to back up anything. I have seen ever single post and not a thing you said makes sense. I think you have messed up and you are posting in the wrong sub forum. This sub forum requires facts to prove a point. I found it impossible to figure out what the point of your posts are.

Like I said, do you have a point? What is it? And do you have a list of facts to support your point?

As I said if you fail to answer the three question above you have failed again, since your previous post have failed to support anything you said. Do you understand this?

Your OP is so bad, and I am an engineer who can not read or write worth a darn, but your opening post is an F. I teach school part time and I have never seen a paper worse than the OP by 3, 4, or 5 graders. Even the 3, 4 and 5th graders can make a point, and if asked as I am doing they can explain in one sentence. Your OP made no sense and had no recognizable point(s), as in theme, topic, conclusion. You have left the point in your head some where. Your evidence is not sources or viable to support much of anything. Since you failed to connect anything in your OP to any rational conclusion I assume you have no point and no real point to make. Your PNAC stuff is funny, and you have messed that up; and you have done a right fine job of it.

 

[SpitfireIX]

Excuse me, that was an error on my part; careless. Not very relevant, but well done in any case!

ETA- My quote related to "the amount", not the proportion, which, according to your figures, has only been beaten once, though I'm sure there are more examples.

You seem to have neglected, for whatever reason, to have adjusted for inflation. Further, direct comparisons of defense budgets from one era to another are highly problematic. With the all-volunteer army, personnel are individually much more expensive, and weapon system costs have skyrocketed far above the overall rate of inflation. So an argument can be made that the US gets less defense today, dollar-for-(adjusted) dollar, than in earlier times. Further, the United States, and the world at large, have much greater populations than during World War II. Finally, because the US economy has grown so much, even since the Vietnam War, the country simply has much more money to spend for everything, including defense. In other words, if your income triples, you may suddenly start driving a much nicer car, which might have seemed extravagant at your old income level, but is not a major financial drain for you and your new money.


US military spending, 1943 $526 (37.0%)
US military spending, 1944 $684 (37.8%)
US military spending, 1945 $775 (37.5%)
US military spending, 1946 $406 (19.2%)

US military spending, 1952 $397 (13.2%)
US military spending, 1953 $416 (14.2%)

US military spending, 1967 $383 (8.8%)
US military spending, 1968 $420 (9.4%)
US military spending, 1969 $400 (8.7%)

US military spending, 1989 $399 (5.6%)

US military spending, 2003 $405 (3.7%)


Billions of 2000 dollars (percent of Gross Domestic Product)

Source: Office of Management and Budget

Based on the above, your contention that the FY 2003 defense budget was somehow "unprecedented," or at least excessive, is rejected.

 

[Mobyseven]

You might wanna learn about the use of the conditional tense, since you clearly missed out in 4th grade.

It also seems like I missed out on learning about the use of this mysterious 'conditional tense', which I find strange considering I studied linguistics for my VCE, a level considerably higher than 4th Grade.

How, may I ask, does one use the 'conditional tense'?

 

[Gravy]

The old flying spaghettie monster. But no- the poll i posted was a tad erroneous, since it only deals with NYers, but in any case illustrates my point. I am not sure whether "66% of New Yorkers" refers to citizens or residents, but of the citizens it is 41%, and of the res, 49%, believeing "some of our leaders "knew in advance that attacks were planned on or around September 11, 2001, and that they consciously failed to act,". So this illustrates what I am saying quite well.
http://www.zogby.com/search/ReadNews.dbm?ID=855

That poll was taken in heavily-Democratic NYC on the eve of the Republican National Convention, which was held...in NYC. You have no idea of the animosity that people like me held for Bush at that time.

At that time more than half of New Yorkers would have answered "Strongly agree" to the statement, "President Bush should be stripped naked, hung from a light pole, and beaten like a piñata." More than half of New Yorkers would have answered "Strongly agree" to the statement, "President Bush drinks the blood of the children he molests."

The only New Yorkers that I've ever met who spoke of 9/11 being an inside job are a few kooks who I've sought out. And not one tourist I've been with has ever brought up the idea of U.S. government complicity in 9/11, at Ground Zero or elsewhere. Not one.

The masses don't agree with your nuttery. That's why your movement is moving backwards.

 

[Stellafane]

Thank you Stella.

You're welcome

I should say first, please don't impute any characteristic of a standard CTer, i.e. saying I will not be satisfied, that I want Jones investigating etc etc. If i havent said so, then no. Or you can always ask first.

With all due respect, I'll express my opinion of a standard CTer whenever I choose. I didn't call you a standard CTer, so unless you presume to speak for all of them, I really don't feel I need to check with you first.

Now, regarding the issue of the 9/11 Commission, to state that it did a good job, is a valid opinion, unless you are paying attention to the facts.

I have been paying attention to the facts. I didn't insult you, so please don't insult me.

There is a simple way to assess their work, in terms of completeness and efficacy- let's see what the Commission themself had to say.

Let's look at Lee Hamilton, vice chair (interviewed by Evan Solomon on CBC):



http://www.cbc.ca/sunday/911hamilton.html

And there's more in that interview too.

Now, let's look at another Commissioner, Max Cleland. He, as you perhaps know, resigned from the Comm in protest at the way it was conducted, stating he could not look any american in the eye:



http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/03/23/1546256

And more





http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/112303A.shtml

I think this testimony gives us good reason to believe that the 911 Comm Report was ineffectual, incomprehensive, and insufficient.

Really? Where in anything you just cited does it even remotely imply that the commision missed things like, say, the WTC being demolished by space beams and mini nukes and thermite? Where does it say WTC 7 may have been pulled by a demolition crew, with full knowledge of the FDNY? Where does it say planes didn't really hit the Pentagon? Where does it say the onboard phone calls were faked and nothing really crashed in Shanksville? And so on. There's a vast difference between "it could have been done better" (which almost always is the case in large undertakings involving human beings) and "the conclusions are so invalid that everything we think we know about 9/11 may be utterly wrong." And frankly, I'm getting real tired of this utterly specious argument being trotted out from time to time -- I really don't think it does your cause anything but harm, and makes it look ridiculous at best and duplicitous at worst.

But we can do more. We can also look at the opinions of those who were instrumental in having it set up- the Jersey Widows and the Family Steering Committee. As you know, they put 167 questions to the Commission , of which only 27 were answered. This further reinforces the point about gross incompleteness. Let's see what they have to say:

The Jersey Girls? Oh, come on...

In short, whatever your/my opinion, we have from a great deal of reliable and authoratative sources, including the commission itself, admission that the Commission was, in effect not good enough. This should be good enough to settle this point.

No, it's not good enough to settle the point, not by a light year. "There could have been room for improvement" is not the same as "it was so insufficient, we missed blindingly obvious things -- we may have even pinned it on the wrong people!" Sorry, I'm sticking with my cards -- in fact, if I were a betting man, I'd raise the stakes to the house limit.

 

[Gravy]

How, may I ask, does one use the 'conditional tense'?

It's a 9/11 denier thing that you can't be expected to have studied. When told that they should back their claims with evidence or retract them, they become tense.

 

[Gravy]

But we can do more. We can also look at the opinions of those who were instrumental in having it set up- the Jersey Widows and the Family Steering Committee. As you know, they put 167 questions to the Commission , of which only 27 were answered.

That's William Rodriguez's claim, and it's false.

“We created the family steering committee. We put a hundred and sixty-seven questions out to the commission. From those, twenty-seven were answered. What happened to the others?” Source

​

The Commissioners did not promise to answer all questions posed by family members. That would be impossible. They did say they would use family questions as a roadmap. Keep in mind that not every question posed by a family member is automatically relevant, is based on accurate information, or is even answerable.

The Family Steering Committee posed many questions that are based on pure, unfounded speculation, not on fact. Many of the questions were directed not to the Commission but to people who would be interviewed by the Commission. In addition, many of their questions were addressed by the Commission and by other investigations.

Rodriguez says only 27 questions were answered. According to Mindy Von Aiken and Lori Kleinberg, two members of the Steering Committee, the Commission answered 28 of their questions to their satisfaction and addressed another 68 questions, but not to the satisfaction of the Steering Committee. The 9/11 Commission didn’t promise that any group or individual would be happy with every answer. Source

I am not aware of any member of the Family Steering Committee who agrees with Rodriguez’s claims of U.S. government complicity in the attacks or the idea that there were preplanted explosives in the WTC.

 

[MIKILLINI]

But I dont think that that has much import mate. Forget about wiring buildings , forget about war games, just concentrate on the minimum for the moment- did they let it happen. If probably, then you realise there shoud be a new investigation, and you are a CTer. Forget about the rest for the moment.

Initially i did believe they let it happen, but after checking the "evidence" it was clear to Me that govt., through it's politics, agencies more concerned with budget constraints, Robert Mueller not sworn in as director of the FBI until 1 week before 9/11. Many things can be argued here and arranged in such a way to show a case on either side. But unless you can bridge that gap between the Project For A New American Century and connect it with those Neocons in the govt. and prove they made it or allowed it to happen with evidence to substantiate your claim, then it's all just circumstantial.

The 9/11 commission was concentrated into one very specific aspect of the attacks - an investigation into the Government's performance leading up to it. The body of work that constitutes the 9/11 Investigation was carried out by the FBI, FAA, NTSB, FEMA, NIST, and so forth. The 9/11 Commission Report was not underfunded. The criminal investigation into the September 11 Attacks is the largest ever undertaken by the FBI, maybe even the largest criminal investigation in history.


What about some of those Neocons who signed their name to PNAC?

Paul Wolfowitz, appointed head of the World Bank,was forced to step down after facing an outcry over a pay and promotion deals given to his partner - who also works for the World Bank.

Donald Rumsfeld is now gone

Scooter Libby -convicted

Dan Quayle -Come on..how do you spell potatoe? oook!

Bush and Cheney...The American process of election. Voted In...twice

 

[Unsecured Coins]

That's William Rodriguez's claim, and it's false.

This fact has now become irrelevant. Thanks for playing, Gravy, here's a copy of our home game!


(we still playing golf next tuesday?)

 

[Furcifer]

proved my point

 

[Gravy]

Deleted. Gravy tired.

 

[Corsair 115]

US military spending, 1943 $526 (37.0%)
US military spending, 1944 $684 (37.8%)
US military spending, 1945 $775 (37.5%)

Wow, those WWII years are amazing. More than 37% of GDP in war spending, that's pretty darned impressive.

I wonder how the other Allied nations stack up in comparison, and Axis nations for that matter...

 

[beachnut]

Excuse me, that was an error on my part; careless. Not very relevant, but well done in any case!

ETA- My quote related to "the amount", not the proportion, which, according to your figures, has only been beaten once, though I'm sure there are more examples.

Every point, every piece of evidence you invoke has a similar end. Grossly inaccurate and wrong. SpitfireIX shows you the 3.7 percent of GDP is ten times less that WWII and less than Vietnam's 9.4 percent. He even post sources and it is easy to check his numbers. He is right, you were wrong in that it means nothing with respect to 9/11. Relax, your ideas on 9/11 are unsupportable. At least you are consistent.

And then you argue your point is still good, but your evidence and point do not mean anything. If you paid attention human-resource spending continues to climb, averaging 65 percent of outlays and 13 percent of GDP during the 4 years after 9/11. While defense spending has only increased to 19 percent of outlays and 3.8 percent of GDP. Did you even try to compare this to 1968? Did you? You know from 1966 to 1969 military spending was 45 percent of the budget and 9 percent of GDP, and human resource spending was 34 percent of the budget and 7 percent of GDP. What does it mean? It means you do shoddy research and try to tie things to other things that have no meaning. While you listen to the political rant of the day, someone is increasing spending where you are not even looking. And you do not even get it. Wake up and go back to school, you need to redo many grades and classes. While you try to make up stuff about 9/11, you missed it was solved back in 2001.

 

[Mobyseven]

It's something that a person learning English as a second language might have to study, but what mjd was trying to snottily correct had nothing to do with the conditional tense.

If we're going to be super-correct about everything here...

"A. If you call me I come."

While it is not incorrect to express a sentence in this way, it is more correct (i.e. it better reflects the semantics of the sentence) to say, "When you call me I come."

"B. If you call me I will come."

Is an example of a conditional sentence, employing the conditional mood. The website linked to describes this as the conditional tense, either as a typo or for purposes of simplification, I cannot say.

The sentence "If you call me I will come," is a conditional sentence (a first conditional) that employs the conjunction 'if' and a simple present tense verb ('call') in the predicate to form the protasis, and the modal verb 'will' with another simple present tense verb ('come') to create the apodosis.

The verb tense in the subordinate clause and the main clause is simple present tense. The sentence is a conditional sentence employing the conditional mood.

 

[nicepants]

This has been dealt with, but I'll do it again. She has no capacity to cause the crash covertly. Whereas the gov does. Ive illustarted how twice now.

So, citizens can't do things covertly....only the government can? Please explain why this is the case...

Cutting someone's brake lines would seem pretty covert, but perhaps in your view it is not?

 

[SpitfireIX]

Wow, those WWII years are amazing. More than 37% of GDP in war spending, that's pretty darned impressive.

[disdain]Pffft. We weren't even breathing hard.[/disdain] My dad (who was 10 years old when the war ended) feels that we didn't even really need food rationing--it was primarily put in to make the people on the home front feel like they were contributing to the war effort. That may be an exaggeration, but not by much.

I wonder how the other Allied nations stack up in comparison, and Axis nations for that matter...

I found these figures in an article on EconomicHistory.net. These are averages for the entire war.

Germany: 50%

Soviet Union: 44%

Britain: 45%

US : 32%


Presumably the percentages for the later years of the war will be higher. I know Germany's are; Hitler didn't get serious about putting the economy on a war footing until around 1942. I recall seeing somewhere that by 1944 Germany's military spending was about 80% of GDP, and the civilians were really feeling the pinch. I somewhat expected the Soviets to be higher, but it occurs to me that their economic mobilization may have taken longer because of the inefficiencies of a command economy.

 

[Myriad]

Okay. Let's start with, what does the "C" in "PNAC" stand for?

This has been dealt with numerous times here, and it could not prove the CT point much better. Their aim is to create, militarily, a platform from which US hegemony can thrive, thus making the 21st the American Century. Hence it is all the more crucial for the transformations which will create this platform, to be executed quickly. It will be not good, or less for their stated aims, for them to be ready by 2050.

Very good. You didn't want to answer directly, but you did manage to mention the answer in passing: Century.

Century. As in, about 3.16 billion seconds.

You're confusing this document with the PNANCY, the Plan for a New American Next Couple'a Years. That's the one that says gosh, we better have a new Pearl Harbor within the next year or two or our whole five-year plan will be off-schedule. But the PNANCY is highly classified NWO material, how did you get hold of a copy? The PNAC is the decoy, that one's all about long-range forward thinking, building up America's credibility internationally, planning for the future, properly equipping our military -- you know, all those things that George W. Bush and the party that's been in power since the turn of this century have proven themselves utterly incapable of doing.

The plan they're actually following appears to be:
Step 1: New Pearl Harbor
Step 2: Declare war on an undesired emotion
Step 3: Start quagmire war in Persion Gulf unrelated to said undesired emotion
Step 4: Under-equip U.S. Military to fight quagmire war, while alienating international allies
Step 5: Lose control of Congress
Step 6: 34% approval rating

If you want me to think that they're following this PNAC document as a plan, show me where it lays out steps 2 through 6.

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[Foolmewunz]

Prior to clicking that link, the only time I'd ever heard of a "conditional tense" was when studying Spanish. I'd imagine it might also apply in some fashion in other Romance languages (just a guess because of similarity in structures). I have, however, seen numerous lessons back when I was getting my TESOL certification, to help you explain use of the conditional mood, and I can see how the fact that it is reliant on a change of verb form that might confuse some folks. (Considering that that site is for teaching English to non-English speakers, that might explain where they picked it up. But it's clearly not a "tense".)

Maybe when comink from old country MJD learn only some part English?

Perhaps that's why he seems to have confused a parodywith irony.