The 9/11 Conspiracy Facts

[Gravy]

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

I deleted my comment because I realized that mjd was referring to his own conditional statements, not to aggle-rithm's.

 

[SpitfireIX]

. . . 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.

What he said.

 

[332nd]

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

I found that funny also. If that were the case, Fraternities would have been banned since the 20's. (Heck I belong to Alpha Psi Omega, Theatre Frat/Honors Society, and we ran many covert ops on the NCA&TSU campus.)

 

[mjd1982]

........And has absolutely nothing to do with an inside job

I fixed that for you. Your welcome

All that is aiming to be illustrated for now is that the neo-cons stated that a new PH would be propitious to policy. This is based on the fact of what is in black and white in their document. If you want to argue this point, then please address the document.

 

[mjd1982]

Speaking of facts:

It's obvious you're not an American and yet you feel so eminently qualified to post your vast foolishness on what ensued over here in the States on 9/11, and before.

Didja ever bring your butt over here to conduct any onsite investigations or interviews or hands-on studies in your quest to overturn the generally-accepted conclusions on the run of events for that day? Or do you just sit in your British Commonwealth comfy chair and "innernet" your way into these absurd claims of yours?

Facts! Get 'em while they're hot! They're over here in the United States of America! If you can't bring the facts to where you are at, then bring yourself to the facts!

What a fantastic argument! So I shouldnt make any points about 9/11 because i dont live in the US? What a bright spark you are buddy, a pat on the back for you.

 

[mjd1982]

Hmmm, Pearl Harbor plunged the U.S. into WWII which resulted in the converting of the entire American economy into a war footing, with rationing, car assembly lines turned over into producing war material, wage and price controls, a draft, transportation restricted mostly to that needed for the war effort, just to name a few of the repercussions. The general populace was asked to sacrifice in the name of the war effort; it was a truly national endeavour.

Now, have there been any repercussions in the U.S. in the aftermath of 9/11 that even remotely approach any of those? Is there a draft? No. Has the economy been converted over to war production? No. Is there rationing of food and fuel and other resources? No. Are there wage and price controls? No. Is transportation restricted mostly to only that necessary for the war effort? No.

Indeed, outside of those serving in military units in Iraq and their families back home, the average American isn't being asked to sacrifice anything for the war in Iraq. The average citizen wouldn't know there's a war on at all if they didn't turn on the news or read the newspaper.

Seems to me the situations are nowhere near as analogous are you made them out to be.

I'm sorry, but this has been addressed.The 2 are similar since they were mass terror attacks against the US that galvanised the public consciousness into approving drastic military action. Those are the facets of PH that are germane to the document, nothing about public rationing.

 

[mjd1982]

Wait: I addressed your point. You said the neocons published a plan to murder thousands of Americans, and I treated that statement as the 100% batpoo-insane, howler monkeyism that it is.

Give credit where credit is due, please.

Wow... you guys are good!

 

[gumboot]

I'm sorry, but this has been addressed.The 2 are similar since they were mass terror attacks against the US that galvanised the public consciousness into approving drastic military action. Those are the facets of PH that are germane to the document, nothing about public rationing.

Pearl Harbor was not a terror attack. It was a legitimate military action against US military forces located in the self-governing US territory of Hawaii.

-Gumboot

 

[mjd1982]

Nowhere does it say they do want it achieved over a shorter one. Your point is simply assumption without evidence, your opinion, nothing more.

Well, at least you get to the heart of the matter. Incidentally, like many of the things i reply to, this has been addressed by me here already.

I have stated that with the qualification that a vital transformation happening over mths/yrs is preferable to it happening over decades, then a new PH is propitious to policy. With that qualification; I think this is something that we here can all settle on, and sensible people can come to their own conclusions.

However, we can examine this in closer detail.

1stly, what is the aim of PNAC? It is pretty clear just from their name- create a platform (militarily) for US hegemony, that serves to allow US interests to dominate throughout the 21st century. As such, it is logical that that platform, which is the subject of RAD, should be created as early as possible in that century. Hence we cn conclude that such a transformation is preferable to happen earlier rather than later.

2ndly, look at what is stated about the 2001 QDR. Such a transformation is going to have to have been crystalised in the mind of decision makers by that time, in order to dictate subsequent US military posture from that stance.

This has been covered a few times now.

 

[mjd1982]

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.

Oh boy... more hot air.

Listen, while stating "Your post is soooooo bad", may seem to you a pretty effective technique, trust me when I tell you it's not.

Now listen. The point here is quite simple. Did PNAC deem a new PH propitious to policy? Nothing else for the moment, calm your little head.

 

[gumboot]

Two comments...

1) I wish people wouldn't continually misuse the word "hegemony"
2) I've never come across a 9/11 Debunker who didn't believe that the 9/11 attacks was a convenient event for the Bush administration, allowing them to push what would otherwise have been an unpopular agenda

The only thing PNAC does (assuming your interpretation of it is accurate) is confirm that 9/11 was exploited by the Bush administration. It does not, in any way whatsoever, provide evidence that the Bush administration was complicit in the attacks.

-Gumboot

 

[mjd1982]

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.

Yes, I rejected it myself, subsequently, and said well done to the person who had pointed it out.

Incidentally, though you are getting caught up in the excitement, the point is not whether the rise was unprecedented, rather whether it was what PNAC wanted. They state that spending had to increase to 3.5%-3.8% of GDP, which you have illustrated quite nicely. So well done to you too!

 

[mjd1982]

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.

It would appear not

http://www.scrippsnews.com/911poll

Although I suppose this poll was also done at a bad PR moment for Bush?

 

[mjd1982]

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.
The Jersey Girls? Oh, come on...
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.

No Stella, you're confused. Your point was that the 911 commission had done a good job. My point was that it hadnt. It lacked completeness and efficacy, to a serious degree. This is illustrated by the points. Nothng more.

 

[mjd1982]

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

Right, so 27 were answered, as William said.

Please show me how, as you state, many questions were are on unfounded speculation.

 

[Gravy]

Now listen. The point here is quite simple. Did PNAC deem a new PH propitious to policy?.

Now listen. The answer here is quite simple: no. Fantasizing that Rebuilding America's Defenses is a plan for an attack upon America will never further your argument and will only bring mocking from rational adults.

 

[mjd1982]

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

Sorry, but I have addrssed this in my OP. I am not looking to prove that they were complicit, i am showing sufficient evidence pointing to their compliity to warrant a new independent investigation.

It starts with PNAC, where the propitiousness of a new PH for policy is stated.

 

[Gravy]

Right, so 27 were answered, as William said.

Reading troubles again? The Jersey Girls say the Commission addressed 95 of their questions. I gave you the source. Please try to pay attention.

 

[mjd1982]

Now listen. The answer here is quite simple: no. Fantasizing that Rebuilding America's Defenses is a plan for an attack upon America will never further your argument and will only bring mocking from rational adults.

Mocking from rational people adults? I dont want that!

Once again, another lucid, cogent point. How well you address the facts! You must realise that stating "it didn't happen" again and again, though clearly a preferred MO for you, isn't gonna carry much weight here...

The points have been laid out, i have addressed your "critique" at length, you are free to address them should you choose.

Of course I will understand i you dont.

 

[mjd1982]

Reading troubles again? The Jersey Girls say the Commission addressed 95 of their questions. I gave you the source. Please try to pay attention.

Errr... no, it would appear to be you who had the reading difficulties. I said how many questions were answered

This should not have been hard to understand.