The 9/11 Conspiracy Facts

[rwguinn]

Obvious things military are beyond you.

Fixed it for you

 

[nicepants]

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.

And my car blowing its transmission would be "propitious" to my plan to eventually buy a new car. That doesn't mean that I will purposely cause a transmission problem in order to bring about that situation sooner.

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.

You're ASSUMING that they would rather these changes happen immediately. The plan is for the 21st century, not for 2001. If I make a plan for my next 50 years, say, saving for retirement, I'm not planning to complete everything on my checklist by the end of the year. It's a LONG TERM plan.

 

[Belz...]

Correct. So the question is, did they want the changes to happen in a "longer" timeframe (specified later as "several decades"), or shorter, i.e., presumably, monthr or years?

No, that's not the question. The question is, did they do it ?

You can't simply presume this things about what goes on in people's heads. You have a report that states that, without such an event, it might take a while for stuff to happen. It doesn't mean anything more.

So we can already make the qualification that given that such a crucial transformation taking mths/yrs, is preferable to it taking decades, then a new PH is propitious to policy. This should not be controversial, or hard to understand.

It's not hard to understand. It's just not true.

So we can already see that the doc is stating quite clearly the need, urgent, for the necessity for the changes proposed in the doc to be crystalised in POTUS's mind, by October 2001. And concomitantly, the need for whatever other decision making bodies, Congress, Senate, the people, to be on board, by October 2001. Further fuel to the flame.

Hyperbole will not help you.

Errr... other than PH was a terror attack on US soil by foreigners killing thousands of US, burned on the public;s mind, that catalysed the US into drastic military action. Remind you of something?

Yes. Both were carried out by enemies of the USA.

 

[JimBenArm]

Fixed it for you

Ah, yeah. Thanks. Just a typo!

 

[Belz...]

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.

Do I understand correctly that you are setting aside the MIHOP argument ?

Thus,this report advocates a two-stage process of
change – transition and transformation –
over the coming decades.

What do you make of this ?

No, there is a difference here. They are stating as to how a change will occur over a long period of time; this does not mean that they do not want it achieved over a shorter one. Think- what is the alternative to what you are saying, that they state "This will be long absent a new PH... so we better start planning one!" No. They are not that dumb.

No ? But you claim that they have!

 

[gumboot]

Sorry, this is not too relevant, but why was it legitimate?

Because it was a military action carried out by the military forces of Japan, in accordance with the laws of armed conflict, exclusively against legitimate military targets, with a legitimate military objective.

In contrast the 9/11 attacks were carried out by an illegal organisation, in violation of the laws of armed conflict, against civilians and private property, with the intention of terrorising the American populace.

Note that while The Pentagon was a legitimate target for the attacks, the methodology makes it a violation of the laws of armed conflict.

-Gumboot

 

[mjd1982]

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?

Excuse for missing this.

Major problem here- what makes you think that this is a 5 year plan?

As I said before, it is a plan for transformation that needs to be speeded through if PNAC want to achieve their aim of an American Century. The transformations will create a platform for such to happen, and this platform needs to be created quickly.

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.

No, but this is completely wrong. Please read my riposte to Gravy's LC critique re: PNAC, which was posted quite early in the thread. A huge majority of what was laid out there has come to pass, specifically under the 911/wot aegis.

Note that this is not strictly relevant, since it relates more to execution than conception, which is the point, but it is stil instructive to see how things went,.Please read the post.

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

Ok.

Step 2: Declare war on an undesired emotion

The WOT is an incredibly clever device for ensuring never ending wars, lots of fear, and thus a perfect pretext to do everything that the doc asks. Terrorists! Let's invade that oil rich country. Terrorists! We need to have space based weapons strategy! Terror! We need to use the web as a defense tool, etc.

Of course, there are evident disconnects that rationla people can see, but this does not matter when it is working effectively, and people are buying it. Moreover, even if the dems win in 08, what will happen? Obama declares an end to the war on terror? No! This can never happen, and the US is so sucked into the consciousness of this phoney, maintaining its effects will almost be a matter of course. You only need to see the policy statements of the leading contenders to see why/how.

Step 3: Start quagmire war in Persion Gulf unrelated to said undesired emotion

The war is of course a disaster, but it matters little. The US has secured permanent military bases there,
http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2004/040323-enduring-bases.htm)
has a client regime in place, and has control of the oil supply:
http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/RRiraqWar.html#fn56

This is all that matters.

What is essential, and the point that is missed by many on both sides of the fence, is that the war in Iraq is just a fraction of the spectrum of what is being pursued as part of the wot. Again read my riposte for details of what else.

Step 4: Under-equip U.S. Military to fight quagmire war, while alienating international allies

Again, the underequipment is not the main issue. Those have been outlned.

As far as alienation goes... well, on the US side we have, effectively, UK, France, Germany, Oz, Canada (?), India, Pakistan, Japan, Brazil, S Korea, Turkey, Kazakhstan, Poland, Czech Rep, as well as Iraq and Afghanistan, and many others (incl Albania of course!). So theyre not doing too bad.

Step 5: Lose control of Congress

which has led to what? lots of non binding resolutions? As I said before, just like PH, everyone has been so sucked into the consciousness of the WOT, that its like a bull to a red rag - they cannot pull themselves away from it.

Step 6: 34% approval rating

But its irrelevant. The wot is so well conceived, because it will never end; the majority of the plans have been putin place, and a president would be loath to go soft on terror in the current environment. It's just not conceivable.

Moreover, if the GOP wins, as they may well do, then nothing will change. Note that in the CT scenario, Giuliani would have been very much involved. Yet he is the GOP frontrunner. Under him, it would be full steam ahead.

So in short, I think you need to be more careful in your understanding of PNAC's aims, and how they are being achieved. This is a long term strategy, and the effects of 9/11 will easily be felt many years into the future.

 

[mjd1982]

Because it was a military action carried out by the military forces of Japan, in accordance with the laws of armed conflict, exclusively against legitimate military targets, with a legitimate military objective.

In contrast the 9/11 attacks were carried out by an illegal organisation, in violation of the laws of armed conflict, against civilians and private property, with the intention of terrorising the American populace.

Note that while The Pentagon was a legitimate target for the attacks, the methodology makes it a violation of the laws of armed conflict.

-Gumboot

Yes, but it was an unprovoked act of aggression in a state of peace between 2 nations.

I dont think that terrorism is defined by who carries it out, or even who are the targets. It's a side issue to the point at hand, i hope you realise, but it may be worth debating.

 

[rwguinn]

Yes, but it was an unprovoked act of aggression in a state of peace between 2 nations.

I dont think that terrorism is defined by who carries it out, or even who are the targets. It's a side issue to the point at hand, i hope you realise, but it may be worth debating.

Fixed that one for you.

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Yes, but it was an unprovoked act of aggression in a state of peace between 2 nations.

I dont think that terrorism is defined by who carries it out, or even who are the targets. It's a side issue to the point at hand, i hope you realise, but it may be worth debating.

Assume, for the sake of argument, that 9/11 was carried out in the manner portrayed by the MSM (I know you don't agree with this, but this if for the sake of argument). Who was the nation that made the unprovoked act of aggression against the US on that day?

 

[gumboot]

I dont think that terrorism is defined by who carries it out, or even who are the targets.

Actually that's precisely how it is most commonly defined.

The best way to establish whether an act is terrorism is firstly, was it against civilians, or the military/government?

The second is to ask "What was the objective of the attacks?"

The objective of the Pear Harbor attack was to cripple the US fleet so that they could not project any force across the Pacific, leaving the region open to Japanese expansion.

In contrast the objective of 9/11 was to terrorise the American public, in order that they put pressure on their government to follow a policy that is more to Al Qaeda's liking (i.e. withdraw from the Middle East, especially Saudi Arabia).

Yes I am aware that this is a side issue, but it is important to make precise distinctions. The similarity between Pearl Harbor and 9/11 is merely that both involved significant unexpected attacks against US interests that killed thousands of people.

Other than this, they are quite different, and the US's response to each attack was likewise quite different.

For what it's worth, I fell the USA's response to the 9/11 attacks was absolutely correct and appropriate, and that the later decision to invade Iraq was neither correct nor appropriate.

-Gumboot

 

[The Almond]

No, you're getting ahead of yourself. Calm down. If you read my OP, which you should have had the time to do, you would know that the relevant question for the moment, is was a new PH propitiou to policy.

I did read your OP, and I realize that you'd much rather discuss other topics. That is to say, you'd much rather discuss topics other than the ones for which your deficiencies in logic have been exposed. I've also noticed that you failed to address my point, instead opting for condescension.

To be clear, you are arguing in the affirmative that the nefarious elements in power in the US caused 9/11 to happen. Belz and I have both addressed this on numerous occasions, and you have thus far failed to produce any counter arguments or evidence in support of your position.

Errr... sorry, how does advocating ones goals aid the choosing of the most expedient option?

As Myriad pointed out, your argument is based on the idea that the PNAC (that is, the Project for a New American Century) has chosen to expedite their goals by causing 9/11 to happen, rather than waiting for it. You argue that, given the choice of waiting or acting immediately, they chose to act immediately, and you do so without evidence.

Again you are getting ahead of yourself- it is irrelevant whether they were maliciously advocating death and destruction- concentrate on the detail.

Thanks, but I'd rather focus on what you actually wrote. It is relevant what they were advocating, and it is central to your argument.

Did they state that a new PH was propitious to policy. It's a very simple point, it has a yes or no answer, and the argument I have made is very clear.

Yes, you have made a very clear argument. Clear, but logically vapid, and if you would take a bit more time providing evidence and rational arguments, and a bit less time belittling the posters here, you might convince a few people.

Excuse me. I thought it was evident that what was meant was overtly causing the crash. Sure she has the means to overtly cause the crash, but then if she did that, say by the means you state, she would most likely be hauled in within 48 hours.

Who says she didn't have the ability to covertly cause the crash? While we're imagining impossibly vast conspiracies here, why can't we assume that this woman is connected to the Yakuza, the CIA, the NSA and the union of mechanics and technicians in the greater Seattle area? Yes, the impossibly vast, invisible, completely secret conspiracy is quite central to LIHOP and MIHOP.

The point, which you miss, is about covertly causing, it to happen, which is the thrust of all the points I have made on this forum. This is not something that Mrs Smith could do.

Which government do the Yakuza work for again?

The gov however could- all it has to do, remember, is get a few heads of foodchains in line, get a load of warnings, and do nothing. This cannot be applied to your ana;ogy. Hence y it is horrific.

Sorry, I'm going to require a pretty significant amount of evidence that this is possible, and a lot of evidence to prove that it did happen.

Yes, but if she had said that "this road is so dangerous that a black 2001 Ford Taurus with Wyoming license plate ABC-123 is going to crash into a pink 2005 VW Bug with Wyoming license plate CBA-321 at exactly 22.21 miles per hour.", then your analogy would be more accurate, though still way off for the reasons mentioned, as well as others.

So, if I get your point, the PNAC said, "19 Arab hijackers will crash one plane into each WTC tower, one in rural PA and one into the Pentagon, and that would be really great for us if it happened on or about September 11th, 2001."

Oh wait! They didn't?

 

[volatile]

Oh boy...ok, well firstly 28 + 68=95, so it would appear that your skill in maths is little better than that in basic comprehension.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

"Bwah",and, indeed, "Haha!".

Didn't someone post a quote of yours from SLC saying you didn't like numbers? Maybe you should heed your own advice...

 

[Unsecured Coins]

I see a pattern here.

1. mjd makes post making certain claim. claim in post is addressed and refuted by someone
2. mjd makes another post, calls reply "irrelevant" and includes outdated website with aged information.
3. said site is pointed out to be outdated, updated information is presented and explained in great detail with accompanying 3 part harmony and subtitles for the hearing impared.
4. mjd, sensing defeat, now decries that his original post chock full of information, is now irrelevant.
5. repeat steps 1-4 ad nauseum.

 

[gumboot]

If I state "Do you like football", and you say" I might do, I might not", then my question has been addressed, but it hasn't been answered. If you say "Yes i do", then it has been answered.

No not at all. If you ask "Do you like football?" and I reply "I might do, I might not", I have answered the question, however possibly not to your satisfaction. If I say "Yes I do" I have also answered the question, and likewise I may not have answered it to your satisfaction. For example you may already have decided for yourself that I do not like football, and may only be satisfied if I answer "No I do not", regardless of what the truth is. Indeed, I may present photographs of myself playing football, watching football, and generally enjoying football, and depending on how set you are in your preconceived notions, you still may not find my answer satisfactory.

This should give you a clue about the problems with the Family Steering Committee's dissatisfaction with the 9/11 Commission Report.

-Gumboot

 

[sleahead]

It is not strictly a case of crystalising it in the mind of Bush, but, as i said, of crystallising it in the minds of the decision makers.

You have yet to demonstrate that the decision makers were not on board with this already.

So to say that they are content with it happening over a long period of time, due to the fact that they talk about how it would happen over such a period, overlooks the fact that practically speaking, they have no alternative, as well as paying zero attention to the fact that they may be more content with it happening over a shorter period.

I'm sure you are more content when your plans come to fruition sooner than you expected, but I bet you didn't construct and carry out a bizarre plot to achieve this end. Further the PNAC document calls for an

INCREASE DEFENSE SPENDING gradually to a minimum level of 3.5 to 3.8 percent of gross domestic product, adding $15 billion to $20 billion to total defense spending annually.

No rush to impose US hegemony there.

Incidentally, you have forgotten the important point of what is the raison d'etre of PNAC? You can hazard a guess from their name; thus the idea that they would want such a hegemonic transformation to occur early in the century is 100% congruous with their raison d'etre; the opposite is 100% incongruous.

The name ' Project for the New American Century' tells us nothing about when the project should begin. I'm sure they would have wanted to start the transformation early, but as I've said, they are content with a project lasting decades.

So, to reframe your point, the question is when will the process get underway. Ideally, it will happen after a new PH, since this will catalyse the policies set out in the doc. Absent 911, it would have been pretty tough to get some of the changes that have come about

Please provide some evidence that it would have been pretty tough to get the QDR approved, absent 9/11.

So we can see very clearly, that what happened was precisely what PNAC designed. Yes there were plans for budget increases, but, the fact is that defense posture was coloured inexorably by the new PH, just as PNAC had stated

I don't see it at all. These things were being discussed before 9/11. You cut your extract from the QDR just a little short. It continues :

The Quadrennial Defense Review was undertaken during a crucial time of transition to a new era. Even before the attack of September 11, 2001, the senior leaders of the Defense Department set out to establish a new strategy for America's defense that would embrace uncertainty and
contend with surprise, a strategy premised on the idea that to be effective
abroad, America must be safe at home. It sought to set the conditions to
extend America's influence and preserve America's security. The strategy
that results is built around four key goals that will guide the development
of U.S. forces and capabilities, their deployment and use:

Rumsfeld, a PNAC signatory, was responsible for producing the QDR. He provided the terms of reference under which the review took place. Why are you surprised that the QDR might reflect views similar to PNAC/Rumsfeld?
Lets take a look at some testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee on June 21, 2001. First, a word from the chair of the committee, Senator Carl Levin, a Democrat:

I'm also concerned that we may not be putting enough emphasis on countering the most likely threats to our national security and to the security of our forces deployed around the world, those asymmetric threats, like terrorist attacks on the USS Cole, on our barracks and our embassies around the world, on the World Trade Center, including possible attacks with weapons of mass destruction and cyberthreats to our national security establishment and even to our economic infrastructure



Two years ago, Senator Warner established a new subcommittee called the Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities, to focus our attention on these new asymmetric threats and the ways to counter them. Senator Roberts, as then-chairman, and Senator Landrieu, as then-ranking member, have done an outstanding job with this subcommittee for the past two years, and I know that they will continue their good work with their roles reversed, as the new chair and the new ranking members of this important subcommittee.

I'd say Senator Levin was on board with some of Rumsfeld's ideas. Now some snippets from Rumsfeld:

But while it's difficult to know precisely who will threaten us or where or when in the coming decades, it is less difficult to anticipate how we might be threatened. We know, for example, that our open borders and open societies make it very easy and inviting for terrorists to strike at our people where they live and work, as you suggested in your opening remarks. Our dependence on computer-based information networks today makes those networks attractive targets for new forms of cyberattack.

Do you see the resemblance to the last part of your QDR extract?

Third, we have under-invested in dealing with future risks. We have failed to invest adequately in the advanced military technologies we will need to meet the emerging threats of the new century. Given the long lead times in development and deployment of new capabilities, waiting further into the 21st century to invest in those capabilities poses a risk.

Again, Rumsfeld makes reference to the long process of change, at least in the tecnological aspect of it.

Under such an approach, we would work to select, develop, and sustain a portfolio of U.S. military capabilities, capabilities that could not only help us prevail against current threats, but because we possess them, hopefully dissuade potential adversaries from developing dangerous new capabilities themselves. Some of the investment options we've discussed include, obviously, an investment in people; experimentation; intelligence; space, missile defense; information operations, pre-conflict management tools, which are not what they ought to be today, in my view; precision strike capability; rapidly deployable standing joint forces; unmanned systems; command control communications and information management; strategic mobility; research and development base; and infrastructure and logistics.

See the resemblance to PNAC document and the QDR produced a few months later?

Preparing for the 21st century will not require immediately transforming the United States military; just a portion, a fraction of the force. As has been said, the blitzkrieg was an enormous success, but it was accomplished by only a 10 or 15 percent transformed German army. Change is difficult, but the greatest threat to our position today, I would summit, is complacency

.

Again,contradiction of your assertion that they wished change to happen quickly.

 

[mjd1982]

I have a question about the PNAC.

Richard Cheney was, by all accounts, a Signatory to the Statement of Principles.

One of the specific things mentioned in the September 2000 "Rebuilding America's Defenses" was the V-22 Osprey project.

Yet in 1988 Richard Cheney (then Secretary of Defense) zeroed the budget for the project, but was overridden by Congress.

In addition, a cornerstone of the PNAC was regime change in Iraq, yet when Cheney was Secretary of Defense during the Gulf War he was strongly opposed to entering Iraq.

-Gumboot

so whats your question?

 

[mjd1982]

Ironic that you complain about this while at the same time apparently claiming that 27=28, since you claimed that Gravy's link, stating 28, supported William's claim of 27.

In addition, you do appear to be seriously confused. Gravy's link states very clearly that they answered 96 of the questions. The people who asked them didn't like a lot of the answers, but that does not mean that they were not answered.



You alos appear to have a problem here. According to this source spending is currently estimated at about 3.4% of GDP. In 1997 when the statement was published spending was at 3.3% of GDP. Is this really what you consider a massive increase in spending that could only be brought about by a major attack on the US? To contrast this with previous spending, until 1995 the defence budget had not dropped below 4% since 1948. So apparently PNAC orchestrated 11/9 in order to maintain military spending at the lowest level since the end of WWII.

Seriously, please give up with this argument now. You have not just been proven wrong, this entire line of attack involving the PNAC proves your whole argument utterly nonsensical. PNAC did not say they want a new Pearl Harbour, they did not get a new Pearl Harbour and they did even get what they said would happen if a new Pearl Harbour had actually happened. No motive, no opportunity and no result. Possibly the most ineffective conspiracy ever. In fact, it's almost as though the conspiracy didn't actually exist.

Just a quickie- I do accuse the OTers of behaving like NASA chimps, but seriously, to state that there was no new PH... I havent heard that one before. I'm guessing you have been floating in a tub in outer space for the last 6 years, eating bananas maybe?

mjd1982 - stick to the topic; attack the argument, not the person.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: jmercer

 

[gumboot]

so whats your question?

Did Cheney just wake up one day between 1991 and 1997 and decide to be evil? Or was it a gradual change?

-Gumboot

 

[volatile]

Just a quickie- I do accuse the OTers of behaving like NASA chimps, but seriously, to state that there was no new PH... I havent heard that one before. I'm guessing you have been floating in a tub in outer space for the last 6 years, eating bananas maybe?

I sense you don't know much about PH, or 911. The two are not the same, any way you want to slice it. This has been explained to you already in this thread, and numerous times.

Seeing as we're now going round in circles, I'd like to propose that you advance your thoughts a little. Say that the PNAC did want 911 to happen. They had a meeting, and decided that a "false flag" attack was the best way to achieve their objectives.

What happened next?