The 9/11 Conspiracy Facts

[Jocce]

The point here is not one of PNAC's execution, but their design. If their design was that a new PH would be useful for policy, then we have a useful framework to proceed.

You must suffer from some kind of reading disability mjd. At the end of the text even you should be able to read:

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

They advocate a process over decades, not at new PH. Another way to say this using your terminology is that a long process is useful for policy. How can that be so hard to comprehend?

 

[gumboot]

I think the "New Pearl Harbor" that PNAC spoke of would really have to be more of a high-tech attack, something that revealed an unexpected technological edge for an enemy, before R & D spending would benefit.

I think you've hit the nail on the head.

What was significant about Pearl Harbor? The Japanese attack was carried out solely by carrier-based aircraft.

In 1941 carriers were not considered important ships. The notion of naval warfare was still huge capital ships blasting each other. Pearl Harbor revealed a serious technological gap, not just in terms of equipment, but about the WAY war was fought.

The US carrier based aircraft were significantly outclassed by the Japanese aircraft because the US hadn't invested money in carrier-based naval warfare. Japan had.

Because the US surface fleet had been so severely hit, the USA had no choice but to reply on carrier battle groups to fight the war, thus Pearl Harbor led to a revolution in naval warfare: the establishment of the supremacy of airpower.

When PNAC talk about "A New Pearl Harbor" I think they're talking about a sudden attack that notifies the USA that their warfare doctrine and technologies are obsolete, and need upgrading.

This didn't happen with 9/11. The US military still has the upper hand. In both Afghanistan and Iraq, the US military are in control. It's certainly not peaceful, and it's certainly not how we want it to be, but the only thing that could possibly pull Iraq or Afghanistan out of the USA's control is a decision by the USA to withdraw. Al Qaeda, the Taliban, the insurgents in Iraq, they have no hope whatsoever of forcibly driving out US forces.

-Gumboot

 

[rwguinn]

I think that, historically, the only time military R & D was performed with any urgency was when the enemy had as good, or possibly better, technology than the US did. This was true during WWII and the Cold War, and it resulted in a frenzy of new development.

Today, there just isn't any competition. We're already years ahead of our enemies, why would we need to be decades ahead?

I think the "New Pearl Harbor" that PNAC spoke of would really have to be more of a high-tech attack, something that revealed an unexpected technological edge for an enemy, before R & D spending would benefit.

The Cold Was did not involve actual battlefield actions, thus $$ were available for R & D. Hot wars require allocationnof resources to the actual battlefield, which reduces available R & D.
As far as WWII goes--the technology the Axis Powers had was not Better than that of the Allies (with the possible exception of the V-2 program, but that was fairly late in the war) , but it was Better utilized, at least at the beginning.
Add to that complacency and appeasement by the major powers during the 1930's, and the appearance of advanced technology by Germany and its allied countries is more apparent than real.

 

[volatile]

PNAC's point was that more R & D is required. A "Pearl Harbor" event essentially halts R & D in the new technology department--all the budget goes to supporting the current effort, and on "minor" improvements in existing systems--better utilization of the existing weapons systems, not new and improved.
When dealing with the Missouri river overflowing it's banks into your farm acrage is not the time you will be investing in new and improved planting impliments--you need pumps and bulldozers!

Well, precisely. It's clear, to me at least, that the PNAC document quite explicitly fears a new Pearl Harbour and its effects on the transition the document's authors advocated. It seems that they want firm and decisive increases in spending in technology, but, and this is what MJD is missing, within a considered, managed, sensible and strategic framework. They warn against rushing into things for the sake of it (see the sentence on the JSF). They quite clearly do not want a new Pearl Harbour; they actually explain right there in black and white how such an event would scupper, not aid, their plans.

 

[T.A.M.]

I would give that an RMackey plausibility factor of -756.
I'm not sure if Rmackey figured in "luck" into his equation, but there was a lot of luck taking place that day. I guess I didn't realize how many four leaf clovers Afghanistan had.

So are you speaking to the implausibility of the survival of the passports, or the implausibility that the individual I spoke of, survived the impact of UA175, which brushed right over his desk, but did him no harm?

So your opinion is what? They fabricated the passports? And the single piece, just one, of evidence that proves they fabricated the passports is? And do you have a particular individual you feel is behind this fabrication, that you could accuse here?

As for the guy who survived the 175 impact, is he a liar. He states he watched the plane come toward the building, and hence the reason he was able to leap under his desk, which saved him. Is he a liar? A paid Shill?

TAM

Edit: by the way swing, your demeanor here, for a truther in a den full of debunkers, is so far commendable.

TAM

 

[HeyLeroy]

So... Bushco published their nefarious evil plan in the PNAC white paper.

WHAT HAPPENED NEXT?

 

[JonnyFive]

So... Bushco published their nefarious evil plan in the PNAC white paper.

WHAT HAPPENED NEXT?

Well, they had a bit of a spat about what to get for lunch. Bush wanted Chinese, but Cheney said that it gave him heartburn and he didn't have any Tums with him, so he wanted to get an extra cheese pizza instead. But Rumsfeld can't eat too much dairy or he gets stomach cramps, so they ended up ordering hamburgers. Bush was kind of sulky about it, but he ordered double bacon on his and felt better when the food came and he had something to eat.

Mmmm... hamburgers with bacon.

Wait a minute, what were we talking about again?

 

[aggle-rithm]

The Cold Was did not involve actual battlefield actions, thus $$ were available for R & D. Hot wars require allocationnof resources to the actual battlefield, which reduces available R & D.
As far as WWII goes--the technology the Axis Powers had was not Better than that of the Allies (with the possible exception of the V-2 program, but that was fairly late in the war) , but it was Better utilized, at least at the beginning.
Add to that complacency and appeasement by the major powers during the 1930's, and the appearance of advanced technology by Germany and its allied countries is more apparent than real.

I think WWII was a special case, because never before or since has the US been on such a total war footing (with the possible exception of wars fought on US soil, but it's difficult to make a comparison there).

There was a huge amount of money spent on R&D during the hot part of the war. Two billion dollars were spent on the Manhattan Project alone. There were also projects to develop a computer to calculate trajectory charts, as well as a few hare-brained schemes like the one to strap incendiary devices to bats and to use pigeons as Kamikaze pilots (actually, that last one was a good idea, but sounded too kooky to be approved).

At the same time there was a huge amount of research being done to develop synthetic materials to replace those whose supply had been cut off by the war, such as rubber (although much of this may have been done voluntarily by private firms that didn't want to go out of business. I'll have to check on that).

Also, there was one crucial way in which Germany and Japan were more technologically advanced than the US, and that was in manufacturing (although, again, this could be due to the utilization of technology rather than the technology itself). The US caught up and surpassed them pretty quickly, but it was a while before they even had the equipment to build tanks that could go up against the Panzers.

 

[aggle-rithm]

Well, they had a bit of a spat about what to get for lunch. Bush wanted Chinese, but Cheney said that it gave him heartburn and he didn't have any Tums with him, so he wanted to get an extra cheese pizza instead. But Rumsfeld can't eat too much dairy or he gets stomach cramps, so they ended up ordering hamburgers. Bush was kind of sulky about it, but he ordered double bacon on his and felt better when the food came and he had something to eat.

Mmmm... hamburgers with bacon.

Wait a minute, what were we talking about again?

And on 9/11, the following secret phone conversation took place:

CHENEY: When are we going to do that New Pearl Harbor thing, Rummy?!?

RUMSFELD: Hmmm...um...what? What squirrel arbor thing?

CHENEY: Dammit, Rummy, stop playing Solitaire on your computer and pay attention!

RUMSFELD: Okay, okay...what was that about squirrels?

CHENEY: Not squirrels, idiot! Pearl Harbor!

RUMSFELD: What about it?

CHENEY: Remember...? The PNAC? The 'New Pearl Harbor'? You said months ago you were going to 'get right on it'!

RUMSFELD: Oh, that. Can't I do it tomorrow?

CHENEY: NO, we can't....

AIDE (interrupting): Mr. Vice President, sir! We've been attacked by terrorists!

RUMSFELD: What's going on?

CHENEY: Ummm....never mind, Rummy. Problem solved. <click>

RUMSFELD: Cool beans! (pause) Now where's the other black queen...?

 

[gumboot]

I think WWII was a special case, because never before or since has the US been on such a total war footing (with the possible exception of wars fought on US soil, but it's difficult to make a comparison there).

Quite right. World War Two is the only "Total War" in history. The definition of a "Total War" is that every aspect of society is directed towards the war effort. In a Total War scenario "budget" and "funds" are actually irrelevant. The only limitation on what you can do is your raw materials and manpower.

If we look at the area of Fighter Aircraft, the US alone developed and put into production 10 different fighters between 1939 and 1945.

In contrast, the US has only developed and put into production 6 Fighter Aircraft in the last 35 years, with a 7th, the F-35 Lightning II, set to enter service in 2011, which will mean only 7 aircraft in the fighter role in 40 years.

-Gumboot

ETA. Actually scratch that, I included the Harrier which A) Was not developed by the USA and B) is not used by the USA as a fighter. So it's only 6 aircraft in 41 years (maiden flight of F-14 1970 to F-35 becoming operational 2011). The Six aircraft are the F-14, F-15, F-16, F-18, F-22, and F-35.

 

[Pardalis]

And on 9/11, the following secret phone conversation took place:

CHENEY: When are we going to do that New Pearl Harbor thing, Rummy?!?

RUMSFELD: Hmmm...um...what? What squirrel arbor thing?

CHENEY: Dammit, Rummy, stop playing Solitaire on your computer and pay attention!

RUMSFELD: Okay, okay...what was that about squirrels?

CHENEY: Not squirrels, idiot! Pearl Harbor!

RUMSFELD: What about it?

CHENEY: Remember...? The PNAC? The 'New Pearl Harbor'? You said months ago you were going to 'get right on it'!

RUMSFELD: Oh, that. Can't I do it tomorrow?

CHENEY: NO, we can't....

AIDE (interrupting): Mr. Vice President, sir! We've been attacked by terrorists!

RUMSFELD: What's going on?

CHENEY: Ummm....never mind, Rummy. Problem solved. <click>

RUMSFELD: Cool beans! (pause) Now where's the other black queen...?

Condoleeza walks in the room.

 

[sleahead]

I have nowhere stated that PNAC where relying on a catastrophic and catalysing event; so why do you impute this to me? Is it deceit or ineptness; it must be one or the other.

Well, in you OP you did state this:

.......anyone who has read the PNAC document will be familiar with the processes that are happening right now, because they are, to a great degree, what was called for by the document. Except now, they are being pursued, not under the banner of “Rebuilding America’s Defenses”, but rather the WoT”. In short, these 2 are essentially the same thing.

Coincidence? No. All design and no luck; that is almost certain

........

The WoT arose through 9/11. If you consider this 'all design and no luck', then you must believe 9/11 was an integral part of the the PNAC plan. However, in subsequent posts you have use the word 'propitious' rather than than linking 9/11 to the PNAC plan in the manner you did in the OP.

 

[mjd1982]

Oh boy.

Now look. I posted very clearly in #416 and #419, crystalising the arguments about 1) How 9/11 is a new PH, and 2) Why according to RAD, a new PH would be propitious to policy. I asked for responses. I have had none, none that address the points.

So I will post them again. Anyone who is interested in arguing this point, please refer to them- click the reply button, and go through them. To recap the former:

PH had many characteristics. It wasnt just the fact that it was one nation attacking another; it was done by Japanese, it was done on a fleet, it was done by air etc etc.

The question is, which of these many characteristics are pertinent to the analogy between 9/11 and PH. The answer is very simple, since it is given in the doc: #1 catastrophic, #2 catalysing(militarily).

Indeed, strictly speaking, to say that what they were talking about was a new PH, is not completely accurate, since the term "new PH" is used in a comparative clause. The direct clause is "a catastrophic and catalysing event".

Hence the analogy between 911 and PH is valid, and to dispute such would be brainless.

I think this is quite simple.

**********

And the latter:

the aim of this section is, as has been stated many times, simply to show that a new PH was propitious to policy for PNAC/The Bush Admin. One person has admitted so, but that is all so far.

But after that, the question is, did they want the transformation to happen over decades, or over mths/years. I think that ordinarily would be obvious, but we can argue it here on the basis that:
a) The aim of PNAC is to militraily create a platform that will project US hegemony and make the 21st Century the American Century. Thus, it is logical that they would want this platform to be created soon, so they could actively project US hegemony and create an American 21st Century, rather than wait, have it potentially jeopardised by other elements.
b) The fact that the QDR was in Oct 2001, and the elements upon which it was to be based would have to be crystalised in decision makers minds by then; i.e. early, rather than late.
c) A revolutionary change in the geo-political landscape, creating, in the eyes of the authors, stability, peace, security and democracy for the world, is preferable, certainly to power hungry politicians, sooner, rather than later. If anyone is going to argue why this is not the case, I will be very interested to read it.

******

Now PLEASE address these points. Also, the LC guide riposte delivered very early on, has not been touched by any of you "truth seekers". Please don't be evasive. Address the points, and we will all make some progress.

 

[mjd1982]

You mean the natural gas pipeline Unocal were talking about building through Afghanistan to get Caspain Sea gas to Pakistan and India? The plan they were talking about implementing in 1995?

The project that they dropped a decade ago because a number of large Caspain Sea ports were established, India and Pakistan found somewhere else for their gas, and Russia opened up its gas pipe grid to the Caspian Sea states?

That plan?

-Gumboot

Please read the link I kindly found for you. It will help you.

 

[Unsecured Coins]

wow... a 4 year old link that has absolutely nothing to do with "natural gas in Afgahnistan"

 

[mjd1982]

Well, in you OP you did state this:


........

The WoT arose through 9/11. If you consider this 'all design and no luck', then you must believe 9/11 was an integral part of the the PNAC plan. However, in subsequent posts you have use the word 'propitious' rather than than linking 9/11 to the PNAC plan in the manner you did in the OP.

Please show me where I have stated that they were relying on a new PH.

 

[Pardalis]

Hence the analogy between 911 and PH is valid, and to dispute such would be brainless.

I think this is quite simple.

13 pages of thread down the drain...

the aim of this section is, as has been stated many times, simply to show that a new PH was propitious to policy for PNAC/The Bush Admin. One person has admitted so, but that is all so far.

That's because it isn't.

But after that, the question is, did they want the transformation to happen over decades, or over mths/years. I think that ordinarily would be obvious

Obvious to you...

sooner, rather than later

This isn't saying much.

 

[T.A.M.]

mjd:

please refrain from telling people how to respond to you, and what to respond to. Your patronizing, insulting attitude is doing nothing but making you feel better about yourself.

TAM

 

[sleahead]

Please show me where I have stated that they were relying on a new PH.

I did not say you used those particular words.

Please don't be evasive. Address the points, and we will all make some progress.

Your points have been addressed. To suggest otherwise is ridiculous.

 

[DGM]

Can you agree that 9/11 has had no technological effect on the military?