The 9/11 Conspiracy Facts

[Swing Dangler]

Except that a very significant part of the US military is now engaged in several very expensive missions that are not going to end any time soon. Any numbers on how much the R&D budget has gone up?

Glad you asked!

Since 2001, the Administration has:
*Begun to transform our Nation’s defenses and increased spending by 26 percent, the largest increase in the Defense budget since the Reagan Administration;
*Increased research and development funding by 56 percent
Source: Office of Management and Budget

 

[Unsecured Coins]

If the passport had made it out UNSCATHED I'd be suspect of it. But as you can tell, it was NOT.

might I add... that's not Atta. I was not aware that they had found his passport

 

[DGM]

Since 2001, the Administration has:
Fought the War on Terror on the offensive;
Removed threats to our security in Afghanistan and Iraq liberating nearly 50 million people in these countries;Provided pay raises to our servicemen and women of more than 21 percent and expanded the use of targeted pays and bonuses;Begun to transform our Nation’s defenses and increased spending by 26 percent, the largest increase in the Defense budget since the Reagan Administration;
Launched a transformational and joint training program improving readiness rates;
Increased research and development funding by 56 percent;
Improved the quality of housing for military personnel and their families through privatization and new construction; and
Doubled investments in missile defense systems, deploying the first ever land and sea-based system


Wow I can bold too!

 

[Corsair 115]

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.

The USN aircraft were not really outclassed, depending of course on how one defines the term.

Certainly the TBD Devastator was hopelessly obsolete by the time war broke out, but the Japanese Kate torpedo bomber was only marginally better at best. The big advantage it had were the excellent Japanese torpedoes which allowed the Kate to conduct torpedo attacks at faster speeds and higher altitudes than could the Devastator which was hampered by the poor U.S. torpedoes.

The SBD Dauntless dive bomber stacks up perfectly well against the Val. The latter was more maneuverable but the Dauntless could carry a heavier bombload (and those U.S. 1,000 lb. bombs proved much more effective than the Japanese 551 lb. bombs) and was better protected and armed. Both aircraft could deliver their bombs quite accurately with a proficient pilot at the controls.

In fighters, the Zero had great range and exceptional slow-speed maneuverability. But it was very lightly constructed and could be brought down quickly even with short bursts. The F4F Wildcat, though far less agile, was much better protected, and it could hold its own against the Zero in most cases as long as it was flown with right tactics.

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.

The U.S. also got lucky, since the Enterprise and Lexington were both away when the attack came. The Enterprise was originally expected to be back in port by Dec. 7th, but it encountered delays which meant it didn't arrive until after the attack.

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

Leaving aside variants, I get a count of 12:

P-38 Lightning
P-39 Airacobra
P-63 Kingcobra
P-47 Thunderbolt
P-51 Mustang
P-61 Black Widow
P-80 Shooting Star
P-82 Twin Mustang
F4U Corsair
F6F Hellcat
F7F Tigercat
F8F Bearcat

The F4F Wildcat and P-40 Warhawk miss the cut (the XF4F-2 first flew in Sept. of 1937 while the XP-40 first flew in Oct. of 1938 ).

 

[Gravy]

As far as the passport, I find it highly improbable that a piece of paper (on the hijacker?) survived but the body or relevant parts of the body failed to survive. I'm not an expert, but the last time I checked my body did not burn as quickly as paper nor was the paper stronger than my body.

How do you know that parts of the body didn't survive? Are you assuming that because a passport was found before the collapses, that that person's remains should have also been collected then? I'm not aware of any remains from the planes that were collected prior to the collapses. However, some hijacker remains from the WTC flights were matched with FBI DNA profiles (labeled by number only). There was mail on board flight 11 that survived, as well as other flammable items and personal effects from passengers, and about 45 of the passengers and crew from flights 175 and 11 were identified by remains collected after the collapses. Is there something suspicious about that?

 

[Belz...]

Why do you accept that the passport did survive and was not a piece of planted evidence?

Step 1. Find passport.
Step 2. Assume it's a real passport.
Step 3. Check with experts to know if it could survive the explosion.
Step 4. Get a positive answer.
Step 5. Assume it's a real passport.

 

[Belz...]

How do you know that parts of the body didn't survive? Are you assuming that because a passport was found before the collapses, that that person's remains should have also been collected then? I'm not aware of any remains from the planes that were collected prior to the collapses. However, some hijacker remains from the WTC flights were matched with FBI DNA profiles (labeled by number only). There was mail on board flight 11 that survived, as well as other flammable items and personal effects from passengers, and about 45 of the passengers and crew from flights 175 and 11 were identified by remains collected after the collapses. Is there something suspicious about that?

Weren't several body parts found at the top of the nearby buildings ?

 

[gumboot]

Weren't several body parts found at the top of the nearby buildings ?

The body parts found on the roof of 130 Liberty Street were from AA11 weren't they?

-Gumboot

 

[WildCat]

In fighters, the Zero had great range and exceptional slow-speed maneuverability. But it was very lightly constructed and could be brought down quickly even with short bursts. The F4F Wildcat, though far less agile, was much better protected, and it could hold its own against the Zero in most cases as long as it was flown with right tactics.

And, of course, the F6F Hellcat and later variants were more than a match for the Zero and later variants (such as the Zeke).

But you have to love the name Wildcat!

 

[H'ethetheth]

Glad you asked!

Since 2001, the Administration has:
*Begun to transform our Nation’s defenses and increased spending by 26 percent, the largest increase in the Defense budget since the Reagan Administration;
*Increased research and development funding by 56 percent
Source: Office of Management and Budget

Thanks!

 

[mjd1982]

You are a truly inept liar, and the biggest backpedaler that I've ever seen on this forum.

mjd1982:



Gravy, in Loose Change Viewer Guide:
mjd1982:


Gravy:


mjd1982:

Listen- you might want to improve your reading comprehension skills beyond that of a 9 year old before you start accusing people of things that evidently go miles over your head.

To state that some people need something in order to catalyse certain things, is different from stating that same people are relying on something full stop.

This is pretty elementary, so please think before you post next time; otherwise you just waste everyone's time.

Oh, and while you're thnking, I assume you have taken down that tripe of a critique that has been dismantled here for all to see? I notice you have stayed clear of that. Are you being evasive, or just worried that when your primitive interpretation skills are showed up that no one will have any time for you any more?

 

[mjd1982]

How do you know that parts of the body didn't survive? Are you assuming that because a passport was found before the collapses, that that person's remains should have also been collected then? I'm not aware of any remains from the planes that were collected prior to the collapses. However, some hijacker remains from the WTC flights were matched with FBI DNA profiles (labeled by number only). There was mail on board flight 11 that survived, as well as other flammable items and personal effects from passengers, and about 45 of the passengers and crew from flights 175 and 11 were identified by remains collected after the collapses. Is there something suspicious about that?

Ha! I love this. So you are happy to talk about hijackers passports, but when it comes to my points, you wanna run and hide? What a pathetic, ignorant, and suitable face for the OT movement you are.

Address the points or concede them- I take it you have the capacoty to understand this?

 

[mjd1982]

I,m wondering what happened next, too. This is the crucial area for you mjd, for your point to be made. Where is that bridge? Since PNAC, as you say is the master design, and 9/11 was the execution of said plan. What happened to move this from the PNAC plan to 9/11?

Thank you for asking. The point of this section is to illustrate that a catastrophic and catalysing event was indeed propitious to policy in their eyes. You will have to excuse me for waiting; the reason why I do so is because since this is a pretty large group discussion, I am waiting either for assent from at least some of the members; or a direct, reasoned refutation from others. I have had a few (presumably sincere) of the former, and maybe one of the latter. My post was #419, so we have had ~100 posts of hot air. I want to avoid this, because when we get onto latter stages upon which my point here is based, people will just say, no no no, they never believed it was propitious to policy.

So, as far as is possible, I want to have this out here. Then we can go on.

ps- I will address those who have been kind enough to touch upon my point in a sec.

 

[mjd1982]

Actually he said it was retarded. I guess you missed that

The Alamo was the same type of event. So, are we going to call it the NA as well?

I dont know what the NA is, but nor do I see what point you are making. Yes, there have been other catastrophic and catalysing events in history; such an event does not mean that it must have been an "inside job". I am not stating that 911 was a catastrophic and catalysing event, therefore it was an inside job, I am stating that it was deemed propitious to policy by PNAC in RAD. I have underlined this many many time on this thread so far; it is quite astonishing how people have failed to grasp it.

We've had that for the past 60 years and even more so since 1991. So what's going to change? So the most powerful nation in the world is supposed to become the mostest powerfullest nation in the world?

Well you see, there you are arguing with the import of the doc, not any point I am making. Please read the doc.

So Iraq and Afghanistan are supposed to be this revolutionary change? How does this compare to the changes that occurred after the fall of the USSR?

No, they are one fraction of it. Please go and read my evisceration of Gravy's LC critique on ~p3 to find out more.

 

[mjd1982]

Actually, reading that passage again, it kinda sounds as if they don't want a new Pearl Harbour, doesn't it?

The paragraphs you quoted there, Mark, seem to be pushing for firm but controlled increases in military spending, and there is the suggestion in that "new Pearl Harbour" adjunct that rapid and sudden upheaval is exactly what the PNAC don't want! I mean, the sentence "Wise management of this process will consist in large measure of figuring out the right moments to halt production of current-paradigm weapons and shift to radically new designs", for one, seems to be asserting the opposite to what my poor unesteemed countryman is trying to claim it is!

But that's by the by. As I said aout 5 pages ago, I'm bored of PNAC. I wan't to get to the good parts. What happened when Bush, Cheney and Wolfowitz sat down and agreed that staging a massivey elaborate false-flag attack was the best way to fulfil their nefarious goals? What happened next?

Oh maaan...

This is a new one. I suggest that you do as I requested- go and read post #419 and that should help you.

 

[Gravy]

It's sad to see someone crack up like this. I'd much rather that they start out raving. Then people would know to steer clear and not attempt to reason with them. It really does make me sad.

 

[mjd1982]

Hey MJD! Take note of the sentence from the PNAC - "Thus, this report advocates a two-stage process of change - transition and transformation - over the coming decades."

Transition, and transformation. That whole "Pearl Harbour" paragraph extolls the virtues of slow and managed change, and seems, to these eyes at least, to NOT want a new Pearl Harbour. It interferes with the entire scope of the project as laid out in that section of the document!

This has been dealt with before.

They are advocating the only thing that they can advocate openly. They have a choice- either state "we advocate a new Pearl Harbour", or what they did state. They are clearly not going to state the former, they are not that stupid; but this does not mean that they have not stated that a catastrophic and catalysing event is not propitious to policy.

If you want to dispute my argument on that, it has been made explicit for you twice now- please refer to it

 

[mjd1982]

Ok good. Please call up Zogby, Scripps Howard and others and tell them that theyre polls are shams.

 

[mjd1982]

You're engaging in some pretty ludicrous circular reasoning here, MJD... first you'd have it that PNAC mentioning "a new Pearl Harbour" shows complicity,

No i dont

then you state that 911 was "propitious to policy" therefore 911 was the "new Pearl Harbour" PNAC supposedly called for,

no...

thus you draw the conclusion that PNAC shows complicity.

and no.

You've ignored all my recent posts, particularly the ones suggesting that the PNAC docment actually suggests the opposite to what you think it does.

Sorry, I thought those were in jest

I'll say it again: the document says that a "new Pearl Harbour" would impede ther plans, not bolster them. Despite the plausible contention that, post hoc, the GOP used the events of 911 in a politically expdient way, the PNAC document, which is at the core of your "argument" here, clearly does not see a new Pearl Harbour as "propitious to policy", as the section in which such an event is (cursorily) mentioned talks quite explicitly at how bad it is to take decisions hastily, and how the PNAC must be implemented sensibly and slowly if it is to be effectve at all.

Please address the posts I have referred to you.

 

[mjd1982]

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!

I suggest you take your quibble up with Cheney, Rummy et al, since they dont/didnt agree with you.