The 9/11 Conspiracy Facts

[mjd1982]

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.

(Sorry, I have now decided to go through even those who havent addressed my points, since this is not too hard.)

To repeat myself, this has been addressed, but it is not strictly speaking a new PH that was called for, rather a catastrophic and catalysing event. PH was the comparative clause.

Your point is therefore, that 911 was either not catastrophic, or not catalysing. Please tell me which.

 

[mjd1982]

That is a point of execution, rather than design.

 

[mjd1982]

This same quote could have been made after the civil war.



Advancement in military technology has been going on as long as there has been armys. How does this mean that it had to happen right away.

Please refer to the post(s) I have referred you to. All is revealed there.

 

[mjd1982]

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.

Hahaha... oh Gravy. Was expecting so much more from you.

Never mind. I suggest you sit this one out.

 

[Gravy]

mjd, in your posts 538 and 542, I think you omitted the quotes that you're responding to. We do sometimes see people who converse with themselves here, but I'm guessing that's not your intent.

 

[Mancman]

Not the individual. Sorry for the confusion.
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.

Last time I checked my body does not burn as quickly as an aircraft seat, and nor is an aircraft seat stronger than my body.

Yet seats were found lying in the street, ie: http://www.911myths.com/Flight_11_Seat_Cushion_Large.jpg

Is the seat planted?

 

[mjd1982]

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?

That they advocate that is unsurprising, since the alternative would be for them to state "Thus, this report advocates a new Pearl Harbor- as soon as possible." This is clearly not going to happen; yet this does not mean that what is stated in the text is not stated. If you want to challenge this, please refer to the posts where these arguments are crystallised.

 

[mjd1982]

We already had this. So how would a new PH make things different?

It would, in the eyes of PNAC, speed things up.

So you are saying that the WOT/PNAC is somehow linked to this, yet provide no proof of this.

Well yes, it is the WOT. Again please read my riposte to the LC guide on p3 (?). Proof has been provided more than adequately.

The only thing the new PH would do, according to the PNAC, would help speed up military R&D. It has nothing to do with your point c).

That is just not true. Again see above to find out what is correct.

 

[Gravy]

That they advocate that is unsurprising, since the alternative would be for them to state "Thus, this report advocates a new Pearl Harbor- as soon as possible."

mjd1982:

It is stating that we need a new PH- a mass terror attack on US soil, ingrained on the public’s consciousness- in order to catalyse hegemonic aims. Not that we need to prevent a new PH ever happening- this is in fact the opposite of what is said.

Gravy, in Loose Change Viewer Guide:

Is it plausible that these "conspirators" would publicly announce a plan to kill thousands of Americans?

mjd1982:

This is pretty silly. The idea that "they wouldnt say it, so they didnt say it". is pretty worthless in discussion- it is there in black and white.

Gravy:

By gosh, you're absolutely right: in 2000 prominent neocons published their plan to kill thousands of Americans in a Pearl Harbor-like attack! I don't know how I could have missed it!

mjd1982:

Oh, sorry, hahaha, yep there it is.

 

[mjd1982]

Such a definition is far too broad, and would include almost all major military operations.

Well, we are permitted a degree of context. Someone's relative dying can be catastrophic and catalysing too; this is clearly not the point. The level of catastrophe can be deemed from the number of deaths- ~2000 americans in PH, ~3000 in 911. This is one example of how they are differentiated. Again, the notion of infamy applied to the catastrophic nature of PH can also be applied to 911. And so on.

Just in case Mjd is ignoring me, could someone quote this back to him:

I've only admitted that, by your own logic, yes, it was beneficial to that policy. Of course, that policy is a strawman, as I've tried to show you. Please remove me from your list of persons that have admitted anything.

So you've admitted it, but dont want me to say that you have admitted it? You feel insecure?

 

[volatile]

This has been dealt with before.

They are advocating the only thing that they can advocate openly.

This, young man, is why your batty ideas are called a "conspiracy theory". Because you read the words that are written, accept they mean exactly the opposite to what you want them to, and then draw the conclusion that because it's opposite, there is evidence of complicity behind the scenes. Are you mental?

Can't you see that they "openly advocate" transition and change, and trying to claim that the document "advocates" anything else is just a product of your fantasist mind.

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.

You have a languages degree, right? Me too. So close reading is something you've certainly been trained to do. Read that paragraph. It says, right there in black and white, that the PNAC is a project of firm but steady change, and that snap decisions are bad decisions (see: JSF). The very small sentence clase, "like a new Pearl Harbor" is in the middle of a paragraph discussing exactly how bad rapid change can be.

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

I have done.

 

[Gravy]

There, there, mjd. You are becoming increasingly less rational.

The bad men with the plan to attack America were with al Qaeda, not the PNAC. And you know what? They carried their plan out.

There, there.

 

[volatile]

Still, can't you tell us what happens next, MjD? You're ever so coy!

 

[MortFurd]

Errr.... werent you told to sit this one out?

I'm pretty sure there's a kiddies table somewhere here- go there.

He might join you there, and explain in small words and simple sentences just where you've gone wrong.

Me, I'll just tell you straight up:
I've read the sections of the PNAC document you keep referring to. It takes a monstrous unhealthy amount of paranoia to read into it that the PNAC is planning a new Pearl Harbor.

 

[SpitfireIX]

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!

I'm rather partial to "Spitfire" myself.

 

[SpitfireIX]

. . . What a pathetic, ignorant, and suitable face for the OT movement you are. . . .

Ook! Ook! Ook! Eee! Eee! Eee!

 

[Belz...]

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.

What about when we said it was the opposite ?

That they advocate that is unsurprising, since the alternative would be for them to state "Thus, this report advocates a new Pearl Harbor- as soon as possible." This is clearly not going to happen

Why is it so clear, since you've already stated how stupid these people are ?

So you've admitted it, but dont want me to say that you have admitted it? You feel insecure?

Ah! Then I'll just chalk it up as you not understanding what other people write. It was right there. Here, let me help you:

I've only admitted that, by your own logic, yes, it was beneficial to that policy. Of course, that policy is a strawman, as I've tried to show you. Please remove me from your list of persons that have admitted anything.

There. I agreed that something would be true if another thing was; but that other thing isn't, so it clearly doesn't support you. Do you understand this ?

 

[T.A.M.]

Swing:

I guess, wrt to the individual story versus the passport, I was trying to assertain if you believed the planes hit the towers or not. Clearly you believe the planes hit, if you believe his story, but you do not believe it was 19 arabs.

As for the passport issue, I agree that it is freakish, to a degree, that the passport survived. However, I am sure if we had a look at all of the things that survived from the crash/collapse, you would be astounded at what did, freakishly survive, and what didnt. It doesnt bother me, because things like that happen all the time.

For instance, how do you know that with in the first milliseconds of the plane entering the building, that the plane, being ripped appart, did not result in the hijacker's body being tossed into an area of the building not exposed to extreme fire, or perhaps just his luggage up in his carry on area was thrown there...who knows...there are so many variables, it is impossible to say. Seems to me, if they wanted to plant evidence, they could have planted more, and more damning evidence...like why not plant, at GZ, a mildly singed map of the 767 cockpit, or a last will and testiment from one of them.

Unusual...perhaps. Damning evidence...far from it.

TAM

Edit: As for luck, I believe that certain things that happen, coincidences, can result in a lucky circumstance or "luck" for someone, for an individual, but I do not believe in certain people being "lucky".

TAM

 

[WildCat]

so we have had ~100 posts of hot air.

112 at the moment.

 

[JonnyFive]

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.

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?

mjd, I understand that this is getting heated for you, but this subforum is under stricter moderation standards than the rest of the JREF forum. Please refrain from using such blatantly uncivil personal attacks in the future or I or someone else here will report your posts for violation of said rules.

If you really believe you have a strong case, then you do not need to resort to juvenile sniping like this. That is not acceptable conduct here, for either "debunkers" or "truthers." Make your arguments using logic and facts, and don't resort to petty insults simply because other people aren't agreeing with you.