The 9/11 Conspiracy Facts

[Belz...]

That is uncivil, and it is not correct. I appreciate you for stating your assent with my point. I wish that others could be as honest.

I think that Aggle agreed for the sake of argument, but then the concept seems alien to you.

If this were a debate between me and you, I would move on. But it is not; there are about 20 other people here, and so I have to wait for one of 2 things:

This isn't a committee. The text does not say what you claim it says. You cannot proceed.

I find the absence of the former, and certainly the latter, both astonishing and worrying.

There is no need to refute nothingness.

 

[Belz...]

But of course that's the part where they lied... they are not idiot enough to divulge their entire plan.

 

[CurtC]

I appreciate you for stating your assent with my point. I wish that others could be as honest.

Dude, he wasn't agreeing with you - he was just wanting you to get to the next step in your argument, by granting you your point for the sake of argument. It's obvious that you're not going to get any agreement that 9/11 was propitious (and I wish you'd give that word a rest) to the stated goals of PNAC. If you don't move forward, then this thread will be forever stuck on this point. No one here agrees with you, and it's apparent that we never will. Please just make your point already.

 

[DGM]

I propose we agree to disagree on PNAC and move on. Is there any reason why we can't do that? Is the PNAC argument absolutely critical to your case?

 

[mjd1982]

I propose we agree to disagree on PNAC and move on. Is there any reason why we can't do that? Is the PNAC argument absolutely critical to your case?

For the thousandth time- there is nothing wrong with that, please go to post#419/#493 and show me where you disagree!!!

 

[mjd1982]

Dude, he wasn't agreeing with you - he was just wanting you to get to the next step in your argument, by granting you your point for the sake of argument. It's obvious that you're not going to get any agreement that 9/11 was propitious (and I wish you'd give that word a rest) to the stated goals of PNAC. If you don't move forward, then this thread will be forever stuck on this point. No one here agrees with you, and it's apparent that we never will. Please just make your point already.

There is nothing wrong with not agreeing. But if you dont, then please go to the posts where my arguments have been crystalised, as has been asked many many many times, and go through them, and refute them! Its that easy.

Stating "i think you're wrong", or just putting up your own argument, does not address my points.

 

[mjd1982]

mjd1982,

Here are some questions that your theory fails to answer:

How many Osama bin Ladens are there? If there is one, why hasn't the government produced hime before either of the last two elections? If there is two, why hasn't eh real Osama come forward?

If the purpose of the 9/11 attacks was to garner support for a war in Iraq, why were the hijackers from Saudi Arabia? Why did the Bush Admin want to put suspicion onto one of their biggest backers in the region instead of putting it squarely on the head of the country they wished to overthrow?

If the Bush Admin was willing to spend billions of dollars and countless man hours on a hugely difficult and unwieldy plan to attack the WTC, why then did they not fake WMDs in Iraq? Why spend so much money on one side of this plan and yet refuse to spend money on an arabic typewriter and a vial of antrax?

Please tell me what relevance this has to my point here? (dont make me tell you again what this point is...)

 

[JonnyFive]

mjd, I would also like to see this discussion proceed. After all, means+motive+opportunity <> evidence.

So even if PNAC talks about needing a new Pearl Harbor, and 9/11 is fortuitous, and the government could have possibly caused 9/11 to occur/let it occur.

So let's let PNAC lie. If you want to convince us that the government had something to do with 9/11, then you may want to consider presenting some evidence.

Why don't you discuss your list of "warnings" that you claim were ignored? I mentioned that a while back, but you seem to have lost it in the shuffle.

I am interested in your explanation for why those vague "warnings" should have been obvious indicators of the 9/11 attacks, especially given the low signal/noise ratio in the intelligence community, and the fact that most of those things seem significant only when applying post hoc reasoning to them.

Most importantly, it would be nice if you could explain what would convince you that you are incorrect. If you are simply an ideologue trying to convert us, at least be honest about it.

 

[mjd1982]

But they actually state the opposite. Their stated aim is slow and steady change with an emphasis on new technologies. A new PH was described as catastrophic. Nowhere do they state that a new PH would be propitious.

Bravo for (semi) addressing the point, you are now in an elite club. Nonetheless, if you had replied to my point directly, you would have a bit more clarity here, IMO.

Namely, where I state that what is called for is not strictly a new PH, but more a catastrophic and catalysing event. If you are going to state that 9/11was not the sort of event being referenced, then you believe it was either not catastrophic, or not catalysing. Please tell me which it is.

You have said that they would never state that they wanted a new PH and are using the lack of such a statement to somehow prove that a new PH is advantageous for them.

No, I stated that they would not plausibly state outright, i,e in so many words: "We need a new PH, and we need it now!". This is obviously unlikely. The reasons why a such an event is propitious to them has been outlined for you many times; i will do it again:

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.

If you want to contest my argument, please contest this point!

 

[aggle-rithm]

I think that Aggle agreed for the sake of argument, but then the concept seems alien to you.

Yes. I would have said, "This argument is pointless, let's move on to something else", but I knew I would receive a reply like the following:

For the thousandth time- there is nothing wrong with that, please go to post#419/#493 and show me where you disagree!!!

 

[Dave Rogers]

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.

Not a good line of argument. An alternative one would be that they want an appropriate amount of time taken so that the choices of new technologies are well thought through. Rapid responses to immediate threats, historically speaking, tend to produce over-specific remedies - the USS Monitor is a classic example - rather than long term solutions designed to be useful in a wide range of applications. In fact, it has often been argued that it was the short term focus of the reaction to 9/11 that has left the US embroiled in two complex and messy ground wars that have actually diverted attention away from the very innovations that PNAC wnated to highlight.

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.

Again, not a strong case, because the PNAC wanted to propose long term high-technology changes to US defence policy, and pre-empting the QDR with a low-technology attack would clearly work against this agenda.

c) The fact that a (+ve) revolutionary change in the geo-political landscape is preferable to power hungry politicians soon, rather than later. I do realise that chimps wil cry "That's not in the doc", but I think that it is pretty much common sense.

That seems quite at variance with the whole tone of the document. It is, after all, the Project for the New American Century, by its nature a long term plan, and your assertion that the planning was characterised by short termism is not just not in the document but in disagreement with its entire philosophy.

Therefore, I disagree on these grounds with your assertion that 9/11 was a propitious event.

Dave

 

[volatile]

If you want to contest my argument, please contest this point!

What the hell is your argument? We're *still* going round in circles. Should I state this again, in very clear language? You think 911 was useful for PNAC, we all don't. Let's say you're right, though, just for the sake of argument.

So what? Move your argument on a notch, as you've repeatedly been asked to do, or move the hell out.

 

[mjd1982]

Ok, we'll try this again.

Thank you!!!

We have the 2nd person in ~200 posts who has decided to directly contest the points. Well done to you! And I do mean that sincerely. Thank you.

We can now debate this point; others are free to join as they want.

That whole thing is blatantly false. The "new PH" is simply a surprise military attack by a technologically Superior force. The is shown it the following passage from PNAC:


Just because 9/11 was a "catastrophic and catalysing event," doesn't mean that it is what the PNAC was referring to.

No, to equate the two is brainless.

Ok. So we have it. 9/11 was a catastrophic and catalysing event. PNAC state that the transformation will be slow absent a catastrophic and catalysing event. So please tell me how PNAC were not referring to that.

False. The aim of the PNAC is to insure our technological advantage over every other military force to keep the US hegemony as it is throughout the 21st century and beyond.

And how does fighting multiple theatre wars; performing constabulary duties, restoring personnel strength, repositioning US forces (all of which are key requirements/aims according to the doc) have anything to do with technological advantage?

False. The PNAC's vision did not include the WOT. A paradigm shift needed to occur to fight a stateless war.

Please read to find out the similarity between PNAC's vision and the WOT, although this is not hugely relevant.

Again. Another baseless statement trying to provide some sort of link between the PNAC and 9/11.

Please tell me how this is baseless

 

[mjd1982]

Yes. I would have said, "This argument is pointless, let's move on to something else", but I knew I would receive a reply like the following:

and why cant u do that?

 

[aggle-rithm]

Dude, he wasn't agreeing with you - he was just wanting you to get to the next step in your argument, by granting you your point for the sake of argument. It's obvious that you're not going to get any agreement that 9/11 was propitious (and I wish you'd give that word a rest) to the stated goals of PNAC. If you don't move forward, then this thread will be forever stuck on this point. No one here agrees with you, and it's apparent that we never will. Please just make your point already.

One of the first traits that I noticed about conspiracy theorists was the contortions they would go through to insinuate wildly without making any actual claims. That way, if someone points out the absurdity of their position, they can rightly say, "I never said that!"

Correct, because the smart ones never say ANYTHING of substance. Not directly, anyway. That's why I consider them to be intellectual cowards.

 

[stateofgrace]

Bravo for (semi) addressing the point, you are now in an elite club. Nonetheless, if you had replied to my point directly, you would have a bit more clarity here, IMO.

Namely, where I state that what is called for is not strictly a new PH, but more a catastrophic and catalysing event. If you are going to state that 9/11was not the sort of event being referenced, then you believe it was either not catastrophic, or not catalysing. Please tell me which it is.



No, I stated that they would not plausibly state outright, i,e in so many words: "We need a new PH, and we need it now!". This is obviously unlikely. The reasons why a such an event is propitious to them has been outlined for you many times; i will do it again:



If you want to contest my argument, please contest this point!

Your argument has been contested for the last 15 pages; you have failed to read the answers.

Now move on, this is so boring it is bordering on suicidal. Will you move on from the PNAC document and tell us all how this then translates into an inside job.

GET ON WITH IT.

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

<snip>
Ok. So we have it. 9/11 was a catastrophic and catalysing event. PNAC state that the transformation will be slow absent a catastrophic and catalysing event. So please tell me how PNAC were not referring to that.
<snip>

Affirming the consequent logical fallacy.

 

[T.A.M.]

Good luck guys...see you on the other side.

TAM

 

[CurtC]

For the thousandth time- there is nothing wrong with that, please go to post#419/#493 and show me where you disagree!!!

9/11 might have been both catastrophic and catalyzing, but not catalyzing in a way that would further the PNAC agenda. It was catalyzing in a way that gave the Bush administration much latitude to conduct a ground war against an ill-defined enemy. It did not give the military the authority to invest in new weapons programs and make other investments that would push us to global superpower forever status. That's a big difference. The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are the worst nightmares of the people who drafted the PNAC document.

 

[mjd1982]

Thank you Dave. I do appreciate the response. Now...

Not a good line of argument. An alternative one would be that they want an appropriate amount of time taken so that the choices of new technologies are well thought through.

Ok, but the new technologies, which is just one part of the transformation, have been thought through, at great length. They are one of the results of the work that has gone into putting the doc together.

Rapid responses to immediate threats, historically speaking, tend to produce over-specific remedies - the USS Monitor is a classic example - rather than long term solutions designed to be useful in a wide range of applications. In fact, it has often been argued that it was the short term focus of the reaction to 9/11 that has left the US embroiled in two complex and messy ground wars that have actually diverted attention away from the very innovations that PNAC wnated to highlight.

Firstly, please go here:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=84473&page=3
to find out how the changes that PNAC envisaged are, almost completely, what is being pursued under the aegis of the WOT.

Secondly, as stated above, the response was not rapid in the sense that you imply- the actions had been well thought out, as per the doc. They are intended to be long term solutions. And, they are completely unrelated to the attack, and thus the "threat" supposedly revealed by 9/11. How will militarising space stop terrorism? Again, please read the link I have given you for more on the WOT.

Again, not a strong case, because the PNAC wanted to propose long term high-technology changes to US defence policy, and pre-empting the QDR with a low-technology attack would clearly work against this agenda.

It was a low-tech attack,but as I have stated, the military changes that have been pursued under the aegis of the WOT have had nothing to do with the type of attacks that occurred on 9/11. This does, incidentally, underline even more the staged nature of the attack, since the response to it has had very little to do with it (the invasion of Iraq being just 1 example of such)

That seems quite at variance with the whole tone of the document. It is, after all, the Project for the New American Century, by its nature a long term plan, and your assertion that the planning was characterised by short termism is not just not in the document but in disagreement with its entire philosophy.

I do not state that this was a short term plan; rather that it was one that they would sensibly have wished to get underwayquickly in order to create a platform (control of space/cyberspace/strategic resources etc) to best ensure the projection of US hegemony throughout the 21st century, thus ensuring that it would be an american century, as they desire.

Therefore, I disagree on these grounds with your assertion that 9/11 was a propitious event.

Dave

Well, thank you for addressing the points. I would be interested to hear your thoughts on my response.