The 9/11 Conspiracy Facts

[Belz...]

do you want me to count in laws too?

Oh, as long as they're cute and single. And nerdy.

 

[Belz...]

I think mjd has shown that...

1. 9/11 served as a new PH in terms of the speed needed to increase the defense budgets and the money spent on R and D. At this point, that does not prove complicity.

2. This is based upon the historical record including the defense budget spending increases by President Bush and the increase spending on the R and D aspect.

How is that "showing" anything ?

I think we can all understand the "speed" as being extremely important to the PNAC plan for transformation.

Not necessarily. I've seen it claimed, but not shown.

Who knows when the next liberal administration might come along and issue forth defense budget cutbacks again. Get the next bj girl boys, we got a Democrat rollin' in!

How is that related to the issue ?

I think its time to move on to the next premise.

I agree.

 

[Belz...]

Hundreds of billions of dollars are spent on defense, intel and diplomacy every year, in significant part to prevent the occurrence of a new PH, or some such event. This is why the chances of such an event occurring, absent government connivance, are so slim- it is indeed a once in a lifetime event.

Just because you spend big dollar on something doesn't mean it's perfect. Since I assume you understand this, let's move on.

Moreover, the chances that such an occurrence should happen in the most timely manner possible for said government

How was that in the timeliest manner possible ? How is killing 3000 people and hurting your economy good ? Tell me, Mjd, how is the US dollar doing, these days ?

given also that , to repeat, they had deemed such an event propitious… the chances of the event having occurred without government connivance are very very small indeed.

Unfortunately, this doesn't change the probabilities at all.

A very plausible sequence would be as follows:

The "plausible" sequence is all speculation. I thought this thread was about 9/11 "facts".

Now, the counter here will predictably be, well, there were problems, intel agencies get loads of warnings every day, this probably represents a minute fragment. This is only true with an ignorance of the facts. These state that George Tenet, the DCI, had described the intel warnings, regarding an upcoming AQ attack on the US/US interests, as “unprecedented”.

Well, I guess that means airliners and skyscrapers have a date.

The second rebuttal is that the warnings were not specific enough. Well, although this will be debated, what is telling, is that nothing was done.

What would YOU do every time you had a vague warning ?

The need for investigating US government complicity, in the light of all this, is clearly a dire one.

Only in your mind, because you have not presented any facts. Only your opinion. This had been the whole gist of the thread. YOUR opinion.

 

[sleahead]

It should also be noted that Bush and his team had been made aware of the urgency of getting AQ as early as November. Fighting terror was, indeed, something which Bush had campaigned on in 2000. The war on Islamic terrorism had been stated explicitly, in light of the USS Cole attack, by Sandy Berger on January 17th 2001. So the threat of Islamic terror was something Bush et al had been well briefed on before taking office, it was an “urgent” issue, a “deadly threat”.

Nice. You have Bush on board with a war on terrorism, but you reject the notion that he was also on board with transformation of the military. When I ask you for evidence that Bush was not on board, you sidestep:

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

.

When I ask you for evidence that the these decision makers were not on board, you do not reply and later have the gall to accuse others of evading and not responding to your points.

So, Bush is sold on the WoT prior to 2001, but to sell him transformation of the military that, according to you, requires a 9/11 event. Excuse me if I don't buy it.

 

[DGM]

OBL was offered to Bush, by the Taliban, in return for dropping of sanctions in February 2001.

According to a reporter at a news conference. How does this prove the offer was legitimate?

 

[JonnyFive]

Show me where i said this please.

Okay:

Think. The chances of a new PH happening, absent gov complicity are remote. It is a once in a lifetime event. The chances of it happening, absent gov complicity, when said gov has, effectively stated its propitiousness only months earlier, is now close to inconceivable. And finally, the chances of all this happening at the most useful time for the gov; not only 9 months in, thus allowing the gov 3 or 7 years to pursue the policy said PH was going to catalyse; but also, as the document states quite clearly, it happens crucially just before the 2001 QDR, a crucial moment since it is when the new president makes the choice of whether to “increase military spending to preserve American geopolitical leadership, or (to) pull back from the security commitments that are the measure of America’s position as the world’s sole superpower and the final guarantee of security, democratic freedoms and individual political rights.” In short, everything that neo-conservative policy stands for. The chances of this all being a coincidence, though existing, are almost too small to be taken seriously. Hence, the chances of 9/11 having happened absent government complicity, are equally almost too small to be taken seriously. So already we have built a pretty robust case for the goal of the Truth Movement. But in any case, take such chances seriously we shall, and we shall have a look at the rest of the evidence.

By the way, thanks for kind of moving on. Back to lurky mode.

 

[mortimer]

Hundreds of billions of dollars are spent on defense, intel and diplomacy every year, in significant part to prevent the occurrence of a new PH, or some such event. This is why the chances of such an event occurring, absent government connivance, are so slim- it is indeed a once in a lifetime event.

This is an interesting way to start off phase 2. First, you'll need to show evidence that hundreds of billions of dollars are spent each year in significant part to make sure we are not the victims of a sneak attack.

Second, and more importantly, you'll need to show that a PH-type event is more unlikely without government involvement. How many PH-type events has the United States seen in it's 230 year lifetime? How many involved government connivance? Answer those two, along with how you came up with those numbers, and you might get me to read past this part of your post.

 

[Furcifer]

And where is the conjecture? For as you must be aware, stating that something is likely is not conjecture

Is this still eligible for a Stundie?

 

[HeyLeroy]

I've been gone since Friday, probably a hundred-some posts ago. Instead of going back over those posts, can someone bring me up to speed?

Are we yet to the point where mjd1982 is arguing that since three firefighters said on some YouTube video that 7WTC 'was gonna explode', and how "explode" is obviously either synonymous or colloquial for "implode", that 7WTC was clearly collapsed with pre-planted explosives?

How, since we know that explosives, det-cord and non-electric relays cannot survive fires, that obviously means that whoever planted the explosives that brought about 7WTC's collapse knew exactly where the fires were going to spread (oh, and the fires weren't nearly as severe as all those other firefighters claimed, it's as clear as crystal if only you'd look) and exactly where chunks of the falling Tower were going to impact and cause damage (even though 1 & 2WTC weren't CD).

Are we there yet?

 

[Belz...]

I've been gone since Friday, probably a hundred-some posts ago. Instead of going back over those posts, can someone bring me up to speed?

Think dead horse. You get the gist.

 

[~enigma~]

 

[mjd1982]

You don't own this thread, Mjd. The cowardice is on the part of those who refuse to hear those who DO speak out. Like putting people you disagree with on ignore.

I dont own this thread, no, but it is one which has been made for me to put forth my argument. When i do so, people should subsequently respond to that argument. This is what I aks for, and complain about when it doesn happen.

I do not have anyone on "ignore", nor do I know how/why to do this. I cannot answer everyone, tho i make every effort, and so I just answer those posts that seem most serious.

Again, what about the mentioned fact that they actually claim the opposite ?

This has been dealt with time and time and time again. Read through the posts, and you will have your answer.

I don't believe you. If you HAD evidence, you would've presented it before.

We adressed all your points. You just don't like the answers.

Please learnt to dstinguosh between addressing a general argument, and responding to points within that argument. One goes nowhere, and the other creates progress.

No, it's not. You don't understand how this works at all. You think that past history is enough for a conviction. It is not so.

This is not what I am saying. Please read the post to which I was responding.

Your "thus" doesn't necessarily follow, and is as such speculation.

Ok... Not thus "allowing them to achieve the goal", but "thus giving them the best chance of achieving their goal".

And if you wanna dispute this,i sugegst you remind yourself of what goal I am referring to.

 

[Unsecured Coins]

Oh, as long as they're cute and single. And nerdy.

oh... well, how do I break the news to you?

 

[Belz...]

oh... well, how do I break the news to you?

Crap.

 

[mjd1982]

Just because you spend big dollar on something doesn't mean it's perfect. Since I assume you understand this, let's move on.

I never said it was perfect, I just said that the penetration of it was a once in a lifetime occurence.

How was that in the timeliest manner possible ?

Because, as stated, it allowed >3 or >7 yrs for the neo cons to implement and entrench their plan, and it happened before the 2001 QDR, whose content was coloured by it. This has been stated, oh, about 15 times so far.

How is killing 3000 people and hurting your economy good ? Tell me, Mjd, how is the US dollar doing, these days ?

A lot worse than it would be otherwise:
http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/RRiraqWar.html

Unfortunately, this doesn't change the probabilities at all.

Yes it does, because it increases the likelihood of gov connivance, since they had deemed it propitious. This shouldnt be hard to understand.

The "plausible" sequence is all speculation. I thought this thread was about 9/11 "facts".

I am merely stating what a plausible sequence may look like. It is mirrored by the facts later presented.

Well, I guess that means airliners and skyscrapers have a date.

What would YOU do every time you had a vague warning ?

The messages "The match begins tomorrow/Tomorrow wlll be a great day for us" etc etc, when sent on sept 10th, would give a strong indication as to such.

As for vague warnings, Bush was told that there were AQ cells in the country. If I were him, i would have ordered them hunted down. He was also given lots of warnings about hijackings. I would have increased border and airport/airplane security. He was also offered OBL. Unlike him, I would have said "yes", rather than "no".

Only in your mind, because you have not presented any facts. Only your opinion. This had been the whole gist of the thread. YOUR opinion.

Hahaha.... please show me how the long list of facts just presented are not facts. Othrwise, this self deception is getting a tad pathetic.

 

[Belz...]

I dont own this thread, no, but it is one which has been made for me to put forth my argument.

Then what the bleep are you waiting for ?

When i do so, people should subsequently respond to that argument. This is what I aks for, and complain about when it doesn happen.

Please, then. Stop whining, present your WHOLE reasoning and we'll either pick it apart or accept it or portions of it.

I do not have anyone on "ignore", nor do I know how/why to do this.

I stand corrected.

This has been dealt with time and time and time again. Read through the posts, and you will have your answer.

Oh, please. Just a short, one-sentence summary. I'd think that catastrophies are always bad.

Please learnt to dstinguosh between addressing a general argument, and responding to points within that argument. One goes nowhere, and the other creates progress.

That's what I'm saying. You just don't like the answers.

And if you wanna dispute this,i sugegst you remind yourself of what goal I am referring to.

Yeah, sure. Propitious...

So, how's that USD doing, Mjd ??

 

[Unsecured Coins]

blah blah blah

You're asking us to agree with your

interpretation

of a document and that's not going to happen.

try again!

 

[Belz...]

Because, as stated, it allowed >3 or >7 yrs for the neo cons to implement and entrench their plan, and it happened before the 2001 QDR, whose content was coloured by it. This has been stated, oh, about 15 times so far.

I don't think the US are better off than they were in 2001. Economically or otherwise.

Yes it does, because it increases the likelihood of gov connivance, since they had deemed it propitious. This shouldnt be hard to understand.

It's not hard to understand. It's simply false.

I am merely stating what a plausible sequence may look like. It is mirrored by the facts later presented.

That's what I said. It's speculation. Without evidence we can make any "plausible" sequence we want.

The messages "The match begins tomorrow/Tomorrow wlll be a great day for us" etc etc, when sent on sept 10th, would give a strong indication as to such.

And how many of those do you think they get per year ? And how specific was that message ? No one has ever used airliners as missiles. How could you know ?

Hahaha.... please show me how the long list of facts just presented are not facts.

How can I show that something isn't something else ? Why don't YOU show that they ARE facts ?

 

[HeyLeroy]

Think dead horse. You get the gist.

Dang, too bad. I just went back and read 'em.

If I can make a suggestion to all the participants in this thread: to avoid another ~750 posts with our collective foot nailed to the floor, let's cover mjd1982's speculative opinions on the forewarning part and get to 7WTC quickly; you're all in for a treat.

 

[Unsecured Coins]

A lot worse than it would be otherwise:
http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/RRiraqWar.html

oh good grief

[FONT=arial,helvetica][SIZE=+1]Revisited - The Real Reasons for the Upcoming War With Iraq: [/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=arial,helvetica][SIZE=+1]A Macroeconomic and Geostrategic Analysis of the Unspoken Truth [/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=arial,helvetica][SIZE=+1]by William Clark [/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=arial,helvetica]wrc92@aol.com [/FONT][FONT=arial,helvetica]Original Essay January 2003 [/FONT][FONT=arial,helvetica][SIZE=-1]-Revised March 2003 [/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=arial,helvetica][SIZE=-1]-Post-war Commentary January 2004[/SIZE][/FONT]