The 9/11 Conspiracy Facts

[T.A.M.]

No, unfortunately, like most kookites, he will likely only claim MSM is correct, when it suits his arguement, kind of the same way they treat the NIST Reports.

TAM

Please attack the argument and not the person.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: jmercer

 

[MIKILLINI]

So far no evidence to prove intent, mjd, you are lining up a plausible scenario for a PH/911 event based on a noted exception from a long term planned document.
In order to move this forward, there has to be intent shown. A catastrophic and catalyzing event such as 9/11 does not bridge the gap to a noted exception in a document who's real stated goal is for the long term. The blueprint has no policy for a catastrophic event, only that the noted exception would cause the plan to be altered. Time and events after 9/11 showed the intent of the wot, not PNAC.

 

[aggle-rithm]

I have yet to hear anything that even comes close to supporting this extremely bold statement from the OP:

...there is only one conclusion that a rational mind will come to, and it is that of the “Truth Movement”...

Besides the fact that the "Truth Movement" has come to no conclusions of which I am aware, I just don't see any of his points leading to such a "slam-dunk" resolution to the argument.

 

[WildCat]

Besides the fact that the "Truth Movement" has come to no conclusions of which I am aware.

If you laid all troofers end to end, they still wouldn't reach a conclusion.

It's true!

 

[PhantomWolf]

4. Of course there was the attack on the Cole, which was not acted upon at all; no War on Terror from that; just a promise from Bush to “strengthen missile defenses” to protect US troops.

Huh? You do know that Clinton was President when the USS Cole was attacked?

 

[MIKILLINI]

If you laid all troofers end to end, they still wouldn't reach a conclusion.

It's true!

Actually they come to all kinds of conclusions, it's just an accurate one they can't reach.

 

[aggle-rithm]

Huh? You do know that Clinton was President when the USS Cole was attacked?

That reminds me of the troofer who linked to articles about a high-ranking official who shared his views. Supposedly, he was head of the "Star Wars" defense system when Ford was president. This was not only long before the Strategic Defense Initiative came into existence, but before the movie "Star Wars" came out.

 

[aggle-rithm]

Actually they come to all kinds of conclusions, it's just an accurate one they can't reach.

1. Suspicious stuff
2. ?
3. Silverstein's a Joooo!
4. ?
5. INSIDE JOB!LOL!

 

[mjd1982]

I'm confused, I thought the Mainstream Media were evil propaganda tools of the NWO Illuminati mason crocodile people... or whatever...

Now we're meant to take the word of a news anchor at face value?

-Gumboot

The MSM is systematically servile to powerful interests; but this is neither here nor there. If this is the case, then this report is all the more exatrordinary for it; nothing more. If not, then it also still stands.

Please tell me why you disbelieve the report, oh you seeker of truth?

 

[mjd1982]

wait, back this bus up a second. If they really did offer to hand him over, why would them not actually doing it suddenly turn the offer into one big irrelevance fest?

And what makes this "irrelevant" now?


No you have not.

You, unsurprisingly, miss the point. It matters not whether they were being serious or not (you have to prove that they were being deceitful); the point is that nothing was done to accept the offer. Thus, the offer of OBL on a plate in Feb 2001 was, either explicitly or tacitly, rejected. by the neo cons.

 

[mjd1982]

So the government decides that they (Taliban) don't have the capability so this makes them guilty of doing nothing. I understand.

Please show me where they decided this.

When you fail, please tell me why you have made this assertion, if you are indeed respectful of truth and facts.

 

[Augustine]

I would suggest studying military history and strategic studies.

9/11 was not a "catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor" as it is used in the context of Rebuilding America's Defenses.

First, Pearl Harbor was militarily catastrophic - the destruction of the U.S. battleship fleet. This led to a transformation out of necessity of U.S. naval tactics which emphasized the aircraft carrier and the submarine - a revolution at the time, and their predominance has continued to this day. 9/11, although certainly catastrophic in terms of loss of life or economic impact, has had zero effect on military tactics, doctrine, organization or strategic thought. All the elements of defense transformation would have occurred absent 9/11 - and in fact were occurring. Shinseki began the transformation of the Army in 1999. This was on the tail of Lind's "Fourth Generation Warfare" concept coming out in 1989, the "Revolution in Military Affairs" concept evolving in the early 1990's, the focus on information operations, cyberspace, etc. dating from the mid-1990's. Do your research.

Second, Pearl Harbor mobilized the industrial base of the United States to support the war effort in WWII - not merely mobilized the political will of the people. The argument that 9/11 similarly mobilized the industrial base is a weak one - I do not think you can find a concrete fact to support that claim. The vast majority of Americans live their lives untouched by the efforts of their military in the GWOT; the same can not be said of Americans during WWII. (Discussions of mobilizing the industrial base were big during the Soviet era, quieted down slightly at the end of the Cold War, and now crop up occasionally in discussions about China.)

Pearl Harbor was an event that drove military transformation due to the catastrophic effect it had on naval forces, and to the mobilizing effect it had on the industrial base to contribute to the war effort. That is what the PNAC document was referring to. 9/11, on the other hand, has not driven military transformation at all (read strategic documents from early 1990's to 1999), and has not mobilized the U.S. industrial base in a manner similar to WWII.

 

[mjd1982]

No no, he actually answered your question. You see, if a government attacks their own country, it's easier to overcome the defenses because they're in charge of them. It's the path of least resistance and must therefore have happened


...apparently.

It is the path of least resistance, I didnt say that it must therefore have happened. Why did you impute that comment to me?

 

[mjd1982]

So are MSNBC and other MSM sources valid on all occasions, or just when it fits you? Just curious, because I am sure, if you are willing to give MSNBC and CNN as VALID sources, the people here can start bringing out alot of evidence that you may not like.

TAM

If what they have said can be discredited, then fine. If not, then it must be viewed with the qualification that mass media is systematically servile to power. This does not make what they say untrue ipso facto, but it should colour our interpretation, and catalyse further investigation.

If you want to know more about how the MSM functions this way, here are some things you can do:

Read:

Manufacturing Consent (Chomsky/Ed Herman)
Propaganda (Edward Bernays)
http://www.historyisaweapon.com/defcon1/bernprop.html#SECTION1
Public Opinion (Waltr Lippman)
http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/etext04/pbpnn10.txt

Watch:
Manufacturing Consent
http://video.google.com/videoplay?d...103&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0
Andrew Marr (BBC political editor) interviews Chomsky
http://youtube.com/watch?v=pkKsaRXrvSo

I have also posted about this in relation to 9/11:
http://screwloosechange.xbehome.com/index.php?showtopic=1854&st=0

 

[stateofgrace]

You, unsurprisingly, miss the point. It matters not whether they were being serious or not (you have to prove that they were being deceitful); the point is that nothing was done to accept the offer. Thus, the offer of OBL on a plate in Feb 2001 was, either explicitly or tacitly, rejected. by the neo cons.

I would like you to be more specific with this.

!. Who brokered this offer?
2 When was it brokered?
3. What conditions were attached to this offer?
4. What was the precise reason it was turned down.

By implication you are saying that UBL was not taken into custody in preparation for 911, that being an orchestrated conspiracy was being played out in front of the world in Feb 2001.

Please link your sources, as I would like to read up on this and be very specific with your answers

 

[Pardalis]

I would suggest studying military history and strategic studies.

9/11 was not a "catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor" as it is used in the context of Rebuilding America's Defenses.

First, Pearl Harbor was militarily catastrophic - the destruction of the U.S. battleship fleet. This led to a transformation out of necessity of U.S. naval tactics which emphasized the aircraft carrier and the submarine - a revolution at the time, and their predominance has continued to this day. 9/11, although certainly catastrophic in terms of loss of life or economic impact, has had zero effect on military tactics, doctrine, organization or strategic thought. All the elements of defense transformation would have occurred absent 9/11 - and in fact were occurring. Shinseki began the transformation of the Army in 1999. This was on the tail of Lind's "Fourth Generation Warfare" concept coming out in 1989, the "Revolution in Military Affairs" concept evolving in the early 1990's, the focus on information operations, cyberspace, etc. dating from the mid-1990's. Do your research.

Second, Pearl Harbor mobilized the industrial base of the United States to support the war effort in WWII - not merely mobilized the political will of the people. The argument that 9/11 similarly mobilized the industrial base is a weak one - I do not think you can find a concrete fact to support that claim. The vast majority of Americans live their lives untouched by the efforts of their military in the GWOT; the same can not be said of Americans during WWII. (Discussions of mobilizing the industrial base were big during the Soviet era, quieted down slightly at the end of the Cold War, and now crop up occasionally in discussions about China.)

Pearl Harbor was an event that drove military transformation due to the catastrophic effect it had on naval forces, and to the mobilizing effect it had on the industrial base to contribute to the war effort. That is what the PNAC document was referring to. 9/11, on the other hand, has not driven military transformation at all (read strategic documents from early 1990's to 1999), and has not mobilized the U.S. industrial base in a manner similar to WWII.

Great post.

Unfortunately mjd1982 is not going to read it.

 

[Hokulele]

If what they have said can be discredited, then fine. If not, then it must be viewed with the qualification that mass media is systematically servile to power. This does not make what they say untrue ipso facto, but it should colour our interpretation, and catalyse further investigation.

More assertion, assumption, opinion, and inference. Someone please let me know if any evidence shows up in this thread.

 

[mjd1982]

Perhaps, but this is still speculation. You keep speculating since your first post, here. WHEN are we going to see evidence that supports this speculation ?

I think you are a bit confused. Let me explain:

- I am putting forth concrete facts (e.g. the PNAC doc, the real WOT/RAD, the OBL offer, the warnings to Bush etc). These facts can be deemed evidence.
- I am then interpreting these facts/evidence, very basically, as it is quite simple stuff. This basic interpretation causes the strong probability of government complicity to be evinced.
- We then debate this evidence, with my professed conclusion being that there is sufficient of it to necessitate a new investigation into government complicity, against yours that such interpretation is fallacious.

This is all it is. I think you are getting confused re: speculation vs interpretation. Having argued that a catastrophic and catalysing event was deemed propitious to policy, I am now trying to show, through presentation of elementary facts, and interpretation of them, that warnings of such an event/ways to stop it were put in front of the administration's noses, and then ignored to such a dramatic extent that necessitates a new investigation into their complicity.

 

[mjd1982]

So it's not likely to happen, therefore it shouldn't have happened?

What are the odds that the powerball lottery numbers being drawn this weekend would be 4 8 32 47 51 27?

The odds are 1 in 146,107,962...and yet...it happened. A once-in-a-lifetime event, and it happened. Hmm...but with the odds being so slim, using MJD logic, the result would be suspect.

No, the chances of it happening are low, so the chances of it happening are low. You have answered your own question.

 

[mjd1982]

Hahaha... please show me where this is "clearly stated"