The 9/11 Conspiracy Facts

[Pardalis]

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

 

[rwguinn]

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

Set your alarm clock, then--you'd hate to oversleep the latest earth-shattering event because there was no reason to wake you up.

(translation for the reading-impaired: "It ain't gonna happen, at least on the part of the twoowoofers")

 

[DGM]

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.

I don't know why the offer (If any) was not considered. I was simply stating a plausible explanation. There is no proof either way so how is this part of your smoking gun?

 

[mjd1982]

I think that the PNAC --> 9/11 has problems the same way that the lack of WMD in Iraq means no conspiracy.

Well that's good, since I never said PNAC --> 9/11 (if i understand u right)

An evil organization would not have done 9/11 if their goals had been spelled out by PNAC, just as they would have faked WMDs had they faked 9/11.

Sorry, what's your basis for either of these assertions?

People get hung up on the "Pearl Harbor" line, and 9/11 was our generation's Pearl Harbor, but 9/11 was not the Pearl Harbor specified by PNAC.

They didnt specify a new PH strictly, they specified a catastrophic and catalysing event. 911 killed ~3000 people, therefore was catastrophic; it cataysed the WOT, therefore was catalysing. End of.

Intel failures present another issue. We would like to think of our Intel services as an all knowing big brother with the skills of James Bond and super huge resources, but they are not perfect. As good as the NSA is they have orders of magnitude less processing power than google. Are such failures serious? Defintely. Presenting a nefarious reason why these failures happened creates a huge lower bound for the size of the conspiracy.

1stly, the intel failures were 1 of 4 sections I listed. Why do you not address the other 3?

Further, i am simply stating that in light of zero action in face of unprecedented warning, followed by not even a demotion, should necessitate an investigation into complicity, when viewed with the other facts I have presented but people here chose not to discuss seriously.

If you make the conspiracy too small then the intel can get high enough and thwart the conspiracy. If you make it too big it becomes impossible to keep the conspiracy a secret.

I have stated what would need to be done- get a few heads of food chains in line, and then stifle action from the top down. People will get frustrated, threaten to quit, run round with their hair on fire stating something huge is about to happen, or someone's plotting to fly a plane into the WTC, and nothing will happen, since the people at the top, not necessarily many, know whats going on.

Subsequently, you gag a few people, and those who are in the plot will not squeal, for the very least reason since it would be their ticket to the firing squad.

And of course, to state that no suspects have squealed (yet) therefore theyre all innocent, is not a serious argument.

Pomeroo puts the statistics nicely, so I wont step on his toes with that argument.

I havent seen this.

Consider instead the amount of coordination involved in pulling off such a large conspiracy. Coordination scales exponentially with the size of the conspiracy. How do you perform this balet like plan with perfect precision without any of your preparations becoming known? How do you keep the emails secret, the memos unknown, and the meetings secret? How long does it take to plan out such an attack? Was there a contingent plan had Gore won, given that the planning for such an attack would take so much time? Take pomeroo's math on individuals remaining close lipped on the conspiracy and apply that to every email, phone call and letter involved.

as the above 2

It will take more than intel failures and PNAC o prove 9/11 was LIHOP or MIHOP. I rephrase my problem with your argument:

1 - PNAC
2 - Intel failures
3 - ?
4 - 9/11?!

I am not trying to prove it was an inside job, merely present sufficient evidence to illustarte the necessity of a new investigation into gov complicity. Hence stated intent-> gross criminal negligence in failing to prevent subject of stated intent -> investigation into complicity.

I really dont think this is very controversial.

 

[mjd1982]

MSNBC, one of the largest news organizations in the world, also reported that 19 hijackers did 9/11, without PNAC involvement, and that WTC 7 was brought down without the help of explosives.

I guess we can close the thread now. That was easy.

see above reply to TAM (?)

 

[mjd1982]

So far no evidence to prove intent,

Other than the stated need for such an event to occur...

mjd, you are lining up a plausible scenario for a PH/911 event

No, the point of the plausible scenario was to show what might plausibly happen in, and only in, the case of a conspiracy. And then, that this is precisely what has happened.

based on a noted exception from a long term planned document.

a)How was it an exception
b)The facets of the transformation would be long term; the need to start implementing was clearly stated as immediate.

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.

as above x2

The blueprint has no policy for a catastrophic event, only that the noted exception would cause the plan to be altered.

The plan almost entirely as it was in sept 2000, which shows extraordinary control and execution. The blueprint has no policy for such an event, in that it does not say how such should happen, but it does state its proptiousness in stating that such great, wonderful changes could happen quicker through it.

Time and events after 9/11 showed the intent of the wot, not PNAC.

And both are almost exactly the same. Please see my rbuttal to the LC guide on p3 to find out about this (and tell ur friends)

 

[mjd1982]

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

Yes, but gulit for it was only ascertained in february

 

[mjd1982]

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.

A quite astonishing post. Firstly the doc calls for a "catastrophic... event", not a militarily catastrophic one. You have stated that PH differed from 911 in being solely militarily catastrophic, as opposed to catastrophic. So please explain why you do not feel the death of 2000 people to be catastrophic, and why you demarcate it as remarkable solely for the destruction of some ships.

2ndly, regarding the lack of effect 9/11 has had, assuming, as I do, that you are aware that 911 was catalysed the War on Terror, you must then believe that the WOT has no relation to military "tactics, doctrine, organization or strategic thought". Well, firstly the new strategic thought of pre-emptive strikes- the "5% doctrine" as stated by Cheney- is something new, and something exclusively due to 911.

More to the point, if you, as I have asked probably ~20 people here to do, read by evisceration of the LC Guide on p3, you will see exactly what is being pursued under the aegis of the WOT. It is almost exactly what was advocated in RAD, and as such should settle your thoughts.

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.)

I fail to see how this does not make 911 catastophic or catalysing. It was catastrophic- it killed lots of people; it was catalysing- it started the WOT.

This shouldnt be hard to understand.

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.

Once again, you are stating that 911 was not "catalysing", militarilty, despite the fact that it has catalysed a potentially endless war, and that it was not such in the way that PNAC wanted, despite the fact that the changes pursued under its aegis, are exactly what they called for. Why must you say this?

 

[mjd1982]

I would like you to be more specific with this.

!. Who brokered this offer?

the taliban/saudis

2 When was it brokered?

feb 01

3. What conditions were attached to this offer?

dropping of some sanctions

4. What was the precise reason it was turned down.

none was given

all of this should have been clear from the vid. please actually watch it next time.

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.

Haha, except for those too blind to see it (of which there are clearly many).

I am simply stating the facts; sensible people will come to sensible conclusions.

 

[mjd1982]

I don't know why the offer (If any) was not considered. I was simply stating a plausible explanation. There is no proof either way so how is this part of your smoking gun?

Oh boy, this is getting ridiculous (but all the more hilarious for it!)

It is stated- they did not follow up on the offer. I.e. they rejected it, either tacitly or explicity. This is the fact. You are giving gross, myopic and blinkered speculation as to why this was, and in that scenario, it would be criminally negligent too, which proves my point again.

Please be honest, respect facts, truth, and let these lead you to your conclusions.

 

[Belz...]

- 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.

In the sense that you are quoting from these sources, sure.

- 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.

The only reason why you think it's "quite simple" is because of your inability to see it any other way. Many of us have pointed you in other directions, but you refuse to even look. In other words, your position is due to poor imagination.

- 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.

So far you have not defended your conclusion.

This is all it is. I think you are getting confused re: speculation vs interpretation.

No, you ARE speculating. You are speculating about the PNAC's motives and preferences, you are speculating about the "propitiousness" of 9/11, and you are speculating about the similarities between Pearl Harbor and 9/11.

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

How would letting it happen show anything about "propititiousness" ??

, and then ignored to such a dramatic extent that necessitates a new investigation into their complicity.

Such an investigation has already been made.

 

[Belz...]

They didnt specify a new PH strictly, they specified a catastrophic and catalysing event. 911 killed ~3000 people, therefore was catastrophic; it cataysed the WOT, therefore was catalysing.

But not catalysing in the way the PNAC discussed it.

Further, i am simply stating that in light of zero action in face of unprecedented warning, followed by not even a demotion, should necessitate an investigation into complicity

Why ?

People will get frustrated, threaten to quit, run round with their hair on fire stating something huge is about to happen, or someone's plotting to fly a plane into the WTC, and nothing will happen, since the people at the top, not necessarily many, know whats going on.

Subsequently, you gag a few people, and those who are in the plot will not squeal, for the very least reason since it would be their ticket to the firing squad.

And you think that throughout history, people have not spoken about these things when threatened ? That seems monstrously naive.

And of course, to state that no suspects have squealed (yet) therefore theyre all innocent, is not a serious argument.

Yeah, JFK CTers say the same thing 45 years later.

 

[DGM]

Oh boy, this is getting ridiculous (but all the more hilarious for it!)

It is stated- they did not follow up on the offer. I.e. they rejected it, either tacitly or explicity. This is the fact. You are giving gross, myopic and blinkered speculation as to why this was, and in that scenario, it would be criminally negligent too, which proves my point again.

Please be honest, respect facts, truth, and let these lead you to your conclusions.

Would you care to do the same?

 

[Belz...]

Other than the stated need for such an event to occur...

Liar. They never stated it was a need. Not even close.

No, the point of the plausible scenario was to show what might plausibly happen in, and only in, the case of a conspiracy. And then, that this is precisely what has happened.

ONLY in the case of a conspiracy ? Really ? Are you saying that "cave monkeys" can't possibly crash airliners into skyscrapers because the US is invincible unless it allows itself to get hurt ? Those terrorists are much smarter and much more organised than you think.

b)The facets of the transformation would be long term; the need to start implementing was clearly stated as immediate.

Which is NOT what they were talking about when refering to Pearl Harbor.

The plan almost entirely as it was in sept 2000, which shows extraordinary control and execution

You're continuing to add words that aren't there.

 

[Belz...]

I fail to see how this does not make 911 catastophic or catalysing. It was catastrophic- it killed lots of people; it was catalysing- it started the WOT.

And how is this war of terror related to what the PNAC asked for ?

 

[Augustine]

A quite astonishing post. Firstly the doc calls for a "catastrophic... event", not a militarily catastrophic one. You have stated that PH differed from 911 in being solely militarily catastrophic, as opposed to catastrophic. So please explain why you do not feel the death of 2000 people to be catastrophic, and why you demarcate it as remarkable solely for the destruction of some ships.

Rebuilding America's Defenses is referring to a catastrophic event in the context of defense transformation, not merely catastrophic in a general sense. The destruction of "some ships" drove the tactical innovation that led to victory and the development of current naval doctrine. A natural disaster may be a catastrophic event, but it will hardly spur defense transformation now, will it?

2ndly, regarding the lack of effect 9/11 has had, assuming, as I do, that you are aware that 911 was catalysed the War on Terror, you must then believe that the WOT has no relation to military "tactics, doctrine, organization or strategic thought". Well, firstly the new strategic thought of pre-emptive strikes- the "5% doctrine" as stated by Cheney- is something new, and something exclusively due to 911.

Horribly wrong. America has used pre-emption, or prevention, as justification for numerous military actions since the early 1800's. The "Bush Doctrine" is re-packaged and re-emphasized foreign policy specifically targeted to terrorism supporters, but the United States has used pre-emption as a national security strategy for over one hundred ninety years.

More to the point, if you, as I have asked probably ~20 people here to do, read by evisceration of the LC Guide on p3, you will see exactly what is being pursued under the aegis of the WOT. It is almost exactly what was advocated in RAD, and as such should settle your thoughts.

It is exactly what defense strategists have been advocating since the mid-1990's. What is your point?

I fail to see how this does not make 911 catastophic or catalysing. It was catastrophic- it killed lots of people; it was catalysing- it started the WOT.

This shouldnt be hard to understand.

And yet you do not. Again, let me reiterate - catastrophic in terms of loss of live does not drive defense transformation. If it did, the nations affected by the tsunami would be currently undergoing defense transformation, right? They are not. Secondly, we are not talking solely about catalyzing, we are talking about catalyzing defense transformation. The transformation of the DoD was underway prior to 911. 911 did not drive that process.

Once again, you are stating that 911 was not "catalysing", militarilty, despite the fact that it has catalysed a potentially endless war, and that it was not such in the way that PNAC wanted, despite the fact that the changes pursued under its aegis, are exactly what they called for. Why must you say this?

I say 911 was not catalyzing for defense transformation because it is true. The changes called for in the PNAC document were not new or revolutionary; they were what strategists had been saying from 1989 on. 911 was not the catalyst for those changes; they would have occurred regardless. 911, although catastrophic in many ways, was not catastrophic in any way that affected the defense transformation that was already underway.

 

[lapman]

They didnt specify a new PH strictly, they specified a catastrophic and catalysing event. 911 killed ~3000 people, therefore was catastrophic; it cataysed the WOT, therefore was catalysing. End of.

Not even close. The PNAC was strictly talking about military action. 9/11 was not. Just because we ended up taking military action does not mean that 9/11 was the event the PNAC was referring to. Especially since it did not speed up the time line to achieve the goals that the PNAC wanted to achieve any more than the "catastrophic and catalyzing" events of the USS Cole and the Kenya bombings did. So you're logic is horrendously flawed. We were already threatening war with the Taliban for supporting OBL and Al Qaeda prior to 9/11. All 9/11 did was force us to make good on our threat.

 

[rwguinn]

Rebuilding America's Defenses is referring to a catastrophic event in the context of defense transformation, not merely catastrophic in a general sense. The destruction of "some ships" drove the tactical innovation that led to victory and the development of current naval doctrine. A natural disaster may be a catastrophic event, but it will hardly spur defense transformation now, will it?
...

Gentlemen and ladies:
We stand in the shadow of a true scholar in Augustine.
Hats off, please.
Well done, Augustine!

 

[H'ethetheth]

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

It's the conclusion you seem to have reached, perhaps not because of this argument alone, but since you're not advancing any new ones I thought I'd go ahead and say what I said.

This implies however that you think this is a fairly probable scenario, which I think is, well, bonkers, really.
The first reason being that making people indiscriminately kill thousands of their countymen is not a very easy thing to do or keep quiet.
Secondly, in the case of september 11th, the defenses that needed to be overcome were metal detector gates and a handful of unarmed civilians, the most important of whom had instructions to meet the demands of hijackers and keep the passengers calm.

 

[Myriad]

No, the point of the plausible scenario was to show what might plausibly happen in, and only in, the case of a conspiracy. And then, that this is precisely what has happened.

You have to establish the "and only in" part of that argument. Otherwise, as you know, even if your other premises are accepted, any attempt to conclude that a conspiracy exists, from those statements, would be a simple affirming the consequent logical fallacy. (A conspiracy would cause X to happen, X happened, therefore a conspiracy exists.)

So, everything hinges on the "...and only in..." part of that argument. You must show that 9/11 could not have happened without a conspiracy. To do that you must, at the very least, show that conspirators in the U.S. Government performed specific acts that caused or allowed 9/11 to happen.

If you can't do that, your argument is a logical fallacy that goes nowhere.

And if by some chance you can do it, then you have no need of your speculative "plausible scenario" regarding PNAC, you'd have actual evidence of a conspiracy.

So, after all this arguing about whether or not 9/11 is like Pearl Harbor and whether or not PNAC wanted such an event to happen, you're back in the same boat with every other truther: needing to show evidence of what the conspirators did, in order for your argument to go anywhere.

Congratulations. After 20 pages of arguing, you've reached Square One.

Respectfully,
Myriad