The 9/11 Conspiracy Facts

[Dave Rogers]

One quick question for MJD1982:

Given that the relevant sentence would have been no less relevant to their thesis if they were omitted, do you think the inclusion of the words "absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor" in RAD could have been deemed by its writers likely to cast suspicion on PNAC, were they in fact planning to execute such a catastrophic and catalyzing event themselves?

Dave

 

[tsig]

A parallel to PNAC: A real group, that I will rename BASE, released several "white papers" saying that they desired to cause the US to become entangled in multiple long term military engagements in the mideast, thus weakening America's ability to control political realities in the region and allowing BASE to strike US military assets via asymmetric means. BASE hopes to use mideast turmoil to create a large number of failed states which can then become controlled under a larger government more suitable to BASE's idiology. BASE also released a "white paper" calling for large scale attacks against American interests.

BASE found the 9/11 attacks completely propitious to their ends, and I conclude probably would have done everything they could to cause 9/11 to happen.

Casually, I would say BASE is a much more likely force behind 9/11 than PNAC.

I can get behind the BASE.

pnac is just a document the BASE is for real.

 

[tsig]

Hahaha...its not speculation, its debate my friend. You can either engage in it, or not. Sitting there saying "it didnt happen, your wrong", just wastes your time more than anyone else.

There's no debate It Happened.

mjd it's not a happy world to be in

or a real great way to see.

But that's the way the world works

Since life came from the sea.

 

[Augustine]

So we agree that defense transformation would have occurred regardless of 9/11. Good.

but the chances of me learning anything of note from you, are probably slim to none.

This is an excellent illustration of your own stubborn arrogant ignorance. I would hope you would at least have learned the value of understanding the larger context in which documents are written, and the importance of understanding the evolution and development of the strategic thought behind them. Too bad.

The point, that should not be very hard to miss, is that PNAC do not believe that such would happen sooner, absent a catastrophic and catalysing event, hence why they wrote it in their doc. So, what you are arguing, is that PNAC were wrong.

I am not arguing that PNAC was wrong; I am arguing that you are wrong. PNAC was stating a very simple fact that nearly every military historian would agree on: military transformation is typically a long slow process (or even nonexistent), without some (generally) catastrophic event which catalyzes military transformation. There have been catastrophic events, even catastrophic military events, which did not catalyze military transformation. You have claimed that 9/11 was a catastrophic event which catalyzed military transformation. You have offered no evidence in support of this claim. You have admitted that 9/11 was unnecessary for the implementation of the policies of transformation. You have provided no evidence that 9/11 in any way accelerated the transformation which was already underway. So I am saying that YOU are QUITE WRONG in that assertion. 9/11, while catastrophic, has had a relatively minor impact on a transformation process which was already underway.

Again, how's that mindset working out for you?

P.S. Did you notice that the one goal that was actually mentioned in the same paragraph as the "new Pearl Harbor" - cancelling the Joint Strike Fighter program - hasn't occurred? Why do you think this is? What does this tell you about the significance of the rest of the paragraph that you conveniently have your blinders on for? I would say enjoy your research, but well...enjoy the darkness!

 

[nicepants]

Logical fallacy.

"It happened, therefore, they let it happen"

You must prove that it would have been impossible for these attacks to take place in such a way that the government would either not know about it in time or otherwise would not be able to stop said attack.

Excuse, me; they would have tried to stop it, given that they had ample opportunity, which no one on this board wants to address.

This is the point.

1 - Proof that they knew the exact people, places, times to be involved in the attack?

2 - Proof that they did not try to stop it?

 

[mjd1982]

No, you state your opinion, which you mistake for fact. Then you lie about what you've said. Then you ignore tough questions. That's all disturbing behavior.

Oh dear. How sad. Is this not pathetic?

It would be instructibe to sum up our conducts on this thread. I have stated fact (e.g. PNAC, the WOT, foreknowledge etc), I have debated this (how this shows propitiousness, criminal negligence, where this leads us etc), and then I wait to be challenged. Sometimes people do, most times, people don't

You, will either argue from incredulity, saying things are wrong because you deem them "batcrap insane", making snide comments from a distance (incidentally, learn this difference between "writing their plan for attacking the US into RAD", and its need being stated; and then stop accusing me of lying), or arguing trivialities. Of course you are happy to post disproportionately on the Holocaust, but when it comes to debating the essential points on here, you would rather not; much like most of your colleagues.

I understand you have built up an identity for yourself as a "debunker", and it would hurt you to have such torn down, but I am pretty disappointed. OTers speak so highly of you; and yet here you are, running scared from a 24 year old Brit, who has hardly ever even been to NY. Have some balls, and come out and debate the points. Alternatively, retract your position.

Honest and sensible people here have come to sensible conclusions about your claims. Your inability to see that, and that the burden of proof for your claims remains with you, is your problem.

No, honest and sensible people will debate the claims, and then come to conclusions about them. This should not be hard to understand. There are some such here, but as is clear to anyone following this thread, you are not one of them.

 

[volatile]

The word "hubris" springs rapidly to mind...

 

[mjd1982]

Well, actually you did say that on many ocassions and I can point you to those posts if necessary.

I say, and have said many times, that they state (tacitly) the propitiousness of a new PH. Different.

Ehh, actually there are many shades of grey but for the sake of this discussion, agreed.

ok

And here begins your speculation again. You are speculating that they deem a rapid transformation preferable but are lying because they can't tell the truth. Interpretation, speculation, fantasies, call it what you want but it's not a fact.

But come on. Let's be precise about what we are calling speculation, since it is all too easy to use it as a blanket word to cover even the most elementary instances where even if something if overwhelmingly implied, its implication can be denied since it is speculative to make the inference. To give an example, of the top of my head, "I really wanna play football tomorrow. If it rains, we will not be able to play". Now here, is is speculation to say that I am hoping it does not rain. Yet for the purposes of a sane argument, it would be ridiculous to dismiss that claim as "speculation/fantasy" as you do. Doing such, as I stated, throws a blanket over all types of inference, even the most basic, and as such, renders all inference useless, fantasy. This is not a framework for any type of serious discussion.

So we have to look closer. Clearly "speculation" is a sliding scale. Something can be closer to simple, elementary inference, whereas something else could indeed be fantasy. So what do we have with PNAC. Well, as Ive posted a number of times, there are 3 elements that make this inference, highly elementary:
1. All else being equal, people want good things to happen sooner rather than later. PNAC dee, the transformation to be good, thus they want it to happen sooner rather than later.
2. It is stated that such a transformation must be crystalised in decison makers minds by Oct 2001. Thus a new PH would have to occur soon, in order for their wishes to be consummated.
3. 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.

These must be the basis for such a debate, as I have been saying since #419.

 

[mjd1982]

Feel free to point out any errors when you find them. I don't own the website and didn't do the coding, but if there's a major error I'll get it fixed. There are some minor errors, but no one has pointed out anything major that I've gotten wrong yet. I made it 2/3 of the way through a huge revision of that document after LC2ER was released, but got bored with it when it was over 250 pages.

Can you point out where in Loose Change that appears? I thought I knew that video extremely well, and in fact I included a transcript of its narration.

Oh boy... Read here as I believe, you've been asked to do many times already:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=84473&page=3

Excuse my impetuousness. But as stated earlier, since your guide is in essence, a defense of the absence of gov connivance, please respond to the points made at the top of the foreknowledge section.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=84473&page=19

 

[volatile]

Could you clarify your position as to the actual involvement of the US government, MJD - as asked in Post 1014. Did they MAKE it happen, or simply LET it happen? And what of Al-Qaeda?

It really would help us see where you're coming from, and prevent us going round in circles, which we're still doing.

 

[mjd1982]

What? You either believe:

a) that the government (or a cabal within it) MADE 9/11 happen as a means to their nefarious ends (MIHOP), and actively orchestrated the events, either by hiring the hijackers or by more exotic means (explosive detonations etc.)

b) the government discovered what Al-Qaeda were planning, and deliberately hid this knowledge from the relevant parties (TSA, for example) in order that the plan would succeed. (LIHOP)

You can't believe both of these scenarios, as they are mutually exclusive. Your "facts" swing violently between these two positions, although in the quote above you seem to be settling into LIHOP.

Is it your contention, then, that the US government had NO HAND WHATSOEVER in planning or carrying out the Al-Qaeda sponsored hijackings of 9/11 (and that they were indeed hijackings, and that there was no other nefarious technological involvement such as explosive charges in the WTC buildings), just that once the plan was uncovered by the intelligence services, those intelligence services members conspired to prevent their discovery from coming to the notice of the police, TSA and other appropriate agencies because the Al-Qaeda plan would be useful to the government's pre-stated political aims?

Please clarify. If this is indeed your position (and you've been quite coy about it), then please state as such and we can move on.

I havent been coy at all, Ive stated it many times; it is their in my OP. They knew it was coming, they let it happen, and they aggravated it. They would also, I would guess, massaged it a bit as well, e.g. to ensure it happened at the right time, place etc.

 

[volatile]

I havent been coy at all, Ive stated it many times; it is their in my OP. They knew it was coming, they let it happen, and they aggravated it. They would also, I would guess, massaged it a bit as well, e.g. to ensure it happened at the right time, place etc.

Those are two entirely contradictory positions. You can't stand back and let something happen at the same time as conspiring to make it happen. It's one, or the other.

They knew it was coming, they let it happen *and* they aggravated and massaged it? How so? Please clarify.

 

[mjd1982]

You're forgetting their ability to go to the media. Or make a web site.

Find out about Anthony Schaffer and Sibel Edmonds.

Also, re: the msm, please read this OP:

http://screwloosechange.xbehome.com/index.php?showtopic=1854

Actually, it is. Since thousands of people would have to be involved,

Not true

we KNOW, historically, that the secret would not have remained hidden for long. Since NO ONE has spoken out, it's a safe bet that said conspiracy does not exist. Otherwise we have to add ANOTHER assumption as to why no one spoke out.

as above

We don't seek the truth. That usually boils down to circular reasoning.

what r u doing here then?

Well, you didn't respond. Perhaps you can correct this perception of mine by answering it now, in summary.

being sincere here, cam u please remind me of the point, i will respond

1. Irrelevant.
2. You have no idea how she could cause an accident. You've decided to alter the parameters of the scenario to make it impossible, but that changes NOTHING about the analogy. You're coming right back to your assumption that means entails action.

No I havent. i am stating the gov could relatively easily have covertly allowed it to happen. How could the old lady have done this?

3. What they wanted ? How exactly have those changes been good ?

It matters not if they were good, they were the changes that PNAC deemed to be good. End of.

Your condescending tone is noted.

You keep claiming that. Source, please ?

it has been given many times, and never answered coherently

http://youtube.com/watch?v=zK-te3Y0m5A

This isn't a movie, mjd. Just because you think something's coming doesn't mean you can magically sweep these people from where they are and bring them to justice.

I didnt say they shoud have been. I'm saying someone should have tried, To have not can only realistically be explained 1 way

 

[mjd1982]

When I state "did it", I mean exclusively.

Excuse the occasional lack of clarity, I am posting a hell of a lot.

 

[mjd1982]

Nonsense, since they don't mention 9/11 in the document.



You have STATED it, but not shown it.



No, it's a historical fact.



Exactly ?



Acronyms mean something, bloke. Obviously, since they represent words. I don't like them, myself, but then your username is "mjd1982".



So, do you agree that 9/11 was propitious to Al Qaeda's policy ?

"Bloke"?

 

[mjd1982]

Those are two entirely contradictory positions. You can't stand back and let something happen at the same time as conspiring to make it happen. It's one, or the other.

They knew it was coming, they let it happen *and* they aggravated and massaged it? How so? Please clarify.

I know that someone is coming to steal my neighbours car at 12.00. I ensure that my cars arent parked in their usual spacea, crammed 1 in front and 1 behind, to ensure that they can indeed nick it. I then walk away, hands in pockets, not informing anyone of whatis going to happen. So I LIHOP abd MIHOP. Lets have no more on this; its irrelevant.

 

[DavidJames]

I havent been coy at all, Ive stated it many times; it is their in my OP. They knew it was coming, they let it happen, and they aggravated it. They would also, I would guess, massaged it a bit as well, e.g. to ensure it happened at the right time, place etc.

Fair enough. Please tell me who, specifically, should be accused of conspiracy to commit mass murder and provide the evidence you would like to submit to the authorities. While you're at it, please tell us who you are and where you live. In case someone would like to start publicly accusing you of a federal crime. Of course, the evidence, like your's would be rumor, hearsay and innuendo. I'm sure you'll be okay with that, though.

 

[HeyLeroy]

I havent been coy at all, Ive stated it many times; it is their in my OP. They knew it was coming, they let it happen, and they aggravated it. They would also, I would guess, massaged it a bit as well, e.g. to ensure it happened at the right time, place etc.

Hasn't it been your contention (on the SLC forum) that conspirators unknown "made" 7 World Trade Center collapse with pre-planted explosives? Have you now abandoned that stance?

 

[HyJinX]

Lets have no more on this; its irrelevant.

All who agree...say "AYE"!

 

[mjd1982]

But Bush doesn't enter into the shortcomings uncovered by this senate committee.

y should i care about the senate committee?

Lots of the errors in passing along foreknowledge never got to the level of Bush because the people who screwed up were generally much farther down the ladder and generally tried to cover their tracks because of possible consequences for their livelyhood and reputation etc.

40 warnings in ~30 weeks of an impending AQ attack on US interests. Thats a lot.

And let's not forget his demotion of Clarke, which i have expanded upon earlier.

There are very few instances that would hinge on Bush remaining inactive. That is the point I'm trying to get across.

And the handing over of OBL in feb 01?

But, you got me interested at least, which is good. I'll read through the reports later. I'm supposed to be working, you see.

Thanks

And about sociopaths: I'm not talking about presidents. I'm not talking about soldiers killing foreign guerilleros or civilians in a silly war against global communism or terrorism or drugs or whatever.
I'm talking about people who would kill or be part of a secret plot to kill 10,000 innocent civilians in their own country, just to increase defence R&D spending and prolong their nation's hegemony.
I believe you will not find a lot of people who will do this kind of dirty work, especially since the plot you announced seems to involve blowing up at least one building without making too many people suspect that it was in fact blown up, as part of a secret plot to kill up to 10,000 civilians, just to increase defence R&D spending and prolong their nation's hegemony.

You know about East Timor? 100's of 1000's of landless peasants slaughtered with US imprimatur (and of course weapons). This was for hegemonic aims, just like 911, and was approved by the likes of Walter Mondale and Jimmy Carter and Gerald Ford, far less odious appearning creatures than Dick Cheney or Richard Perle.