The 9/11 Conspiracy Facts

[DGM]

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.

It is actually possible to be both ways. The big problem is you involve a lot more people that could potentially speak out or simply not cooperate.

 

[mjd1982]

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

Well, not significant suspicion anyway. There will be sufficient people who will accept any subterfuge in order not to believe that their government has done this. Such subterfuges are all too evident on this board. That, combined with the western propaganda system that i have touched upon a few times here, means that any suspicion will not be significant, i.e. it will never do anything. You can extend this to all of 911.

 

[mjd1982]

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.

Errr.. this may well be the worst post her so far.

I am not accusing any one person, I am stating that there needs to be an investigation to deem who should be the accused. This has been stated many times.

Such as post as yours, is pretty worthless to any form of sensible discussion.

 

[DGM]

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

How many threats does the US get every day? You must know this to say that 40 in 30 weeks is a lot.

 

[H'ethetheth]

All who agree...say "AYE"!

I have to admit that I agree that his scenario is possible as far as I understand it, and I don't know his stance on the collapses yet.
It would however require a near infallible intelligence apparatus to pull off a "LIHOP with massage". The evidence for anything remotely resembling this isn't there. In fact, he's provided a lot of evidence to the contrary in fact, but of course this can be construed as the devious machinations of a near infallible intelligence apparatus...

sigh...

 

[Belz...]

I have stated fact (e.g. PNAC, the WOT, foreknowledge etc)

Those are NOT facts, Mjd. The pathetic part is you not recognising this.

I have debated this (how this shows propitiousness, criminal negligence, where this leads us etc)

Debating opinions as though they were facts is not productive.

You, will either argue from incredulity, saying things are wrong because you deem them "batcrap insane"

Godzilla destroyed the world trade center:



You may safely hand-wave it and call it insane. No need to go into much detail.

but when it comes to debating the essential points on here, you would rather not; much like most of your colleagues.

What IS it with you truthers and your obsession with that word ? Do you think I've ever met Gravy ? Or that we work for the same NWO-sponsored organisation ?

I understand you have built up an identity for yourself as a "debunker", and it would hurt you to have such torn down

Are you going to argue, or just flame ?

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.

I don't think ol' Gravy is scared. A little tired of the likes of you, maybe.

No, honest and sensible people will debate the claims, and then come to conclusions about them. This should not be hard to understand.

It isn't, and I have. You are wrong.

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

Even if you add "overwhelmingly" it doesn't change the fact that your interpretation of the implications is NOT shared by other posters here. Instead of falling into the same trap as many others and assuming that if 1000 people disagree with you, they are automatically wrong because you know in your heart that you are correct, try and consider that YOU may be wrong.

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.

A catastrophic event that kills civilians and that DOESN'T launch a war that promotes technical advancement is NOT good.

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.

There's that speculation, again.

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

Do you know how long the 21st century still has to go ?

 

[mjd1982]

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

No we dont. In time, possibly.

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.

In this context, it has zero relevance. So theres no point me reading it.

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.

Excellent. So you agree that a catastrophic and catalysing event is deemed propitious to policy?

You have claimed that 9/11 was a catastrophic event which catalyzed military transformation. You have offered no evidence in support of this claim.

Other than the links I have given you, which, possibly due to stubborn, arrogant ignorance, you refuse to read.

You have admitted that 9/11 was unnecessary for the implementation of the policies of transformation.

Err... please show me where this has been done.

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.

911 has catalysed the WOT. Do you agree with that? And does the WOT create any kind of transformation in military behaviour?

Next, tell me what you feel the WOT to entail.

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!

No, I have addressed this para, and the point about the JSF time and again. Please read the thread. The reason why it carries little to no weight, is that it is but one item that is not being carried out- there are not too many that are not- and this is reflective of execution, rather than design. Since we are arguiing about PNAC's designs rather than their execution, your point is worthless, i'm afraid.

 

[mjd1982]

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

They dont need this. If you know people are planning to rob your house inthe next week, do you do nothing, because youdont know when/who/where theyre gonna come from? Of course not.

Bad point.

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

The 911 Comm report. Bush got 40 warnings, but took zero action in response.

Oh, and I know you guys dont like talkin about this one, but the OBL offer in Feb 01?

 

[Belz...]

Not true

IT IS true, Mjd. How many people who COULD have stopped it could not BECAUSE of interference from the people TO WHOM they communicate this information TO ?

as above

Really ? How many massive conspiracies have remained hidden for so long ?

what r u doing here then?

Practicing better English than you are, apparently.

In case you didn't get what I was saying, "seeking" the truth usually means having the conclusion well in advance. I don't do that.

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?

Someone mentioned rigging brakes. Haven't you been reading this stuff ?

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

Ah, so now you're a mind-reader ??

it has been given many times, and never answered coherently

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

I don't have sound at work, and I don't care for youtube. Transcript, please ?

I didnt say they shoud have been. I'm saying someone should have tried

You don't even know if they could!

 

[Belz...]

"Bloke"?

That's your whole answer ?

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

Yeah, IF you know WHERE they'll strike.

 

[mjd1982]

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?

aggravated

 

[mjd1982]

It is actually possible to be both ways. The big problem is you involve a lot more people that could potentially speak out or simply not cooperate.

Not that this matter much, but how?

 

[mjd1982]

How many threats does the US get every day? You must know this to say that 40 in 30 weeks is a lot.

Not 40 warnings, 40 times at PDB's that the topic came up. 40 times nothing was done by Bush, Cheney, Rummy and Rice.

This has been addressed before, but the seriousness of the warnings can be gauged from the fact that their gravity was deemed "unprecedented" by Tenet, who had been around at the millennium terror threat; the system was "blinking red" according to him; he was "teariing his hair out" according to Armitage, and an FBI source repeats that the warnings had "never been so bad". See the 911 timeline for more.

 

[mjd1982]

That's your whole answer ?



Yeah, IF you know WHERE they'll strike.

If you know people are planning to rob your house inthe next week, do you do nothing, because youdont know when/who/where theyre gonna come from? Of course not.

 

[332nd]

If you know people are planning to rob your house inthe next week, do you do nothing, because youdont know when/who/where theyre gonna come from? Of course not.

But you know they are going to rob YOUR HOUSE, thus you know where they are going to strike.

 

[mjd1982]

I have to admit that I agree that his scenario is possible as far as I understand it, and I don't know his stance on the collapses yet.

That is irrelevant to the thrust of the argument, since the points here stand as evidence of it as and of themselves.

It would however require a near infallible intelligence apparatus to pull off a "LIHOP with massage". The evidence for anything remotely resembling this isn't there.

Please tell me how.

In terms of massage, you understand this would simply involve having someone on the inside, influentially? You find this hard to conceive? The French had this.

In fact, he's provided a lot of evidence to the contrary in fact, but of course this can be construed as the devious machinations of a near infallible intelligence apparatus...

sigh...

Such as?

 

[HeyLeroy]

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?

aggravated

It appears you hit the post button a little early; what's that supposed to mean?

 

[mjd1982]

But you know they are going to rob YOUR HOUSE, thus you know where they are going to strike.

Pfff.. come on! You understand the point. Let's say its a very big house!

 

[DGM]

Not that this matter much, but how?

I was agree with you that you could be LIHOP and MIHOP. Making it happen would have to involve more people because you are doing more.

 

[HeyLeroy]

Things aren't going so well here, are they, mjd1982?