The 9/11 Conspiracy Facts

[mjd1982]

What gets me annoyed about this thread? I'm glad you asked:
MJD seems to have a certain amount of intelligence, as do most others posting here. He seems to be educated, as do most others, but MJD seems to be of the opinion that only he is really educated. Only he has any intelligence. Anyone who disagrees with MJD can't be intelligent or educated, apparently.

Nowhere do I state this.

People who post hundreds/thousands of times on a topic, and then when it gets challenged refuse to post/evade responses/refuse to answer points, and then still maintain their "opinion", yes, they are neither intelleigent nor effectively educated. Hence, in part, the c word.

Dear MJD,
where does one learn such conceit? Where do you get the arrogance to assume such superiority? There are many people here older, more experienced and at least as well educated as yourself, how do you reach the conclusion that you know more than anyone else?

I havent. Its a debate.

You have taken a few phrases from the PNAC document and spun a paranoid web around them. How is it that you cling to this paranoid web even after its nature has been pointed out to you?

A perfect example of an accusation with zero substance. I have taken a phrase, and taken it one step further to its logical conclusion. Pretty much everyone here has refused to debate this to conclusion. Were someone to do this, maybe I would stop my "clinging". I doubt this wil happen.

What investment do you have in the conspiracy theory that prevents you from seeing it for what it is?

Less than the fervour which almost inevitably gets created after thousands of posts in favour of something, or an identity created out of the same. This is a probelem for some.

Assume for a moment that there is no conspiracy. Assume that the world is not as dark and sinister as you pretend. Try just for a little while to imagine that not everything revolves around shadowy secret plans for world domination.

worthless

I'm not saying that there aren't bad people in the world doing bad things, just that the bad guys aren't organising themselves to take away your freedoms. If your (and my) freedoms are being lost, it isn't because of some faceless global elite, it's because people like you (and me) aren't doing enough to stop it.

Where have i talked about a "faceless global elite"? What the hell r u talking about?

What can we do Mr Brainache? I hear you ask, well we could stop posting pointless rubbish on the net and get involved in local politics. Or maybe create some meaningful art or something. The point is, even if this thread lasts for another 100,000 posts, nothing will have been solved.

End of semi-drunken rant.
Thank you.

Ok, that explains a lot.

 

[mjd1982]

Kage this is a good post and it would indicate, by using mjd's logic, the Neocons pulled off an inside job that worked perfectly into Al-Queda's plan and the Neocons own project. Or it would be Al-Queda pulled off their plan so that the Neocons, who allowed it to happen, could take advantage of PNAC to make transformations sooner. In other words,using mjd's logic, this is propitious to both sides.

This is precisely my point. AQ want to attack US, and PNAC wanted an attack in the US. Very simple.

 

[mjd1982]

OK




Stop right there. Where do they state this? Everything you have written so far indicates that you assume this, but nowhere has it been stated that they believe this.




No. Especially since it should be spelled "capisce".

#493. If you want to debate my reasoning on this, you should address this. Anything else is of little value I'm afraid.

 

[Unsecured Coins]

you're basing this off your interpretation again. sad, really

 

[Hokulele]

#493. If you want to debate my reasoning on this, you should address this. Anything else is of little value I'm afraid.

OK

<snipped out the PH stuff>

And the latter:

the aim of this section is, as has been stated many times, simply to show that a new PH was propitious to policy for PNAC/The Bush Admin. One person has admitted so, but that is all so far.

But after that, the question is, did they want the transformation to happen over decades, or over mths/years. I think that ordinarily would be obvious, but we can argue it here on the basis that:
a) 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.

Assumption #1, no evidence.

b) The fact that the QDR was in Oct 2001, and the elements upon which it was to be based would have to be crystalised in decision makers minds by then; i.e. early, rather than late.

Same assumption repeated, no evidence.

c) A revolutionary change in the geo-political landscape, creating, in the eyes of the authors, stability, peace, security and democracy for the world, is preferable, certainly to power hungry politicians, sooner, rather than later. If anyone is going to argue why this is not the case, I will be very interested to read it.

Same assumption, repeated for the third time, all of which I and other have addressed in (much) earlier posts. I know Myriad, gumboot, and I have all shown to you that technological implementation takes time. If the hand of the military is forced too soon, there is a good chance the changes may never be implemented (as pointed out by Gravy and Augustine).

In each of the cases where these flaws in your theory are pointed out, you avoid a direct response, and prefer to respond with non-sequitors, unsupported contradiction, or direct attacks on the poster.

Please don't be evasive. Address the points, and we will all make some progress.

Right back atcha. Show some proof, rather than simply your opinion, where, anywhere, this preference for swift action is desired. I predict that in your next post you will claim to have addressed all of these. And just for the record, no, addressing a point is not the same as disproving it.

 

[volatile]

No, it means that there are certain small details which I will not know. I do not know who suggested the idea from PNAC, I dont know who pulled what strings etc etc... these details are inconsequential, and have no bearing on anything of relevance here.

You said there was an insider. Who's the insider? You made the claim - back it up. How do you know there's an insider? Tell me how you know there's an insider, without recourse to circular reasoning.

No, I am speculating that they massaged elements of the plot so that it would fit in to their scheme. That I am speculating about this has again no relevance to the thrust of my argument.

Making it up as you go along, using circular reasoning. "I think it was done in manner X; the only way manner X could be done is by recourse to Y; therefore Y was involved, proving X happened in the way I say it did."

That's your whole argument right there.

Once again, this is of zero logical value. That no one has come out and volunteered themselves for the firing squad is meaningless, and should not be used in any serious debate on the matter.

It's only "of no value" because you know its just one of many gaping holes in your 'argument'. To address it is to realise how stupid this all sounds.

This is a serious matter. If there were warnings, as you claim, then the warnings were given by someone outside of the plot apparatus. Who collated the evidence for these warnings, and who gave them? Why haven't they stood up to be counted? They are NOT INVOLVED in the plot - they can't be, logically - so where are they? Again, it is only "meaningless" inasmuch as it undermines your entire position if you stop to think about it for more than a millisecond.

I'm not saying that there is a secret branch of the government that does these things. I think that the meat of the work is done by the principals (PNAC et al), and the rest is probably done by parts of the FBI/CIA, as any black ops (Ajax, PBSUCCESS etc) are.

You are saying that. If there were warnings, they were produced from intelligence and given by people who were not involved in the plot - otherwise, why warn? So, this necessarily requires a secret branch of the government who the branch giving the warnings don't know about!

If all the government were involved, there would have been no warnings. If there were warnings to be ignored, then someone not involved in the plot had to have given them. Your conflation of LIHOP and MIHOP hinges on there being warnings, but in the scheme of your argument such warnings cannot be logically tessellated with the rest.

You're pissing in your chips, basically.

We are not debating that yet

Yes we are. I just asked you a question, and that counts for debate around here. Stop being evasive and answer the question.

 

[twinstead]

Yea, "I think it was an inside job because it was an inside job" gets old after a while.

 

[Billdave2]

Yes, except that to continue with your analogy, to do such with PNAC requires wrenching something out of its context. I don't think your analogy is at all correct- the fact that I have immediately followed the expression of desire to play football, with the comment about rain preventing me from playing gives a strong suggestion as to what I am desiring. In any case, re: PNAC, you would have to show that there was a similar cause for obfuscation - i.e. if I do actually want it to rain because I am a farmer, then why do PNAC want a slow rate of transformation? I have addrssed why they would in 3 parts, a few pages back, and again in post #493

PNAC wanted a slow rate of transformation so that it could be directed in specific ways. The whole push of PNAC program to push towards creating high tech, sophisticated growth in our military infrastructure. To create a situation where we would have to spend large percentages of the defense budget on a low tech ground war would have been unacceptable for this.

Even you admit in my interpretaion of your example of an undeniable assumption that it is really just a strong suggestion, hardly a fact.

 

[MIKILLINI]

Mjd, I suggest you read Myriads post #50.

 

[Billdave2]

Maybe not, but we can try again.
1. They state a catastrophic terror attack is propitious
2. They get unprecedented warnings of such and do absolutely nothing.
3. They are thus rightly suspected of complicity, and an investigation is launched to deal with this.

Kapish?

Please provide evidence that "absolutely nothing" was done about warnings that Al Queda intendend an attack. Also please show that these warnings had sufficient information that even a genuis could correctly know what steps needed to be taken to prevent this attack without the benifit of hindsight (details please, not just "stop it")

 

[Billdave2]

If you know that AQ cells are in the US and plotting a terrorist attack, deemed a "Hiroshima on US soil", it is very very hard to do nothing. That takes ~effort.

QUOTE]

OK, now I am really confused, are we talking about a new Pearl Harbor or a Hiroshima on US soil?

 

[MIKILLINI]

These conspirators are the dumbest, most bungling bunch that could ever be imagined. 9/11 is pretty much as evident an inside job as can be reasonably expected. The calling card of the Bush admin is all over it. The PNAC doc is a prime example of such stupidity. People's dismissal of it is a prime example of why such stupidity can persist.

As interpreted by...Mjd..and the Neocons pulled it off!

 

[Brainache]

Nowhere do I state this.

People who post hundreds/thousands of times on a topic, and then when it gets challenged refuse to post/evade responses/refuse to answer points, and then still maintain their "opinion", yes, they are neither intelleigent nor effectively educated. Hence, in part, the c word.

I'm confused now. You're describing yourself here.

I havent. Its a debate.

But you continually post your opinions and call them facts.

A perfect example of an accusation with zero substance. I have taken a phrase, and taken it one step further to its logical conclusion. Pretty much everyone here has refused to debate this to conclusion. Were someone to do this, maybe I would stop my "clinging". I doubt this wil happen.

Many people have debated this point and I believe they have shown convincingly that your conclusion is not logical. I also doubt you will stop clinging to your illogical conclusion.

Less than the fervour which almost inevitably gets created after thousands of posts in favour of something, or an identity created out of the same. This is a probelem for some.

I was drunk, what's your excuse for this incomprehensible nonsense?

worthless

OK. Don't then. Just carry on in your usual fashion.

Where have i talked about a "faceless global elite"? What the hell r u talking about?

Maybe I could have phrased it better, but isn't it your contention that secret "Black Ops" agents of the Neo-Cons covertly conspired to attack US civilians for their own evil purposes? ie: An increase in military R&D spending?

Ok, that explains a lot.

At least I have an excuse. What's yours?

 

[beachnut]

No facts yet? You have talk a lot, but no evidence to support anything. What was it you were trying to do? What point do you have? It has been over 5 years, and you have not made any progress, or points. So what do you do now? Disneyland?

 

[mjd1982]

OK

Assumption #1, no evidence.

Same assumption repeated, no evidence.

Same assumption, repeated for the third time, all of which I and other have addressed in (much) earlier posts. I know Myriad, gumboot, and I have all shown to you that technological implementation takes time. If the hand of the military is forced too soon, there is a good chance the changes may never be implemented (as pointed out by Gravy and Augustine).

An astonishingly bad post, and perfectly reflective of the evasion of elementary reasoning that would normally come naturally, were this position not so mired in denial and self deception.

There is a difference between and assumption and an interpretation. I am taking this comment, which is the only statement in the doc regarding "How, soon", and interpreted it, reaching a pretty robust conclusion as evinced by the 3 statements above. If you wish to differ with these conclusions, it is completely worthless to state "Its an interpretation/assumption" unless you are willing to proffer your own to challenge it.

To give 1 example of how basically wrong and completely warped a piece of reasoning yours is, look at a scenario where we know that a gangland boss has stated "If we can kill that insignificant scumbag Jimmy, who I hate unreservedly, everything will be ours- the money, the power, the prestige. How fantastic that will all be." Anyone would interpret this to mean tht the dude wants Jimmy dead. However, under your twisted "rules", as followed by many others on this forum, we cannot say that, since it would be an "assumption", worthless, and as such there is no evidence of preference on the dude's behalf as to whether Jimmy should live or die, simply because it is not stated in so many words. Moreover, such a comment cannot even be debated, since it would be debating assumptions. And thus, this is zero evidence for any intent.

Of course, this is nonsense, and would be rejected by any sane person in a normal cntext. Here however, it is standard discourse, which illustrates perfectly the mentality and level of subterfuge required to maintain the OT stance.

In each of the cases where these flaws in your theory are pointed out, you avoid a direct response, and prefer to respond with non-sequitors, unsupported contradiction, or direct attacks on the poster.

What a disgusting and despicable lie. Show me an instance of such.

Right back atcha. Show some proof, rather than simply your opinion, where, anywhere, this preference for swift action is desired. I predict that in your next post you will claim to have addressed all of these. And just for the record, no, addressing a point is not the same as disproving it.

Priceless... as above

 

[mjd1982]

You said there was an insider. Who's the insider? You made the claim - back it up. How do you know there's an insider? Tell me how you know there's an insider, without recourse to circular reasoning.

No, I was asked how I believed it could have happened, down to specifics. You have got distracted.

Making it up as you go along, using circular reasoning. "I think it was done in manner X; the only way manner X could be done is by recourse to Y; therefore Y was involved, proving X happened in the way I say it did."

That's your whole argument right there.

No, I am not stating for certain that that particular element is what happened, or had to happen. It is speculation. As such, it is worth little; I was just asked about it.

It's only "of no value" because you know its just one of many gaping holes in your 'argument'. To address it is to realise how stupid this all sounds.

Hahaha... yeh right, as above.

Also, you could equally say that since I have not given "proof" as to who gave the green light for this project to happen, that this is a "gaping hole", but if you are serious, you will not use this point.

This is a serious matter. If there were warnings, as you claim, then the warnings were given by someone outside of the plot apparatus. Who collated the evidence for these warnings, and who gave them? Why haven't they stood up to be counted? They are NOT INVOLVED in the plot - they can't be, logically - so where are they? Again, it is only "meaningless" inasmuch as it undermines your entire position if you stop to think about it for more than a millisecond.

People such as Antony Schaffer and John O Neill have been silenced in one way or another. Others, such as George Tenet or Richard Clarke have come out and spoken about it. Others, such as the people who tried to access Moussaoui's computer, are anonymous.

It is worthless in any case, since just because they havent "stood up to be counted", this does not mean that this was not an inside job, not one iota.

You are saying that. If there were warnings, they were produced from intelligence and given by people who were not involved in the plot - otherwise, why warn? So, this necessarily requires a secret branch of the government who the branch giving the warnings don't know about!

as above

If all the government were involved, there would have been no warnings. If there were warnings to be ignored, then someone not involved in the plot had to have given them. Your conflation of LIHOP and MIHOP hinges on there being warnings, but in the scheme of your argument such warnings cannot be logically tessellated with the rest.

You're pissing in your chips, basically.

Yes it can, since not all the government was involved. I have given you instances of people being silenced when sensitive info is at stake (Sibel edmonds is another), so this is quite simple.

Yes we are. I just asked you a question, and that counts for debate around here. Stop being evasive and answer the question.

We will get to that point in time. For now we are talking about foreknowledge. Read the slc post if u wanna learn about 7.

 

[MSgtWeiss]

Unfortunately, the naming of American warships, particularly aircraft carriers, has become highly politicized in the past generation. CVN-75 was originally to be name the USS United States; however, a political row developed over the naming of CVN-76. Democrats wanted the ship named in honor of Harry Truman; Republicans wanted her named for Ronald Reagan. Eventually the Navy decided to rename CVN-75 the USS Harry Truman, allowing both parties to have their way. At the time an admiral remarked, "The United States didn't have much of a constituency."

The situation has not been helped by the fact that six consecutive US Presidents are/were World War II Navy veterans, starting with John F. Kennedy (though Eisenhower, Teddy Roosevelt, Lincoln, Washington, Truman, and Reagan were all Army veterans). To date, three of these (Kennedy, Bush the Elder, and Ford) have had aircraft carriers named after them. A nuclear submarine has been named for Jimmy Carter, a former submariner. The naming of any new carriers for for Nixon or LBJ seems unlikely, due to their lack of combat or sea service, plus their associated political baggage. Naming of a new carrier for Bill Clinton (political baggage and alleged to have dodged the draft) or Bush the Younger (same problems, plus name is already taken) anytime soon is even more unlikely.

I tend to agree that LBJ had no actual combat service, but he was in fact awarded the Silver Star, for flying as (basically) a passenger on sort of a combat mission consisting of several aircraft. IIRC, that plane never got anywhere near combat, but since he was even by that time a significant political figure (like JFK), he got the SS. It became a bit of an embarrassment after a while, and I believe he stopped wearing the lapel ribbon, and virtually never referred to the incident after he became VP & Prez.

Since I assume LBJ got the associated "glad you're here" ribbons for spending some time in the Pacific theater, even as a TDY tour, a straightforward claim that he didn't serve in a combat area is very muddy, even though it was obviously a rather safe and short visit of a few weeks.

A minor nit-pick, admittedly.

 

[mjd1982]

PNAC wanted a slow rate of transformation so that it could be directed in specific ways. The whole push of PNAC program to push towards creating high tech, sophisticated growth in our military infrastructure. To create a situation where we would have to spend large percentages of the defense budget on a low tech ground war would have been unacceptable for this.

Even you admit in my interpretaion of your example of an undeniable assumption that it is really just a strong suggestion, hardly a fact.

Once again, I will ask you to respond to #493, otherwise you are just repeating your own point, instead of addressing mine.

I would also advise you to read here, since you do not seem to be clear on what the WOT is actually entailing.

 

[mjd1982]

Mjd, I suggest you read Myriads post #50.

This has been replied to at huge length and here

Please keep up.

 

[mjd1982]

Please provide evidence that "absolutely nothing" was done about warnings that Al Queda intendend an attack. Also please show that these warnings had sufficient information that even a genuis could correctly know what steps needed to be taken to prevent this attack without the benifit of hindsight (details please, not just "stop it")

The 911 Comm report. It states that despite 40 pdb's stating that AQ were plotting an imminent attack on US interests, including that there were AQ cells in the country plotting hijackings, nothing was done by the pres.

In terms of what to do, order that measures be taken to find the hijackers, step up airport security, accept OBL's hand over to Saudi. I have stated this many many many times here.