The 9/11 Conspiracy Facts

[lapman]

ROFL

These posts are getting just a tad ridiculous. The assertion that you are claiming is "false" is that that PNAC were referring to an event that was catastrophic and catalysing. This does not merit response.

I hope you are not arguing taht PH was not the catalyst for US involvement in ww2....

The PH attack was the excuse for US involvement in WW2. It was used as a catalyst for public approval to enter the war, but the event itself wasn't. It was one of several attacks on the American military that started that week. You also had Wake, the Philippines and others. If it was simply stated that Japan declared war on the US, that would not have been a catalyzing statement for public approval.
Remember, the Lusitania was not the reason the US got into WW1. However, it was used as a catalyst for public approval to enter that war.

I equally hope you are not stating 911 has not catalysing the WOT

Again, Bush used 9/11 as a catalyst for public approval to start the WOT.

Originally Posted by lapman
The PNAC document was not specifically written to counteract terrorism.

I know. Where did i say it did?

You inferred it on the most elementary level.

You are out of your mind!!!

Unbelievable self deception! Show me one post that I have ignored in response to my points regarding similarities between RAD and WOT, encapsulated in #95. You will not find one. So why have you lied like this?

Every post by everyone else since. Yes, you acknowledge and quote the posts, but you ignore the content.

They required a long lasting military transformation that would project american hegemony throughout the 21st century, What better way to do it than a potentially neve ending war.

Actually, it's the opposite. Vietnam was a prime example. The seemingly endless war hurt our hegemony in the region, not helped it. The war in Iraq has hurt our hegemony in the region, not helped it. So no, the Iraq war is not supported by the PNAC document. Since the invasion of Iraq is supposed to be part of the WOT, the WOT is also not supported by the PNAC.

Understand one thing, and do tell me if you disagree, as i will be able to gauge your apparent mental illness- in a wartime environment, military radicalisations are much easier to pursue, especially with the help of scare tactics, such as are being used by the Bush admin. Tell me if you disagree with that please.

Not necessarily true. If the enemy is not technologically superior, then there is no need for any R&D of new technologies. In WW2, there was a huge gap between the technology we had in 1941 and what was needed to win the war. Hence the radical development in technology. It was the same with WW1. The WOT is different. We are fighting a technologically inferior enemy. The only change needed is in strategy, not technology.

Yes, the fact that changes are easier and quicker to pursue in a wartime environment than in peace!!! How hard is this to understand??! And if you do understand it, tell me why, instead of having the change happen easily and timely, they would want them to happen with difficulty, and not timely!!?

See above.

Basic, nursery level inference my friend, take some lessons in honesty, and you will find this thread a lot easier for yourself.

Again, the inference was not made on any level. The inference of the document, as Spitfire has said, is the type of catastrophic and catalyzing event that would require radical technological change to win the ensuing war. 9/11 was not anywhere near that. The WOT is not that. Why is that so hard for you to understand?

 

[mjd1982]

It wasn't. Japan would have gone to war with the United States whether the Pearl Harbor attack had taken place or not.

Oh boy, another dull minded, ill thought out utterance...

Listen, the Japanese may well have been going to war with the US come hell or high water, but there was still a catalysing event that precipitated US involvement. This is quite simple to understand.

The Japanese high command was generally opposed to the operation; Admiral Yammamoto had to threaten to resign in order to get the plan approved. Even without Pearl Harbor Japan still would have invaded the Philippines, Guam, and Wake.

Hehe, this is too bad! How can you seriously write the stuff you do? This para relates to japanese motives for waging war- what relevance does it have to catalysts for US involvement?

As for Germany, the US Navy was already in a hot war with the Kriegsmarine in the Atlantic; one US destroyer had already been sunk, and another damaged by U-boats, and FDR had ordered the US Navy to shoot on sight any German or Italian warships encountered.

Right! But to get fully involved in the war required, ultimately the catalysing event taht was PH! I get tired of telling you how basic this is, your posts just go to show

Edited by chillzero: 

Edited for civility

, or you have no respect for what you write.

Roosevelt's political advisors told him that he had the votes in Congress for declarations of war againt both German and Japan before Pearl Harbor; however, his military advisors were begging him to delay entering the war as long as possible, in order to give them more time to prepare.

Ok, so there were movements for war in Congress. How does this contradict the fact that PH was the event that catalysed full US engagement in the war?

As lapman stated, from a political and morale standpoint, Pearl Harbor was primarily a rallying cry.

Woah woah woah... think about what you are saying. Who was it a rallying cry for? Its victims? How the hell can an attack be a rallying cry by its victims? Think before you post this nonsense. It served as a rallying cry to get the social and political machinery behind full US engagement in WW2- hence it was the catalyst for it! This is astonishingly, astonishingly basic. For you to try and argue that PH didnt catalyse US involvement in ww2, the most basic historical fact, is perfectly illustrative of your self deception, denial, and utter dishonesty in approaching this issue.

The point that you seem to be missing, and others have attempted to point out to you, is that the "cataclysmic and catalyzing" effect of Pearl Harbor referred to in PNAC is not on American public opinion; rather it is on military thinking, in terms of the shift from battleship-oriented to aircraft carrier-oriented naval strategy. Personally I feel this effect is often exaggerated; the US Navy was already well on its way to adopting the aircraft carrier as its main weapon (at the time of Pearl Harbor, 13 Essex-class carriers had been on order for over a year). However, this is clearly the sense that the the authors of PNAC meant to convey.

Ah, inference we have here! So it is admissible to debate after all, I dont expect you to use that evasion again.

Of course, your point debunks itself- as has been pointed out by many on this thread already, along with now yourself, the shift in military thinking was already in place; what was needed was a coherent framework, including domestic, and foreign policy (if you had read the doc carefully, you would not need me to tell you this), which would allow the full aims of RAD, which went beyond mere military gains, and included global posture review and agressive control of strategic interests. This WOT offers the perfect subterfuge for all such elements to be achieved; and as it offers us a wartime environment, the changes, in general backed by the political and social machinery, are easy to push through, just as the PH para in RAD states.

This should all be very, very simple to understand, so much so that I am certain it is honesty here, not intellect, that is lacking.

 

[mjd1982]

I'm only semi-intelligent if your getting depressed with the intelligent people running rings round you.

Oh boy... what a thought.

I think the 1st half of your sentence puts the 2nd half in its accurate context.

This is how i see it.

The PNAC document was written by neo-cons,

Correct

it supported increases in military spending.

amongst other things, global posture review, control of strategic resources, domestic policy shifts among others. Read the doc.

In a section regarding new technologies a pearl harbour reference is made.

Wrong. Read #95. It deals with technologies and operational concepts. It is standard OT rhetoric that it just deal with new technologies, but this is a level of comprehension that the 11 yr old kid I tutor would not descend to.

You have deemed this line as important in stating the claim that 911 was propitious to policy.

yes

Its not that simple.

oh?

Its been pointed out throughout this thread why not.

ah. I thought you were about to say something substantive. You will note that most of the posts that you imagine, say pretty much exactly the same thing as you are stating yourself right now. Go back and read.

You have failed to recognise the points made and will continue to claim that it was propitious to policy.

I have adressed near every single point that has been made thank you.

Other posters have now abondoned any hope of progressing the discussion and are now pulling your chain.

Many have abandoned which is fine- the issues are there on the table, and if anyone wants to debate them honestly, I will do such freely. If they want to post vacuously (semi-intelligently) like you have just done, then this is the reason we may get into problems.

 

[mjd1982]

Repeat steps 4-6 in My post. You are using it for a lynchpin. Let Me show you.

In your very first post;



In post #95;


[/B]
Post #194;



Just as an aside, was psychology part of your education?



[/B]

# 270 IS post- 9/11 action/policy;



In post #304;



In post#309, post# 317 (Which was a response to a post of mine);



Post # 328;



The quote above is post-9/11 actions that you have attempted to use as evidence pertaining to the minds of those who wrote PNAC. The "propitious" connection.

Post #364;



Post #410;



These are 10 posts reflecting your argument. Now do you have evidence of somebody, anybody, doing something illegal within the US Government that would make relevance to your arguments?
Or just repeat steps 4-6?

It is a lynchpin of my point regarding how RAD states these changes can get done soon, given that it is their only comment on such. Since you have failed to understand your own point, I will ask you again- show me where I have stated that this is the only message of the doc? And when you fail, tell me why you have decided to lie.

 

[mjd1982]

You've just shot yourself in the foot, Mjd.

If you've INFERED your conclusion from the doc, it follows that it is not the SUBJECT of the doc, otherwise it wouldn't have to be infered.

I never said it was the subject of the doc, think before you post please.

How is it "basic", if you can't even convince anyone that you are correct in its interpretation ?

It is basic to honest people. An honest person can be defined as someone who does not argue that 911 was not a new PH.

Except that they DON'T have a never ending war.

And how to you envisage the WOT ending? With "Terror" chained up, paraded thruogh the streets of NY?

 

[mjd1982]

The PH attack was the excuse for US involvement in WW2. It was used as a catalyst for public approval to enter the war, but the event itself wasn't. It was one of several attacks on the American military that started that week. You also had Wake, the Philippines and others. If it was simply stated that Japan declared war on the US, that would not have been a catalyzing statement for public approval.

Yes, hence how it was the catalyst for US engagement in war- a catalysing event, just as PNAC said.

Remember, the Lusitania was not the reason the US got into WW1. However, it was used as a catalyst for public approval to enter that war.

another example of a catalyst for US engagement in war

Again, Bush used 9/11 as a catalyst for public approval to start the WOT.

and a 3rd example of a catalys for war. So all 3 examples are congruent- catastrophic catalysing events. I do not understand why this is even being argued.

Every post by everyone else since. Yes, you acknowledge and quote the posts, but you ignore the content.

Please give me 1 example.

I always ask this to people who make your point, and there is never an answer. So give me 1 example please.

None of your ilk have any hope of "debunking" this argument, so evasion and subterfuge are the standard recourses- dramatically illustrated on this thread.

Actually, it's the opposite. Vietnam was a prime example. The seemingly endless war hurt our hegemony in the region, not helped it. The war in Iraq has hurt our hegemony in the region, not helped it. So no, the Iraq war is not supported by the PNAC document. Since the invasion of Iraq is supposed to be part of the WOT, the WOT is also not supported by the PNAC.

But this is just astonishingly basic. If you want to learn, read my posts. You do not read them, thus you are clueless. The faults with both Vietnam and Iraq were faults of execution, not design. We are not arguing execution- it is of no surprise that these imbeciles cant do anything right, 911 being the perfect example- but design. This has been repeated umpteen times by me here.

Not necessarily true. If the enemy is not technologically superior, then there is no need for any R&D of new technologies. In WW2, there was a huge gap between the technology we had in 1941 and what was needed to win the war. Hence the radical development in technology. It was the same with WW1. The WOT is different. We are fighting a technologically inferior enemy. The only change needed is in strategy, not technology.

Oh boy. This has been dealt with again and again. Read post 95. There you will see what actually constitutes the WOT. It is not just Iraq and Afghanistan like you think. Take 1 example- the militarisation of space. This is being pursued under the aegis of the WOT. Yet how does this have anything to do with fighting terrorism? Understand 1 simple point- the WOT has nothing to do wtih fighting terror- the US is giving asylum to some of th worlds worst terrorists, and is arming/supporting jihadists in Iraq and Iran. (This is all referred to in #95). It is about entrenchment of hegemony- military and strategic. Hence the disconnects like the militarisation of space.
Another term for it is the "rebuilidng of america's defenses." Hence why the strategies outlibed there, and being pursued now, are so similar. This is pretty simple to understand, if you make the effort. Go and read, and digest, posy 95.

Again, the inference was not made on any level. The inference of the document, as Spitfire has said, is the type of catastrophic and catalyzing event that would require radical technological change to win the ensuing war. 9/11 was not anywhere near that. The WOT is not that. Why is that so hard for you to understand?

You mean implication, not inference.

1stly, what war? This war is not specified in the manner you suggest. 2ndly, as above, the technological radicalisations are being pursued. Read #95, the one that only 1 person has had the courage to respond to, and all will be clear to you.

 

[Dave Rogers]

MJD1982,

A question for you.

Some posters in this thread, including myself, have suggested that offers from the Taliban to hand over Osama bin Laden to the USA for trial may not have been entirely sincere. Our suggestion is that Afghan diplomats, in negotiations with a foreign country both potentially hostile and possessed of overwhelming military force, may have prevaricated, concealed information, uttered half-truths and hinted vaguely at offers they had no intention of making good - all of these fairly common tactics in any negotiation. I would suggest that they did this in order to further what they saw as their country's best interests, by avoiding giving the appearance before other Islamic nations with extremist tendencies of having given in to America and failed to preserve the safety of a guest, while at the same time avoiding an open conflict with America which could only have one possible ultimate outcome - the entire destruction of their form of government, and quite possibly their own personal extinction.

You have countered this with the assertion that it is unthinkable for Afghan diplomats to have acted in such a manner, and that even to suggest that they were in any way dishonest is a racist slur against the Afghan people.

My question is this: What is it, in the world you inhabit, that diplomats actually do?

Dave

 

[Belz...]

Eating too much apple pie causes catastrophic changes to mine.

But are those changes catalysing ?

 

[Belz...]

I never said it was the subject of the doc, think before you post please.

Then what's this ?:

Err, no, the propitousness of change is not something taht I hope you will be debating, since the need for this change is the subject of the doc

If it's the subject, then it is not infered, but stated.

It is basic to honest people.

Are you saying that I am not honest ?

An honest person can be defined as someone who does not argue that 911 was not a new PH.

Circular reasoning, Mjd. Think about it.

And how to you envisage the WOT ending? With "Terror" chained up, paraded thruogh the streets of NY?

The war on terror is NOT a war. I think that pretty much kills your argument.

But this is just astonishingly basic. If you want to learn, read my posts. You do not read them, thus you are clueless. The faults with both Vietnam and Iraq were faults of execution, not design.

No, I think the wars in Vietnam and Iraq were both poorly designed.

Now, how about answering this:

Who would fund such an investigation, that would make it "independent" ?

 

[jab712]

Eating too much apple pie causes catastrophic changes to mine.

Well then, you need to keep eating that apple pie. Apparently, catastrophic is no longer a bad thing, it's "called for."

 

[lapman]

Yes, hence how it was the catalyst for US engagement in war- a catalysing event, just as PNAC said.

WRONG The catalyzing event is based purely on a military level, not public opinion level. And the PNAC document is not about engaging in a war, but being prepared in case such an engagement is needed.

another example of a catalyst for US engagement in war

True, but still not what the PNAC was talking about.

and a 3rd example of a catalys for war. So all 3 examples are congruent- catastrophic catalysing events. I do not understand why this is even being argued.

Because the PNAC was not talking about, inferring or giving any impression that such an even was require, needed or wanted.

Please give me 1 example.

This one

I always ask this to people who make your point, and there is never an answer. So give me 1 example please.

this one

None of your ilk have any hope of "debunking" this argument, so evasion and subterfuge are the standard recourses- dramatically illustrated on this thread.

You have dramatically illustrated that you have no intention of arguing any point. Your statements have been proven wrong over and over again and you refuse to admit that.

But this is just astonishingly basic. If you want to learn, read my posts. You do not read them, thus you are clueless. The faults with both Vietnam and Iraq were faults of execution, not design. We are not arguing execution- it is of no surprise that these imbeciles cant do anything right, 911 being the perfect example- but design. This has been repeated umpteen times by me here.

I have read your posts. The faults of Vietnam and Iraq were faults of both execution and design. You are the one that refuses to even try to understand that.

Oh boy. This has been dealt with again and again. Read post 95. There you will see what actually constitutes the WOT. It is not just Iraq and Afghanistan like you think. Take 1 example- the militarisation of space.

Which hasn't happened.

This is being pursued under the aegis of the WOT. Yet how does this have anything to do with fighting terrorism? Understand 1 simple point- the WOT has nothing to do wtih fighting terror- the US is giving asylum to some of th worlds worst terrorists, and is arming/supporting jihadists in Iraq and Iran. (This is all referred to in #95). It is about entrenchment of hegemony- military and strategic. Hence the disconnects like the militarisation of space.
Another term for it is the "rebuilidng of america's defenses." Hence why the strategies outlibed there, and being pursued now, are so similar. This is pretty simple to understand, if you make the effort. Go and read, and digest, posy 95.

And you are 100,000% WRONG! That is what we have all showed you time and time again. You are wrong, period. Anything you post after this, including your reply is wrong. Just plain wrong on every level. You have zero idea what you are talking about. You are completely clueless on the working of the military. You have no idea what radicalization of the military is. Yet you will continually repeat the wrong statements over and over again and continually refer to posts that were wrong and have been proven wrong, over and over again.

You mean implication, not inference.

Either way, the "new PH" that the PNAC is referring to is a military, not public opinion, catastrophic and catalyzing event. Nothing else. The second reference to PH in the document proves it.

1stly, what war? This war is not specified in the manner you suggest. 2ndly, as above, the technological radicalisations are being pursued.

WRONG. The only things that have been pursued are the programs that were already in place when the document was written with the exception of the Comanche, which was canceled. Programs like the JSF were kept even though the PNAC recommended canceling it.

Read #95, the one that only 1 person has had the courage to respond to, and all will be clear to you.

Ok, my response is: YOU ARE WRONG. There, now 2 people have responded. So, are you finally ready to tackle WTC7?

 

[JonnyFive]

But are those changes catalysing ?

Yes, but I would hesitate to call them "radical" just yet.

Well then, you need to keep eating that apple pie. Apparently, catastrophic is no longer a bad thing, it's "called for."

Can do!

 

[jab712]

“Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor.”

This is the only sentence in the doc that covers how, soon. Given that such crucial transformations happening in months/years, rather than decades is favourable to PNAC/the neo conservative ideologues who formed the heart of the Bush administration, then we can conclude that a new Pearl Harbour is deemed propitious to policy for the Bush administration as of September 2000.

If they wanted it to happen in months/years, rather than decades, why do they keep advocating "over the next several decades" or "over the next two decades?" Seriously, the general theme of the document is that it needs to happen over the next several decades.

PNAC Doc

Page 5

Generally, American strategy for the coming
decades should seek to consolidate the great
victories won in the 20th century – which
have made Germany and Japan into stable
democracies, for example – maintain
stability in the Middle East, while setting the
conditions for 21st-century successes,
especially in East Asia.

Page 7

However, this transition period
must be a first step toward more substantial
reform. Over the next several decades, the
United States must field a global system of
missile defenses, divine ways to control the
new “international commons” of space and
cyberspace, and build new kinds of
conventional forces for different strategic
challenges and a new technological
environment.

Page 12

If the United States is
to retain the technological and tactical
advantages it now enjoys in large-scale
conventional conflicts, the effort at
transformation must be considered as
pressing a mission as preparing for today’s
potential theater wars or constabulary
missions – indeed, it must receive a
significant, separate allocation of forces and
budgetary resources over the next two
decades.

Page 13

Finally, it must be remembered that the
process of transformation is indeed a
process: even the most vivid view of the
armed forces of the future must be grounded
in an understanding of today’s forces. In
general terms, it seems likely that the
process of transformation will take several
decades and that U.S. forces will continue to
operate many, if not most, of today’s
weapons systems for a decade or more.
Thus, it can be foreseen that the process of
transformation will in fact be a two-stage
process: first of transition, then of more
thoroughgoing transformation. The breakpoint
will come when a preponderance of
new weapons systems begins to enter
service, perhaps when, for example,
unmanned aerial vehicles begin to be as
numerous as manned aircraft. In this regard,
the Pentagon should be very wary of making
large investments in new programs – tanks,
planes, aircraft carriers, for example – that
would commit U.S. forces to current
paradigms of warfare for many decades to
come.

Page 59

This two-stage process is likely to take
several decades. Yet, although the precise
shape and direction of the transformation of
U.S. armed forces remains a matter for
rigorous experimentation and analysis (and
will be discussed in more detail below in the
section on the armed services), it is possible
to foresee the general characteristics of the
current revolution in military affairs.
Broadly speaking, these cover several
principal areas of capabilities:

Page 60

Although it may take several decades
for the process of transformation to unfold,
in time, the art of warfare on air, land, and
sea will be vastly different than it is today,
and “combat” likely will take place in new
dimensions: in space, “cyber-space,” and
perhaps the world of microbes. Air warfare
may no longer be fought by pilots manning
tactical fighter aircraft sweeping the skies of
opposing fighters, but a regime dominated
by long-range, stealthy unmanned craft. On
land, the clash of massive, combined-arms
armored forces may be replaced by the
dashes of much lighter, stealthier and
information-intensive forces, augmented by
fleets of robots, some small enough to fit in
soldiers’ pockets. Control of the sea could
be largely determined not by fleets of
surface combatants and aircraft carriers, but
from land- and space-based systems, forcing
navies to maneuver and fight underwater.
Space itself will become a theater of war, as
nations gain access to space capabilities and
come to rely on them; further, the distinction
between military and commercial space
systems – combatants and noncombatants –
will become blurred. Information systems
will become an important focus of attack,
particularly for U.S. enemies seeking to
short-circuit sophisticated American forces.
And advanced forms of biological warfare
that can “target” specific genotypes may
transform biological warfare from the realm
of terror to a politically useful tool.

While, maybe it would be better to have it happen sooner, there is no indication in the document that was the sentiment. If anything, the new PH sentence suggests that it isn't something they would want. Let's rephrase shall we "Our plan will take decades, absent something absolutely horrible happening (catastrophic) that forces us to move faster on this (catalyzing), like a new PH." How does that sound? Does that sound like something they are calling for? Does it seem propitious?

You keep saying that no one is addressing your point. Your point doesn't make sense based on the text in the document. Why do we need explain when the text itself does not read the way you say it does? The document suggests a time frame of decades. Decades. Not sooner. I don't see sooner implied either. Why imply months/years, then throughout the document say decades? Decades is throughout the document. Over the next two decades, over the next several decades. What the heck part of that do you not understand? Why do you not understand that catastrophic is a bad thing? No matter how you spin it, why on earth can you jump to the conclusion that ANYONE would call for something bad? "Well Bubba, we need to have this happen sooner. We need a catastrophe that forces our hand to move faster." How on earth does that make sense???? This seems pretty elementary to me.

We aren't in immediate threat of a rival superpower. Therefore, we have time to act on our plan, which will be the next couple of decades. Read the document again, its pretty clear.

You have done NOTHING to show that a new PH is propitious to policy. The document advocates decades. So we don't need to come back and tell you how it isn't propitious to policy. The document speaks for itself, of course, if you can read.

 

[Belz...]

Yes

I think you've just admitted that you WANTED it to happen.

It's basic, kindergarten-level inference, really.

 

[DGM]

How again is the WOT and this administration carrying out the wishes of the PNAC?

Letter to Congress on Increasing U.S. Ground Forces
January 28, 2005

Dear Senator Frist, Senator Reid, Speaker Hastert, and Representative Pelosi:

The United States military is too small for the responsibilities we are asking it to assume. Those responsibilities are real and important. They are not going away. The United States will not and should not become less engaged in the world in the years to come. But our national security, global peace and stability, and the defense and promotion of freedom in the post-9/11 world require a larger military force than we have today. The administration has unfortunately resisted increasing our ground forces to the size needed to meet today's (and tomorrow's) missions and challenges.

The administration has been reluctant to adapt to this new reality. We understand the dangers of continued federal deficits, and the fiscal difficulty of increasing the number of troops. But the defense of the United States is the first priority of the government. This nation can afford a robust defense posture along with a strong fiscal posture. And we can afford both the necessary number of ground troops and what is needed for transformation of the military.

In sum: We can afford the military we need. As a nation, we are spending a smaller percentage of our GDP on the military than at any time during the Cold War. We do not propose returning to a Cold War-size or shape force structure. We do insist that we act responsibly to create the military we need to fight the war on terror and fulfill our other responsibilities around the world.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/defense-20050128.htm

Letters an statements

http://www.newamericancentury.org/lettersstatements.htm

Statement of principles

http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm

 

[simakperrce]

First off: if you want to continue to discuss this matter in this condescending fashion with sprinkling your replies with patronizing comments, ad hominems and "LMAO"s you might consider ignoring me altogether.

Next: there is no such thing as "my ilk". I am a relative scarce poster around here and the opinion I express is solely my own and is not endorsed by anyone around here, at least not to my knowledge. Unlike the Thruthers, we are not a group of people who form a movement.

I have refrained from calling you names or trying to counter your arguments using childish Internet abbreviations or self-righteous remarks. If there is something funny for you about my English it might be that it is not my first language. If you want we can switch this discussion to German any time you desire and I can throw some exotic words at you which make me look super-smart and you like an ignorant fool for not being able to decipher them immediately.

I have also expressed before that I consider your language superb. I already think you are a smart guy, so you don't have to constantly rub it in. Now, in my experience the *really* smart guys don't go along all day trying to show other people how smart and superior they are, so I think a little understatement in your replies would actually help your case, unless of course, you thrive on your bloated ego or need to prostitute it in order to get some amends.

Now that I got my full admiration of you out of the way, can we agree upon refraining from childish nonsense a la "oh, boy" and take a look at our arguments instead?

Ok, 1st problem here. I am not confusing interpretation with fact,

Maybe you think you are not. I was referring to your original post, though. In that, as I pointed out earlier, you mention the word "fact" or "evidence" a good number of times without actually providing such. That you "infer" anything is your good right. But you do not do so in your OP. Instead, you are trying to build an entire case around why 9/11 MUST HAVE BEEN an inside job based (among other things which we haven't even addressed) on a few statements in a document which you INTERPRET in a certain way. While this approach might be valid for a political essay or an op-ed piece it is not something that you could use in any court of law.

Now you will of course claim that this wasn't your intention, which of course begs the question what exactly that intention of yours is. If you want to impeach Bush this is the wrong place (not because we are all Bush acolytes but because this is not a place with any judicial powers). So what is it you want? What would you like to happen at the end, when you have convinced us all?

Err, no, the propitousness of change is not something taht I hope you will be debating, since the need for this change is the subject of the doc

I am not debating the propitiousness part. It is irrelevant since it is nothing but an inference. I am debating your stance that 9/11 must have been the consequence of said mentioning, or, that the fact that this is mentioned in PNAC is evidence of 9/11 marking the execution of the PNAC document.

Haha, oh boy, no it's not!

Condescending, unsmart comment.

I am simply stating, and have been doing quite openly for ~1700 posts now, that the doc simply illustrates that a catastrophic and catalysing event was deemed propitious to policy by many of the men who would be in charge of protecting the US on and up to 911. If you can understand that, most very simple of points, you will find this thread a lot easier.

Thanks for the hint, Sigmund.

If it was for me you could debate this point for another 1700 posts. I don't care. The document, as I understand it (interpret it, just as you), states that IN CASE of a catalyzing event the policy of change will eventually have to be adjusted (accelerated). That 9/11 THEREFORE MUST HAVE BEEN *THAT* catalyzing event that is mentioned in this doc is your inference. As I said before it is an inference that is not subject to falsifiability. Hence it is *worthless* at least in a case of fact-assembling, unless you produce another document in which any of the signers explicitly states that THIS (9/11) WAS THE CATALYZING EVENT that PNAC referred to and that "they" have been waiting for.


<snipped more condescending rubbish>

This is one the biggest piles of nonsense to be posted by your ilk, which is saying quite something! Am I actually supposed to argue against this?

As for the "ilk"-remark see above. You obviously did not understand the analogy. You cited a document, which contains vague and general guidelines for the direction and actions of American policy over the next decades to be EVIDENCE for an inside job on 911. I tried to explain to you, that contrary to what you said in your first post, your inference and interpretation of this document is opinion and not facts.

It is not a fact that the catalystic event mentioned in PNAC was 911. I agree in so far that it COULD have been. Pure and simple. By the same token, earth COULD have been created by god rather than by the big bang and ensuing gravitational forces. We have good evidence that the latter was the case, but it is still an inference which doesn't entirely exclude the first case. One of the central creationist arguments that earth was IN FACT created by god is the document called Bible, which, in vague and general terms describes the creation of earth by god. Without implying that you are actually a creationist, your train of thought in regard to 9/11 being a major event, predicted, orchestrated and executed (or acknowledged) by some specific, powerful entity (God, the GOV, Cheney, the CIA) is the exact same. IOW, it is as valid and as "useful" and as "proven" to say "earth was created by god" than to say "PNACs propitiousness statement referred to 9/11".

Next time, think long and hard before you post.

Again, condescending bullcrap. Next time, before you post, please strip your contributions of this patronizing rubbish or stop replying at all.

 

[JonnyFive]

I think you've just admitted that you WANTED it to happen.

It's basic, kindergarten-level inference, really.

I'm going to declare a "war on fat" now.

Haw haw, how can I possibly declare a war on an abstract adjective? That's silly. Clearly this was an "inside job." Inside my stomach!

 

[HeyLeroy]

Still on PNAC, eh.

Carry on.

 

[SpitfireIX]

Still on PNAC, eh.

Carry on.

do
{


}
while (TRUE);

 

[David Wong]

Sorry I've been gone... which page has the discussion on WTC 7 and the evidence that PNAC actually executed (rather than just profited from) 9/11?