The 9/11 Conspiracy Facts

mjd1982 said:
The US military has been increased in size, as I have illustrated before. Not significantly, but this is an illustration, again, of execution rather than design. The execution has, nonetheless, been remarkable in its precision to RAD, as illustrated in #95. Read it and be enlightened.
Click to expand...
Why is it then that the PNAC does not agree with your assessment of the WOT. Do you know them better?

:confused: :rolleyes:
 
Always love the Hayek, and that pic is HOT!

The transformation, in its totality, will, even now, post new PH, take decades. This is a reality that would never have been able to have been avoided. Nonetheless, this is not to say that it would not have been wanted to happen sooner; to understand why quickly, realise that the corollary to a quick transformation in this context is, necessarily, an easy one. To argue that they did not want this, is to make the absurd statement that they wanted a difficult and complex process of transformation.
Click to expand...

Evidence of circular reasoning posted above ^

Now, to address the point about their statement of the "2 stage transition process over decades" (has already been addressed many times btw).1 They have an option here. They have stated that they can have a quick (quicker), easy transformation process via a new PH.2 Now, when it comes onto the inevitable stage of the logistics of the changes they envisage, they have a choice- either they state, "We advocate a slow process over the coming decades", or "We advocate the engineering of a new PH". As sensible people, we know they can only go for one. This is of course, not to say that they do not deem a new PH, which will create the wartime environemtn for their changes to happen easily,propitious.[3 It just means that they cannot publicly, overtly, call for the mass murder of US civilians, which is something we all know].
Click to expand...

1. No they have not stated this as a "choice"
2. You are adding to the document, MJd
3. Stop using "We". This shows what you are really getting at Mjd, it was an inside job, the last sentence says it all.
 
Last edited:
Auto reply from mjd1982 -
This has been address in post #493. Please stop the childish nonesense and post something propitious to policy!
 
My question is this: What is it, in the world you inhabit, that diplomats actually do?

Dave
Click to expand...
Ok, well no, I have suggested that to imply that they were in any way dishonest is racist- I have countered the oft repeated assertion here that Mohabbat is half Afghan (note, half), Afghans have a kind of cultural code of deceit, thus Mohabbat is being deceitful, as being bigoted. I trust there will not be any sensible disputes with this.

That correction aside, my point is what it always has been- regardless of whether you think that the chap was lying or telling the truth, the fact as reported by MSNBC is that there was no discussion within in the US government as to whether to take up the Afghan offer of handing over OBL to the US. Moreover, Mohabbat is an important witness, as important a witness as can be found regarding such a question as US-Talibam dynamics over OBL pre 911, and his opinion is unequivocal. Thus, whereas OTers may scuttle about scraping barrels for the latest subterfuge to muddy the issue (he may have been lying, is Cockburn really reliable, Olbermann has an agenda to list some that have been raised just for this issue), this does not deflect away from the core issue that his crucial testimony is another point which adds to the call for investigation of connivance. Saying that he must have been lying cos he contradicts the State dept is neither here nor there. The point stands.
Click to expand...

Can you not read? How is this an answer to Dave's question. (Hint it's not)
 
Why does it appear to me that mjd started with a firm belief that 911 was an inside job and is subjectively interpreting the PNAC in such a way to confirm his predisposition?
 
twinstead said:
Why does it appear to me that mjd started with a firm belief that 911 was an inside job and is subjectively interpreting the PNAC in such a way to confirm his predisposition?
Click to expand...

Thats right. But He also had a predetermined perception of us here at JREF.
It makes more sense to be describing himself;

I will state that I do believe that those who are not “Truthers” fall into 2 categories- ill informed (~90%) and deluded (the rest). I mean deluded not as some blind pejorative, rather in the strict sense of the word- they will ignore, manipulate and select evidence in order to squeeze it into a story that fits nicely with their preconceived, but ultimately baseless view of how the world might work.
Click to expand...
 
BAM!!! Two times!!
salma_hayek_gallery_25.jpg
 
mjd1982 said:
The transformation, in its totality, will, even now, post new PH, take decades. This is a reality that would never have been able to have been avoided. Nonetheless, this is not to say that it would not have been wanted to happen sooner; to understand why quickly, realise that the corollary to a quick transformation in this context is, necessarily, an easy one. To argue that they did not want this, is to make the absurd statement that they wanted a difficult and complex process of transformation.
Click to expand...

Huh???? This makes no sense. Respond with something that actually makes sense. This doesn't. I will wait.
 
The transformation, in its totality, will, even now, post new PH, take decades. This is a reality that would never have been able to have been avoided. Nonetheless, this is not to say that it would not have been wanted to happen sooner; to understand why quickly, realise that the corollary to a quick transformation in this context is, necessarily, an easy one. To argue that they did not want this, is to make the absurd statement that they wanted a difficult and complex process of transformation.
Click to expand...

Translation: Although 9/11 has nothing to do with it the changes will happen and it's an inside job because of it.:confused: :boggled:
 
mjd1982 said:
Now, to address the point about their statement of the "2 stage transition process over decades" (has already been addressed many times btw). They have an option here. They have stated that they can have a quick (quicker), easy transformation process via a new PH. Now, when it comes onto the inevitable stage of the logistics of the changes they envisage, they have a choice- either they state, "We advocate a slow process over the coming decades", or "We advocate the engineering of a new PH". As sensible people, we know they can only go for one. This is of course, not to say that they do not deem a new PH, which will create the wartime environemtn for their changes to happen easily,propitious. It just means that they cannot publicly, overtly, call for the mass murder of US civilians, which is something we all know.
Click to expand...

blah blah blah


As above
Click to expand...
blah blah

no, but it doesnt say that
Click to expand...
That is my interpretation of what it says. I dumbed it down, of course.

as above. Incidentally, you do not contest the point that no one has contested my points. I will agree with you on that, sad tho it is.
Click to expand...

Hello....MJD...**jab712 knocks on MJD's head** the posters in this thread have contested your points. You just have horrific reading comprehension skills and can't figure it out.

Errr... Politicians do kill people, you know that? Much of the time
Click to expand...
Enough of their own citizens (civilians) to cause a catastrophic catalyzing event? How often is this happening that our government wouldn't bat an eye at offing potentially 10,000 of their own citizens? Holy friggen poo poo....that must be happening a lot for them to not even flinch about "calling for a new PH" and writing it down, no less, for the whole country to see. That is pretty brazen.

I was going to come up with a little skit of how it all went down, but then I thought maybe only I would find it amuzing, so I will just keep that to myself for now and spare the rest of you.

Not strictly true. It has been forecast by Goldman Sachs that by 2050 the US will be the 5th economy in the world, behind China INdia Russia and Brazil. Economically it can no longer be guaranteed top spot in the short to mid term. This is also discounting the growth and increasing integration of the EU block. So all the more priority on the US to exercise military radicalisation to press this advantage home. Hence why, in the eyes of PNAC, these changes should be the centrepiece of policy for the new administration by October 2001, such as happened.
Click to expand...

Irrelevant to the topic we are currently discussing. In case you forgot, we are speaking of the PNAC document. My statement was according to the PNAC doc was saying. I don't give a tinkers toot what Goldman Sachs is forecasting for 2050. According to the PNAC document (which is what I was referring to), the US, at present, has no immediate threat of a rival superpower. It says it in the friggen document. Please keep up.

I know what the problem is. You aren't reading the actual document. You are only looking at a few paragraphs that are relevant to your points. Good grief. Go back to my post on page 47, click on the link that says PNAC document and read the dang thing...start to finish. Read the introduction, read the table of contents, read the boxes in gray that have the text bolded, even read the sassy little comments in italics. Be sure to read the ENTIRE document, not just your favorite paragraphs.

Then when you are finished, read it again, you apparently need to read it more than once. Feel free to print it out and highlight things that you want to address.

You have constantly demanded that people go back and read your post or reply to your post. Frankly, I am tired of it. I think it is safe to say that everyone is tired of it. Go back and read the document. Come back with something other than your new PH propitious garbage. This is getting quite old. Move on.
 
mjd1982 said:
Ok, well no, I have not suggested that to imply that they were in any way dishonest is racist- I have countered the oft repeated assertion here that Mohabbat is half Afghan (note, half), Afghans have a kind of cultural code of deceit, thus Mohabbat is being deceitful, as being bigoted.
Click to expand...

Yes, we know this is what you said. But that was NOT what was being said, and therefore all you're doing is misunderstanding the point.

Why? Explain yourself, dont just make assertions. These assertions look all the more silly given that PH catalysed public and political opinon, not just military, which is the point of RAD. Again, very simple to understand.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, this is another difference between Pearl Harbor and 9/11 : the American people are not being drafted for the war in any way, shape or form. The American industry is not being diverted to producing more tanks, ships or airplanes. They just sent in the army against a technically inferior foe, and then got caught into a hot zone. How was this catalysing, again ?
 
mjd1982 said:
Other than to make the changes happen quicker.
Click to expand...

Which, again, says nothing about "quicker" being "better" in this instance.

And of course, what is the corrollary to quicker? Easier.
Click to expand...

Absolutely, completely false.

So if you are arguiing that they wanted the changes to happen slower, you are also saying they wanted the process to be harder.
Click to expand...

Of course not. Having erosion work its "magic" is easy, but slow.

How was Vietnam a fault of design- the design in question being that the establishment of a US client regime in S. Vietnam would help US interests in the area and check communist expansion? How is this design wrong?
Click to expand...

The USA was ill-prepared for that kind of combat. It was pretty obvious once the whole thing started.

Haha, which is very much on its way to happening!
Click to expand...

Speculation, since it hasn't happened.

right, well why is there then so much sabre rattling of invasion of Iraq? Again, a catastrophically slack reading of the doc
Click to expand...

Gosh, you really do love to read your own posts, don't you ?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom