The 9/11 Conspiracy Facts

[Devil's Advocate]

mjd1982,

Ok, for the sake of understanding your position, let me see if I have your theory correct.

The NWO folks write up documents explaining what they want to do and make them public. (Would it make more sense to keep it a secret so no one would be able to figure out their plans and make the connections *IF* what you think the documents are saying were true?) After they set the plan, they stage 9/11 to fit with the document, that what they wanted would be too slow a process unless a '9/11 event' were to take place. (Speaking on how you're reading it, obviously))
And they go to war with Iraq more for the RAD document than the PNAC, but the PNAC stuff comes later.
Am I about right in all that?

But I have another question. Now, do you think it is possible that you are reading into the documents what you want to see rather than what is really there?
If you already have made up your mind, then could it be possible that you want to read the document a certain way so it will fit with what you already believe?

 

[lapman]

Evidence would be, for one example, the testimony of the middle man between the US and the Taliban.

You mean the unconfirmed middle man that was only reported in the far less than credible sources? Nope, not evidence.

Inference is not being presented as evidence, you should be able to understand this if you have the capacity to type. It is being presented as the tool to analyse evidence which is admissible in a court of law as well as in a debate.

No, you are using it as evidence. You would understand this if you had the capacity to think. However, since you have the mental capacity of a zygote, I understand why you haven't been able to get this.

 

[aggle-rithm]

I dont want to be antagonistic,

Do we need any more proof that we're dealing with a liar here?

 

[Belz...]

An urgent change that needs to happen as soon as possible

Debunked.

hence needing to be crystallised in the minds of decison makers by Oct 2001

Non sequitur.

This is ~18mths before the invasion!!! So Iraq was linked to 911

Post hoc ergo propter hoc

since its invasion was a part of RAD, the plan which was to be catalysed by 911

Speculation.

regardless of its disconnects

Close-mindedness.

 

[aggle-rithm]

Would it make more sense to keep it a secret so no one would be able to figure out their plans and make the connections *IF* what you think the documents are saying were true

If I could play devil's advocate for a moment, the argument used by troofers here is that Adolph Hitler did something similar when he announced his intentions to annex Eastern Europe in Mein Kampf.

The difference is, Hitler didn't have to keep the conquest of Eastern Europe secret once he had actually done it. All he had to do is convince people that he was just kidding, that he REALLY wanted peace, until it was too late for them to do anything about it.

 

[Belz...]

Ok, so your main point is that no one corroborates his story. I'm sorry, but this is a standard OTer tactic

Yes, asking for evidence and corroboration is a standard 'tactic' in a debate.

The answer, my truth seeking friend, is right in from of your own nose.

Preaching.

This is, to all with an above average intelligence, because it was.

I see it's no longer "basic". Now you need ABOVE average intelligence.

You're well on your way to declaring your own genius.

How audacious indeed to hope that someone on this hilarious forum would respond to my post "sensibly".

What's "sensibly" ? How do you define it ? Better yet, answer this: do you believe that it is possible that some disagrees with you and is still honest and sensible about his opinions ?

 

[Belz...]

The NWO folks write up documents explaining what they want to do and make them public.

As meaningless as that sounds, that's EXACTLY what he's saying.

But I have another question. Now, do you think it is possible that you are reading into the documents what you want to see rather than what is really there?

Golly gosh, no!! It's basic-level inference, Devil's. Nothing more!!

 

[Belz...]

When are you guys going to present the hard evidence against OBL? Oh I forgot, you don't have any. You just stick to your conjecture and speculation.

"Something's suspicious" isn't evidence, Rev.

 

[Unsecured Coins]

and this is the reason I post Salma Hayek pictures. They're about as informative of mjd's responses

 

[JonnyFive]

Double post.

 

[JonnyFive]

(snip)

-Avoid jargon. Don't say POTUS. Don't say 'propitious' more than twice.

(snip)

Blashpemer!

 

[lapman]

Duplicate again due to lack of response from the site.

 

[lapman]

You are a liar


So Iraq was linked to 911, since its invasion was a part of RAD, the plan which was to be catalysed by 911, regardless of its disconnects, to repeat myself.

Talk about a liar. This statement:

the
need for a
substantial
American force
presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of
the regime of Saddam Hussein.

goes completely against what you claim. This statement shows that any link you claim between the RAD and Iraq is completely false and you know this. Yet you continue to repeat the blatantly false claim. This shows that you completely lack the honest you require of us. Another example:

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

When I pointed out that others had respond, your answer was:

note I said sensible responses

Which is of course, a lie. Again. These are just 2 examples of your dishonesty and extreme hypocrisy. The responses to #95 start at #96 and continue sporadically throughout the rest of the thread. So it's not the "secret" that you claim which is another dishonest statement that you have posted. And now you don't even have the courage to respond "sensibly" to my WTC7 argument. Instead, you rely on infantile digs and insults in order to regain control of the "debate."

 

[BillyRayValentine]

Ok, so your main point is that no one corroborates his story. I'm sorry, but this is a standard OTer tactic, or indeed of anyone who has no interest in debating honestly- muddy the issue.

Wow. You are waaaaay far gone.

A power disruption of the sort alleged by Scott Forbes is completely impossible for quite a few reasons. YOU CAN'T JUST SHUT DOWN THE POWER IN HIGH-RISE OFFICE TOWERS IN NYC. PERIOD. It's a practical impossibility. First, under no circumstances would it ever be necessary. Second, the tenants would sue the **** out of the building owner if it ever did happen. If Forbes' fairy tale were true, the uproar would have been huge. People in New York, and particularly people in finance, work long hours and frequently on weekends. Given the dozens of tenants and thousands of workers who would have been directly impacted by such a "power down", it's inconceivable that nobody else would have mentioned it.

His claim is completely and utterly absurd, as is any argument defending it. Particularly an argument that points to intimidation and fear of retribution to explain the resounding silence from the many others who must have known about the power down. This seems to be a truther catchall. Any lack of witnesses and/or witnesses that refute your drivel can be explained away as compliance through either intimidation, greed or just good 'ole fashioned callousness. Of course the real beauty of such an argument, for you, is that it ends the debate. Obtuse as it is, the only real proof against it is just a wee bit of common sense.

You choose not to use any, as is your right, and that's your business. Be as irrational as you like. Just expect your arguments to be mocked.

P.S. You and your brethren are so very casual about accusing many, many people of either direct complicity in the plot or of looking the other way (for whatever reason). The great irony is that you recklessly slander so many, yet the inescapable implication is that truthers are on some higher moral plane than the rest us. It would appear the reverse is true.

 

[Belz...]

and this is the reason I post Salma Hayek pictures. They're about as informative of mjd's responses

Perhaps, but they are off-topic.

 

[lapman]

You are a liar, and you have zero regard for the truth. Read the article.

I decided to take your advice and re-read the article. It turns out that the liar with zero regard for the truth is you.

Cheney described Iraq as "the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault for many years, but most especially on 9/11." Neither the CIA nor the congressional joint inquiry that investigated the assault on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon found any evidence linking Iraq to the hijackers or the attacks. President Bush corrected Cheney's statement several days later.

So Bush didn't give it any credence either. There's more.

As war loomed closer, the Atta allegation generally began to disappear from the administration's public case against Iraq. Bush did not mention Atta or the Prague meeting in his Jan. 28 State of the Union address, when he sought to show Iraq's links to terrorism.

Remember, Cheney's Dec. 9, 2001 comments were based on:

That November, Stanislav Gross, the Czech Republic's interior minister, said publicly that al-Ani and Atta had met in Prague. A short while later, Czech Prime Minister Milos Zeman told Powell that the two had discussed targeting the Radio Free Europe building, not the Sept. 11 targets.

Either way, the real reason for Cheney's Atta-Iraq connection was to show Iraq's link to terrorism, not 9/11.

Cheney's chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, pressed Powell's speechwriters to include the Atta claim and other suspected links between Iraq and terrorism, according to senior and mid-level administration officials involved in crafting the speech.

Next time, pay attention to the time line. The Iraq-terrorism link was always a minor reason for the invasion. The WMD's issue was the main reason which had nothing to do with the WOT. The 9/11 link had started to be pushed after the fact that no WMD's were found in Iraq.

 

[Unsecured Coins]

Perhaps, but they are off-topic.

And blood pressure raising. If you think he's on a roll now, just wait until he gets on WTC 7. That should eventually get started on.. page 1805, if you can wait that long.

 

[nicepants]

As I have said already, the changes will in any situation, take many years. They will last many decades. This is where you are getting confused. The need to start implementing them with urgency and haste, is manifest in the document, since they are what will preserve peace and democracy for the world, and that is why the next admin needs to start putting the measures in place by Oct 2001.

Well, it is the plan for a new CENTURY

Read the post before you respond to it.

Spell-check your posts before you submit them.

(Yeah, I read it)

In this context, quicker means easier. This is because the delay would be casued by programmes which woul otherwise cause mass upheaval to change, by structures that represenet deep set hindrances etc. Read the rest of the PH para. These are the factors that will delay the plan, factors which wil be obviated by the ocurrence of a new PH.

Absent a debilitating injury, my retirement is 20 years away.

Becoming injured would make my retirement sooner, doesn't make it any easier. You're reading words into it that aren't there.

The PNAC isn't a short-term plan, it's a long-term one. You're spending so much time trying to read between the lines, you're missing the title page.

 

[nicepants]

And blood pressure raising. If you think he's on a roll now, just wait until he gets on WTC 7. That should eventually get started on.. page 1805, if you can wait that long.

Somebody page me when he gets to his "explode = implode" theory.

 

[HeyLeroy]

Okay, lets pull the nail from our collective foot.

Seven World Trade Center collapsed due to structural damage caused by impacting pieces of the collapsing North Tower and the subsequent uncontrollable fires. There were no repeat no preplanted explosive devices.

Go!