[Split]MIC and WTC7 - split from:Question for the TM: what exactly did the 9/11 demol

[DC]

i think the MIC also had a motive to do it. Some ppl knew it would need a new "pearl harbor" to transform the US army , or rebuild americas defence.

when the MIC has no huge enemy, it is in danger to not earn enough money. Some even belive that our civilisation needs a huge enemy so we stick together against the enemy.

and the Collapses of the buildings, live on TV change the world. it was even much more powerfull than the new peral harbor on the PNAC wish list.

[aggle-rithm]

i think the MIC also had a motive to do it. Some ppl knew it would need a new "pearl harbor" to transform the US army , or rebuild americas defence.


Except that this didn't happen. We've just been pouring money down a rat hole for the last seven years.

Do you think they went to all this trouble to commit this horrendous crime, then FORGOT to do the one thing that was the motivation for it all along?

[DC]

what didnt happen?

[WildCat]

what didnt happen?
Transformation of the US military.

[DC]

Transformation of the US military.

dunno , but something changed, the preemtive war doctrine is now an acceptable way. and the US army is now an occupation force.
what else did change? any budgets?

[aggle-rithm]

The "transformation" you speak of is from the PNAC document so often quoted by the truthers. The document (http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf) states that this transformation would take a long time unless there is a "catalyzing event". Truthers say the catalyzing event was the 9/11 attacks.

So did they get what they wanted? Let's see.

The "transformation" from the document is defined as:

1. New technologies and operational concepts, particularly in the field of information technology.
2. Exploitation of emerging revolution in military affairs (basically, the new way of waging war made possible by advances in technology).

Military spending was mentioned as an important issue, but it's clear that the authors of the paper never thought it was sufficient to spend money on just anything. They were talking about investing in the future of the military, not whittling it down with several years of relentlessly frustrating warfare.

Has the military been spending lots of money on research and development? I doubt it, given that every penny is being poured into operations.

Has the military taken advantage of the revolution in military affairs? Doesn't appear that way, when the war in Iraq has degenerated in the same kind of protracted slug-fest we've seen in past wars like Vietnam and Korea.

So, if the "real" perpetrators killed 3000 Americans just so they could achieve these aims, then they must have forgotten to achieve them. Plunging headlong into war as a knee-jerk reaction to terrorism isn't the same as rebuilding the technological and strategic infrastructure of the military.

[DC]

The "transformation" you speak of is from the PNAC document so often quoted by the truthers. The document (http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf) states that this transformation would take a long time unless there is a "catalyzing event". Truthers say the catalyzing event was the 9/11 attacks.

So did they get what they wanted? Let's see.

The "transformation" from the document is defined as:

1. New technologies and operational concepts, particularly in the field of information technology.
2. Exploitation of emerging revolution in military affairs (basically, the new way of waging war made possible by advances in technology).

Military spending was mentioned as an important issue, but it's clear that the authors of the paper never thought it was sufficient to spend money on just anything. They were talking about investing in the future of the military, not whittling it down with several years of relentlessly frustrating warfare.

Has the military been spending lots of money on research and development? I doubt it, given that every penny is being poured into operations.

Has the military taken advantage of the revolution in military affairs? Doesn't appear that way, when the war in Iraq has degenerated in the same kind of protracted slug-fest we've seen in past wars like Vietnam and Korea.

So, if the "real" perpetrators killed 3000 Americans just so they could achieve these aims, then they must have forgotten to achieve them. Plunging headlong into war as a knee-jerk reaction to terrorism isn't the same as rebuilding the technological and strategic infrastructure of the military.

how well do you know where exactly they spend theyr money, and i dont speak of the Army itself, also the whole industrial complex behind it.

and when they reall want to have that War on terror for the next 100 years, they will quickly see that new technology is needed. i think alot ppl do agree that War is a very very uneffective way to fight terrorism.
this new totaly hidden and dangerous enemy AQ, is a total new kind of enemy. this will for sure to lead to a transformation.

[WildCat]

and when they reall want to have that War on terror for the next 100 years, they will quickly see that new technology is needed. i think alot ppl do agree that War is a very very uneffective way to fight terrorism.
this new totaly hidden and dangerous enemy AQ, is a total new kind of enemy. this will for sure to lead to a transformation.
What part of the PNAC document envisions a war on terrorists?

[DC]

What part of the PNAC document envisions a war on terrorists?

the part we are living now.

[WildCat]

the part we are living now.
That makes no sense at all.

[aggle-rithm]

how well do you know where exactly they spend theyr money, and i dont speak of the Army itself, also the whole industrial complex behind it.

and when they reall want to have that War on terror for the next 100 years, they will quickly see that new technology is needed.


But...they clearly thought that new technology was needed back in 2000 when the document was written.

Unless by "they" you are referring to politicians and/or the general public? If so, you completely misunderstand their position. For the most part, they don't want new technology to continue the war, they want OUT of the war.


i think alot ppl do agree that War is a very very uneffective way to fight terrorism.


The military's own war games prior to 9/11 proved that this was true. There were never once able to defeat a terrorist foe using conventional military tactics. However, rather than take a good hard look at their own failings, they chose to alter the war games to make the enemy more to their liking.

This is no doubt part of what PNAC wanted to change.


this new totaly hidden and dangerous enemy AQ, is a total new kind of enemy. this will for sure to lead to a transformation.


So, 9/11 is no longer the "catalyzing event". What was it, then?

[aggle-rithm]

the part we are living now.

What page is that on? I must have missed it.

[negativ]

What page is that on? I must have missed it.

We're living in it now. We're actually living in part of the PNAC document. I'm over here on page 37.

At any rate, 9/11 was a really crappy way to get people all riled up. If the NWO had really wanted to get people truly hysterical, they should have pulled a few Beslans (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beslan_school_hostage_crisis) in 6 or 7 mid-size towns across the midwest. Extend it to hospitals and other public places. And keep it up for a few months, too. Not just one big bang. Keep people truly in fear. It seems to me that the strongest reaction to 9/11, at least once the initial chaos was over, was anger. Anger does a lot, but it doesn't inspire the sort of do-whatever-it-takes reaction from the majority of the people.

And honestly, why bother with it anyway? If you're so powerful and evil that you will orchestrate horrendous massacres just to get your PNAC wishlist fulfilled, why not just go ahead and fulfill it without asking permission from anyone. If you want new military tech, go get it. Who will stop you? What are they gonna do, vote against it? Ignore the vote. It's a lot less trouble than crashing planes and destroying valuable real estate. Do like they do in Myanmar. You're as evil as Pol Pot, but you're smarter and MUCH better-equipped. No need for all the smoke and mirrors. Just go do your PNAC stuff. Nobody will care who can't be silenced one way or another.

[DC]

We're living in it now. We're actually living in part of the PNAC document. I'm over here on page 37.

At any rate, 9/11 was a really crappy way to get people all riled up. If the NWO had really wanted to get people truly hysterical, they should have pulled a few Beslans (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beslan_school_hostage_crisis) in 6 or 7 mid-size towns across the midwest. Extend it to hospitals and other public places. And keep it up for a few months, too. Not just one big bang. Keep people truly in fear. It seems to me that the strongest reaction to 9/11, at least once the initial chaos was over, was anger. Anger does a lot, but it doesn't inspire the sort of do-whatever-it-takes reaction from the majority of the people.

And honestly, why bother with it anyway? If you're so powerful and evil that you will orchestrate horrendous massacres just to get your PNAC wishlist fulfilled, why not just go ahead and fulfill it without asking permission from anyone. If you want new military tech, go get it. Who will stop you? What are they gonna do, vote against it? Ignore the vote. It's a lot less trouble than crashing planes and destroying valuable real estate. Do like they do in Myanmar. You're as evil as Pol Pot, but you're smarter and MUCH better-equipped. No need for all the smoke and mirrors. Just go do your PNAC stuff. Nobody will care who can't be silenced one way or another.

do you think without 9/11 you would spend 439 billions on military budget (73 billions into research)

did we ever spend 73 billions into researching peacefull solutions?

[Corsair 115]

do you think without 9/11 you would spend 439 billions on military budget (73 billions into research)Now compare that figure to the amounts spent on Social Security, farm subsidies, etc.

[DC]

$586.1 billion (+7.0%) - Social Security
$548.8 billion (+9.0%) - Defense

and what does us tell that?

[negativ]

http://www.wallstats.com/deathandtaxes/

[DC]

http://www.wallstats.com/deathandtaxes/

wow thats the nicest presentation of a budget i have ever seen.

[Corsair 115]

$586.1 billion (+7.0%) - Social Security
$548.8 billion (+9.0%) - Defense

and what does us tell that?It tells me the U.S. government still spends more on Social Security than it does defence. I'll note you didn't post the figure for farm subsidies.