The 9/11 Conspiracy Facts

[lapman]

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.
We already had this. So how would a new PH make things different?

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.

See above.

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.
So you are saying that the WOT/PNAC is somehow linked to this, yet provide no proof of this.

The only thing the new PH would do, according to the PNAC, would help speed up military R&D. It has nothing to do with your point c).

[aggle-rithm]

Oh boy.

Now look. I posted very clearly in #416 and #419, crystalising the arguments about 1) How 9/11 is a new PH, and 2) Why according to RAD, a new PH would be propitious to policy. I asked for responses. I have had none, none that address the points.




You have crystallized nothing. You have only stated and restated your opinions.

Let me ask you, if you were on trial for murder, and the only evidence against you was that you benefited from it somehow (such as through a life insurance policy), would you rather be tried according to YOUR standards of evidence, or the standards used by people in the real world?

[T.A.M.]

The argument to that would be no, it is not enough to convict someone with, but that benifiting in such a way should be enough to warrant further investigation...which is correct. However, in 6 years of reviewing all the details, no evidence has surfaced implicating an inside job, just speculation, opinion and heresay, so I say, that isnt enough, cas dismissed.


TAM:)

[aggle-rithm]

PH had many characteristics. It wasnt just the fact that it was one nation attacking another; it was done by Japanese, it was done on a fleet, it was done by air etc etc.

The question is, which of these many characteristics are pertinent to the analogy between 9/11 and PH. The answer is very simple, since it is given in the doc: #1 catastrophic, #2 catalysing(militarily).

Indeed, strictly speaking, to say that what they were talking about was a new PH, is not completely accurate, since the term "new PH" is used in a comparative clause. The direct clause is "a catastrophic and catalysing event".

Hence the analogy between 911 and PH is valid, and to dispute such would be brainless.

I think this is quite simple.

**********

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.
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.
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.

******

Now PLEASE address these points. Also, the LC guide riposte delivered very early on, has not been touched by any of you "truth seekers". Please don't be evasive. Address the points, and we will all make some progress.

You're right. I accept everything you have said here as 100% true.

Now, please explain how you make the cognitive leap from here to "inside job"?

[aggle-rithm]

The argument to that would be no, it is not enough to convict someone with, but that benifiting in such a way should be enough to warrant further investigation...which is correct. However, in 6 years of reviewing all the details, no evidence has surfaced implicating an inside job, just speculation, opinion and heresay, so I say, that isnt enough, cas dismissed.


TAM:)

Yes, I'm sure that will be his next tactic, talking about all the neat stuff the new investigation will find. Although he has never addressed the unsurmountable obstacles to the kind of investigation he wants.

[Belz...]

Now look. I posted very clearly in #416 and #419, crystalising the arguments about 1) How 9/11 is a new PH, and 2) Why according to RAD, a new PH would be propitious to policy.

What about the argument that was presented to you that showed that, in fact, it was the opposite ?

The question is, which of these many characteristics are pertinent to the analogy between 9/11 and PH. The answer is very simple, since it is given in the doc: #1 catastrophic, #2 catalysing(militarily).

Such a definition is far too broad, and would include almost all major military operations.

Hence the analogy between 911 and PH is valid, and to dispute such would be brainless.

I think this is quite simple.

That's an argument from personal preference and incredulity.

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.

Just in case Mjd is ignoring me, could someone quote this back to him:

I've only admitted that, by your own logic, yes, it was beneficial to that policy. Of course, that policy is a strawman, as I've tried to show you. Please remove me from your list of persons that have admitted anything.

[HeyLeroy]

And tell us WHAT HAPPENED NEXT!

[mjd1982]

Come on people, don't be shy now...

[Unsecured Coins]

... what is this? 3rd grade dodge ball?

[DGM]

The list of people that he has convinced:

1-Himself

[aggle-rithm]

Come on people, don't be shy now...

Once again -- you've sold me! I believe that 9/11 was the historical equivalent of Pearl Harbor, and that the policies of PNAC were fortuitously facilitated by the attacks.

What I'd like to know now is, how do you go from here to "inside job"?

[jab712]

... what is this? 3rd grade dodge ball?

I was thinking the same thing.

[Belz...]

Come on people, don't be shy now...

Uh oh. It isn't a good sign when the poster starts to talk to himself. It's a clear indication that he's about to start evading any and all posts, and eventually either commit suicide by mod, or leave, plain and simple.

[MIKILLINI]

I,m wondering what happened next, too. This is the crucial area for you mjd, for your point to be made. Where is that bridge? Since PNAC, as you say is the master design, and 9/11 was the execution of said plan. What happened to move this from the PNAC plan to 9/11? :bwall

[DGM]

Why do I get the feeling that the PNAC and PH are a pivotal part of his smoking guns?:(

[MIKILLINI]

Why do I get the feeling that the PNAC and PH are a pivotal part of his smoking guns?:(

Yes they are favorable conditions, I mean they are propitious, yeah thats the word. :deadhorse

[Gravy]

I think it would be best if you read my posts before you respond to them. I have nowhere stated that PNAC where relying on a catastrophic and catalysing event; so why do you impute this to me? Is it deceit or ineptness; it must be one or the other.

You are a truly inept liar, and the biggest backpedaler that I've ever seen on this forum.

mjd1982: (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2682571&postcount=95)
It is stating that we need a new PH- a mass terror attack on US soil, ingrained on the public’s consciousness- in order to catalyse hegemonic aims. Not that we need to prevent a new PH ever happening- this is in fact the opposite of what is said.


Gravy, in Loose Change Viewer Guide:
Is it plausible that these "conspirators" would publicly announce a plan to kill thousands of Americans?mjd1982: (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2682571#post2682571)
This is pretty silly. The idea that "they wouldnt say it, so they didnt say it". is pretty worthless in discussion- it is there in black and white.

Gravy: (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2682689&postcount=99)
By gosh, you're absolutely right: in 2000 prominent neocons published their plan to kill thousands of Americans in a Pearl Harbor-like attack! I don't know how I could have missed it!

mjd1982: (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2683321&postcount=123)
Oh, sorry, hahaha, yep there it is.

[Unsecured Coins]

I love when Gravy shows up in threads like this. People are in it, handling there business, and then HE Shows up... It's like the mother of all "wait til your father comes home" moments.

[Swing Dangler]

Advancement in military technology has been going on as long as there has been armys. How does this mean that it had to happen right away.

Just quoting from the document!

[Swing Dangler]

So are you speaking to the implausibility of the survival of the passports, or the implausibility that the individual I spoke of, survived the impact of UA175, which brushed right over his desk, but did him no harm?

So your opinion is what? They fabricated the passports? And the single piece, just one, of evidence that proves they fabricated the passports is? And do you have a particular individual you feel is behind this fabrication, that you could accuse here?

As for the guy who survived the 175 impact, is he a liar. He states he watched the plane come toward the building, and hence the reason he was able to leap under his desk, which saved him. Is he a liar? A paid Shill?

TAM:)

Edit: by the way swing, your demeanor here, for a truther in a den full of debunkers, is so far commendable.

TAM:)

Thanks for the compliment. I told you long ago over at SLC you were one of the few there I respected because of your demeanor.

Not the individual. Sorry for the confusion.
As far as the passport, I find it highly improbable that a piece of paper (on the hijacker?) survived but the body or relevant parts of the body failed to survive. I'm not an expert, but the last time I checked my body did not burn as quickly as paper nor was the paper stronger than my body.

I can't prove they fabricated the passport, nor have I seen empirical proof that a passport on a person could survive an impact into a tower and its explosion, but the body did not. I believe the Guardian said it very eloquently: We had all seen the blizzard of paper rain down from the towers, but the idea that Atta's passport had escaped from that inferno unsinged would have tested the credulity of the staunchest supporter of the FBI's crackdown on terrorism.
Source: Guardian (http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/disinfo/deceptions/guardian_usluckyfinds.html)
Wrong name of the terrorists I believe but the point is made.
In order for me to accept the passport survived (which to my knowledge isn't in the public domain), I would have to see empirical evidence.

Why do you accept that the passport did survive and was not a piece of planted evidence?

Why do you think I would suggest that a survivor is a shrill or a liar? I don't think the two are related. And for the record, no I don't think he was lying at all. He survived as some did and some didn't. To paraphrase my favorite band RUSH, roll the bones!

On a side note, I find it fascinating that as a doctor, you believe in luck.

[Swing Dangler]

Except that a very significant part of the US military is now engaged in several very expensive missions that are not going to end any time soon. Any numbers on how much the R&D budget has gone up?

Glad you asked!

Since 2001, the Administration has:
*Begun to transform our Nation’s defenses and increased spending by 26 percent, the largest increase in the Defense budget since the Reagan Administration;
*Increased research and development funding by 56 percent
Source: Office of Management and Budget (http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2005/defense.html)

[Unsecured Coins]

If the passport had made it out UNSCATHED I'd be suspect of it. But as you can tell, it was NOT.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v295/Jaye77/Ziad_Jarrah_Passport_Photo.jpg

might I add... that's not Atta. I was not aware that they had found his passport

[DGM]

Since 2001, the Administration has:
Fought the War on Terror on the offensive;
Removed threats to our security in Afghanistan and Iraq liberating nearly 50 million people in these countries;Provided pay raises to our servicemen and women of more than 21 percent and expanded the use of targeted pays and bonuses;Begun to transform our Nation’s defenses and increased spending by 26 percent, the largest increase in the Defense budget since the Reagan Administration;
Launched a transformational and joint training program improving readiness rates;
Increased research and development funding by 56 percent;
Improved the quality of housing for military personnel and their families through privatization and new construction; and
Doubled investments in missile defense systems, deploying the first ever land and sea-based system


Wow I can bold too!

[Corsair 115]

The US carrier based aircraft were significantly outclassed by the Japanese aircraft because the US hadn't invested money in carrier-based naval warfare. Japan had. The USN aircraft were not really outclassed, depending of course on how one defines the term.

Certainly the TBD Devastator was hopelessly obsolete by the time war broke out, but the Japanese Kate torpedo bomber was only marginally better at best. The big advantage it had were the excellent Japanese torpedoes which allowed the Kate to conduct torpedo attacks at faster speeds and higher altitudes than could the Devastator which was hampered by the poor U.S. torpedoes.

The SBD Dauntless dive bomber stacks up perfectly well against the Val. The latter was more maneuverable but the Dauntless could carry a heavier bombload (and those U.S. 1,000 lb. bombs proved much more effective than the Japanese 551 lb. bombs) and was better protected and armed. Both aircraft could deliver their bombs quite accurately with a proficient pilot at the controls.

In fighters, the Zero had great range and exceptional slow-speed maneuverability. But it was very lightly constructed and could be brought down quickly even with short bursts. The F4F Wildcat, though far less agile, was much better protected, and it could hold its own against the Zero in most cases as long as it was flown with right tactics.

Because the US surface fleet had been so severely hit, the USA had no choice but to reply on carrier battle groups to fight the war, thus Pearl Harbor led to a revolution in naval warfare: the establishment of the supremacy of airpower. The U.S. also got lucky, since the Enterprise and Lexington were both away when the attack came. The Enterprise was originally expected to be back in port by Dec. 7th, but it encountered delays which meant it didn't arrive until after the attack.

If we look at the area of Fighter Aircraft, the US alone developed and put into production 10 different fighters between 1939 and 1945.Leaving aside variants, I get a count of 12:

P-38 Lightning
P-39 Airacobra
P-63 Kingcobra
P-47 Thunderbolt
P-51 Mustang
P-61 Black Widow
P-80 Shooting Star
P-82 Twin Mustang
F4U Corsair
F6F Hellcat
F7F Tigercat
F8F Bearcat

The F4F Wildcat and P-40 Warhawk miss the cut (the XF4F-2 first flew in Sept. of 1937 while the XP-40 first flew in Oct. of 1938 ).

[Gravy]

As far as the passport, I find it highly improbable that a piece of paper (on the hijacker?) survived but the body or relevant parts of the body failed to survive. I'm not an expert, but the last time I checked my body did not burn as quickly as paper nor was the paper stronger than my body.How do you know that parts of the body didn't survive? Are you assuming that because a passport was found before the collapses, that that person's remains should have also been collected then? I'm not aware of any remains from the planes that were collected prior to the collapses. However, some hijacker remains from the WTC flights were matched with FBI DNA profiles (labeled by number only). There was mail on board flight 11 that survived, as well as other flammable items and personal effects from passengers, and about 45 of the passengers and crew from flights 175 and 11 were identified by remains collected after the collapses. Is there something suspicious about that?

[Belz...]

Why do you accept that the passport did survive and was not a piece of planted evidence?

Step 1. Find passport.
Step 2. Assume it's a real passport.
Step 3. Check with experts to know if it could survive the explosion.
Step 4. Get a positive answer.
Step 5. Assume it's a real passport.

[Belz...]

How do you know that parts of the body didn't survive? Are you assuming that because a passport was found before the collapses, that that person's remains should have also been collected then? I'm not aware of any remains from the planes that were collected prior to the collapses. However, some hijacker remains from the WTC flights were matched with FBI DNA profiles (labeled by number only). There was mail on board flight 11 that survived, as well as other flammable items and personal effects from passengers, and about 45 of the passengers and crew from flights 175 and 11 were identified by remains collected after the collapses. Is there something suspicious about that?

Weren't several body parts found at the top of the nearby buildings ?

[gumboot]

Weren't several body parts found at the top of the nearby buildings ?


The body parts found on the roof of 130 Liberty Street were from AA11 weren't they?

-Gumboot

[WildCat]

In fighters, the Zero had great range and exceptional slow-speed maneuverability. But it was very lightly constructed and could be brought down quickly even with short bursts. The F4F Wildcat, though far less agile, was much better protected, and it could hold its own against the Zero in most cases as long as it was flown with right tactics.
And, of course, the F6F Hellcat and later variants were more than a match for the Zero and later variants (such as the Zeke).

But you have to love the name Wildcat! ;)

[H'ethetheth]

Glad you asked!

Since 2001, the Administration has:
*Begun to transform our Nation’s defenses and increased spending by 26 percent, the largest increase in the Defense budget since the Reagan Administration;
*Increased research and development funding by 56 percent
Source: Office of Management and Budget (http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2005/defense.html)Thanks!

[mjd1982]

You are a truly inept liar, and the biggest backpedaler that I've ever seen on this forum.

mjd1982: (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2682571&postcount=95)



Gravy, in Loose Change Viewer Guide:
mjd1982: (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2682571#post2682571)


Gravy: (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2682689&postcount=99)


mjd1982: (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2683321&postcount=123)
Listen- you might want to improve your reading comprehension skills beyond that of a 9 year old before you start accusing people of things that evidently go miles over your head.

To state that some people need something in order to catalyse certain things, is different from stating that same people are relying on something full stop.

This is pretty elementary, so please think before you post next time; otherwise you just waste everyone's time.

Oh, and while you're thnking, I assume you have taken down that tripe of a critique that has been dismantled here for all to see? I notice you have stayed clear of that. Are you being evasive, or just worried that when your primitive interpretation skills are showed up that no one will have any time for you any more?

[mjd1982]

How do you know that parts of the body didn't survive? Are you assuming that because a passport was found before the collapses, that that person's remains should have also been collected then? I'm not aware of any remains from the planes that were collected prior to the collapses. However, some hijacker remains from the WTC flights were matched with FBI DNA profiles (labeled by number only). There was mail on board flight 11 that survived, as well as other flammable items and personal effects from passengers, and about 45 of the passengers and crew from flights 175 and 11 were identified by remains collected after the collapses. Is there something suspicious about that?
Ha! I love this. So you are happy to talk about hijackers passports, but when it comes to my points, you wanna run and hide? What a pathetic, ignorant, and suitable face for the OT movement you are.

Address the points or concede them- I take it you have the capacoty to understand this?

[mjd1982]

I,m wondering what happened next, too. This is the crucial area for you mjd, for your point to be made. Where is that bridge? Since PNAC, as you say is the master design, and 9/11 was the execution of said plan. What happened to move this from the PNAC plan to 9/11? :bwall
Thank you for asking. The point of this section is to illustrate that a catastrophic and catalysing event was indeed propitious to policy in their eyes. You will have to excuse me for waiting; the reason why I do so is because since this is a pretty large group discussion, I am waiting either for assent from at least some of the members; or a direct, reasoned refutation from others. I have had a few (presumably sincere) of the former, and maybe one of the latter. My post was #419, so we have had ~100 posts of hot air. I want to avoid this, because when we get onto latter stages upon which my point here is based, people will just say, no no no, they never believed it was propitious to policy.

So, as far as is possible, I want to have this out here. Then we can go on.

ps- I will address those who have been kind enough to touch upon my point in a sec.

[mjd1982]

Actually he said it was retarded. I guess you missed that

The Alamo was the same type of event. So, are we going to call it the NA as well?


I dont know what the NA is, but nor do I see what point you are making. Yes, there have been other catastrophic and catalysing events in history; such an event does not mean that it must have been an "inside job". I am not stating that 911 was a catastrophic and catalysing event, therefore it was an inside job, I am stating that it was deemed propitious to policy by PNAC in RAD. I have underlined this many many time on this thread so far; it is quite astonishing how people have failed to grasp it.


We've had that for the past 60 years and even more so since 1991. So what's going to change? So the most powerful nation in the world is supposed to become the mostest powerfullest nation in the world?


Well you see, there you are arguing with the import of the doc, not any point I am making. Please read the doc.


So Iraq and Afghanistan are supposed to be this revolutionary change? How does this compare to the changes that occurred after the fall of the USSR?

No, they are one fraction of it. Please go and read my evisceration of Gravy's LC critique on ~p3 to find out more.

[mjd1982]

Actually, reading that passage again, it kinda sounds as if they don't want a new Pearl Harbour, doesn't it?

The paragraphs you quoted there, Mark, seem to be pushing for firm but controlled increases in military spending, and there is the suggestion in that "new Pearl Harbour" adjunct that rapid and sudden upheaval is exactly what the PNAC don't want! I mean, the sentence "Wise management of this process will consist in large measure of figuring out the right moments to halt production of current-paradigm weapons and shift to radically new designs", for one, seems to be asserting the opposite to what my poor unesteemed countryman is trying to claim it is!

But that's by the by. As I said aout 5 pages ago, I'm bored of PNAC. I wan't to get to the good parts. What happened when Bush, Cheney and Wolfowitz sat down and agreed that staging a massivey elaborate false-flag attack was the best way to fulfil their nefarious goals? What happened next?
Oh maaan...

This is a new one. I suggest that you do as I requested- go and read post #419 and that should help you.

[Gravy]

It's sad to see someone crack up like this. I'd much rather that they start out raving. Then people would know to steer clear and not attempt to reason with them. It really does make me sad.

[mjd1982]

Hey MJD! Take note of the sentence from the PNAC - "Thus, this report advocates a two-stage process of change - transition and transformation - over the coming decades."

Transition, and transformation. That whole "Pearl Harbour" paragraph extolls the virtues of slow and managed change, and seems, to these eyes at least, to NOT want a new Pearl Harbour. It interferes with the entire scope of the project as laid out in that section of the document!
This has been dealt with before.

They are advocating the only thing that they can advocate openly. They have a choice- either state "we advocate a new Pearl Harbour", or what they did state. They are clearly not going to state the former, they are not that stupid; but this does not mean that they have not stated that a catastrophic and catalysing event is not propitious to policy.

If you want to dispute my argument on that, it has been made explicit for you twice now- please refer to it

[mjd1982]

Ok good. Please call up Zogby, Scripps Howard and others and tell them that theyre polls are shams.

[mjd1982]

You're engaging in some pretty ludicrous circular reasoning here, MJD... first you'd have it that PNAC mentioning "a new Pearl Harbour" shows complicity,


No i dont


then you state that 911 was "propitious to policy" therefore 911 was the "new Pearl Harbour" PNAC supposedly called for,


no...

thus you draw the conclusion that PNAC shows complicity.


and no.


You've ignored all my recent posts, particularly the ones suggesting that the PNAC docment actually suggests the opposite to what you think it does.


Sorry, I thought those were in jest


I'll say it again: the document says that a "new Pearl Harbour" would impede ther plans, not bolster them. Despite the plausible contention that, post hoc, the GOP used the events of 911 in a politically expdient way, the PNAC document, which is at the core of your "argument" here, clearly does not see a new Pearl Harbour as "propitious to policy", as the section in which such an event is (cursorily) mentioned talks quite explicitly at how bad it is to take decisions hastily, and how the PNAC must be implemented sensibly and slowly if it is to be effectve at all.


Please address the posts I have referred to you.

[mjd1982]

PNAC's point was that more R & D is required. A "Pearl Harbor" event essentially halts R & D in the new technology department--all the budget goes to supporting the current effort, and on "minor" improvements in existing systems--better utilization of the existing weapons systems, not new and improved.
When dealing with the Missouri river overflowing it's banks into your farm acrage is not the time you will be investing in new and improved planting impliments--you need pumps and bulldozers!
I suggest you take your quibble up with Cheney, Rummy et al, since they dont/didnt agree with you.

[mjd1982]

I think that, historically, the only time military R & D was performed with any urgency was when the enemy had as good, or possibly better, technology than the US did. This was true during WWII and the Cold War, and it resulted in a frenzy of new development.

Today, there just isn't any competition. We're already years ahead of our enemies, why would we need to be decades ahead?

I think the "New Pearl Harbor" that PNAC spoke of would really have to be more of a high-tech attack, something that revealed an unexpected technological edge for an enemy, before R & D spending would benefit.

(Sorry, I have now decided to go through even those who havent addressed my points, since this is not too hard.)

To repeat myself, this has been addressed, but it is not strictly speaking a new PH that was called for, rather a catastrophic and catalysing event. PH was the comparative clause.

Your point is therefore, that 911 was either not catastrophic, or not catalysing. Please tell me which.

[mjd1982]

That is a point of execution, rather than design.

[mjd1982]

This same quote could have been made after the civil war.



Advancement in military technology has been going on as long as there has been armys. How does this mean that it had to happen right away.
Please refer to the post(s) I have referred you to. All is revealed there.

[mjd1982]

It's sad to see someone crack up like this. I'd much rather that they start out raving. Then people would know to steer clear and not attempt to reason with them. It really does make me sad.
Hahaha... oh Gravy. Was expecting so much more from you.

Never mind. I suggest you sit this one out.

[Gravy]

mjd, in your posts 538 and 542, I think you omitted the quotes that you're responding to. We do sometimes see people who converse with themselves here, but I'm guessing that's not your intent.

[Mancman]

Not the individual. Sorry for the confusion.
As far as the passport, I find it highly improbable that a piece of paper (on the hijacker?) survived but the body or relevant parts of the body failed to survive. I'm not an expert, but the last time I checked my body did not burn as quickly as paper nor was the paper stronger than my body.



Last time I checked my body does not burn as quickly as an aircraft seat, and nor is an aircraft seat stronger than my body.

Yet seats were found lying in the street, ie: http://www.911myths.com/Flight_11_Seat_Cushion_Large.jpg

Is the seat planted?

[mjd1982]

You must suffer from some kind of reading disability mjd. At the end of the text even you should be able to read:

"Thus, this report advocates a two-stage process of change - transition and transformation - over the coming decades."

They advocate a process over decades, not at new PH. Another way to say this using your terminology is that a long process is useful for policy. How can that be so hard to comprehend?

That they advocate that is unsurprising, since the alternative would be for them to state "Thus, this report advocates a new Pearl Harbor- as soon as possible." This is clearly not going to happen; yet this does not mean that what is stated in the text is not stated. If you want to challenge this, please refer to the posts where these arguments are crystallised.

[mjd1982]

We already had this. So how would a new PH make things different?


It would, in the eyes of PNAC, speed things up.


So you are saying that the WOT/PNAC is somehow linked to this, yet provide no proof of this.


Well yes, it is the WOT. Again please read my riposte to the LC guide on p3 (?). Proof has been provided more than adequately.


The only thing the new PH would do, according to the PNAC, would help speed up military R&D. It has nothing to do with your point c).

That is just not true. Again see above to find out what is correct.

[Gravy]

That they advocate that is unsurprising, since the alternative would be for them to state "Thus, this report advocates a new Pearl Harbor- as soon as possible."

mjd1982: (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2682571&postcount=95)
It is stating that we need a new PH- a mass terror attack on US soil, ingrained on the public’s consciousness- in order to catalyse hegemonic aims. Not that we need to prevent a new PH ever happening- this is in fact the opposite of what is said.


Gravy, in Loose Change Viewer Guide:
Is it plausible that these "conspirators" would publicly announce a plan to kill thousands of Americans?



mjd1982: (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2682571#post2682571)
This is pretty silly. The idea that "they wouldnt say it, so they didnt say it". is pretty worthless in discussion- it is there in black and white.



Gravy: (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2682689&postcount=99)
By gosh, you're absolutely right: in 2000 prominent neocons published their plan to kill thousands of Americans in a Pearl Harbor-like attack! I don't know how I could have missed it!



mjd1982: (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2683321&postcount=123)
Oh, sorry, hahaha, yep there it is.

[mjd1982]

Such a definition is far too broad, and would include almost all major military operations.


Well, we are permitted a degree of context. Someone's relative dying can be catastrophic and catalysing too; this is clearly not the point. The level of catastrophe can be deemed from the number of deaths- ~2000 americans in PH, ~3000 in 911. This is one example of how they are differentiated. Again, the notion of infamy applied to the catastrophic nature of PH can also be applied to 911. And so on.


Just in case Mjd is ignoring me, could someone quote this back to him:

I've only admitted that, by your own logic, yes, it was beneficial to that policy. Of course, that policy is a strawman, as I've tried to show you. Please remove me from your list of persons that have admitted anything.

So you've admitted it, but dont want me to say that you have admitted it? You feel insecure?

[volatile]

This has been dealt with before.

They are advocating the only thing that they can advocate openly.

This, young man, is why your batty ideas are called a "conspiracy theory". Because you read the words that are written, accept they mean exactly the opposite to what you want them to, and then draw the conclusion that because it's opposite, there is evidence of complicity behind the scenes. Are you mental?

Can't you see that they "openly advocate" transition and change, and trying to claim that the document "advocates" anything else is just a product of your fantasist mind.


They have a choice- either state "we advocate a new Pearl Harbour", or what they did state. They are clearly not going to state the former, they are not that stupid; but this does not mean that they have not stated that a catastrophic and catalysing event is not propitious to policy.

You have a languages degree, right? Me too. So close reading is something you've certainly been trained to do. Read that paragraph. It says, right there in black and white, that the PNAC is a project of firm but steady change, and that snap decisions are bad decisions (see: JSF). The very small sentence clase, "like a new Pearl Harbor" is in the middle of a paragraph discussing exactly how bad rapid change can be.


If you want to dispute my argument on that, it has been made explicit for you twice now- please refer to it

I have done.

[Gravy]

There, there, mjd. You are becoming increasingly less rational.

The bad men with the plan to attack America were with al Qaeda, not the PNAC. And you know what? They carried their plan out.

There, there.

[volatile]

Still, can't you tell us what happens next, MjD? You're ever so coy!

[MortFurd]

Errr.... werent you told to sit this one out?

I'm pretty sure there's a kiddies table somewhere here- go there.
He might join you there, and explain in small words and simple sentences just where you've gone wrong.

Me, I'll just tell you straight up:
I've read the sections of the PNAC document you keep referring to. It takes a monstrous unhealthy amount of paranoia to read into it that the PNAC is planning a new Pearl Harbor.

[SpitfireIX]

And, of course, the F6F Hellcat and later variants were more than a match for the Zero and later variants (such as the Zeke).

But you have to love the name Wildcat! ;)


I'm rather partial to "Spitfire" myself. ;)

[SpitfireIX]

. . . What a pathetic, ignorant, and suitable face for the OT movement you are. . . .


http://www.centennialofflight.gov/essay/SPACEFLIGHT/Mercury/SP17G2.jpg


Ook! Ook! Ook! Eee! Eee! Eee!

[Belz...]

Thank you for asking. The point of this section is to illustrate that a catastrophic and catalysing event was indeed propitious to policy in their eyes.

What about when we said it was the opposite ?

That they advocate that is unsurprising, since the alternative would be for them to state "Thus, this report advocates a new Pearl Harbor- as soon as possible." This is clearly not going to happen

Why is it so clear, since you've already stated how stupid these people are ?

So you've admitted it, but dont want me to say that you have admitted it? You feel insecure?

Ah! Then I'll just chalk it up as you not understanding what other people write. It was right there. Here, let me help you:

I've only admitted that, by your own logic, yes, it was beneficial to that policy. Of course, that policy is a strawman, as I've tried to show you. Please remove me from your list of persons that have admitted anything.

There. I agreed that something would be true if another thing was; but that other thing isn't, so it clearly doesn't support you. Do you understand this ?

[T.A.M.]

Swing:

I guess, wrt to the individual story versus the passport, I was trying to assertain if you believed the planes hit the towers or not. Clearly you believe the planes hit, if you believe his story, but you do not believe it was 19 arabs.

As for the passport issue, I agree that it is freakish, to a degree, that the passport survived. However, I am sure if we had a look at all of the things that survived from the crash/collapse, you would be astounded at what did, freakishly survive, and what didnt. It doesnt bother me, because things like that happen all the time.

For instance, how do you know that with in the first milliseconds of the plane entering the building, that the plane, being ripped appart, did not result in the hijacker's body being tossed into an area of the building not exposed to extreme fire, or perhaps just his luggage up in his carry on area was thrown there...who knows...there are so many variables, it is impossible to say. Seems to me, if they wanted to plant evidence, they could have planted more, and more damning evidence...like why not plant, at GZ, a mildly singed map of the 767 cockpit, or a last will and testiment from one of them.

Unusual...perhaps. Damning evidence...far from it.

TAM:)

Edit: As for luck, I believe that certain things that happen, coincidences, can result in a lucky circumstance or "luck" for someone, for an individual, but I do not believe in certain people being "lucky".

TAM:)

[WildCat]

so we have had ~100 posts of hot air.
112 at the moment. :rolleyes:

[JonnyFive]

Listen- you might want to improve your reading comprehension skills beyond that of a 9 year old before you start accusing people of things that evidently go miles over your head.

Oh, and while you're thnking, I assume you have taken down that tripe of a critique that has been dismantled here for all to see? I notice you have stayed clear of that. Are you being evasive, or just worried that when your primitive interpretation skills are showed up that no one will have any time for you any more?

mjd, I understand that this is getting heated for you, but this subforum is under stricter moderation standards than the rest of the JREF forum. Please refrain from using such blatantly uncivil personal attacks in the future or I or someone else here will report your posts for violation of said rules.

If you really believe you have a strong case, then you do not need to resort to juvenile sniping like this. That is not acceptable conduct here, for either "debunkers" or "truthers." Make your arguments using logic and facts, and don't resort to petty insults simply because other people aren't agreeing with you.

[aggle-rithm]

Glad you asked!

Since 2001, the Administration has:
*Begun to transform our Nation’s defenses and increased spending by 26 percent, the largest increase in the Defense budget since the Reagan Administration;
*Increased research and development funding by 56 percent
Source: Office of Management and Budget (http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2005/defense.html)

Read "Imaginary Weapons" by Sharon Weinberger to get a glimpse of the bottomless rat hole this money is being poured into...

[Brainache]

So is MJD saying that he can tell that the PNAC wanted a new Pearl Harbor because the PNAC didn't say that they wanted a new Pearl Harbor?

If that isn't what he is saying, can someone please clarify it?

I've tried to follow the whole thread, but as I only went to Wollongong Uni, I'm obviously not qualified to criticise an Oxford graduate.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

This has been dealt with before.

They are advocating the only thing that they can advocate openly. They have a choice- either state "we advocate a new Pearl Harbour", or what they did state. They are clearly not going to state the former, they are not that stupid; but this does not mean that they have not stated that a catastrophic and catalysing event is not propitious to policy.

If you want to dispute my argument on that, it has been made explicit for you twice now- please refer to it
Post hoc rationalization. You are continuing to conflate correlation and causation.

[aggle-rithm]

(Sorry, I have now decided to go through even those who havent addressed my points, since this is not too hard.)

To repeat myself, this has been addressed, but it is not strictly speaking a new PH that was called for, rather a catastrophic and catalysing event. PH was the comparative clause.

Your point is therefore, that 911 was either not catastrophic, or not catalysing. Please tell me which.

We've moved beyond that. I have posted twice conceding ALL your points, and asking you to explain the logical steps you took that led you to the conclusion that 9/11 was an inside job.

But you aren't going to do that, are you? Because this tactic of harping on semantics over a small portion of your argument, all the while sniping at anyone who attempts to engage you in conversation, works far better for your purposes. And that purpose is not to further understanding or stimulate intelligent discussion, for you or for anyone else. It is to draw attention to yourself, to make you feel good about yourself.

You are an attention whore, an intellectual coward, and a troll.

I'm sorry if that seems uncivil, but it's the truth. Please feel free to prove me wrong.

[T.A.M.]

As I suggested near the very beginning of this thread, I will do so again...

mjd1982 is antagonizing, and is not serious about engaging in any form of CIVIL or rational debate. He is feeding off our replies and insulting at will. I suggest we let this thread die, and hopefully he will either (A) become civil, or (B) simply go away. Lets do this now, as he is clearly dragging some of our more civil posters down into the mud with him.

TAM:)

[8den]

I've tried to follow the whole thread, but as I only went to Wollongong Uni, I'm obviously not qualified to criticise an Oxford graduate.

Wollongong Uni is singularly the best name for a institute of higher learning ever. Wollongong is actually just the best word ever. It sounds so insane I had to google it just to make sure it existed.


Oh and MJD, to borrow from Reg Kin,

Inappropriate remark removed.

Do not use insults to argue your point.

[volatile]

So is MJD saying that he can tell that the PNAC wanted a new Pearl Harbor because the PNAC didn't say that they wanted a new Pearl Harbor?

If that isn't what he is saying, can someone please clarify it?

I've tried to follow the whole thread, but as I only went to Wollongong Uni, I'm obviously not qualified to criticise an Oxford graduate.

Well, I'm doing a PhD in philosophy, and I can't make head nor tail of it either. Don't be too worried.

It certainly seems to be something along those (rather wiggly) lines!

[mjd1982]

We've moved beyond that. I have posted twice conceding ALL your points, and asking you to explain the logical steps you took that led you to the conclusion that 9/11 was an inside job.

But you aren't going to do that, are you? Because this tactic of harping on semantics over a small portion of your argument, all the while sniping at anyone who attempts to engage you in conversation, works far better for your purposes. And that purpose is not to further understanding or stimulate intelligent discussion, for you or for anyone else. It is to draw attention to yourself, to make you feel good about yourself.

You are an attention whore, an intellectual coward, and a troll.

I'm sorry if that seems uncivil, but it's the truth. Please feel free to prove me wrong.
That is uncivil, and it is not correct. I appreciate you for stating your assent with my point. I wish that others could be as honest. If this were a debate between me and you, I would move on. But it is not; there are about 20 other people here, and so I have to wait for one of 2 things:
1. A degree of common assent, stated or implied. This will allow for clarity later, and avoid reneging on points already agreed upon.
2. In the absence of this, a concrete refutation to my argument, which has been elaborated in #419, and again in #493. I don't think I have received one, i.e. one that refutes my argument. There has been the odd repetition of one's own argument, but pretty much no direct response to mine.

I find the absence of the former, and certainly the latter, both astonishing and worrying. I appreciate what you have said; I hope you can appreciate why, for the moment, you must just hold on.

[T.A.M.]

If you wish to have a private debate, you have come to the wrong forum, unless you wish to do it via Private Messages.

If you and someone here wish to be the only two involved, than simply start a new thread dedicated to THE TOPIC you wish to debate, and request that noone else post within it.

TAM:)

[T.A.M.]

and..mjd.

I agree, the last few posts have also been uncivil, but they are clearly in response to your posts, not without cause. That said, I think we should all remember the stricter rules of this subforum, as others have pointed out in this thread.

TAM:)

[mjd1982]

So is MJD saying that he can tell that the PNAC wanted a new Pearl Harbor because the PNAC didn't say that they wanted a new Pearl Harbor?

If that isn't what he is saying, can someone please clarify it?

I've tried to follow the whole thread, but as I only went to Wollongong Uni, I'm obviously not qualified to criticise an Oxford graduate.
Gladly.

The argument that has been made is that they stated that a new PH would be propitious to policy. Nothin else.

If you want to dispute this, please refer to either post #419/#493.

[mjd1982]

As I suggested near the very beginning of this thread, I will do so again...

mjd1982 is antagonizing, and is not serious about engaging in any form of CIVIL or rational debate. He is feeding off our replies and insulting at will. I suggest we let this thread die, and hopefully he will either (A) become civil, or (B) simply go away. Lets do this now, as he is clearly dragging some of our more civil posters down into the mud with him.

TAM:)
Err, excuse me? I find this utterly bemusing. I have stated at the top, I want nothing more, than to have a civil, rational debate. This was vitiated pretty much from the get go: #5, #6, #12, #19 etc etc.

Nonetheless, I am civil to those who are civil to me. And vice versa. I have no problem either way; if you want to be discourteous, then I will do so back. To try and discourage people from posting on this thread for the 2nd time now just from you, is behaviour that is very much beyond me; i would not like to speculate as to why you do it.

So, I will repeat. If people want civil discourse, then engage in it. If you dont, then don't.

[T.A.M.]

So you are saying not once has your tone been insulting or demeaning unless someone was the same to you first? Is that what you are saying?

TAM:)

[stateofgrace]

That is uncivil, and it is not correct. I appreciate you for stating your assent with my point. I wish that others could be as honest. If this were a debate between me and you, I would move on. But it is not; there are about 20 other people here, and so I have to wait for one of 2 things:
1. A degree of common assent, stated or implied. This will allow for clarity later, and avoid reneging on points already agreed upon.
2. In the absence of this, a concrete refutation to my argument, which has been elaborated in #419, and again in #493. I don't think I have received one, i.e. one that refutes my argument. There has been the odd repetition of one's own argument, but pretty much no direct response to mine.

I find the absence of the former, and certainly the latter, both astonishing and worrying. I appreciate what you have said; I hope you can appreciate why, for the moment, you must just hold on.

As for it being uncivil and incorrect you are wrong on both counts. You have been asked repeatedly to move forward with your agruement; you have failed to do so.

I am sure there are many people that lurk around and rather than contribute to the discussion simply refer to watch as it unfolds, as such a person I have to say I find your constant stalling, constant belittling of those who try to engage you in civil debate and your constant dodging somewhat frustrating. Maybe you can now move forward, rather than simply restating the same points over and over again.

Please deliver your punch line. It is like listening to somebody trying to tell a very long joke, hoping that the punch line will excuse the tediously long wait and it will all be worth it in the end. From where I stand this thread as stalled and it is down to you to move it forward, nobody is interested in reading the same things over and over again.

So are you actually going to proceed or subject everybody to further boredom and tedious repetition?

[lapman]

Ok, we'll try this again.
Oh boy.

Now look. I posted very clearly in #416 and #419, crystalising the arguments about 1) How 9/11 is a new PH, and 2) Why according to RAD, a new PH would be propitious to policy. I asked for responses. I have had none, none that address the points.

So I will post them again. Anyone who is interested in arguing this point, please refer to them- click the reply button, and go through them. To recap the former:

PH had many characteristics. It wasnt just the fact that it was one nation attacking another; it was done by Japanese, it was done on a fleet, it was done by air etc etc.

The question is, which of these many characteristics are pertinent to the analogy between 9/11 and PH. The answer is very simple, since it is given in the doc: #1 catastrophic, #2 catalysing(militarily).

Indeed, strictly speaking, to say that what they were talking about was a new PH, is not completely accurate, since the term "new PH" is used in a comparative clause. The direct clause is "a catastrophic and catalysing event".
That whole thing is blatantly false. The "new PH" is simply a surprise military attack by a technologically Superior force. The is shown it the following passage from PNAC:
"Absent a rigorous program of experimentation to investigate the nature of the revolution in military affairs as it applies to war at sea, the Navy might face a future Pearl Harbor – as unprepared for war in the post-carrier era as it was unprepared for war at the dawn of the carrier age".


Just because 9/11 was a "catastrophic and catalysing event," doesn't mean that it is what the PNAC was referring to.

Hence the analogy between 911 and PH is valid, and to dispute such would be brainless.

No, to equate the two is brainless.


I think this is quite simple.

**********
(snip)

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.
False. The aim of the PNAC is to insure our technological advantage over every other military force to keep the US hegemony as it is throughout the 21st century and beyond.

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.
False. The PNAC's vision did not include the WOT. A paradigm shift needed to occur to fight a stateless war.

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.
Again. Another baseless statement trying to provide some sort of link between the PNAC and 9/11.

[T.A.M.]

As to "why i do it", I find feeding trolls to be useless, serving only the needs of the troll, and as a result I SUGGEST to others, that doing so is counter productive, and that they perhaps should stop.

TAM:)

[Brainache]

Gladly.

The argument that has been made is that they stated that a new PH would be propitious to policy. Nothin else.

If you want to dispute this, please refer to either post #419/#493.

But they actually state the opposite. Their stated aim is slow and steady change with an emphasis on new technologies. A new PH was described as catastrophic. Nowhere do they state that a new PH would be propitious.

You have said that they would never state that they wanted a new PH and are using the lack of such a statement to somehow prove that a new PH is advantageous for them.

My brain hurts. Ook

[HyJinX]

I completely agree with TAM on this one. Nothing worthwhile can come of this thread. We've all been infected with Christophera Syndrome.

So.....LET'S MOVE ALONG....NOTHING TO SEE HERE

[Pardalis]

But they actually state the opposite. Their stated aim is slow and steady change with an emphasis on new technologies.

But of course that's the part where they lied... they are not idiot enough to divulge their entire plan. ;)

[Kage]

mjd1982,

Here are some questions that your theory fails to answer:

How many Osama bin Ladens are there? If there is one, why hasn't the government produced hime before either of the last two elections? If there is two, why hasn't eh real Osama come forward?

If the purpose of the 9/11 attacks was to garner support for a war in Iraq, why were the hijackers from Saudi Arabia? Why did the Bush Admin want to put suspicion onto one of their biggest backers in the region instead of putting it squarely on the head of the country they wished to overthrow?

If the Bush Admin was willing to spend billions of dollars and countless man hours on a hugely difficult and unwieldy plan to attack the WTC, why then did they not fake WMDs in Iraq? Why spend so much money on one side of this plan and yet refuse to spend money on an arabic typewriter and a vial of antrax?

[Belz...]

That is uncivil, and it is not correct. I appreciate you for stating your assent with my point. I wish that others could be as honest.

I think that Aggle agreed for the sake of argument, but then the concept seems alien to you.

If this were a debate between me and you, I would move on. But it is not; there are about 20 other people here, and so I have to wait for one of 2 things:

This isn't a committee. The text does not say what you claim it says. You cannot proceed.

I find the absence of the former, and certainly the latter, both astonishing and worrying.

There is no need to refute nothingness.

[Belz...]

But of course that's the part where they lied... they are not idiot enough to divulge their entire plan. ;)

:D

[CurtC]

I appreciate you for stating your assent with my point. I wish that others could be as honest.
Dude, he wasn't agreeing with you - he was just wanting you to get to the next step in your argument, by granting you your point for the sake of argument. It's obvious that you're not going to get any agreement that 9/11 was propitious (and I wish you'd give that word a rest) to the stated goals of PNAC. If you don't move forward, then this thread will be forever stuck on this point. No one here agrees with you, and it's apparent that we never will. Please just make your point already.

[DGM]

I propose we agree to disagree on PNAC and move on. Is there any reason why we can't do that? Is the PNAC argument absolutely critical to your case?

[mjd1982]

I propose we agree to disagree on PNAC and move on. Is there any reason why we can't do that? Is the PNAC argument absolutely critical to your case?
For the thousandth time- there is nothing wrong with that, please go to post#419/#493 and show me where you disagree!!!

[mjd1982]

Dude, he wasn't agreeing with you - he was just wanting you to get to the next step in your argument, by granting you your point for the sake of argument. It's obvious that you're not going to get any agreement that 9/11 was propitious (and I wish you'd give that word a rest) to the stated goals of PNAC. If you don't move forward, then this thread will be forever stuck on this point. No one here agrees with you, and it's apparent that we never will. Please just make your point already.
There is nothing wrong with not agreeing. But if you dont, then please go to the posts where my arguments have been crystalised, as has been asked many many many times, and go through them, and refute them! Its that easy.

Stating "i think you're wrong", or just putting up your own argument, does not address my points.

[mjd1982]

mjd1982,

Here are some questions that your theory fails to answer:

How many Osama bin Ladens are there? If there is one, why hasn't the government produced hime before either of the last two elections? If there is two, why hasn't eh real Osama come forward?

If the purpose of the 9/11 attacks was to garner support for a war in Iraq, why were the hijackers from Saudi Arabia? Why did the Bush Admin want to put suspicion onto one of their biggest backers in the region instead of putting it squarely on the head of the country they wished to overthrow?

If the Bush Admin was willing to spend billions of dollars and countless man hours on a hugely difficult and unwieldy plan to attack the WTC, why then did they not fake WMDs in Iraq? Why spend so much money on one side of this plan and yet refuse to spend money on an arabic typewriter and a vial of antrax?
Please tell me what relevance this has to my point here? (dont make me tell you again what this point is...)

[JonnyFive]

mjd, I would also like to see this discussion proceed. After all, means+motive+opportunity <> evidence.

So even if PNAC talks about needing a new Pearl Harbor, and 9/11 is fortuitous, and the government could have possibly caused 9/11 to occur/let it occur.

So let's let PNAC lie. If you want to convince us that the government had something to do with 9/11, then you may want to consider presenting some evidence.

Why don't you discuss your list of "warnings" that you claim were ignored? I mentioned that a while back, but you seem to have lost it in the shuffle.

I am interested in your explanation for why those vague "warnings" should have been obvious indicators of the 9/11 attacks, especially given the low signal/noise ratio in the intelligence community, and the fact that most of those things seem significant only when applying post hoc reasoning to them.

Most importantly, it would be nice if you could explain what would convince you that you are incorrect. If you are simply an ideologue trying to convert us, at least be honest about it.

[mjd1982]

But they actually state the opposite. Their stated aim is slow and steady change with an emphasis on new technologies. A new PH was described as catastrophic. Nowhere do they state that a new PH would be propitious.


Bravo for (semi) addressing the point, you are now in an elite club. Nonetheless, if you had replied to my point directly, you would have a bit more clarity here, IMO.

Namely, where I state that what is called for is not strictly a new PH, but more a catastrophic and catalysing event. If you are going to state that 9/11was not the sort of event being referenced, then you believe it was either not catastrophic, or not catalysing. Please tell me which it is.


You have said that they would never state that they wanted a new PH and are using the lack of such a statement to somehow prove that a new PH is advantageous for them.


No, I stated that they would not plausibly state outright, i,e in so many words: "We need a new PH, and we need it now!". This is obviously unlikely. The reasons why a such an event is propitious to them has been outlined for you many times; i will do it again:


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.
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.
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.


If you want to contest my argument, please contest this point!

[aggle-rithm]

I think that Aggle agreed for the sake of argument, but then the concept seems alien to you.


Yes. I would have said, "This argument is pointless, let's move on to something else", but I knew I would receive a reply like the following:

For the thousandth time- there is nothing wrong with that, please go to post#419/#493 and show me where you disagree!!!

[Dave Rogers]

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.

Not a good line of argument. An alternative one would be that they want an appropriate amount of time taken so that the choices of new technologies are well thought through. Rapid responses to immediate threats, historically speaking, tend to produce over-specific remedies - the USS Monitor is a classic example - rather than long term solutions designed to be useful in a wide range of applications. In fact, it has often been argued that it was the short term focus of the reaction to 9/11 that has left the US embroiled in two complex and messy ground wars that have actually diverted attention away from the very innovations that PNAC wnated to highlight.

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.

Again, not a strong case, because the PNAC wanted to propose long term high-technology changes to US defence policy, and pre-empting the QDR with a low-technology attack would clearly work against this agenda.

c) The fact that a (+ve) revolutionary change in the geo-political landscape is preferable to power hungry politicians soon, rather than later. I do realise that chimps wil cry "That's not in the doc", but I think that it is pretty much common sense.

That seems quite at variance with the whole tone of the document. It is, after all, the Project for the New American Century, by its nature a long term plan, and your assertion that the planning was characterised by short termism is not just not in the document but in disagreement with its entire philosophy.

Therefore, I disagree on these grounds with your assertion that 9/11 was a propitious event.

Dave

[volatile]

If you want to contest my argument, please contest this point!

What the hell is your argument? We're *still* going round in circles. Should I state this again, in very clear language? You think 911 was useful for PNAC, we all don't. Let's say you're right, though, just for the sake of argument.

So what? Move your argument on a notch, as you've repeatedly been asked to do, or move the hell out.

[mjd1982]

Ok, we'll try this again.


Thank you!!!

We have the 2nd person in ~200 posts who has decided to directly contest the points. Well done to you! And I do mean that sincerely. Thank you.

We can now debate this point; others are free to join as they want.


That whole thing is blatantly false. The "new PH" is simply a surprise military attack by a technologically Superior force. The is shown it the following passage from PNAC:


Just because 9/11 was a "catastrophic and catalysing event," doesn't mean that it is what the PNAC was referring to.

No, to equate the two is brainless.


Ok. So we have it. 9/11 was a catastrophic and catalysing event. PNAC state that the transformation will be slow absent a catastrophic and catalysing event. So please tell me how PNAC were not referring to that.


False. The aim of the PNAC is to insure our technological advantage over every other military force to keep the US hegemony as it is throughout the 21st century and beyond.


And how does fighting multiple theatre wars; performing constabulary duties, restoring personnel strength, repositioning US forces (all of which are key requirements/aims according to the doc) have anything to do with technological advantage?


False. The PNAC's vision did not include the WOT. A paradigm shift needed to occur to fight a stateless war.


Please read [url=http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=84473&page=3this link[/url] to find out the similarity between PNAC's vision and the WOT, although this is not hugely relevant.


Again. Another baseless statement trying to provide some sort of link between the PNAC and 9/11.

Please tell me how this is baseless

[mjd1982]

Yes. I would have said, "This argument is pointless, let's move on to something else", but I knew I would receive a reply like the following:
and why cant u do that?

[aggle-rithm]

Dude, he wasn't agreeing with you - he was just wanting you to get to the next step in your argument, by granting you your point for the sake of argument. It's obvious that you're not going to get any agreement that 9/11 was propitious (and I wish you'd give that word a rest) to the stated goals of PNAC. If you don't move forward, then this thread will be forever stuck on this point. No one here agrees with you, and it's apparent that we never will. Please just make your point already.

One of the first traits that I noticed about conspiracy theorists was the contortions they would go through to insinuate wildly without making any actual claims. That way, if someone points out the absurdity of their position, they can rightly say, "I never said that!"

Correct, because the smart ones never say ANYTHING of substance. Not directly, anyway. That's why I consider them to be intellectual cowards.

[stateofgrace]

Bravo for (semi) addressing the point, you are now in an elite club. Nonetheless, if you had replied to my point directly, you would have a bit more clarity here, IMO.

Namely, where I state that what is called for is not strictly a new PH, but more a catastrophic and catalysing event. If you are going to state that 9/11was not the sort of event being referenced, then you believe it was either not catastrophic, or not catalysing. Please tell me which it is.



No, I stated that they would not plausibly state outright, i,e in so many words: "We need a new PH, and we need it now!". This is obviously unlikely. The reasons why a such an event is propitious to them has been outlined for you many times; i will do it again:



If you want to contest my argument, please contest this point!


Your argument has been contested for the last 15 pages; you have failed to read the answers.

Now move on, this is so boring it is bordering on suicidal. Will you move on from the PNAC document and tell us all how this then translates into an inside job.

GET ON WITH IT.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

<snip>
Ok. So we have it. 9/11 was a catastrophic and catalysing event. PNAC state that the transformation will be slow absent a catastrophic and catalysing event. So please tell me how PNAC were not referring to that.
<snip>
Affirming the consequent logical fallacy.

[T.A.M.]

Good luck guys...see you on the other side.

TAM:)

[CurtC]

For the thousandth time- there is nothing wrong with that, please go to post#419/#493 and show me where you disagree!!!
9/11 might have been both catastrophic and catalyzing, but not catalyzing in a way that would further the PNAC agenda. It was catalyzing in a way that gave the Bush administration much latitude to conduct a ground war against an ill-defined enemy. It did not give the military the authority to invest in new weapons programs and make other investments that would push us to global superpower forever status. That's a big difference. The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are the worst nightmares of the people who drafted the PNAC document.

[mjd1982]

Thank you Dave. I do appreciate the response. Now...

Not a good line of argument. An alternative one would be that they want an appropriate amount of time taken so that the choices of new technologies are well thought through.


Ok, but the new technologies, which is just one part of the transformation, have been thought through, at great length. They are one of the results of the work that has gone into putting the doc together.


Rapid responses to immediate threats, historically speaking, tend to produce over-specific remedies - the USS Monitor is a classic example - rather than long term solutions designed to be useful in a wide range of applications. In fact, it has often been argued that it was the short term focus of the reaction to 9/11 that has left the US embroiled in two complex and messy ground wars that have actually diverted attention away from the very innovations that PNAC wnated to highlight.


Firstly, please go here:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=84473&page=3
to find out how the changes that PNAC envisaged are, almost completely, what is being pursued under the aegis of the WOT.

Secondly, as stated above, the response was not rapid in the sense that you imply- the actions had been well thought out, as per the doc. They are intended to be long term solutions. And, they are completely unrelated to the attack, and thus the "threat" supposedly revealed by 9/11. How will militarising space stop terrorism? Again, please read the link I have given you for more on the WOT.


Again, not a strong case, because the PNAC wanted to propose long term high-technology changes to US defence policy, and pre-empting the QDR with a low-technology attack would clearly work against this agenda.


It was a low-tech attack,but as I have stated, the military changes that have been pursued under the aegis of the WOT have had nothing to do with the type of attacks that occurred on 9/11. This does, incidentally, underline even more the staged nature of the attack, since the response to it has had very little to do with it (the invasion of Iraq being just 1 example of such)


That seems quite at variance with the whole tone of the document. It is, after all, the Project for the New American Century, by its nature a long term plan, and your assertion that the planning was characterised by short termism is not just not in the document but in disagreement with its entire philosophy.


I do not state that this was a short term plan; rather that it was one that they would sensibly have wished to get underwayquickly in order to create a platform (control of space/cyberspace/strategic resources etc) to best ensure the projection of US hegemony throughout the 21st century, thus ensuring that it would be an american century, as they desire.


Therefore, I disagree on these grounds with your assertion that 9/11 was a propitious event.

Dave

Well, thank you for addressing the points. I would be interested to hear your thoughts on my response.

[HeyLeroy]

For the thousandth time- there is nothing wrong with that, please go to post#419/#493 and show me where you disagree!!!There is nothing wrong with not agreeing. But if you dont, then please go to the posts where my arguments have been crystalised, as has been asked many many many times, and go through them, and refute them! Its that easy.

Stating "i think you're wrong", or just putting up your own argument, does not address my points.

Still, can't you tell us what happens next, MjD? You're ever so coy!

This is his favoured tactic. I think he's realizing just how high is the bar here, and he's rethinking whether or not to come forth with his opinions on WTC7. I paraphrased his ideas earlier and I'll repost it again at the bottom.


Sorry, I thought those were in jest


Remember the advice I gave you on assuming on the other board?

Here's how I see your views on WTC7 amount to, correct me if I'm wrong:

http://liveu-91.vo.llnwd.net/vidilife/image/2006/10/10/946639/1179791L.gif knew that terrorists were going to hijack planes and fly them into the Twin Towers. http://liveu-91.vo.llnwd.net/vidilife/image/2006/10/10/946639/1179791L.gif knew exactly where chunks of WTC1 were going to impact upon WTC7, and had http://liveu-78.vo.llnwd.net/vidilife/image/2006/10/10/946639/1193578L.gifhttp://liveu-66.vo.llnwd.net/vidilife/image/2006/10/10/946639/1200166L.gif plant explosives throughout WTC7, in places where http://liveu-91.vo.llnwd.net/vidilife/image/2006/10/10/946639/1179791L.gif knew the raging fires wouldn't spread.

http://liveu-91.vo.llnwd.net/vidilife/image/2006/10/10/946639/1179791L.gif, for reasons unknown (but we can assume wasn't guilt, as just did nothing to stop planes from smashing into buildings that could've potentially contained 50,000 innocent people) risked http://liveu-49.vo.llnwd.net/vidilife/image/2006/10/10/946639/1221349L.gifor even http://liveu-72.vo.llnwd.net/vidilife/image/2006/10/10/946639/1200172L.gif in the electric chair, and warned three fire-fighters of their nefarious plans, allowing them to... stay safe behind the collapse perimeter they'd set up, as the firefighters figured the building was gonna collapse anyways.

[Kage]

Please tell me what relevance this has to my point here? (dont make me tell you again what this point is...)

My questions are about something larger than your point in this debate. They are about how your incorrect claims about minutia are in fact pointless.

PNAC could even call for an attack identical to the one that happened on 9/11 and your argument would still be insufficient to prove anything. Motive, Means and Opportunity have to not only be present, but they also have to correlate. Just as I would not try to get away with killing my wife by blaming it on my mistress, the Bush Admin would not try to justify invading Iraq by blaming it on Saudi Arabia. Just as a business would not perform a hostile takeover of a company and then have the company fail because they did not spent $5000 on a patent, The Bush admin would not go through all the trouble of 9/11 and then not fake WMD. Your theory has no chance of being proven because of the questions I raised in my previous post. The goverment has to be simultaneously brilliant, cunning and all powerfull while also being stupid, inept and self-defeating for your theory to parse. Any theory that says the government was behind 9/11 has to answer my questions before it will have and chance at validity. Motive and Opportunity are in complete conflict with Means with what you suggest.

[mjd1982]

9/11 might have been both catastrophic and catalyzing, but not catalyzing in a way that would further the PNAC agenda. It was catalyzing in a way that gave the Bush administration much latitude to conduct a ground war against an ill-defined enemy. It did not give the military the authority to invest in new weapons programs and make other investments that would push us to global superpower forever status. That's a big difference. The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are the worst nightmares of the people who drafted the PNAC document.
Again Curt, thank you. I think debating this is much better than saying how much you disagree.

You make the suggestion that 911 was not the sort of event that PNAC would have wanted, since it was not properly calibrated to catalyse the changes they were calling for. Please click on this link

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=84473&page=3

to find out how the changes that have been pursued via 911/WOT are significantly similar to what was advocated in RAD.

Note that the disconnect further underlines the notion that 911 was a catastrophic event used to catalyse the changes that PNAC had called for, just as is stated in that disputed paragraph.

M

[mjd1982]

My questions are about something larger than your point in this debate. They are about how your incorrect claims about minutia are in fact pointless.

PNAC could even call for an attack identical to the one that happened on 9/11 and your argument would still be insufficient to prove anything. Motive, Means and Opportunity have to not only be present, but they also have to correlate. Just as I would not try to get away with killing my wife by blaming it on my mistress, the Bush Admin would not try to justify invading Iraq by blaming it on Saudi Arabia. Just as a business would not perform a hostile takeover of a company and then have the company fail because they did not spent $5000 on a patent, The Bush admin would not go through all the trouble of 9/11 and then not fake WMD. Your theory has no chance of being proven because of the questions I raised in my previous post. The goverment has to be simultaneously brilliant, cunning and all powerfull while also being stupid, inept and self-defeating for your theory to parse. Any theory that says the government was behind 9/11 has to answer my questions before it will have and chance at validity. Motive and Opportunity are in complete conflict with Means with what you suggest.
If I have understood you correctly (tell me if not), you are stating that the Bush admin would have had to be dastardly clever to pull of 9/11, whereas they are totally stupid, given the Iraq no WMD thing?

This has been addressed; I dont think that this attack is particularly clever; i think it is as bungled and obvious an inside job as could be conceived. Please note that for the moment, all I am trying to do is give a framework to work within; if PNAC/a significant number of the Bush admin had deemed a new PH propitious to policy, then we have some useful parameters to go by. I will come onto this later.

Sorry if this does not address your point; do let me know if it doesnt.

[mjd1982]

One of the first traits that I noticed about conspiracy theorists was the contortions they would go through to insinuate wildly without making any actual claims. That way, if someone points out the absurdity of their position, they can rightly say, "I never said that!"

Correct, because the smart ones never say ANYTHING of substance. Not directly, anyway. That's why I consider them to be intellectual cowards.
Intellectual cowards? Hmm. Maybe you can explain why you will not answer the points I have put forward to you?

[stateofgrace]

If I have understood you correctly (tell me if not), you are stating that the Bush admin would have had to be dastardly clever to pull of 9/11, whereas they are totally stupid, given the Iraq no WMD thing?

This has been addressed; I dont think that this attack is particularly clever; i think it is as bungled and obvious an inside job as could be conceived. Please note that for the moment, all I am trying to do is give a framework to work within; if PNAC/a significant number of the Bush admin had deemed a new PH propitious to policy, then we have some useful parameters to go by. I will come onto this later.

Sorry if this does not address your point; do let me know if it doesnt.

You don't think the attack was particularly clever? Yes there is nothing clever about 19 guys boarding four planes and managing to slam three of them into buildings full of innocent people. Or are you finally going to gave us your spin on it. Maybe lay down the easy task of murdering 3000 of your own citizens and hoping that nobody notices?

Obviously an inside job? On you go then lets have the fully and so obvious story of 911 or just for now a summary of the main events. Please include in your summary of this obvious inside job.

1. Flight 11
2. Fligh175
3. Flight 77
4. Flight 93
5. WTC 1
6. WTC 2
7. WTC 7

Al Qaeda can also be included as can the thousands who , on your behave investigated it and you call mass murderers

I await your summary.

[aggle-rithm]

Intellectual cowards? Hmm. Maybe you can explain why you will not answer the points I have put forward to you?

Is this a real poster, or a poorly-designed web bot caught in an endless loop?

[mjd1982]

You don't think the attack was particularly clever? Yes there is nothing clever about 19 guys boarding four planes and managing to slam three of them into buildings full of innocent people. Or are you finally going to gave us your spin on it. Maybe lay down the easy task of murdering 3000 of your own citizens and hoping that nobody notices?

Obviously an inside job? On you go then lets have the fully and so obvious story of 911 or just for now a summary of the main events. Please include in your summary of this obvious inside job.

1. Flight 11
2. Fligh175
3. Flight 77
4. Flight 93
5. WTC 1
6. WTC 2
7. WTC 7

Al Qaeda can also be included as can the thousands who , on your behave investigated it and you call mass murderers

I await your summary.
Buddy, please listen to me.

My argument is proceeding point by point. I have implored the people in this thread to address this first point directly; 1 person did that in ~200 posts (astonishing), and now some more are starting to; we are now debating this.

Please join in. The relevant posts are #493 and #419.

Once we do this, we will go to the next point. And the next. Eventually all your questions will be answered.

It will be less useful for me to just state my opinions straight out, since they will be based on other elements. This is the first such element. Hence why we are debating it.

Please join in.

M

[mjd1982]

Is this a real poster, or a poorly-designed web bot caught in an endless loop?
Haha.. don't worry, just leave it. Let the grown ups debate this, your evasion will be noted,

[JonnyFive]

This has been addressed; I dont think that this attack is particularly clever; i think it is as bungled and obvious an inside job as could be conceived.

If this is the case, could you perhaps move to an area more focused on tangible evidence and less on "motive + means = inside job." I'm sorry if I'm reducing your argument to a glib little fake equation, but you've been stuck in this PNAC loop for, what, 15 pages of this thread?

Please note that for the moment, all I am trying to do is give a framework to work within; if PNAC/a significant number of the Bush admin had deemed a new PH propitious to policy, then we have some useful parameters to go by. I will come onto this later.

How? Even if Bush and his cabinet were hooting for joy when the towers collapsed, glad of the chance to finally get down to some good ol' fashioned imperialism, it still doesn't prove a damn thing. It might make you suspicious, but unless they explicitly state they're going to, say, fake a terrorist attack, it really doesn't mean anything.

You seem caught up on getting everyone here to agree that PNAC was suspicious somehow. Even if you accomplish this, you haven't proven 9/11 was an inside job. At most, you'll get everyone marginally suspicious... in an eyebrow-raising kind of way. Please, please, please post something more substantial than that. Most of the Truthers we get here just come in and hammer on one stupid issue until they freak out and leave because no one agrees with them. Please be different. Look in your heart, mjd1982!

Also, "propitious" has several synonyms, including several (i.e. all of them) that are more commonly used in conversational writing. Might I suggest "fortuitous" and "favorable?" Perhaps even "fortunate" if you've feeling the need to alliterate.

[JonnyFive]

Once we do this, we will go to the next point. And the next. Eventually all your questions will be answered.

It will be less useful for me to just state my opinions straight out, since they will be based on other elements. This is the first such element. Hence why we are debating it.

Actually, that isn't how a debate generally works at all.

[stateofgrace]

Buddy, please listen to me.

My argument is proceeding point by point. I have implored the people in this thread to address this first point directly; 1 person did that in ~200 posts (astonishing), and now some more are starting to; we are now debating this.

Please join in. The relevant posts are #493 and #419.

Once we do this, we will go to the next point. And the next. Eventually all your questions will be answered.

It will be less useful for me to just state my opinions straight out, since they will be based on other elements. This is the first such element. Hence why we are debating it.

Please join in.

M

I am not your buddy, do not patronise me child. You have stated 911 was a blundered inside job, obviously. Answer my questions and provide your summary.

You have gone round in circles for long enough, stop wasting mine and everybody else time. Provide your evidence, give me your summary.

You are not debating; you are acting clever and failing miserably. You are dismissing everybody who destroys your arguments and wish to dictate how a debate should be run on a public forum again you are failing miserably.

I do not debate fools, I do not enter into brinkmanship with children who make statements and cannot back them up. Back up your statements or retract them.

[jab712]

My argument is proceeding point by point. I have implored the people in this thread to address this first point directly; 1 person did that in ~200 posts (astonishing), and now some more are starting to; we are now debating this.

Please join in. The relevant posts are #493 and #419.

Once we do this, we will go to the next point. And the next. Eventually all your questions will be answered.

It will be less useful for me to just state my opinions straight out, since they will be based on other elements. This is the first such element. Hence why we are debating it.



Seriously,

This isn't a debate. You just keep saying the same things over and over again. Either

1) you refuse to acknowledge why people disagree with your assertions - there are 16 pages and they have given you ample information as to why they disagree; or

2) you can't read.

Obviously you can read. But, I think you are refusing to acknowledge what the people are saying who disagree agree with you because they do disagree with you.

You know, maybe you would be better served to continue with the “what happened next” in efforts to prove that it WAS “propitious to policy.” Currently, no one agrees with you and the only people, who have conceded to your theory, have done so only for sake of argument and to move on to the “what happened next.”

In all seriousness, since the people on this board don’t agree with you based on what you have provided thus far, provide something else. Don’t keep going on the same way you have been. It just isn’t working. I am sorry, it is not. We can go 15 more pages like this, but if you don’t come up with something different to prove your point, it is all for not. You can tell people to reread your post 1000 more times and still not get the result you are looking for. You can even
YELL AT THEM TO READ YOUR POST AGAIN,
it doesn’t change the result.

With that, you have one of two options, 1) give up or 2) provide something else to prove your point. Specifically, “Because a new PH was propitious to policy, and 9/11 was the new PH they were looking for, they did this…” If you can show what happened next, maybe people would be more inclined to say “hmmm, maybe a new PH WAS propitious to policy.” They might not, but how you have gone about this for the last 16 pages is certainly not “propitious” to your argument.

Say your car was doing something strange. The problem is one of two things, but you aren’t sure which. You try the first thing and it doesn’t work, the strange thing is still happening. Would you keep doing the 1st thing over and over again, even though it wasn’t working, or would you move on to the second thing?

…Hoping you will move on to “what happened next”

[mjd1982]

If this is the case, could you perhaps move to an area more focused on tangible evidence and less on "motive + means = inside job." I'm sorry if I'm reducing your argument to a glib little fake equation, but you've been stuck in this PNAC loop for, what, 15 pages of this thread?


Thanks for your reply.

I am not stating that mean+motive=inside job. You might wanna recalll what was one of the points at the start of this thread- I am aiming to show that there is suficient evidence of government complicity to warrant a new investigation into such.

Importantly, the reason why we have been stuck in 15 pages of little progress, is reflected in the fact that the sum of my argument has been crystalised in posts #416/419 and #493. I have literally begged people to answer this, as a means of generating some movement in the debate. For about 180 posts, only 1 person chose to do so. Either ad homs, restating of one's own position, or "I dont agree with you". I notice that, unless I am mistaken, you have not chosen to do so either. May I ask why?


How? Even if Bush and his cabinet were hooting for joy when the towers collapsed, glad of the chance to finally get down to some good ol' fashioned imperialism, it still doesn't prove a damn thing. It might make you suspicious, but unless they explicitly state they're going to, say, fake a terrorist attack, it really doesn't mean anything.


I know that. You are correct. This point is a starting point to the argument, a premise. Whether it can be established or not will ilustrate the direction we shall proceed. This will be decided via debate. Please join in.


You seem caught up on getting everyone here to agree that PNAC was suspicious somehow. Even if you accomplish this, you haven't proven 9/11 was an inside job. At most, you'll get everyone marginally suspicious... in an eyebrow-raising kind of way. Please, please, please post something more substantial than that. Most of the Truthers we get here just come in and hammer on one stupid issue until they freak out and leave because no one agrees with them. Please be different. Look in your heart, mjd1982!


I do not care if no one agrees- having argued the issue. What does irk me is when people don't agree, having avoided the issue, i.e. not having responded to the relevant points. It does astonish me that this should be so prevalent on this forum, supposedly a standard bearer for intellectual honesty. It is surely not that hard- the points have been outlined for all to see, more than once, exhortations have been numerous, and we can all bear witness to the response. It is little different to the SLC, which i find sad.

I ask you to break the mould (as is starting to happen), and address post #493. Then we can make some progress; at least those of us who want to.


Also, "propitious" has several synonyms, including several (i.e. all of them) that are more commonly used in conversational writing. Might I suggest "fortuitous" and "favorable?" Perhaps even "fortunate" if you've feeling the need to alliterate.

The reason why I use this word so repetitively, is because it fits the meaning perfectly. The words you have suggested don't, i'm afraid. I know its a bit idiosyncratic, but i did just come across it in Kissinger's memoirs; I believe Le Duc Tho deemed terms in a peace agreement "propitious" to Hanoi, so the term does have currency outside conversational writing.

[mjd1982]

Actually, that isn't how a debate generally works at all.
I would disagree with that. A debate should start by establishing premises. This is what is occurring here.

[lapman]

Thank you!!!

(snip)
Ok. So we have it. 9/11 was a catastrophic and catalysing event. PNAC state that the transformation will be slow absent a catastrophic and catalysing event. So please tell me how PNAC were not referring to that.
Hurricane Katrina was also a catastrophic and catalyzing event. So was the PNAC referring to that as well? 9/11 was not a military attack, nor was it specifically targeting the military. Yes, the Pentagon was attacked, but the purpose of the attack was to cause terror, not disable the military. The PNAC was referring to a foreign military force attacking our military.

And how does fighting multiple theatre wars; performing constabulary duties, restoring personnel strength, repositioning US forces (all of which are key requirements/aims according to the doc) have anything to do with technological advantage?


This has to do with the projection of power and nothing to do with the PH issue. The PH issue dealt directly with the technology issue. Along with what you stated above is this:
TRANSFORM U.S. ARMED FORCES. Finally, the Pentagon must begin now to exploit the socalled “revolution in military affairs,” sparked by the introduction of advanced technologies into military systems; this must be regarded as a separate and critical mission worthy of a share of force structure and defense budgets.
So the technological advantage is still a part of every aspect of the document.


Please read this link to find out the similarity between PNAC's vision and the WOT, although this is not hugely relevant.

Since the WOT was started after PNAC's document, why wouldn't some of their recommendations be a part of it?

Please tell me how this is baseless
The idea is the projection of power as the stabilizing force, not a regime change.

[JonnyFive]

I am not stating that mean+motive=inside job. You might wanna recalll what was one of the points at the start of this thread- I am aiming to show that there is suficient evidence of government complicity to warrant a new investigation into such.

Go ahead. You've made your point about the PNAC. Noted. What's next?

Importantly, the reason why we have been stuck in 15 pages of little progress, is reflected in the fact that the sum of my argument has been crystalised in posts #416/419 and #493. I have literally begged people to answer this, as a means of generating some movement in the debate. For about 180 posts, only 1 person chose to do so. Either ad homs, restating of one's own position, or "I dont agree with you". I notice that, unless I am mistaken, you have not chosen to do so either. May I ask why?

Because I could, quite frankly, care less about the PNAC and what you think about it.

If you're here to make a comphensive case, then I'd like to read it. If you're just going to waffle about one issue because no one has replied the way you want them to then just say so, so I can go to another thread.

I'm not even planning to debate you, I just want to know if you're planning to actually continue or not. It's been kind of boring on the CT board, and I was hoping maybe you would at least have something fresh to talk about. Come on, don't make me go over to stinky old "general skepticism and paranormal"... eeeewwwwww...

I ask you to break the mould (as is starting to happen), and address post #493. Then we can make some progress; at least those of us who want to.

Several people have addressed the issues you mentioned in that post. Because you didn't like the way they did so is beside the point. You have been doing this for sixteen pages of this thread. Do you have a point at which you'll just move on whether or not you're happy with how everyone addressed your first point?

It's not like we don't understand what you're trying to say. Why not tackle point #2 now?

The reason why I use this word so repetitively, is because it fits the meaning perfectly. The words you have suggested don't, i'm afraid. I know its a bit idiosyncratic, but i did just come across it in Kissinger's memoirs; I believe Le Duc Tho deemed terms in a peace agreement "propitious" to Hanoi, so the term does have currency outside conversational writing.

Auspicious and fortuitous are nicer, I think. Auspicious in particular. It's a nice word.

Considering they mean the exact same thing, and are used in the exact same context and all...

[mjd1982]

Seriously,

This isn't a debate. You just keep saying the same things over and over again. Either

1) you refuse to acknowledge why people disagree with your assertions - there are 16 pages and they have given you ample information as to why they disagree; or

2) you can't read.

Obviously you can read. But, I think you are refusing to acknowledge what the people are saying who disagree agree with you because they do disagree with you.

You know, maybe you would be better served to continue with the “what happened next” in efforts to prove that it WAS “propitious to policy.” Currently, no one agrees with you and the only people, who have conceded to your theory, have done so only for sake of argument and to move on to the “what happened next.”

In all seriousness, since the people on this board don’t agree with you based on what you have provided thus far, provide something else. Don’t keep going on the same way you have been. It just isn’t working. I am sorry, it is not. We can go 15 more pages like this, but if you don’t come up with something different to prove your point, it is all for not. You can tell people to reread your post 1000 more times and still not get the result you are looking for. You can even
YELL AT THEM TO READ YOUR POST AGAIN,
it doesn’t change the result.

With that, you have one of two options, 1) give up or 2) provide something else to prove your point. Specifically, “Because a new PH was propitious to policy, and 9/11 was the new PH they were looking for, they did this…” If you can show what happened next, maybe people would be more inclined to say “hmmm, maybe a new PH WAS propitious to policy.” They might not, but how you have gone about this for the last 16 pages is certainly not “propitious” to your argument.

Say your car was doing something strange. The problem is one of two things, but you aren’t sure which. You try the first thing and it doesn’t work, the strange thing is still happening. Would you keep doing the 1st thing over and over again, even though it wasn’t working, or would you move on to the second thing?

…Hoping you will move on to “what happened next”
I think the main problem with this, is that I am not asking people to "read" my posts again, I am asking them to respond to them, which is very different. Please go back to #416/419, and scroll through until now (if you want to understand my pov). You will see that, until just now, there is I think just 1 person who replied to that post. Just 1. And I replied to him. Everyone else just restated their opinions/made ad homs/ blew hot air. Needless to say, none of these constitutes a rebuttal, much less a destruction. I'll give you some examples- indeed, to show arbitrariness, I will proceed in tens (420- 500):

#420

Does this mean you had no smoking guns as in the OP teased?

I suspected you were just talk and now you prove it. No smoking gun will be clarified and you are off on some PNAC hunt which has not a darn thing to do with 9/11. Cause and effect seem to be a messed up system, in the fictional world of 9/11 truth. What do you think?


#430

I really hope that PNAC has nothing to do with this


#440

Just popping in to see if this thread moving any faster than the malcolm thread. That one is pushing up daisies...

This one... seems to betwitching and sputtering on the ground, gasping dramatically, but I have hopes.


#450

Hey MJD! Take note of the sentence from the PNAC - "Thus, this report advocates a two-stage process of change - transition and transformation - over the coming decades."

Transition, and transformation. That whole "Pearl Harbour" paragraph extolls the virtues of slow and managed change, and seems, to these eyes at least, to NOT want a new Pearl Harbour. It interferes with the entire scope of the project as laid out in that section of the document!


#460

I'm sorry I spoke too soon. Do you have a list of the ignored/ unsatisfactorily. This would be important to put this issue to bed.


#470

Ah yes, explaining every little trivial point of interest was absolutely critical to the 9/11 Report...

Odd that mjd1982 thinks that is a critical question


#480

This same quote could have been made after the civil war.


#490

Quite right. World War Two is the only "Total War" in history. The definition of a "Total War" is that every aspect of society is directed towards the war effort. In a Total War scenario "budget" and "funds" are actually irrelevant. The only limitation on what you can do is your raw materials and manpower.

If we look at the area of Fighter Aircraft, the US alone developed and put into production 10 different fighters between 1939 and 1945.

In contrast, the US has only developed and put into production 6 Fighter Aircraft in the last 35 years, with a 7th, the F-35 Lightning II, set to enter service in 2011, which will mean only 7 aircraft in the fighter role in 40 years.

-Gumboot

ETA. Actually scratch that, I included the Harrier which A) Was not developed by the USA and B) is not used by the USA as a fighter. So it's only 6 aircraft in 41 years (maiden flight of F-14 1970 to F-35 becoming operational 2011). The Six aircraft are the F-14, F-15, F-16, F-18, F-22, and F-35.


#500

Can you agree that 9/11 has had no technological effect on the military?


**********

Clearly, i could go on. I think it is a pretty astonishing phenomenon. I have made an argument; if people want to dispute it, should they not address it? And more to the point, if they don't, they why don't they?

[JonnyFive]

I would disagree with that. A debate should start by establishing premises. This is what is occurring here.

In this case, it fortunately doesn't matter whether you agree or not. A debate, by defintion, is a contest of opposing viewpoints. Agreement is not required at all, nor is "establishing premises." You say your thing, everyone comments, and says their thing. Back and forth until everyone gets sick of it and leaves, or one side relents, or time runs out.

I hope you're not arguing that your interpretation of the PNAC is a "premise" we need to establish. If so, you're actually admitting that you won't continue until we agree with you. That would be quite ballsy of you, but I hope it's not what you mean, mjd.

[mjd1982]

Go ahead. You've made your point about the PNAC. Noted. What's next?

Because I could, quite frankly, care less about the PNAC and what you think about it.


Well then you have no interest being here in this debate, since PNAC is an important part of it. You should probably go elsewhere.


If you're here to make a comphensive case, then I'd like to read it.


I am in the process of doing so. This is the 1st point.


If you're just going to waffle about one issue because no one has replied the way you want them to then just say so, so I can go to another thread.


Excuse me? The way i want them to? I want people to reply to my point- is this too much to ask? Please, tell me, is this too much? If it is too much for you, then yes, please leave, you will waste your time here. I have no interest in debating at people.


Several people have addressed the issues you mentioned in that post. Because you didn't like the way they did so is beside the point. You have been doing this for sixteen pages of this thread. Do you have a point at which you'll just move on whether or not you're happy with how everyone addressed your first point?

It's not like we don't understand what you're trying to say. Why not tackle point #2 now?


Excuse me. Please learn the difference between restating one's opinion and addressing someone else's issue. E.g. If I were to say "The TT's were not imploded evidenced by the fact that no CD expert thinks they were, you stating "Yeh but they free fell" would not be addressing my point. And we would go round and round and round. Please show me where someone has addressed my point, directly, and I havent responded.

[twinstead]

I hope you're not arguing that your interpretation of the PNAC is a "premise" we need to establish. If so, you're actually admitting that you won't continue until we agree with you. That would be quite ballsy of you, but I hope it's not what you mean, mjd.

Goodness, I certainly hope that his specific interpretation of the PNAC isn't critical to his point about 911.

If that's the case it reminds me of the thread that went 20 pages about the definition of 'around'...

[mjd1982]

In this case, it fortunately doesn't matter whether you agree or not. A debate, by defintion, is a contest of opposing viewpoints. Agreement is not required at all, nor is "establishing premises." You say your thing, everyone comments, and says their thing. Back and forth until everyone gets sick of it and leaves, or one side relents, or time runs out.

I hope you're not arguing that your interpretation of the PNAC is a "premise" we need to establish. If so, you're actually admitting that you won't continue until we agree with you. That would be quite ballsy of you, but I hope it's not what you mean, mjd.

No, you have misunderstood. The premise that would be established would not have to be my point about PNAC. It could be yours. It is something I am seeking to establish, true. But if people want to come out and illustrate how my argument is wrong, then I am waiting, and imploring them, to do so, and have been for a long time. If they succeed, then that is fine.

[mjd1982]

Goodness, I certainly hope that his specific interpretation of the PNAC isn't critical to his point about 911.

If that's the case it reminds me of the thread that went 20 pages about the definition of 'around'...
My specific interpretation...

Please, if this is so simple, go and contest it. It's #493, you would be one of the 1st.

[JonnyFive]

Think. The chances of a new PH happening, absent gov complicity are remote. It is a once in a lifetime event. The chances of it happening, absent gov complicity, when said gov has, effectively stated its propitiousness only months earlier, is now close to inconceivable. And finally, the chances of all this happening at the most useful time for the gov; not only 9 months in, thus allowing the gov 3 or 7 years to pursue the policy said PH was going to catalyse; but also, as the document states quite clearly, it happens crucially just before the 2001 QDR, a crucial moment since it is when the new president makes the choice of whether to “increase military spending to preserve American geopolitical leadership, or (to) pull back from the security commitments that are the measure of America’s position as the world’s sole superpower and the final guarantee of security, democratic freedoms and individual political rights.” In short, everything that neo-conservative policy stands for. The chances of this all being a coincidence, though existing, are almost too small to be taken seriously. Hence, the chances of 9/11 having happened absent government complicity, are equally almost too small to be taken seriously. So already we have built a pretty robust case for the goal of the Truth Movement. But in any case, take such chances seriously we shall, and we shall have a look at the rest of the evidence.

This is the thrust of your arguments about the PNAC, from your OP. Note that this is just an extended argument from incredulity. You find it unlikely that such events would happen in, as you see it, such a beneficial order for the government. You say this alone builds a "robust case" for the Truth Movement.

However, this says absolutely nothing. While the probability of an event such as 9/11 occurring is indeed extremely low, the fact is that it did occur. Thus, any arguments about its liklihood are essentially worthless. The probability of all events that have already occurred is 1. Even if the probability of the events happening in sequence again would 1 in a trillion, the point is that those events did occur.

This is why I say that, absent other evidence, this means nothing. For you to say things like this it implies that you don't work with probability much, and certainly not with risk probability. The simple point is that s**t happens. On a long enough time line, or with a big enough sample, you're very likely to see a few highly improbable events.

Even something, as so say, as improbable as someone alluding to a catalysing event, having the power to theoretically create it (or allow it to happen) and, just a few months later, there it is!

But so what? It doesn't prove anything. It doesn't even mean anything. No more than someone really needing money and winning to lottery the next day. It's simply a coincidence. It's not like you found damning evidence - say, a memo talking about staging terrorist attacks or something.

So, if you don't mind, could you move on to the next point? Us spectators are getting bored, and we keep having to get our hands dirty and chip our nails and stuff.

ETA: Did I address your argument sufficiently for your liking, mjd? It appears that it's essentially a gussied-up argument-from-incredulity, or perhaps you might call it an argument-from-improbability. Unless you can dig up something more direct, all you're left with is "gee whiz, this was really unlikely and therefore suspicious." And you're claiming that this is important to your point? Oy.

[lapman]

No, you have misunderstood. The premise that would be established would not have to be my point about PNAC. It could be yours. It is something I am seeking to establish, true. But if people want to come out and illustrate how my argument is wrong, then I am waiting, and imploring them, to do so, and have been for a long time. If they succeed, then that is fine.

This has been done. Twice by me. What more do you want?

[Belz...]

Bravo for (semi) addressing the point, you are now in an elite club.

Sorry. You don't get to brand people, here.

We have the 2nd person in ~200 posts who has decided to directly contest the points.

More like, the 2nd who has directly contested your points and who you decided to respond to.

Ok. So we have it. 9/11 was a catastrophic and catalysing event. PNAC state that the transformation will be slow absent a catastrophic and catalysing event. So please tell me how PNAC were not referring to that.

Non sequitur. The fact that they were talking about a certain type of event, and 9/11 was of that type, even if I were to agree, would not mean that they refered specifically to 9/11.

[jab712]

In this case, it fortunately doesn't matter whether you agree or not. A debate, by defintion, is a contest of opposing viewpoints. Agreement is not required at all, nor is "establishing premises." You say your thing, everyone comments, and says their thing. Back and forth until everyone gets sick of it and leaves, or one side relents, or time runs out.

I hope you're not arguing that your interpretation of the PNAC is a "premise" we need to establish. If so, you're actually admitting that you won't continue until we agree with you. That would be quite ballsy of you, but I hope it's not what you mean, mjd.

I could be wrong, but it seems that he is saying this.

MJD, no offense...really, your response to my post was that you have asked people to reply to your post 416 & 419 (my bad for saying reread)...These two posts are saying what you have been saying all along, are they not?

To me, and I don't know much about military stuff (hence me saying "military stuff") and I had to read the PNAC doc (wow, was that...brutal), it is clear in all of the posts, even the ones not directly replying to #416 or #419, what the other people are trying to say that disagrees with what you are saying.

You are asking people to respond to #416 and/or #419. They haven't directly quoted and replied to #416 and/or #419, BUT...they HAVE addressed those issues throughout this thread. I, the feeble minded about this "military stuff", have even figured out what they are saying. They have provided enough information for me, the feeble mind, to understand. I have nothing to offer in this debate, because I don't know enough to add any additional information.

However, I do know that this has been beat to death. The others just don't agree with you and have given reason. Having said that, why can't you just move on to the next part? Take a different approach, provide additional information to prove the point you are trying to make because this is going nowhere.

Thank you.

[twinstead]

My specific interpretation...

Please, if this is so simple, go and contest it. It's #493, you would be one of the 1st.

I went through that post, and the two it references. What exactly would you expect as a specific rebuttal to your points?

You aren't submitting any evidence for review. You are giving your interpretation of things. Others here are giving their interpretation of things.

Perhaps if you starting presenting your other totally compelling pieces of evidence that 911 was an inside job our little disagreement on the PNAC will fade into oblivion as we are forced to totally change our world views in the face of your incontrovertible evidence.

But, how can we do that if you can't get off what really is an 'agree to disagree position' on what in many people's opinion is irrelevant to 911?

[stateofgrace]

My specific interpretation...

Please, if this is so simple, go and contest it. It's #493, you would be one of the 1st.

I agree 100% with your interpretation of the PNAC document, you are 100% correct.

Now, your next point is?













(Disclaimer, I don't, I am just saying this)

[JonnyFive]

(Disclaimer, I don't, I am just saying this)

Dude, stop saying that! He's just going to get on you for pretending to agree for the sake of argument.

At least use the [invisible] tags.

[HyJinX]

I'm about a millisecond away from posting cat pictures.

[Dave Rogers]

Well, thank you for addressing the points. I would be interested to hear your thoughts on my response.

I'm aware of your opinions, but I feel you're confusing them with verifiable facts. Yes, RAD referred to a catastrophic and catalysing event, but it's clear from the context that it referred to such an event that would highlight the need for modernisation of US forces; the swift military victories followed by the bloody and messy situation in Iraq make it clear that American military hegemony is in no danger, whereas its foreign policy is deeply flawed. The fact that events have been spun to try and justify some - and clearly and emphatically not all - of PNAC's aims (for example, what price troop realignments to south-eastern Europe and Asia now that Iraq is such a manpower sink?) is hardly proof, or even indication, of complicity.

Anyway, I understand what you're saying (although I have to say I did already before I got sucked in here). You're not going to get everyone agreeing with you, but you've stated your position, so how about moving on to the next step in your argument?

Dave

[mjd1982]

I'm aware of your opinions, but I feel you're confusing them with verifiable facts. Yes, RAD referred to a catastrophic and catalysing event, but it's clear from the context that it referred to such an event that would highlight the need for modernisation of US forces; the swift military victories followed by the bloody and messy situation in Iraq make it clear that American military hegemony is in no danger, whereas its foreign policy is deeply flawed. The fact that events have been spun to try and justify some - and clearly and emphatically not all - of PNAC's aims (for example, what price troop realignments to south-eastern Europe and Asia now that Iraq is such a manpower sink?) is hardly proof, or even indication, of complicity.

Anyway, I understand what you're saying (although I have to say I did already before I got sucked in here). You're not going to get everyone agreeing with you, but you've stated your position, so how about moving on to the next step in your argument?

Dave
The next step will come shortly.

The attack that was being referenced was an attack that would permit the changes envisaged in RAD to take place. Such has, to a massive extent, occurred. Hence 9/11 wasa propitious attack for PNAC. The facts that back this up are on the link I gave to you.

A pont about hegemony- military hegemony is clear for the US right now (not that I would state defeating Iraq andf Afghanistan is a measure of that), but the point of PNAC is to ensure it is invulnerable. Such will be hindered by a growing superpower, such as China, militarising space, and controlling cyberspace as a defense/offense tool. I incidentally have a friend who works for BAE, and he tells me that no one in the weapons industry cares for Islamic terrorism; it is chinese cyberterrorism tht has got everyone scared. Similar was stated by Dick Clarke.

Thank you for your response in any case; I would like to wait for others to respond to my posts as you have done before proceeding, if that is ok.

[Pardalis]

I'm about a millisecond away from posting cat pictures.

Boy, that's one loooong millisecond. :p

[mjd1982]

I went through that post, and the two it references. What exactly would you expect as a specific rebuttal to your points?


Someone saying, "No, i disagree with this because..." or, "No, youre wrong there because...". Thats ow debates work, no?


You aren't submitting any evidence for review. You are giving your interpretation of things. Others here are giving their interpretation of things.


I am giving my interpretation; I think its quite basic, but this is true. I am asking others to challenge my interpretation; again, this is how debates often proceed, no?


Perhaps if you starting presenting your other totally compelling pieces of evidence that 911 was an inside job our little disagreement on the PNAC will fade into oblivion as we are forced to totally change our world views in the face of your incontrovertible evidence.


Such evidence will be better established on the basis of the import of the PNAC doc being ascertained. Hence why I have asked people, you included, to challenge my interpretation of it.


But, how can we do that if you can't get off what really is an 'agree to disagree position' on what in many people's opinion is irrelevant to 911?

Why did you not answer the post? Please tell me.

[Unsecured Coins]

I'm about a millisecond away from posting cat pictures.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v295/Jaye77/0053.jpg

[mjd1982]

I could be wrong, but it seems that he is saying this.

MJD, no offense...really, your response to my post was that you have asked people to reply to your post 416 & 419 (my bad for saying reread)...These two posts are saying what you have been saying all along, are they not?


yes


To me, and I don't know much about military stuff (hence me saying "military stuff") and I had to read the PNAC doc (wow, was that...brutal), it is clear in all of the posts, even the ones not directly replying to #416 or #419, what the other people are trying to say that disagrees with what you are saying.


No. It disagrees with my overall argument- i..e taht PNAC stated that a new PH would be propitious to policy- but not with the points that are made to back that up.

There's a very simple way to do this- click "reply" on one of the posts, and then go through the post, point by point, and answer it. I have been on my hand and knees practically, begging people to do this. It is quite incredibly revealing taht despite this, hardly anyone will. They just sit there and say "Yes, we agree with u- move on"- this is evasion, by definition.


You are asking people to respond to #416 and/or #419. They haven't directly quoted and replied to #416 and/or #419, BUT...they HAVE addressed those issues throughout this thread. I, the feeble minded about this "military stuff", have even figured out what they are saying. They have provided enough information for me, the feeble mind, to understand. I have nothing to offer in this debate, because I don't know enough to add any additional information.


Again, note the difference between disagreeing with a point and addressing it. If you say "Jon is happy because he is smiling", I could disagree with it by saying "No he's not- he doesnt like Fridays"- this would not address the initial point. This is whats happening here.


However, I do know that this has been beat to death. The others just don't agree with you and have given reason. Having said that, why can't you just move on to the next part? Take a different approach, provide additional information to prove the point you are trying to make because this is going nowhere.

Thank you.

But it will go somewhere, even if not where i want, if someone addresses my points.

[Unsecured Coins]

Someone saying, "No, i disagree with this because..." or, "No, youre wrong there because...". Thats ow debates work, no?


Yeah, but.... whenever we do this, what do you do?

Call them chimps, children, kids, say they can't read, suggest they go somewhere else, talk down to them, or you skip over that and just forget to reply.

Then there's alway my personal favrote, when you start talking to yourself.

[mjd1982]

This has been done. Twice by me. What more do you want?
No, I am happy with you! I have replied to you, I wish more could be like you.

You can reply to my last response if you like?

[HyJinX]

Someone saying, "No, i disagree with this because..." or, "No, youre wrong there because...". Thats ow debates work, no?

Yes...tis true. However, this has happened repeatedly on this thread. Many participants have points, counterpoints and rebuttals. Most debates do not end with all parties agreeing on one point. You've made you case. Many others have made theirs. I think there has been enough information from both sides that firmly state each opposing view. It's now time to move on and let the readers decide for themselves on which side to agree with. That is how debates work...no?

I am giving my interpretation; I think its quite basic, but this is true. I am asking others to challenge my interpretation; again, this is how debates often proceed, no?

Read above.

Such evidence will be better established on the basis of the import of the PNAC doc being ascertained. Hence why I have asked people, you included, to challenge my interpretation of it.

It has been done. No new information is being presented. Let the reader decide now.

Why did you not answer the post? Please tell me.

Many, many people here have answered your posts. Those who did not reply to directly may feel as though someone else has made a statement that supports their own personal belief on this subject. You certainly don't expect everyone with an apposing view to state it if somebody has already stated it...correct.

It's a dead horse.

[mortimer]

mjd,

please move on to your next point. you can't stay on this point until everyone, or even a certain number, agrees with you. just stay on a point until everyone understands your point. your point #1: 9/11 was a new Pearl Harbor that was propitious to the plan laid out by PNAC. everyone understands that is what you believe, even if they don't agree with it. so now it's time for your next point, please.

[HyJinX]

Until we turn to another topic.....I present to you...BUBBA!

[mjd1982]

This is the thrust of your arguments about the PNAC, from your OP. Note that this is just an extended argument from incredulity. You find it unlikely that such events would happen in, as you see it, such a beneficial order for the government. You say this alone builds a "robust case" for the Truth Movement.


Well, in that it is an argument framed by "It is unlikely that... is not the case". In this sense, any cause for criminal investigation would be based on an argument from incredulity. Sprinter X has been seen hanging round Balco Labs, has had his 100m pb up by .5 of a second, and is going bald- it is unlikely that he is not on drugs. Cause for investigation into whether he is or isnt. My argument is the same.


However, this says absolutely nothing. While the probability of an event such as 9/11 occurring is indeed extremely low, the fact is that it did occur. Thus, any arguments about its liklihood are essentially worthless. The probability of all events that have already occurred is 1. Even if the probability of the events happening in sequence again would 1 in a trillion, the point is that those events did occur.


No, you're confused I'm afraid. I am not arguing the probability that a new PH did happen. I am arguing the probability that one might happen, absent goverment complicity, retroactively, in light of the factors that make one so unlikely. Think about it for a second.


This is why I say that, absent other evidence, this means nothing. For you to say things like this it implies that you don't work with probability much, and certainly not with risk probability. The simple point is that s**t happens. On a long enough time line, or with a big enough sample, you're very likely to see a few highly improbable events.
Even something, as so say, as improbable as someone alluding to a catalysing event, having the power to theoretically create it (or allow it to happen) and, just a few months later, there it is!


Yes, I am not denying such. Hence, as you will now be aware, the argument is that PNAC stated such was propitious, and then the gov were criminally negligent on an unimaginable scale in failing to stop it. Thus we have openly stated motive for an action, plus gross criminal negligence in failing to stop such action, which is a robust case for investigation.


But so what? It doesn't prove anything. It doesn't even mean anything. No more than someone really needing money and winning to lottery the next day. It's simply a coincidence. It's not like you found damning evidence - say, a memo talking about staging terrorist attacks or something.


A really bad analogy. For a start, no one has the power to make themselves win the lottery.


ETA: Did I address your argument sufficiently for your liking, mjd? It appears that it's essentially a gussied-up argument-from-incredulity, or perhaps you might call it an argument-from-improbability. Unless you can dig up something more direct, all you're left with is "gee whiz, this was really unlikely and therefore suspicious." And you're claiming that this is important to your point? Oy.

Dealt with. Plus, you havent addressed the argument I have referred you to. Why dont u do this?

[U]I'm begging you, and your colleagues, to do it![ #493!/U]

[MortFurd]

I'm about a millisecond away from posting cat pictures.

I'd much rather you posted pictures of your avatar in action with his film partners - but that won't fly here at JREF. Gotta keep it clean.

[mjd1982]

mjd,

please move on to your next point. you can't stay on this point until everyone, or even a certain number, agrees with you. just stay on a point until everyone understands your point. your point #1: 9/11 was a new Pearl Harbor that was propitious to the plan laid out by PNAC. everyone understands that is what you believe, even if they don't agree with it. so now it's time for your next point, please.
M8, as I have said countless times, I dont care if people agree, all i want is for people to address the argument. Y dont they? Y dont u? 225 posts, pretty much nothing.

The level of self deception is staggering.

[Pardalis]

I'd much rather you posted pictures of your avatar in action with his film partners - but that won't fly here at JREF. Gotta keep it clean.

I didn't know Khalid Sheikh Mohammed made porn movies. :eek:

[HyJinX]

I'd much rather you posted pictures of your avatar in action with his film partners - but that won't fly here at JREF. Gotta keep it clean.

Tis true. I'm afraid that Bubba is about as good as it'll get.

[mjd1982]

Yes...tis true. However, this has happened repeatedly on this thread. Many participants have points, counterpoints and rebuttals. Most debates do not end with all parties agreeing on one point. You've made you case. Many others have made theirs. I think there has been enough information from both sides that firmly state each opposing view. It's now time to move on and let the readers decide for themselves on which side to agree with. That is how debates work...no?



Read above.



It has been done. No new information is being presented. Let the reader decide now.



Many, many people here have answered your posts. Those who did not reply to directly may feel as though someone else has made a statement that supports their own personal belief on this subject. You certainly don't expect everyone with an apposing view to state it if somebody has already stated it...correct.

It's a dead horse.
Simple request- please give me the post numbers where my posts have been directly replied to, and where they have not been responded to.

If there are none, please tell me why this is.

And I will also ask you- y dont u reply to the post? #493, very easy.

[Unsecured Coins]

Until we turn to another topic.....I present to you...BUBBA!
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v295/Jaye77/ihascheezburger1.jpg

[HyJinX]

I didn't know Khalid Sheikh Mohammed made porn movies. :eek:

Uhh....ew. The thought of that, ALONE, is a terrorist attack on my senses.

[lapman]

The next step will come shortly.

The attack that was being referenced was an attack that would permit the changes envisaged in RAD to take place. Such has, to a massive extent, occurred. Hence 9/11 wasa propitious attack for PNAC. The facts that back this up are on the link I gave to you.
Nowhere does it say that a new PH is required or even recommended. You don't provide any evidence that shows that without 9/11, nothing would have been accomplished. In other words, you provide no basis for comparison or anything that would show that without 9/11 or the WOT, none of the recommendations of the PNAC would have been carried out in a timely manner.

[MortFurd]

mjd,

please move on to your next point. you can't stay on this point until everyone, or even a certain number, agrees with you. just stay on a point until everyone understands your point. your point #1: 9/11 was a new Pearl Harbor that was propitious to the plan laid out by PNAC. everyone understands that is what you believe, even if they don't agree with it. so now it's time for your next point, please.
Yes, for crap's sake we get the point:
You believe that 9/11 was part of the PNAC plan. Got it. Next.

[HyJinX]

Simple request- please give me the post numbers where my posts have been directly replied to

Sure...virtually every post that wasn't yours.


And I will also ask you- y dont u reply to the post? #493, very easy.Because I agree with virtually every post that wasn't yours. No need to recreate the wheel.

So...are we going to move on OR do I need to bring out every cat picture I own?

[Unsecured Coins]

do I need to bring out every cat picture I own?


heheh... I dare you

[JonnyFive]

No, you're confused I'm afraid. I am not arguing the probability that a new PH did happen. I am arguing the probability that one might happen, absent goverment complicity, retroactively, in light of the factors that make one so unlikely. Think about it for a second.

That is irrelevant. As I mentioned, the probability of any event happening that has already happened is always one. It doesn't matter how unlikely it was before, or how likely it was to happen with or without government intervention. The point is that it did happen, however unlikely, and without additional proof, the fact that it did happen is meaningless.

On a long enough time line, you will see outliers of probability. Unless you can come up with something more than you have, this looks like nothing more than a coincidence. Sorry, mjd, you're just not very convincing. All you give me is speculation and "but it was convenient!" So what? It was convenient this morning that I found a nice spot by the train right as someone was pulling out, and the probability of that occurring again would be quite low. That doesn't suggest that I got out of the car and threatened the person until they left. It's certainly within my power to do so, and it really helped me out this morning to not be running late.

Yes, I am not denying such. Hence, as you will now be aware, the argument is that PNAC stated such was propitious, and then the gov were criminally negligent on an unimaginable scale in failing to stop it. Thus we have openly stated motive for an action, plus gross criminal negligence in failing to stop such action, which is a robust case for investigation.

That's not what you said, though. You said that the PNAC alone was sufficient. If that's not what you meant, then stop obsessing over the PNAC and talk about the evidence you have for "gross negligence."

A really bad analogy. For a start, no one has the power to make themselves win the lottery.

Actually, it's a perfectly apt analogy. Ability to influence results has nothing to do with their a priori probability of happening, which has nothing to do with what it means when something did happen. The government certainly could rig the lottery in one person's favor, but the fact that their winning is unlikely isn't evidence that such a thing happened. Even if it would be in the government's favor (it would make them look so nice to help old Ms. Jones out with her rent... ever notice how many old and poor people win the lottery, mjd?), it still doesn't provide evidence.

Dealt with. Plus, you havent addressed the argument I have referred you to. Why dont u do this?

[u]I'm begging you, and your colleagues, to do it![ #493!/U]

Several people have addressed the arguments you're referring to. You are starting to break down, and are not debating rationally. Screaming at us will not help make your case.

[aggle-rithm]

I'm going to steal a phrase I read in a different forum:

"Dude, stop re-inventing the dead horse and beating it with a wheel!"

[calebprime]

Operator, please connect me with 1982
I need to make apologies for what I didn't do
I sure do need to tell him that I've thought the whole thing through
And now it's clear that he is what I should have held on to


Chorus
They say eyesights's twenty-twenty
But I'm nearly goin' blind
From starin' at his photograph and wishing he was mine
It's that same ole lost love story
It's sad but it's true
There was a time when he was mine in 1982


Verse 2
Postman can you sell me a special kind of stamp
One to send a letter from this crazy lonely man
Back into the wasted years of my living past
I need to tell him now I know how long my love will last


(Chorus)

Losin' my mind, goin' back in time to 1982


http://www.utm.edu/staff/dkeown/m/Randy%20Travis%20-%201982.mp3

this link may be toxic...

[stateofgrace]

M8, as I have said countless times, I dont care if people agree, all i want is for people to address the argument. Y dont they? Y dont u? 225 posts, pretty much nothing.

The level of self deception is staggering.

There is no self deception only self delusion. This comes from you, you are deluding yourself that anybody cares anymore what you have to say about this subject, and you have stated your case, period.

It as been requested of you countless times to move on and move this debate forward.

Now stop the self delusion, stop pretending that you have thrashed everybody into the ground, people are simply tied of repeating themselves to you. In a debate, you state your case, people who disagree state theirs, and a compromise is eventually reached. In as such the compromise is that you wish to force your views down other peoples throats, other people refuse to allow you to do this.

Stop flogging the dead horse, bring something new into this debate or suffer death by cats.

Now, your next point is?

[MortFurd]

Oh boy.

Now look. I posted very clearly in #416 and #419, crystalising the arguments about 1) How 9/11 is a new PH, and 2) Why according to RAD, a new PH would be propitious to policy. I asked for responses. I have had none, none that address the points.

So I will post them again. Anyone who is interested in arguing this point, please refer to them- click the reply button, and go through them. To recap the former:

PH had many characteristics. It wasnt just the fact that it was one nation attacking another; it was done by Japanese, it was done on a fleet, it was done by air etc etc.

The question is, which of these many characteristics are pertinent to the analogy between 9/11 and PH. The answer is very simple, since it is given in the doc: #1 catastrophic, #2 catalysing(militarily).

Indeed, strictly speaking, to say that what they were talking about was a new PH, is not completely accurate, since the term "new PH" is used in a comparative clause. The direct clause is "a catastrophic and catalysing event".

Hence the analogy between 911 and PH is valid, and to dispute such would be brainless.

I think this is quite simple.

Acknowledged. Message heard. Disagree. I've read the PNAC document. Your paranoia is clouding your interpretation of the written words.

**********

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.
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.
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.

You believe PNAC wanted to get a jump start on their plan. Message acknowledged. Disagree. They are planning for the long term. The follow up to 9/11 has cost money that would (according to PNAC) have been better spent on R&D and deployment of improved weapons systems instead of having been blown over the Iraqi desert.

******

Now PLEASE address these points. Also, the LC guide riposte delivered very early on, has not been touched by any of you "truth seekers". Please don't be evasive. Address the points, and we will all make some progress.
Addressed. Acknowledged. We have your standpoint.

Next point please. Make it march. I want to see what you've got before the sun burns out.

[sleahead]

Dear me, mjd has turned out to be a troll. How disappointing.




http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_95244672fc4d6c093.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=6394)

[mortimer]

M8, as I have said countless times, I dont care if people agree, all i want is for people to address the argument. Y dont they? Y dont u? 225 posts, pretty much nothing.

The level of self deception is staggering.

Y Kant MJD Read?

People HAVE addressed the argument. They don't agree with your theory that 9/11 was a new PH, nor that it was a propitious event for PNAC's policy. They do understand that you think that it was.

Now move on, please.

[aggle-rithm]

Y Kant MJD Read?

People HAVE addressed the argument. They don't agree with your theory that 9/11 was a new PH, nor that it was a propitious event for PNAC's policy. They do understand that you think that it was.

Now move on, please.

I think the problem is that the responses aren't formatted correctly. He wants us to use the quote function, and to alternate our responses with each point that he has made, one by one. If that isn't done properly, he will send it back for revisions.

So, get cracking, people! We don't want an angry troll on our hands, do we?

[DGM]

I stand with and agree with MortFurd's post #659

Can we move on now?

[Dave Rogers]

A pont about hegemony- military hegemony is clear for the US right now (not that I would state defeating Iraq andf Afghanistan is a measure of that), but the point of PNAC is to ensure it is invulnerable. Such will be hindered by a growing superpower, such as China, militarising space, and controlling cyberspace as a defense/offense tool. I incidentally have a friend who works for BAE, and he tells me that no one in the weapons industry cares for Islamic terrorism; it is chinese cyberterrorism tht has got everyone scared. Similar was stated by Dick Clarke.

Precisely. And yet 9/11 has taken everyone's eyes, and huge amounts of money and manpower, off the serious long term threat to US hegemony and concentrated them on Islamic terrorism, which, although capable of taking many lives and destroying property, presents no long term threat to the national integrity of the United States. You have very strongly supported the point that 9/11 was the wrong attack to further the aims of PNAC.

Dave

[WildCat]

As to "why i do it", I find feeding trolls to be useless, serving only the needs of the troll, and as a result I SUGGEST to others, that doing so is counter productive, and that they perhaps should stop.

TAM:)
Understood T.A.M., but some of us like throwing them a peanut just out of their reach so we can snicker at their funny antics as they try to get at it. ;)

[jab712]

I think the problem is that the responses aren't formatted correctly. He wants us to use the quote function, and to alternate our responses with each point that he has made, one by one. If that isn't done properly, he will send it back for revisions.

So, get cracking, people! We don't want an angry troll on our hands, do we?

I think you are right.

So which posts are we replying to again? 416, 419 or 493???;)

[mjd1982]

Nowhere does it say that a new PH is required or even recommended. You don't provide any evidence that shows that without 9/11, nothing would have been accomplished. In other words, you provide no basis for comparison or anything that would show that without 9/11 or the WOT, none of the recommendations of the PNAC would have been carried out in a timely manner.

Yes, I have provided you this. Indeed I have provided you everythign you have asked. Go to p3, where I have posted an as yet unreplied critique to gravys lc guide, and you will see (i'm pretty sure it is there) links to documents stating what is being carried out (e.g. nuclear weapon build up), and why it is being done (9/11, WOT). Here is another example for you, agai lifted from the doc, the need to transform the DoD.

http://www.defenselink.mil/transformation/about_transformation.html


The Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks on the United States accelerated the need to transform to better meet the challenges of the 21st century, thus, sustain American competitive advantage in warfare.


This is one example amongst a load. The rest I have given you already.

As for stating that "nowhere does it say", it is overwhelmingly implied. I have shown how. You have contested, I have refuted. Now you go back to saying "It just didnt". That comment has zero value.

[mjd1982]

Sure...virtually every post that wasn't yours.


Because I agree with virtually every post that wasn't yours. No need to recreate the wheel.

So...are we going to move on OR do I need to bring out every cat picture I own?
Don't worry, I'll bear your evasion in mind.

It wasnt a tough request. Personal attack removed. Never mind.

[mjd1982]

That is irrelevant. As I mentioned, the probability of any event happening that has already happened is always one. It doesn't matter how unlikely it was before, or how likely it was to happen with or without government intervention. The point is that it did happen, however unlikely, and without additional proof, the fact that it did happen is meaningless.


On a long enough time line, you will see outliers of probability. Unless you can come up with something more than you have, this looks like nothing more than a coincidence. Sorry, mjd, you're just not very convincing. All you give me is speculation and "but it was convenient!" So what? It was convenient this morning that I found a nice spot by the train right as someone was pulling out, and the probability of that occurring again would be quite low. That doesn't suggest that I got out of the car and threatened the person until they left. It's certainly within my power to do so, and it really helped me out this morning to not be running late.
[/quote]

I repeat: you are confused. No one is arguing whether it did happen. The point is whether it happened with government complicity. Think about this, and it should help you.


That's not what you said, though. You said that the PNAC alone was sufficient. If that's not what you meant, then stop obsessing over the PNAC and talk about the evidence you have for "gross negligence."


Show me where i said this please.


Actually, it's a perfectly apt analogy. Ability to influence results has nothing to do with their a priori probability of happening, which has nothing to do with what it means when something did happen. The government certainly could rig the lottery in one person's favor, but the fact that their winning is unlikely isn't evidence that such a thing happened. Even if it would be in the government's favor (it would make them look so nice to help old Ms. Jones out with her rent... ever notice how many old and poor people win the lottery, mjd?), it still doesn't provide evidence.


Yes, but your point wasnt about the government rigging the lottery; it was about Mrs Jones influencing the lottery results.


Several people have addressed the arguments you're referring to. You are starting to break down, and are not debating rationally. Screaming at us will not help make your case.

Hehehe... I am screaming at you to answer my points. Nothing else. Please show me the people who have done so; please note the difference between answering a point and restating one's own.

[Unsecured Coins]

You are a coward.

Oh my word.. you just didn't go there, you stole every bathrobe and towel in the place, peed on the bed, and kicked in the TV screen on your way out the door

[mjd1982]

Acknowledged. Message heard. Disagree. I've read the PNAC document. Your paranoia is clouding your interpretation of the written words.

You believe PNAC wanted to get a jump start on their plan. Message acknowledged. Disagree. They are planning for the long term.


Having a jump start on something does not negate planning for the long term. PNAC have a long term plan; but they want it implemented early. Simple.


The follow up to 9/11 has cost money that would (according to PNAC) have been better spent on R&D and deployment of improved weapons systems instead of having been blown over the Iraqi desert.


As has been addressed too many times here, the money has gone to precisely what they wanted. Please see my rebuttal to the LCGuide on p3 if you want to learn more.

But thanks for the response.

[Unsecured Coins]

bottom line, you're a LIHOPer? right?

[Pardalis]

Oh my word.. you just didn't go there, you stole every bathrobe and towel in the place, peed on the bed, and kicked in the TV screen on your way out the door

:dl:

[WildCat]

From dealing with him the last few months at SLC...

1. Post the extremely long "blizzard of BS" post.
2. Challenge anyone to debunk it.
3. Point 1 is debunked.
4. mjd1982 calls you a chimp and drops a 100 links that may or may not have anything to do with the points raised.
5. You go through the first 5 links, and are unable to see where any of them support his points.
6. mjd1982 calls you a chimp.
7. repeat ad nauseam.
We're now in the ad nauseam phase. :cool:

[mjd1982]

Y Kant MJD Read?

People HAVE addressed the argument. They don't agree with your theory that 9/11 was a new PH, nor that it was a propitious event for PNAC's policy. They do understand that you think that it was.

Now move on, please.
I think debate works by one side making a point, and the other side addressing the others point, and so on, until a conclusion. It doesnt work by one side stating his point. the other stating his own point, and repeat. This is, unfortunately, what has been happening. You provide another instance of such.

[mjd1982]

Precisely. And yet 9/11 has taken everyone's eyes, and huge amounts of money and manpower, off the serious long term threat to US hegemony and concentrated them on Islamic terrorism, which, although capable of taking many lives and destroying property, presents no long term threat to the national integrity of the United States. You have very strongly supported the point that 9/11 was the wrong attack to further the aims of PNAC.

Dave
That is completely wrong. Please go and read the links I have provided on p3. The resources for pursuing hegemony as per pnac have been provided, under the aegis of the WOT/911. This is where so many "debunkers" fall down.

Please read the links.

[stateofgrace]

I repeat:


Originally Posted by mjd1982 http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2694017#post2694017)

I repeat

Originally Posted by mjd1982 http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2694017#post2694017)

I repeat
Originally Posted by mjd1982 http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2694017#post2694017)

I repeat

Originally Posted by mjd1982 http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2694017#post2694017)

I repeat

Originally Posted by mjd1982 http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2694017#post2694017)

I repeat

Originally Posted by mjd1982 http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2694017#post2694017)

I repeat

Yes, yes, yes.

Get on with it for God sake.

[DGM]

Having a jump start on something does not negate planning for the long term. PNAC have a long term plan; but they want it implemented early. Simple.

This only your opinion. Not a fact!

[WildCat]

I think debate works by one side making a point, and the other side addressing the others point, and so on, until a conclusion. It doesnt work by one side stating his point. the other stating his own point, and repeat. This is, unfortunately, what has been happening. You provide another instance of such.
http://home.mindspring.com/~turniton/COTC/saywhat.jpg

[mjd1982]

I think you are right.

So which posts are we replying to again? 416, 419 or 493???;)
416 if you don't believe 911 was a new PH, 493 if you dont believe they thought it was propitious to policy.

Thank you.

[mjd1982]

This only your opinion. Not a fact!
Its an interpretation, quite a simple one. If you disagree, go to #493, where the argument for that interpretaion is set out very clearly, and respond to it. Then we can move on.

[Gravy]

Having a jump start on something does not negate planning for the long term. PNAC have a long term plan; but they want it implemented early. Simple.Simple? You said they wrote their plan to attack America into "Rebuilding America's Defenses." That's simple all right: simply batcrap insane. Ook, ook!

As has been addressed too many times here, the money has gone to precisely what they wanted. Please see my rebuttal to the LCGuide on p3 if you want to learn more. Of course they did: like $400 billion for a ground war in Iraq against people armed with Fiat Pandas, old artillery shells, and cell phones, and $300 billion for the Joint Strike Fighter. That's "precisely" what the PNAC called for, isn't it, mjd?

Oh, wait....

[stateofgrace]

Its an interpretation, quite a simple one. If you disagree, go to #493, where the argument for that interpretaion is set out very clearly, and respond to it. Then we can move on.

Please, everybody, please stop disagreeing with him, even though you do, just stop.

Now, your next point is?

[Unsecured Coins]

Oh, it's an interpretation now, which is neither fact nor fiction. just how one sees it it be. An opinion.

Ahhh.... I get it now. I get it now.

[Pardalis]

Its an interpretation, quite a simple one. If you disagree, go to #493, where the argument for that interpretaion is set out very clearly, and respond to it. Then we can move on.

you mean this ridiculous post?

Oh boy.

Now look. I posted very clearly in #416 and #419, crystalising the arguments about 1) How 9/11 is a new PH, and 2) Why according to RAD, a new PH would be propitious to policy. I asked for responses. I have had none, none that address the points.

So I will post them again. Anyone who is interested in arguing this point, please refer to them- click the reply button, and go through them. To recap the former:

PH had many characteristics. It wasnt just the fact that it was one nation attacking another; it was done by Japanese, it was done on a fleet, it was done by air etc etc.

The question is, which of these many characteristics are pertinent to the analogy between 9/11 and PH. The answer is very simple, since it is given in the doc: #1 catastrophic, #2 catalysing(militarily).

Indeed, strictly speaking, to say that what they were talking about was a new PH, is not completely accurate, since the term "new PH" is used in a comparative clause. The direct clause is "a catastrophic and catalysing event".

Hence the analogy between 911 and PH is valid, and to dispute such would be brainless.

I think this is quite simple.

**********

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.
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.
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.

******

Now PLEASE address these points. Also, the LC guide riposte delivered very early on, has not been touched by any of you "truth seekers". Please don't be evasive. Address the points, and we will all make some progress.


Tell me where in this rubbish you have an argument? You only added the words "sooner than later" to your previously debunked argument.

"sooner than later" doesn't mean anything.

[Unsecured Coins]

Of course they did: like $400 billion for a ground war in Iraq against people armed with Fiat Pandas, old artillery shells, and cell phones, and $300 billion for the Joint Strike Fighter. That's exactly what the PNAC called for.


Gravy, if you're not married, feel free to come down here and take one of my sisters off my hands. You crack me up

[DGM]

Its an interpretation, quite a simple one. If you disagree, go to #493, where the argument for that interpretaion is set out very clearly, and respond to it. Then we can move on.
Its an interpretation

That and a buck will get you a cup of coffee.

I sided with MortFurd! As I posted.

[mjd1982]

Ok, here's the deal

I will ask you all, those who havent to kindly respond to my points. I will then go to the next stage.

Now I know many of you have come and said "We understand what your saying, and we disagree"; well, I'm afraid this isnt very "propitious" to a debate, is it? If you went on LC with an argument, and people spoke like that to you, you would get pretty peeved, no? It is courtesy to do so, and moreover, it is how a debate proceeds. It allows us all to know where we stand, and allows us, if we are honest, to see the flaws in our arguments, and thus gain a better idea of what is right and wrong.

So...I would like everyone who believes 911 wasnt a new PH to respond to #416; those who believe PNAC didnt deem it propitious to policy, respond to #493.

I will be away for 24 hours; when I come back, I will respond to everyone who has been kind enough to post; and then we will move onto the next point, which will be foreknowledge. This i promise.

NB- Those who decide to evade the point, well, your cowardice and dishonesty will be clear. Please dont do this.

[Gravy]

Gravy, if you're not married, feel free to come down here and take one of my sisters off my hands. You crack me upThanks for the offer. First, a question: is that your sister in your avatar?

[Unsecured Coins]

If we went to LC and posted the exact opposite of what they think happened we would be banned before the mouse button rebounded after clicking on "submit post"

[Gravy]

mjd, I did respond to your points. You then called me names and told me to go away.

Did widdle mjd get scawed by big bad wowds?

[Civilized Worm]

If you went on LC with an argument<snip>


If you go to LCF with an arguement that goes against their agenda you get attacked and banned. They're not very big on dissent over there.

[SpitfireIX]

We're now in the ad nauseam phase. :cool:


:deadhorse :hb: :brk:

[Unsecured Coins]

Thanks for the offer. First, a question: is that your sister in your avatar?

:eek:
ncBDwedrxlw

[Pardalis]

:eek:
ncBDwedrxlw

You can't pass her up Gravy, such dexterity... :p

[HyJinX]

Ok, here's the deal

I will ask you all, those who havent to kindly respond to my points. I will then go to the next stage.

Now I know many of you have come and said "We understand what your saying, and we disagree"; well, I'm afraid this isnt very "propitious" to a debate, is it? If you went on LC with an argument, and people spoke like that to you, you would get pretty peeved, no? It is courtesy to do so, and moreover, it is how a debate proceeds. It allows us all to know where we stand, and allows us, if we are honest, to see the flaws in our arguments, and thus gain a better idea of what is right and wrong.

So...I would like everyone who believes 911 wasnt a new PH to respond to #416; those who believe PNAC didnt deem it propitious to policy, respond to #493.

I will be away for 24 hours; when I come back, I will respond to everyone who has been kind enough to post; and then we will move onto the next point, which will be foreknowledge. This i promise.

NB- Those who decide to evade the point, well, your cowardice and dishonesty will be clear. Please dont do this.

Kitty time again!

[Gravy]

You can't pass her up Gravy, such dexterity... :pThey call her "The Shredder." She can twiddle my whammy bar any day.

[HyJinX]

Here are two of my favorite friends, mjd. Their names are CAT-astrophic and CAT-alysing. They are the founding members of PurrNAC.

I'm pretty sure they knew something prior to the events...but, it's pure speculation and assumption on my part. Enjoy!

[T.A.M.]

Which poster was it, a while back, who had the same MO as mjd? remember, he came here, said he was going to convince us that 9/11 was an inside job, but we had to follow precise steps, addressing one point, then he would "allow" us to move on. Same "better than everyone" tone. Who was that? Was it 28th kingdom? I cannot remember, anyone??

TAM:)

[stateofgrace]

Ok, here's the deal

I will ask you all, those who havent to kindly respond to my points. I will then go to the next stage.

Now I know many of you have come and said "We understand what your saying, and we disagree"; well, I'm afraid this isnt very "propitious" to a debate, is it? If you went on LC with an argument, and people spoke like that to you, you would get pretty peeved, no? It is courtesy to do so, and moreover, it is how a debate proceeds. It allows us all to know where we stand, and allows us, if we are honest, to see the flaws in our arguments, and thus gain a better idea of what is right and wrong.

So...I would like everyone who believes 911 wasnt a new PH to respond to #416; those who believe PNAC didnt deem it propitious to policy, respond to #493.

I will be away for 24 hours; when I come back, I will respond to everyone who has been kind enough to post; and then we will move onto the next point, which will be foreknowledge. This i promise.

NB- Those who decide to evade the point, well, your cowardice and dishonesty will be clear. Please dont do this.

Ok here is the deal, you will stop repeating your previous posts, you will stop pretending that you are super intelligent , you will stop pretending that you are posting something that has not been posted before and bring something new to this forum.

You will stop dismissing people who disagree with you, you will stop being arrogant and you will stop believing you are the saviour of humanity. You will stop pretending you are lecturing infants and you will start acting like an adult. You will stop treating everybody here as though they are insignificant nobodies who have not got a clue what they are talking about and you will eventually present something other than words.

You will eventually enter into meaningful debate and discussion and you will eventually tell everybody why I should give monkeys what you think. You will present evidence that is irrefutable, unbelievable, undeniable, earth shattering, hold the front page, stop the world revolving and jaw dropping.

Or maybe not, maybe you will continue as you have, unimpressive, uninspiring and completly boring.

I look forward to your return, not.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Thanks for the offer. First, a question: is that your sister in your avatar?
Uh, that's Dimebag Darrell; guitar odG of Pantera, Damage Plan and Rebel Meets Rebel. R.I.P.

[WildCat]

While we're waiting for mjd1982 to find a single 9/11 Conspiracy Fact enjoy this video:

k66epna2Sss

[MIKILLINI]

I Read PNAC again, and, again I understand the intent of the Project is how America will remain as a global power, the procedures required and steps to be taken are spelled out along with the estimation of time that will be needed for this to be realized.
The point your attempting to make, MJD, is to show the intent of the PNACers as agreeing on, or to use another word, conspiring that a catastrophic and catalyzing event would be more beneficial than the process over the course of time, as spelled out in the document. Ok. Got that
Now if you ask the question; Since a catastrophic and catalyzing event happened re; 9/11, would this be favorable to their stated policy of the new PH event to expedite these transformations? The simple answer for that is yes, it would speed up the process, since time and events have answered this question.
But the question I would like you to answer is; Did the Bush/Neocons intend to expedite this transformation or was it just a noted exception that, if it happened, would alter their blueprint for transformation?

What I believe the PNAC document to be is what their policy is;

The project proceeded by holding a series of seminars. We asked outstanding defense specialists to write papers to explore a variety of topics: the future missions and requirements of the individual military services, the role of the reserves, nuclear strategic doctrine and missile defenses, the defense budget and prospects for military modernization, the state (training and
readiness) of today’s forces, the revolution in military affairs, and defense-planning for
theater wars, small wars and constabulary operations. The papers were circulated to a
group of participants, chosen for their experience and judgment in defense affairs.
Each paper then became the basis for discussion and debate. Our goal was to use the papers to assist deliberation, to generate and test ideas, and to assist us in developing our final report.
While each paper took as its starting point a shared strategic point of view, we made no
attempt to dictate the views or direction of the individual papers. We wanted as full and as diverse a discussion as possible. Our report borrows heavily from those deliberations. But we did not ask seminar participants to “sign-off” on the final report. We wanted frank discussions and we sought to avoid the pitfalls of trying to produce a consensual but bland product. We wanted to
try to define and describe a defense strategy that is honest, thoughtful, bold, internally
consistent and clear. And we wanted to spark a serious and informed discussion, the
essential first step for reaching sound conclusions and for gaining public support.

This seems propitious for a long term plan.

[twinstead]

Oh for crying out loud mjd just smack us down with your NEXT incontrovertible bit of evidence that 911 was an inside job already, huh!

Just keep in mind that in RATIONAL company, what you may think is a smoking gun just may not be all that smokin', nicht wahr?

[stateofgrace]

While we're waiting for mjd1982 to find a single 9/11 Conspiracy Fact enjoy this video:

k66epna2Sss

If anybody gets bored during the intermission here is another video.

wh2PTIIMtKg

[Brainache]

Which poster was it, a while back, who had the same MO as mjd? remember, he came here, said he was going to convince us that 9/11 was an inside job, but we had to follow precise steps, addressing one point, then he would "allow" us to move on. Same "better than everyone" tone. Who was that? Was it 28th kingdom? I cannot remember, anyone??

TAM:)
Might have been Scooby. Or 28th.

[T.A.M.]

Yah his last post, where he made the comment about "This is how it is going to work" (paraphrasing) kind of really gave it away for me. This is either a sock puppet of one of the former posters, or their MO is near identical.

TAM:)

[twinstead]

Yah his last post, where he made the comment about "This is how it is going to work" (paraphrasing) kind of really gave it away for me. This is either a sock puppet of one of the former posters, or their MO is near identical.

TAM:)

Actually, there appears to be an entire sect of arrogant, condescending truthers.

I've always thought that the only thing worse than being wrong and not trying to learn is being wrong and not trying to learn in an arrogant and condescending way.

[Mobyseven]

I would disagree with that. A debate should start by establishing premises. This is what is occurring here.

Forgive me for being blunt, but if it takes a person 16 pages to establish a basic premise, that premise needs to be better thought out.

Of course, if what you mean is that you have a strawman argument that is disconnected from reality, and that you want people to accept as a true premise as the rest of your argument depends on it...well, that is going to take a hell of a lot more time than the universe has to spare.

[Mobyseven]

You are eaten by wasp infected bear-wasps.

The End

[Mobyseven]

So...I would like everyone who believes 911 wasnt a new PH to respond to #416; those who believe PNAC didnt deem it propitious to policy, respond to #493.

You find yourself at a crossroads. Down one road simply leads you in a circle, arguing the same points over and over again. Down another path lies a different fate, and one that seems preferable to the circular path.

To go down the circular path go to post #416 or #493.

To take the preferable path, go to post #710 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2695040&postcount=710)

[aggle-rithm]

Forgive me for being blunt, but if it takes a person 16 pages to establish a basic premise, that premise needs to be better thought out.



Or he simply needs to explain it more clearly. However, his tactic is to do the opposite, and therefore keep the discussion in limbo, where he can pretend he is superior to everyone else until everyone gets bored and leaves.

It's all about feeding his ego.

[AZCat]

You find yourself at a crossroads. Down one road simply leads you in a circle, arguing the same points over and over again. Down another path lies a different fate, and one that seems preferable to the circular path.

To go down the circular path go to post #416 or #493.

To take the preferable path, go to post #710 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2695040&postcount=710)

What is this - a Choose Your Own Adventure (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Choose_your_own_adventure) story?

[Myriad]

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.

I agree with your description of what the aim of this section is, and that you've stated it many times.

One person has admitted so, but that is all so far.

It's not clear whether the person you're referring to was convinced, or simply agreed "for the sake of argument," which many others have also done. This appears to be a minor point, though, so there's no need for me to contest it.

However, I agree completely with the claim that "The aim of this section is... simply to show that a new PH was propitious to policy for PNAC/The Bush Admin." That does indeed appear to be the aim of this section.

But after that, the question is, did they want the transformation to happen over decades, or over mths/years.

I'm not sure whether that's the question, but it certainly is a question. So, I accept this claim that the question is what you say it is.

I think that ordinarily would be obvious.

I disagree with this claim. There is no reason to believe that a question regarding the plans and motives of a large group of individuals with complex political agendas (and with, you seem to have posited in your OP, a penchant for conspiracy, misrepresentation, and outright treason) regarding an issue with complex technical, strategic, economic, and geopolitical dimensions should be "obvious." You will have to show evidence that the answer is obvious.

but we can argue it here

I tentatively agree that that is a hypothetical possibility, if by "we" you mean "you." However, "we" (you) have not been very successful arguing it here so far, so I would need to see evidence to support the claim that "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.

I agree that this is a possible basis on which you might argue your claim. However, it will be quite difficult to do so successfully, as you will have to show evidence that this particular speculation about their state of mind regarding how to achieve their aims is more likely to accurately reflect their state of mind than other alternative speculations that have also been offered in this thread.

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.

I agree that this is a possible bases on which you might argue your claim, but I would advise against it, as it sets an extremely high bar for your claim. It would require you to show evidence that (1) the decision makers not only wanted to act quickly in the long time scale (that is, early in the century) but quickly in the short term time scale of four years, (2) they believed that laying the necessary short-term groundwork for the program required influencing the QDR beyond the enormous influence the PNAC members already had over the content of the QDR and over policy decision-making within the administration in office during the subsequent quadrennial. Evidence of the thoughts and beliefs of politicians and policy-makers whose honesty is in question is going to be difficult to produce.

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.

I agree that this is a possible basis on which you might argue your claim. However, it will again be a difficult challenge to do so, because it requires you to find evidence to support this speculation about the thinking of "power hungry politicians" regarding complex technical, economic, and geopolitical issues. Without such evidence, other speculations appear just as plausible.

If anyone is going to argue why this is not the case, I will be very interested to read it.

I disagree with this claim. People have argued why this is not the case, and you have shown no sign of taking interest in reading it.

Now PLEASE address these points.

I disagree with the implied claim, that you wish people to address these points. You appear to only wish people to agree with your opininons and unfounded speculations, which is not "addressing" the points according to the standard of discourse on this board.

Also, the LC guide riposte delivered very early on, has not been touched by any of you "truth seekers".

I disagree with this claim. It has indeed been touched on.

Please don't be evasive.

I agree with this claim. That you don't want people to be evasive appears to be an accurate description of your desires.

Address the points, and we will all make some progress.

I disagree with this claim. People have addressed the points, yet we have all made no progress.

Summary: I have now responded to every claim that you made in the relevant (latter) half of post 493, giving my own honest assessment of each one. I hope you find those responses satisfying. I believe others have refrained from responding directly to your claims, because they felt that you would not find the respnses satisfying, but I have taken you at your word and responded precisely to each part of each claim you made.

To sum things up in general, the post claims that you hold certain opinions. With the exceptions and reservations detailed above, I agree that you do hold those opinions.

Now, can we move on to the next stage of discussion, in which you reveal why the fact that you hold these opinions is of any significance?

Respectfully,
Myriad

[Stellafane]

Actually, there appears to be an entire sect of arrogant, condescending truthers...

I noticed that. They remind me of the kind of drivers who run a stop sign, cut you off, nearly cause an accident -- and then swear and flip you off like it's all your fault. I guess if they're stupid enough to do it in the first place, they're stupid enough to think you're to blame.

Arrogance and stupidity: a particularly deadly and frustrating combination.

[Mobyseven]

What is this - a Choose Your Own Adventure (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Choose_your_own_adventure) story?


:D

It immediately popped into my head when I read mjd's post.

[MIKILLINI]

Just before we get into things, I will state that I do believe that those who are not “Truthers” fall into 2 categories- ill informed (~90%) and deluded (the rest).
Well here was his problem right away, he believes that us "non-believers" have shoddy information or the sources of info We use are of a dubious nature, and the rest of us "non-believers" are delusional. :wackyskeptical:

[Jocce]

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.

No, it is not necessarily logical that they would want it to be created soon. In the document it is said that they prefer the transformation to take place over the comming decades. Sometimes slower is better in the long term and nothing in the document points to a fast change being necessary.

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.

Yes, correct. Those elements were laid out in PNAC and advocated a long, gradual change. 911 was unexpected and most likely led to recommendations in QDR that wasn't part of the long term strategy laid out in PNAC. But sh** happens.


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.

Again, a revolutionary change is not asked for in PNAC. A power hungry politician would certainly want changes to take place within his own life time so he would benefit from it but since the PNAC writers advocates a gradual change over decades it seem like they're not really power hungry but actually wants to create something good, no?

There, point by point answered as you wanted.

[Belz...]

If I have understood you correctly (tell me if not), you are stating that the Bush admin would have had to be dastardly clever to pull of 9/11, whereas they are totally stupid, given the Iraq no WMD thing?

Actually, they'd have to be completely mindless to plan this in the first place. They'd have to be incredible geniuses for actually pulling it off without any person with relevant expertise noticing. But with the "clues" you guys claim to see, they have to be absolute BLUNDERING, mindless geniuses. Know anyone like that, Mjd ?

This has been addressed; I dont think that this attack is particularly clever; i think it is as bungled and obvious an inside job as could be conceived.

Then why can't any of us see it ?

I am not stating that mean+motive=inside job. [...] I am aiming to show that there is suficient evidence of government complicity to warrant a new investigation into such.

So what you ARE saying is that "mens+motive=suspicion".

I want people to reply to my point- is this too much to ask?

We have ALL replied to your points several times. We said that the new PH you keep talking about was NOT "propitious" to policy, and that even if it were (that's the part where you misquote me) it wouldn't make it suspicious. That is the WHOLE of it. Since we disagree completely that the PNAC document brings an important point about 9/11, you'll have to show us the rest of your reasons to believe that event was an inside job. Forget the document, we (I) do not agree with your interpretation of it. Let's move on, shall we ?

The attack that was being referenced was an attack that would permit the changes envisaged in RAD to take place.

But those changes didn't occur. How do you explain that ?

I am arguing the probability that one might happen, absent goverment complicity, retroactively, in light of the factors that make one so unlikely.

Ah! Good. What are those factors ?

I'm begging you, and your colleagues, to do it

"Collegues" ?

[Belz...]

Gravy, if you're not married, feel free to come down here and take one of my sisters off my hands. You crack me up

Question: How many of those sisters do you have ?

[Belz...]

You are eaten by wasp infected bear-wasps.

...or dogs that shoot bees out of their mouths when they bark...

[Belz...]

Ok, here's the deal

Yes, mister president of the assembly!

Now I know many of you have come and said "We understand what your saying, and we disagree"

Count me in.

well, I'm afraid this isnt very "propitious" to a debate, is it?

Actually, we've shown you why we disagreed. We've shown you why you cannot build a case on such weak "evidence". We also said we awaited further evidence. So far, no good.

So...I would like everyone who believes 911 wasnt a new PH to respond to #416; those who believe PNAC didnt deem it propitious to policy, respond to #493.

No, I think I'll stick to answering the new posts. No use recycling old stuff.

NB- Those who decide to evade the point, well, your cowardice and dishonesty will be clear. Please dont do this.

<giggle>

[mjd1982]

Okay, a sincere thank you to all who did respond. To those who unforunately didnt, your cowardice will be evident for the rest of the thread.

I will now proceed as promised, answering those posts who responded, a couple of others, and then move on.

[mjd1982]

Simple? You said they wrote their plan to attack America into "Rebuilding America's Defenses." That's simple all right: simply batcrap insane. Ook, ook!


No I didn't, I stated that they clearly implied its propitiousness for policy. In any case this is another argument from incredulity, upon which much of your refutation of this point seems to be based. As you will know, this is of zero value.


Of course they did: like $400 billion for a ground war in Iraq against people armed with Fiat Pandas, old artillery shells, and cell phones, and $300 billion for the Joint Strike Fighter. That's "precisely" what the PNAC called for, isn't it, mjd?

Oh, wait....

That they are expening lots of money in Iraq is meaningless if they are still proceeding with the other elements of the plan. This is precisely what is happening, as has been outlined to you,

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=84473&page=3

but you have chosen not to address. This is unsurprising. Never mind, at least it is plain for all to see.

[mjd1982]

mjd, I did respond to your points. You then called me names and told me to go away.

Did widdle mjd get scawed by big bad wowds?
Called you names... how precious.

Please show me where you have offered an argument about the PNAC doc that is not merely one from incredulity, or one that has not been addressed in my dismantling of your lc guide.

[mjd1982]

I Read PNAC again, and, again I understand the intent of the Project is how America will remain as a global power, the procedures required and steps to be taken are spelled out along with the estimation of time that will be needed for this to be realized.
The point your attempting to make, MJD, is to show the intent of the PNACers as agreeing on, or to use another word, conspiring that a catastrophic and catalyzing event would be more beneficial than the process over the course of time, as spelled out in the document. Ok. Got that


More or less, yes, in that it would be expedited.


Now if you ask the question; Since a catastrophic and catalyzing event happened re; 9/11,


thank you!


would this be favorable to their stated policy of the new PH event to expedite these transformations? The simple answer for that is yes, it would speed up the process, since time and events have answered this question.


good!


But the question I would like you to answer is; Did the Bush/Neocons intend to expedite this transformation or was it just a noted exception that, if it happened, would alter their blueprint for transformation?


Significant evidence for this will be presented in just a tick.


What I believe the PNAC document to be is what their policy is;

"We wanted to
try to define and describe a defense strategy that is honest, thoughtful, bold, internally
consistent and clear. And we wanted to spark a serious and informed discussion, the
essential first step for reaching sound conclusions and for gaining public support."

This seems propitious for a long term plan.

In terms of sparking discussion, this refers to the discussion that led to the creation of the document. This is clear from the intro.

In terms of gaining public support, this has, as implied in the PH statement, and as I have touched upon a few times, been expedited by the new PH. This is one of the factors that would cause the transformation to occur more expediently.

[mjd1982]

Forgive me for being blunt, but if it takes a person 16 pages to establish a basic premise, that premise needs to be better thought out.

Of course, if what you mean is that you have a strawman argument that is disconnected from reality, and that you want people to accept as a true premise as the rest of your argument depends on it...well, that is going to take a hell of a lot more time than the universe has to spare.
It has taken so long because no one wanted to address my points. Note the difference betweem addressing my points, and re-stating one's point in connection to the general argument.

You have, incidentally, done just the same.

[volatile]

Significant evidence for this will be presented in just a tick.

For pity's sake, man! You have "significant evidence" that the US government conspired to kill 3000 of its own citizens and you're *waiting* to tell us?!?!?

Get on with it! This is important!

[volatile]

It has taken so long because no one wanted to address my points. Note the difference betweem addressing my points, and re-stating one's point in connection to the general argument.

You have, incidentally, done just the same.

You mean "Note the difference between agreeing with me, and disagreeing with me", don't you?

[mjd1982]

I agree with your description of what the aim of this section is, and that you've stated it many times.


Thank you


It's not clear whether the person you're referring to was convinced, or simply agreed "for the sake of argument," which many others have also done. This appears to be a minor point, though, so there's no need for me to contest it.


ok


However, I agree completely with the claim that "The aim of this section is... simply to show that a new PH was propitious to policy for PNAC/The Bush Admin." That does indeed appear to be the aim of this section.


indeed



I'm not sure whether that's the question, but it certainly is a question. So, I accept this claim that the question is what you say it is.


I think it is the most important question, since the aim of a new PH is to make the tranformation occur sooner.


I disagree with this claim. There is no reason to believe that a question regarding the plans and motives of a large group of individuals with complex political agendas (and with, you seem to have posited in your OP, a penchant for conspiracy, misrepresentation, and outright treason) regarding an issue with complex technical, strategic, economic, and geopolitical dimensions should be "obvious." You will have to show evidence that the answer is obvious.


Because they have stated their goals on a uniform platform. These goals do perhaps involve complex issues, but they have all put their names to the doc, and so they all, apparently endorse it.

Their penchant for conspiracy, treason etc, is evidenced when they are pursuiing this goal, so I think that is a moot point.

Otherwise, they are people who believe that such a transformation will bring peace, security, democracy etc etc to the world, esp the American one. As Richard Perle said, in a related context, "Our grandchildren will be singing songs about is in years to come". So why would they not want such a change to ocur expediently? I.e. why would they want to wait until, say, 2020 for such changes to begin? It is sensible to believe that such beneficially revolutionary changes to the geo political lanscape would be wanted to occur as soon as they conceivably/reasonably could, rather than waiting for some point in the future.


I tentatively agree that that is a hypothetical possibility, if by "we" you mean "you." However, "we" (you) have not been very successful arguing it here so far, so I would need to see evidence to support the claim that "we" can argue it here.


Right, well I think I better leave this point!


I agree that this is a possible basis on which you might argue your claim. However, it will be quite difficult to do so successfully, as you will have to show evidence that this particular speculation about their state of mind regarding how to achieve their aims is more likely to accurately reflect their state of mind than other alternative speculations that have also been offered in this thread.


This is not speculation about their state of mind, it is inherent in the very name of the organisation. They want to ensure that the 21st century is the American Century. Hence why they would want to ensure that such measures which will ensure this, get put in place as expediently as is possible, thus allowing them to achieve their goal.


I agree that this is a possible bases on which you might argue your claim, but I would advise against it, as it sets an extremely high bar for your claim. It would require you to show evidence that (1) the decision makers not only wanted to act quickly in the long time scale (that is, early in the century) but quickly in the short term time scale of four years,


I think your getting confused between accomplishing the transformation (which will takm in absolute terms, a long time), and catalysing it, which can, and did, take a very short time.


(2) they believed that laying the necessary short-term groundwork for the program required influencing the QDR beyond the enormous influence the PNAC members already had over the content of the QDR and over policy decision-making within the administration in office during the subsequent quadrennial. Evidence of the thoughts and beliefs of politicians and policy-makers whose honesty is in question is going to be difficult to produce.


No, i think this is a perfectly reasonable assumption to make. Although I am not as aware of the workings of the US congressional system as you might be, policy decision making regarding funding needs to pass through Congress? Such would hamper the expediency of the transformation, absent a catastrophic and catalysing event that would get everyone on board behind the military measures needed. Hence the aptness of the new PH line.

Plus I believe that Congress is just one potential obstruction; there are many more, r there not?


I agree that this is a possible basis on which you might argue your claim. However, it will again be a difficult challenge to do so, because it requires you to find evidence to support this speculation about the thinking of "power hungry politicians" regarding complex technical, economic, and geopolitical issues. Without such evidence, other speculations appear just as plausible.


These "complex" issues have been endorsed by all such people via a uniform platform. So we do not need to speculate as to whether they think it is good or not. The point is, will such people, or will anyone, who has envisaged a revolutionary change that will transform the geo-political lanscape for the good, peace, and happiness of America and the world, want such a change to start at an arbitrary point a long way off in the future, or as soon as is reasonably possible. What is the basis for arguing against this claim? If I state, I can turn my house from a dump into a palace; I could start tomorrow, but I think I'll wait another 20 years, well, I would not say that. I would want to start as soon as is possible. There may be other factors that would influence my decision adversely; but these need to be evidenced.

Thus, the occurence of such a transformation soon, rather than late, is propitious, unless some extraneous factors can be illustrated showing that it would be better for such a transformation to start later than necessary.


I disagree with this claim. People have argued why this is not the case, and you have shown no sign of taking interest in reading it.


Please show me one example; noting the difference between addressing someone's points, and re stating one's argument which relates to the general point at hand.


I disagree with the implied claim, that you wish people to address these points. You appear to only wish people to agree with your opininons and unfounded speculations, which is not "addressing" the points according to the standard of discourse on this board.


I have made points that are interpretations of the case at point. I do not wish for anyone to agree with the points, rather to address them. This is what you, and a few others have done. Nearly all other people have not.


I disagree with this claim. It has indeed been touched on.


Show me where the argument, other than in fractional segments, has been rebutted.


I agree with this claim. That you don't want people to be evasive appears to be an accurate description of your desires.


ok


I disagree with this claim. People have addressed the points, yet we have all made no progress.


as above


Summary: I have now responded to every claim that you made in the relevant (latter) half of post 493, giving my own honest assessment of each one. I hope you find those responses satisfying. I believe others have refrained from responding directly to your claims, because they felt that you would not find the respnses satisfying, but I have taken you at your word and responded precisely to each part of each claim you made.


Thank you for your response. Your belief may or may not be true; in any case it is double speculation, and the weaker for it.


To sum things up in general, the post claims that you hold certain opinions. With the exceptions and reservations detailed above, I agree that you do hold those opinions.


thanks!


Now, can we move on to the next stage of discussion, in which you reveal why the fact that you hold these opinions is of any significance?

Respectfully,
Myriad

wil do.

[Unsecured Coins]

Question: How many of those sisters do you have ?


do you want me to count in laws too?:D

[mjd1982]

No, it is not necessarily logical that they would want it to be created soon. In the document it is said that they prefer the transformation to take place over the comming decades. Sometimes slower is better in the long term and nothing in the document points to a fast change being necessary.


Ok, well 1stly there is a difference between "advocating" slow change and "prefering" such. The alternative to what they openly advocated, would be for them to openly , i.e. state in so many words "We advocate a new PH". This, though implied, would not reasonably be stated.

2ndly, there is a difference between a transformation happening slowly, and happening as fast as can reasonably be achieved. Since they have stated that such a transformation can occur in a short timeframe, thus we can conclude that in their eyes, it can do so without vitiating any of its elements.

3rdly, there is a difference between the transformation taking a long time due the slowness of the process in and of itself, and it taking a long time due to the fact that it takes many years to start. One of the reasons why the transforamtion would, and is happening quickly, is since the catalysing event occured expediently.


Yes, correct. Those elements were laid out in PNAC and advocated a long, gradual change.


as above


911 was unexpected and most likely led to recommendations in QDR that wasn't part of the long term strategy laid out in PNAC. But sh** happens.


Errr... please read my posts, i think you will find them helpful.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=84473&page=3


Again, a revolutionary change is not asked for in PNAC.


Other than the phrase, "the process of tranformation, even if it brings revolutionary change".

This is but one example.


A power hungry politician would certainly want changes to take place within his own life time so he would benefit from it


true!


but since the PNAC writers advocates a gradual change over decades it seem like they're not really power hungry but actually wants to create something good, no?


as above


There, point by point answered as you wanted.

thank you in any case.

[Myriad]

To sum things up in general, the post claims that you hold certain opinions. With the exceptions and reservations detailed above, I agree that you do hold those opinions.


thanks!


You're quite welcome.

I have to say that I fail to understand why having other people comfirm that you believe what you believe was/is so important to you in this discussion. One might think that you could achieve the same comfirmation using a Ouija board, or perhaps simply by reading your own posts and deciding whether you agree with them.

However, if it is in fact helpful to you I'm happy to oblige, and perhaps it will help others in this thread to understand your thought processes as well.

Respectfully,
Myriad

[WildCat]

7 more mjd1982 posts today, and still a grand total of zero "9/11 Conspiracy Facts". Of course, he hasn't presented any over at SLC either, so that's to be expected.

[T.A.M.]

He is never going to present more than speculation, opinion, and heresay. That is ALL HE HAS DONE since he first posted. He is a sock puppet, I just cannot remember which one was here a while ago, doing the same with the same MO, and I am too annoyed to go looking through the 8 Million threads here to figure it out.

TAM:)

[Jocce]

So mjd, you want everyone to agree with your interpretation of the documents you're talking about? Sorry, won't happen. You can not know that faster is better. When I was 19 I wanted to have my own family in the future but I planned for it to take a while absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event like a broken rubber.

[T.A.M.]

You're quite welcome.

I have to say that I fail to understand why having other people comfirm that you believe what you believe was/is so important to you in this discussion. One might think that you could achieve the same comfirmation using a Ouija board, or perhaps simply by reading your own posts and deciding whether you agree with them.

However, if it is in fact helpful to you I'm happy to oblige, and perhaps it will help others in this thread to understand your thought processes as well.

Respectfully,
Myriad

He thinks if you agree, that you are moving a step closer to conversion...treat it like one of those "Choose your Adventure" novels that came out in the 1980's...once you have agreed to choice (A) he will then move on to Proposition (B) and when you agree to that, to (C) until, in his mind, he has brought you to the only conclusion possible...9/11 was an inside job.

Good Luck

TAM:)

[Pardalis]

Sooner or later, mjd will give us some facts about 9/11...

That would be "later than sooner"...

[TjW]

Because they have stated their goals on a uniform platform. These goals do perhaps involve complex issues, but they have all put their names to the doc, and so they all, apparently endorse it.

Their penchant for conspiracy, treason etc, is evidenced when they are pursuiing this goal, so I think that is a moot point.
<large quantities snipped by TjW>


If I'm following this correctly, you are interpreting a document to advocate conspiracy, treason, etc.
The reason you give for this interpretation is that the signers of the document have a penchant for conspiracy, treason, etc.
As near as I can tell, you infer their penchant for conspiracy, treason, etc from the fact that they have signed the document.

That seems a little circular.

[Myriad]

He thinks if you agree, that you are moving a step closer to conversion...treat it like one of those "Choose your Adventure" novels that came out in the 1980's...once you have agreed to choice (A) he will then move on to Proposition (B) and when you agree to that, to (C) until, in his mind, he has brought you to the only conclusion possible...9/11 was an inside job.

Perhaps. Sort of like the prosecutor in some sort of Abbott and Costello courtroom scene:

PROSECUTOR: Were you present in this courtroom when I gave my opening statement?

DEFENDANT (on witness stand): Yes.

PROSECUTOR: And at the conclusion of that statement, what do you recall me saying that I would prove?

DEFENDANT: Why are you asking me that? I don't understand what that has to do with...

PROSECUTOR: Answer the question! What did I say I would prove?

DEFENDANT: You said you were going to try to prove...

PROSECUTOR: Did I say 'try'? I don't recall saying 'try.' Remember, you're under oath!

DEFENDANT: You said you'd prove that I am guilty.

PROSECUTOR: Stenographer, read back those last three words please?

STENOGRAPHER: 'I am guilty.'

PROSECUTOR: I rest my case!

Respectfully,
Myriad

PS: And don't get me started on branching novels. I not only read them, I wrote them. (Hmmm, gives me an idea for a new forum game. See you over in Humor!)

[Swing Dangler]

I think mjd has shown that...

1. 9/11 served as a new PH in terms of the speed needed to increase the defense budgets and the money spent on R and D. At this point, that does not prove complicity.

2. This is based upon the historical record including the defense budget spending increases by President Bush and the increase spending on the R and D aspect.

*Begun to transform our Nation’s defenses and increased spending by 26 percent, the largest increase in the Defense budget since the Reagan Administration;
*Increased research and development funding by 56 percent
Source: Office of Management and Budget

I think we can all understand the "speed" as being extremely important to the PNAC plan for transformation. Who knows when the next liberal administration might come along and issue forth defense budget cutbacks again. Get the next bj girl boys, we got a Democrat rollin' in!

Not all of the plan's suggestions have come to fruition, such as huge project cutbacks, etc.
However, this does not impact at all the new Pearl Harbor segment from Ch. 5 of the plan.

I think its time to move on to the next premise.

[rwguinn]

I think mjd has shown that...

1. 9/11 served as a new PH in terms of the speed needed to increase the defense budgets and the money spent on R and D. At this point, that does not prove complicity.

2. This is based upon the historical record including the defense budget spending increases by President Bush and the increase spending on the R and D aspect.
:dl:

*Begun to transform our Nation’s defenses and increased spending by 26 percent, the largest increase in the Defense budget since the Reagan Administration;
*Increased research and development funding by 56 percent
Source: Office of Management and Budget

I think we can all understand the "speed" as being extremely important to the PNAC plan for transformation. Who knows when the next liberal administration might come along and issue forth defense budget cutbacks again. Get the next bj girl boys, we got a Democrat rollin' in!

Not all of the plan's suggestions have come to fruition, such as huge project cutbacks, etc.
However, this does not impact at all the new Pearl Harbor segment from Ch. 5 of the plan.

I think its time to move on to the next premise.

Do you package that stuff raw and sell it to garden shops, or do you compost it first?

[Redtail]

He thinks if you agree, that you are moving a step closer to conversion...treat it like one of those "Choose your Adventure" novels that came out in the 1980's...once you have agreed to choice (A) he will then move on to Proposition (B) and when you agree to that, to (C) until, in his mind, he has brought you to the only conclusion possible...9/11 was an inside job.

Good Luck

TAM:)

I liked those books.

[Kage]

Here is my problem with your arguments so far mjd:

1 - PNAC
2 - ?
3 - 9/11

[MIKILLINI]

For pity's sake, man! You have "significant evidence" that the US government conspired to kill 3000 of its own citizens and you're *waiting* to tell us?!?!?

Get on with it! This is important!

Exactly; The JREF Grand Jury is waiting.....mjd, guess what we're waiting for?

Here is one hint; Evidence
Here is another;Tangible Evidence
And another; Convincing Evidence
In case you're not sure what's required here;
One more hint; Concrete Evidence

Let’s not forget our aim- is this sufficient evidence to warrant a new independent investigation?

The Jury is waiting for the proof.

[MIKILLINI]

So mjd, you want everyone to agree with your interpretation of the documents you're talking about? Sorry, won't happen. You can not know that faster is better. When I was 19 I wanted to have my own family in the future but I planned for it to take a while absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event like a broken rubber.

:dl:

[WildCat]

mjd1982 is presumably off composing his next post, which he thinks will undoubtedly have us all screaming "inside job!" once we read it.

More likely, it will be his list of "explicit warnings" and by "explicit", he means extremely vague... :rolleyes:

[mjd1982]

So mjd, you want everyone to agree with your interpretation of the documents you're talking about? Sorry, won't happen. You can not know that faster is better. When I was 19 I wanted to have my own family in the future but I planned for it to take a while absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event like a broken rubber.
That is due to extraneous events, which i have dealt with. Please read the posts before responding to them.

[mjd1982]

You're quite welcome.

I have to say that I fail to understand why having other people comfirm that you believe what you believe was/is so important to you in this discussion. One might think that you could achieve the same comfirmation using a Ouija board, or perhaps simply by reading your own posts and deciding whether you agree with them.

However, if it is in fact helpful to you I'm happy to oblige, and perhaps it will help others in this thread to understand your thought processes as well.

Respectfully,
Myriad
I was being facetious. Sorry if you misunderstood.

[mjd1982]

Ok, sorry for the hiatus.

Let’s move on, onto the foreknowledge section.

It should be stated, that were a new PH deemed propitious to policy, this would give us a very interesting framework within which to proceed re: 911.

Hundreds of billions of dollars are spent on defense, intel and diplomacy every year, in significant part to prevent the occurrence of a new PH, or some such event. This is why the chances of such an event occurring, absent government connivance, are so slim- it is indeed a once in a lifetime event. Thus, the chances of all the enormous systematic hindrances and hurdles to such an occurrence being overcome merely by external agents, when the government itself feels that such an occurrence is propitious, get reduced significantly, given that a government can fairly easily connive to allow such an event to occur. Moreover, the chances that such an occurrence should happen in the most timely manner possible for said government, just before the QDR, the importance of which timing had been implied strongly in the same policy document, and leaving the administration 3 or 7 years to pursue the implementation and entrenchment of such policies, given also that , to repeat, they had deemed such an event propitious… the chances of the event having occurred without government connivance are very very small indeed. This then gives us a framework for proceed, and weighing up evidence, and should colour all our future judgements on the matter.

It may be instructive to ask oneself, what one would expect to happen, in an instance where a new PH had been deemed propitious to policy, in the run up to the occurrence of such an event, were such to be allowed to happen.

A very plausible sequence would be as follows:
1. Non partisan members of government who would stand in the way of a new PH happening get demoted/silenced/sidelined. This is not given, subsequently, adequate explanation.
2. There is an unprecedented litany of warnings in the intel community, none of which get acted upon. This leaves certain agents furious, threatening to quit, stating that something huge will happen unless people start taking things seriously. Important organisation heads will have back channels to the GOP, and have been brought into line, thus facilitating the neglect. No one will be fired, or even demoted. This is, subsequently, explained away by the fact that there were communication problems between agencies, fluff about how everything looks 20-20 in hindsight, and how they get lots of warnings.
3. It will, inevitably, surface that important and revelatory information was passed all the way up to the Principals, the VP, and even POTUS, but zero action was taken, nothing , nowhere. This will be left uncomfortably silent
4. And finally, there will maybe be the odd slip that cannot be accounted for, such as an early, smaller attack from Al Qaeda, the people most likely to be the bogeymen for the new PH, which should warrant a response, but nothing gets done; and, if you are really unlikely, an offer from the Taliban to hand over Osama Bin Laden to the US’s clients in Saudi Arabia, to be handed to the US; this just gets hushed up, and everyone pretends it didn’t happen.

I think this is a pretty plausible sequence of events for what might happen in the event of government connivance in 9/11. And of course, it is precisely what did happen.

1.As anyone who has read Richard Clarke’s book, “Against All Enemies” will be aware, the efforts taken by the Clinton administration to stop terrorism, and in particular Al Qaeda terrorism, were considerable. One of the main reflections of this occurs in Clinton’s creation of the post of National Coordinator for Security, Infrastructure Protection, and Counter-terrorism, the “Counter Terrorism Czar” that was given to Clarke. Clarke was very aware of the threat of AQ, and within 5 days of taking office, he had sent a document to Condi Rice, entitled, “Strategy for eliminating AQ”. Very clear in its import- these guys are mean, and they want to kill us. Take them very seriously The response? Very simple- demotion. The next day he was told that he would no longer be dealing with Principals, but rather with Deputies. This was a pretty easy method of turning the volume down/off from any non partisan members of government who might try and alert senior members too doggedly of the threat of a catastrophic terrorist attack.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A20349-2004Mar24.html
In his own words, this slowed things down “by months.” Actions on this document for combating this threat were not even discussed by Principals until September 4th; 9 months later.
It should also be noted that Bush and his team had been made aware of the urgency of getting AQ as early as November. Fighting terror was, indeed, something which Bush had campaigned on in 2000. The war on Islamic terrorism had been stated explicitly, in light of the USS Cole attack, by Sandy Berger on January 17th 2001. So the threat of Islamic terror was something Bush et al had been well briefed on before taking office, it was an “urgent” issue, a “deadly threat”. So when Clarke hands a document to the same people, outlining strategies for countering this deadly thread, and gets demoted for his efforts, this should bring the probable motivations of the administration quite sharply into relief.


Do note that if a new PH was going to occur, AQ/OBL are clearly the obvious bogeymen.

2. Regarding forewarnings, these were considerable. Many of these details can be founded, with links to articles/date and edition of articles, here:
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline&before_9/11=warnings&startpos=100

Here are some brief excerpts:

- May- July 2001: Over a two-month period, the NSA reports that “at least 33 communications indicating a possible, imminent terrorist attack.”
- May 16-17, 2001: US Warned Bin Laden Supporters inside US and Planning an Attack
- May 29, 2001: Clarke (ex US Head of Counter Terrorism) Asks for More to Be Done to Stop Expected Al-Qaeda Attacks
- May 30, 2001: FBI Is Warned of Major Al-Qaeda Operation in the US Involving Hijackings, Explosives, and/or New York City
- June 2001: Germans Warn of Plan to Use Aircraft as Missiles on US and Israeli Symbols
- June 2001: US Intelligence Warns of Spectacular Attacks by al-Qaeda Associates
- June-July 2001: Terrorist Threat Reports Surge, Frustration with White House Grows
- Summer 2001: Threat Alerts Increase to Record High
- Summer 2001: Israel Warns US of ‘Big Attack’
- Summer 2001: Al-Qaeda Plot Described as Upcoming ‘Hiroshima’ on US Soil
- June 21, 2001: Senior Al-Qaeda Officials Say Important Surprises Coming Soon
- June 22, 2001: CIA Warns of Imminent Al-Qaeda Suicide Attack
- June 23, 2001: White House Warned ‘Bin Laden Attacks May Be Imminent’
- June 25, 2001: Clarke Tells Rice That Pattern of Warnings Indicates an Upcoming Attack
- June 28, 2001: Tenet (ex CIA Director) Warns of Imminent Al-Qaeda Attack
- June 28, 2001: Clarke Warns Rice That Threat Level Has Reached a Peak
- Late Summer 2001: Jordan Warns US That Aircraft Will Be Used in Major Attack Inside the US
- July 2001: India Warns US of Possible Terror Attacks
- July 1, 2001: Senators Warn of Al-Qaeda Attack Within Three Months
- July 5, 2001: Ashcroft (ex US Attorney General) Is Warned of Imminent, Multiple Attacks from Al-Qaeda
- July 6, 2001: CIA Warns Upcoming Al-Qaeda Attack Will Be ‘Spectacular’ and Different
- July 6, 2001: Clarke Tells Rice to Warn Agencies to Prepare for 3 to 5 Simultaneous Attacks; No Apparent Response
- July 10, 2001: FBI Agent Sends Memo Warning That Inordinate Number of Muslim Extremists Are Learning to Fly in Arizona
- July 10, 2001: CIA Director Gives Urgent Warning to White House of Imminent, Multiple, Simultaneous Al-Qaeda Attacks, Possibly Within US
- July 16, 2001: British Spy Agencies Warn Al-Qaeda Is in The Final Stages of Attack in the West
- Late July 2001: Taliban Foreign Minister Tries to Warn US and UN of Huge Attack Inside the US
- Late July 2001: Argentina Relays Warning to the US
- Late July 2001: Egypt Warns CIA of 20 Al-Qaeda Operatives in US; Four Training to Fly; CIA Is Not Interested
- Late July 2001: CIA Director Believes Warnings Could Not ‘Get Any Worse’
- August 2001: Russia Warns US of Suicide Pilots
- Early August 2001: Government Informant Warns Congressmen of Plan to Attack the WTC
- Early August 2001: Britain Warns US Again; Specifies Multiple Airplane Hijackings
- August 6, 2001: Bush Briefing Titled ‘Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US’
- August 8-15, 2001: Israel Reportedly Warns of Major Assault on the US
- August 15, 2001: CIA Counterterrorism Head: We Are Going to Be Struck Soon
- August 23-27, 2001: Minnesota FBI Agents ‘Absolutely Convinced’ Moussaoui Plans to Hijack Plane; They Are Undermined by FBI Headquarters
- August 23, 2001: Mossad Reportedly Gives CIA List of Terrorist Living in US; at Least Four 9/11 Hijackers Named
- August 30, 2001-September 4, 2001: Egypt Warns al-Qaeda Is in Advanced Stages of Planning Significant Attack on US
- September 4, 2001: Mossad Gives Another Warning of Major, Imminent Attack
- September 10, 2001: NSA Intercepts: ‘The Match Begins Tomorrow’ and ‘Tomorrow Is Zero Hour’
- September 10, 2001: US Intercepts: ‘Watch the News’ and ‘Tomorrow Will Be a Great Day for Us’
- September 10, 2001: US Generals Warned Not to Fly on Morning of 9/11

Now, the counter here will predictably be, well, there were problems, intel agencies get loads of warnings every day, this probably represents a minute fragment. This is only true with an ignorance of the facts. These state that George Tenet, the DCI, had described the intel warnings, regarding an upcoming AQ attack on the US/US interests, as “unprecedented”. This is the same man who was in charge over the millennium, when the terror threat (foiled, incidentally) was possibly as high as it had ever been up to that point. According to Dick Armitage, his “hair was on fire”. Another FBI source claimed “The warnings could not have been any worse”. So clearly, any arguments that this level of warning was something ordinary could not be further from the truth. (For all sources, see link above)

The second rebuttal is that the warnings were not specific enough. Well, although this will be debated, what is telling, is that nothing was done. Not one thing. No increased protection of vulnerabilities, border security etc, not even one effort toward that. As outlined above, such unprecedented neglect, fudged by incomplete explanations, is precisely what would be expected in such a scenario.

PS- Regarding “back channels”, this was stated in Clarke’s book, that Louis Freeh, the then director of the FBI had back channels to certain parts of the GOP.

3. What is less easy to explain away is the inaction of POTUS and those around him. As has been made clear in the 911 Comm report, Bush was warned 40 times in the ~30 weeks running up to 9/11, just at PDB’s by Tenet (the man with his hair on fire at the unprecedented threat), of the impending threat of an AQ attack. What was done? Nothing. And there were very specific pieces of information given to Bush. To quote 911 Commissioner Bob Kerrey:


“[B]y the way, there’s a credible case that the president’s own negligence prior to 9/11 at least in part contributed to the disaster in the first place.… [I]n the summer of 2001, the government ignored repeated warnings by the CIA, ignored, and didn’t do anything to harden our border security, didn’t do anything to harden airport country, didn’t do anything to engage local law enforcement, didn’t do anything to round up INS and consular offices and say we have to shut this down, and didn’t warn the American people. The famous presidential daily briefing on August 6, we say in the report that the briefing officers believed that there was a considerable sense of urgency and it was current. So there was a case to be made that wasn’t made.… The president says, if I had only known that 19 Islamic men would come into the United States of America and on the morning of 11 September hijack four American aircraft, fly two into the World Trade Center, one into the Pentagon, and one into an unknown Pennsylvania that crashed in Shanksville, I would have moved heaven and earth. That’s what he said. Mr. President, you don’t need to know that. This is an Islamic Jihadist movement that has been organized since the early 1990s, declared war on the United States twice, in ‘96 and ‘98. You knew they were in the United States. You were warned by the CIA. You knew in July they were inside the United States. You were told again by briefing officers in August that it was a dire threat. And what did you do? Nothing, so far as we could see on the 9/11 Commission.”


This sums up matters quite well.

In addition, we have the statement from George Tenet, who told the CNN that he had told Rice that AQ were planning multiple, simultaneous attacks on the US.


KING: Did you warn her or threat -- did you warn her that a threat was imminent?

TENET: You're talking in the run-up to 9...

KING: Yes.

TENET: ... to 9/11?

Well, you know, we provided, I think...

KING: You knew there was a threat imminent.

TENET: Well, sure. There was -- we had a meeting on July 10th and we -- we, you know, I jumped in the car and went down to see the national security adviser. We believed that there were -- the threat was imminent, there would be multiple spectacular...

KING: What did she do?

TENET: Well, she got it. She understand the nature of the threat. She turned around, she had the deputies convene. Other things happened around that time. We had asked for -- we had asked for specific authorities to help us get into Afghanistan. We had asked for those in the spring. This all came a little bit slowly.

But, Larry, everybody now wants to look at was one person responsible?

Look, look, policymakers and law enforcement intelligence, all of us in this owed the families of 9/11 better than they got. Human beings make mistakes. There's no silver bullet in any of this.

So having the game of who did what and what happened, look, this was the most painful day of our lives.

So did we provide strategic warning?

Yes.


http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIP...30/lkl.01.html

Of course, in the light of the fact that the CT movement presses for an investigation of possible US complicity in 9/11, the above, as well as the 40 ignored, direct warnings gives a strong case for such.

4. Of course there was the attack on the Cole, which was not acted upon at all; no War on Terror from that; just a promise from Bush to “strengthen missile defenses” to protect US troops. What is very interesting, incriminating, important, and unknown to most on either side of the fence, is the fact that OBL was offered to Bush, by the Taliban, in return for dropping of sanctions in February 2001. This was not only in the midst of all these warnings, but also after the guilt for the Cole bombing had been pinned on AQ. Not to mention the bombings of the embassies and the WTC in 1993. So, one of the biggest terrorists in the world who has killed many of your countrymen, and declared holy war against your country, declaring every man, woman and children legitmate targets, is offered to you on a plate, what do you do? Nothing of course. Criminal.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=zK-te3Y0m5A

The need for investigating US government complicity, in the light of all this, is clearly a dire one.