The 9/11 Conspiracy Facts

[WildCat]

Let’s move on, onto the foreknowledge section.
Excellent. So did you simply forget to post the actual foreknowledge, or is the vague list you supplied all you have?

[SpitfireIX]

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.


First, we don't have a large enough sample to draw such a conclusion. Second, how many Pearl Harbors has the US military/intelligence establishment actually ever prevented? Third, how often has a country or other group actually had the motive, means, and opportunity to carry out such an attack? I submit that until about 15 years ago, this conjunction of motive, means, and opportunity have only ever happened happened once.

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.


How do you know the government could "fairly easily connive" in this case? How many people would have to have been subverted? What if some of them said "no?"

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…


2. Regarding forewarnings, these were considerable. . . .


Are you advocating LIHOP or MIHOP? If LIHOP, how could "they" affect the timing of the attack to make it right before the QDR?? If MIHOP, why would there have been any actionable warnings?? Please explain this apparent contradiction in your "theory."

[Gravy]

You said they wrote their plan to attack America into "Rebuilding America's Defenses.

No I didn't, I stated that they clearly implied its propitiousness for policy.Why do you lie so blatantly? You must perceive some benefit from doing so. What is it?

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.



Is it plausible that these "conspirators" would publicly announce a plan to kill thousands of Americans?

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.

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!

Oh, sorry, hahaha, yep there it is.So why do you continue to lie, mjd? How does lying benefit you?


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.The PNAC specifically called for the cancellation of the JSF and other programs, because these would be roadblocks to the transformation they envisioned. What happened, mjd? How did they allow these roadblocks to be put in their way?

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.

Let's start with my first post to you, when I asked if you had anything new to add, then requested that you review the previous discussions about this subject: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2681924#post2681924

Then we have these posts, which you somehow missed:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2683098#post2683098
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2685661#post2685661
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2685704#post2685704
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2686385#post2686385
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2688167#post2688167
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2691027#post2691027

Please explain why you continue to lie. I'm very curious about what makes a person do that publicly.

[T.A.M.]

He continues to lie because it continues to get him Troll Snacks (TM).

TAM:)

[stateofgrace]

MJD, any chance you could just sum it up for everybody? It is all good and well posting excruciatingly long posts and repeating the same stuff but seriously are you trying to bore everybody to death or have you actually got something tangible to say?

[Myriad]

I was being facetious. Sorry if you misunderstood.

I did indeed misunderstand, but there's no need for you to apologize.

When I say "please," "thank you," and "you're welcome," I mean it. I tend to just assume that others do too. Assuming the best of people until they demonstrate otherwise is just one of my little quirks. Really, I had reason to expect you to measure up in any way. I should be the one to apologize, for having far too high expectations.

Respectfully,
Myriad

[pomeroo]

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



After many pages of drivel, we come to the bombshell: Osama was offered to Bush by the Taliban! Radical leftist Alexander Cockburn floated this myth in a column. But how credible is it? It must be considered somewhat curious that the legion of professional Bush-bashers is silent on the subject.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4196/is_20010209/ai_n10670252 (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4196/is_20010209/ai_n10670252)

[mjd1982]

Why do you lie so blatantly? You must perceive some benefit from doing so. What is it?

So why do you continue to lie, mjd? How does lying benefit you?


I'm pretty sure I've told you before not to accuse people of things that clearly go over your head, elementary though they are.

There is a very clear difference between stating the propitiousness to policy of a new PH, which comes via a very, very basic inference, and writing their plan for attacking America into the doc.

I wont accuse you of lying; I am well aware that you do not understand such simple concepts, don't worry, it's ok.


The PNAC specifically called for the cancellation of the JSF and other programs, because these would be roadblocks to the transformation they envisioned. What happened, mjd? How did they allow these roadblocks to be put in their way?


They are perceived as roadblocks; i.e they are hindrances. Yet, as I have told you too many times now, which you are evidently unwilling to address (this time, I will presume cowardice), that is one fraction of the plan; the overwhelming majority of it is being implemented right now.

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

You put a lot of work into this guide it would appear- 16 pages later and you have not even dared to step up to the plate to defend it, Why not? Again, I presume the above.

And finally, as again I have told you, the individual elements of the implementation matter little, since they are reflective of execution, rather than design.. Since we are questioning PNAC's design, questions regarding their execution have less value.

This should not be hard to understand.


Let's start with my first post to you, when I asked if you had anything new to add, then requested that you review the previous discussions about this subject: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2681924#post2681924

Then we have these posts, which you somehow missed:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2683098#post2683098
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2685661#post2685661
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2685704#post2685704
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2686385#post2686385
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2688167#post2688167
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2691027#post2691027


I was given 4 such threads by Hokulele. I went through them all.
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2683435#post2683435

And given that your piece is one of the most representative pieces on the topic, I dealt with that, as above, point by point. You have avoided this, other than through pedantry, and incredulity


Wait: I addressed your point. You said the neocons published a plan to murder thousands of Americans, and I treated that statement as the 100% batpoo-insane, howler monkeyism that it is.

Give credit where credit is due, please


Please explain why someone so keen to state the virtues of rational thought and logic in debate should resort to such childish nonsense, so many times on a point that he seemingly has no hope of defending?


Please explain why you continue to lie. I'm very curious about what makes a person do that publicly.

Oh dear... Someone's getting a little desperate methinks...

[mjd1982]

After many pages of drivel, we come to the bombshell: Osama was offered to Bush by the Taliban! Radical leftist Alexander Cockburn floated this myth in a column. But how credible is it? It must be considered somewhat curious that the legion of professional Bush-bashers is silent on the subject.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4196/is_20010209/ai_n10670252 (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4196/is_20010209/ai_n10670252)

Oh boy, ROFL...

This is getting quite tragically desperate. So....
1. You ignore almost the entire post
2. You reject the OBL claim as a "myth", despite being documented openly on video at a WH press conference
3. You base this claim on... well, nothing really, just I would assume the fact that it goes against your belief in the fact that there was no US connivance
4. Ok, then you flail at a reason, that being that not many people talk about it.

I mean, what the hell is this? Have you people no ability whatsoever to look at a situation with a modicum of honesty? Why should this be so hard?

If you want to argue this point, then either prove that it is a faked video, or show that Bush did chase after OBL, but failed despite heroic efforts.

And then there is the rest of the post. LMAO.

[Belz...]

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.

You don't own this thread, Mjd. The cowardice is on the part of those who refuse to hear those who DO speak out. Like putting people you disagree with on ignore.

No I didn't, I stated that they clearly implied its propitiousness for policy.

Again, what about the mentioned fact that they actually claim the opposite ?

Significant evidence for this will be presented in just a tick.

I don't believe you. If you HAD evidence, you would've presented it before.

It has taken so long because no one wanted to address my points.

We adressed all your points. You just don't like the answers.

Their penchant for conspiracy, treason etc, is evidenced when they are pursuiing this goal, so I think that is a moot point.

No, it's not. You don't understand how this works at all. You think that past history is enough for a conviction. It is not so.

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.

Your "thus" doesn't necessarily follow, and is as such speculation.

[Belz...]

do you want me to count in laws too?:D

Oh, as long as they're cute and single. And nerdy.

[Belz...]

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.

How is that "showing" anything ?

I think we can all understand the "speed" as being extremely important to the PNAC plan for transformation.

Not necessarily. I've seen it claimed, but not shown.

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!

How is that related to the issue ?

I think its time to move on to the next premise.

I agree.

[Belz...]

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.

Just because you spend big dollar on something doesn't mean it's perfect. Since I assume you understand this, let's move on.

Moreover, the chances that such an occurrence should happen in the most timely manner possible for said government

How was that in the timeliest manner possible ? How is killing 3000 people and hurting your economy good ? Tell me, Mjd, how is the US dollar doing, these days ?

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.

Unfortunately, this doesn't change the probabilities at all.

A very plausible sequence would be as follows:

The "plausible" sequence is all speculation. I thought this thread was about 9/11 "facts".

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”.

Well, I guess that means airliners and skyscrapers have a date.

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.

What would YOU do every time you had a vague warning ?

The need for investigating US government complicity, in the light of all this, is clearly a dire one.

Only in your mind, because you have not presented any facts. Only your opinion. This had been the whole gist of the thread. YOUR opinion.

[sleahead]

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”.

Nice. You have Bush on board with a war on terrorism, but you reject the notion that he was also on board with transformation of the military. When I ask you for evidence that Bush was not on board, you sidestep:

It is not strictly a case of crystalising it in the mind of Bush, but, as i said, of crystallising it in the minds of the decision makers.

When I ask you for evidence that the these decision makers were not on board, you do not reply and later have the gall to accuse others of evading and not responding to your points.

So, Bush is sold on the WoT prior to 2001, but to sell him transformation of the military that, according to you, requires a 9/11 event. Excuse me if I don't buy it.

[DGM]

OBL was offered to Bush, by the Taliban, in return for dropping of sanctions in February 2001.

According to a reporter at a news conference. How does this prove the offer was legitimate?

[JonnyFive]

Show me where i said this please.

Okay:

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.

By the way, thanks for kind of moving on. Back to lurky mode.

[mortimer]

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.

This is an interesting way to start off phase 2. First, you'll need to show evidence that hundreds of billions of dollars are spent each year in significant part to make sure we are not the victims of a sneak attack.

Second, and more importantly, you'll need to show that a PH-type event is more unlikely without government involvement. How many PH-type events has the United States seen in it's 230 year lifetime? How many involved government connivance? Answer those two, along with how you came up with those numbers, and you might get me to read past this part of your post.

[Furcifer]

And where is the conjecture? For as you must be aware, stating that something is likely is not conjecture

Is this still eligible for a Stundie?

[HeyLeroy]

I've been gone since Friday, probably a hundred-some posts ago. Instead of going back over those posts, can someone bring me up to speed?

Are we yet to the point where mjd1982 is arguing that since three firefighters said on some YouTube video that 7WTC 'was gonna explode', and how "explode" is obviously either synonymous or colloquial for "implode", that 7WTC was clearly collapsed with pre-planted explosives?

How, since we know that explosives, det-cord and non-electric relays cannot survive fires, that obviously means that whoever planted the explosives that brought about 7WTC's collapse knew exactly where the fires were going to spread (oh, and the fires weren't nearly as severe as all those other firefighters claimed, it's as clear as crystal if only you'd look) and exactly where chunks of the falling Tower were going to impact and cause damage (even though 1 & 2WTC weren't CD).

Are we there yet?

[Belz...]

I've been gone since Friday, probably a hundred-some posts ago. Instead of going back over those posts, can someone bring me up to speed?

Think dead horse. You get the gist.

[~enigma~]

http://img408.imageshack.us/img408/7985/911ef9.gif

[mjd1982]

You don't own this thread, Mjd. The cowardice is on the part of those who refuse to hear those who DO speak out. Like putting people you disagree with on ignore.


I dont own this thread, no, but it is one which has been made for me to put forth my argument. When i do so, people should subsequently respond to that argument. This is what I aks for, and complain about when it doesn happen.

I do not have anyone on "ignore", nor do I know how/why to do this. I cannot answer everyone, tho i make every effort, and so I just answer those posts that seem most serious.


Again, what about the mentioned fact that they actually claim the opposite ?


This has been dealt with time and time and time again. Read through the posts, and you will have your answer.


I don't believe you. If you HAD evidence, you would've presented it before.

We adressed all your points. You just don't like the answers.


Please learnt to dstinguosh between addressing a general argument, and responding to points within that argument. One goes nowhere, and the other creates progress.


No, it's not. You don't understand how this works at all. You think that past history is enough for a conviction. It is not so.


This is not what I am saying. Please read the post to which I was responding.


Your "thus" doesn't necessarily follow, and is as such speculation.

Ok... Not thus "allowing them to achieve the goal", but "thus giving them the best chance of achieving their goal".

And if you wanna dispute this,i sugegst you remind yourself of what goal I am referring to.

[Unsecured Coins]

Oh, as long as they're cute and single. And nerdy.

oh... well, how do I break the news to you?

[Belz...]

oh... well, how do I break the news to you?

Crap.

[mjd1982]

Just because you spend big dollar on something doesn't mean it's perfect. Since I assume you understand this, let's move on.


I never said it was perfect, I just said that the penetration of it was a once in a lifetime occurence.


How was that in the timeliest manner possible ?


Because, as stated, it allowed >3 or >7 yrs for the neo cons to implement and entrench their plan, and it happened before the 2001 QDR, whose content was coloured by it. This has been stated, oh, about 15 times so far.


How is killing 3000 people and hurting your economy good ? Tell me, Mjd, how is the US dollar doing, these days ?


A lot worse than it would be otherwise:
http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/RRiraqWar.html


Unfortunately, this doesn't change the probabilities at all.


Yes it does, because it increases the likelihood of gov connivance, since they had deemed it propitious. This shouldnt be hard to understand.


The "plausible" sequence is all speculation. I thought this thread was about 9/11 "facts".


I am merely stating what a plausible sequence may look like. It is mirrored by the facts later presented.


Well, I guess that means airliners and skyscrapers have a date.

What would YOU do every time you had a vague warning ?


The messages "The match begins tomorrow/Tomorrow wlll be a great day for us" etc etc, when sent on sept 10th, would give a strong indication as to such.

As for vague warnings, Bush was told that there were AQ cells in the country. If I were him, i would have ordered them hunted down. He was also given lots of warnings about hijackings. I would have increased border and airport/airplane security. He was also offered OBL. Unlike him, I would have said "yes", rather than "no".


Only in your mind, because you have not presented any facts. Only your opinion. This had been the whole gist of the thread. YOUR opinion.

Hahaha.... please show me how the long list of facts just presented are not facts. Othrwise, this self deception is getting a tad pathetic.

[Belz...]

I dont own this thread, no, but it is one which has been made for me to put forth my argument.

Then what the bleep are you waiting for ?

When i do so, people should subsequently respond to that argument. This is what I aks for, and complain about when it doesn happen.

Please, then. Stop whining, present your WHOLE reasoning and we'll either pick it apart or accept it or portions of it.

I do not have anyone on "ignore", nor do I know how/why to do this.

I stand corrected.

This has been dealt with time and time and time again. Read through the posts, and you will have your answer.

Oh, please. Just a short, one-sentence summary. I'd think that catastrophies are always bad.

Please learnt to dstinguosh between addressing a general argument, and responding to points within that argument. One goes nowhere, and the other creates progress.

That's what I'm saying. You just don't like the answers.

And if you wanna dispute this,i sugegst you remind yourself of what goal I am referring to.

Yeah, sure. Propitious...

So, how's that USD doing, Mjd ??

[Unsecured Coins]

blah blah blah


You're asking us to agree with your
interpretation
of a document and that's not going to happen.

try again!

[Belz...]

Because, as stated, it allowed >3 or >7 yrs for the neo cons to implement and entrench their plan, and it happened before the 2001 QDR, whose content was coloured by it. This has been stated, oh, about 15 times so far.

I don't think the US are better off than they were in 2001. Economically or otherwise.

Yes it does, because it increases the likelihood of gov connivance, since they had deemed it propitious. This shouldnt be hard to understand.

It's not hard to understand. It's simply false.

I am merely stating what a plausible sequence may look like. It is mirrored by the facts later presented.

That's what I said. It's speculation. Without evidence we can make any "plausible" sequence we want.

The messages "The match begins tomorrow/Tomorrow wlll be a great day for us" etc etc, when sent on sept 10th, would give a strong indication as to such.

And how many of those do you think they get per year ? And how specific was that message ? No one has ever used airliners as missiles. How could you know ?

Hahaha.... please show me how the long list of facts just presented are not facts.

How can I show that something isn't something else ? Why don't YOU show that they ARE facts ?

[HeyLeroy]

Think dead horse. You get the gist.

Dang, too bad. I just went back and read 'em.

If I can make a suggestion to all the participants in this thread: to avoid another ~750 posts with our collective foot nailed to the floor, let's cover mjd1982's speculative opinions on the forewarning part and get to 7WTC quickly; you're all in for a treat.

[Unsecured Coins]

A lot worse than it would be otherwise:
http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/RRiraqWar.html


oh good grief

Revisited - The Real Reasons for the Upcoming War With Iraq: A Macroeconomic and Geostrategic Analysis of the Unspoken Truth by William Clark wrc92@aol.com Original Essay January 2003 -Revised March 2003 -Post-war Commentary January 2004

[mjd1982]

Nice. You have Bush on board with a war on terrorism, but you reject the notion that he was also on board with transformation of the military. When I ask you for evidence that Bush was not on board, you sidestep:


No, that was not a sidestep, merely the point that Bush/PNAC alone would not be able to affect the transformation. They would need decision makers, right down to the public, to be on board.


When I ask you for evidence that the these decision makers were not on board, you do not reply and later have the gall to accuse others of evading and not responding to your points.


Oh come on! There are about 20 of you and 1 of me- excuse me if I miss the odd post!

The evidence that the decision makers were not on board is quite simple- would Congress/you have approved of an invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan without 9/11? Control of strategic resources is one aim of PNAC/ the rebuilding of America's defenses/WOT, as you will surely know. This is 2examples of something that would not have happened absent 911.


So, Bush is sold on the WoT prior to 2001, but to sell him transformation of the military that, according to you, requires a 9/11 event. Excuse me if I don't buy it.

No. It's not just transformation of the military. Please read here:

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

for full details of what the WOT has entailed.

[mjd1982]

According to a reporter at a news conference. How does this prove the offer was legitimate?
It may not have been. Of course, this has been reported by Cockburn and others, so you'll have some work to do to prove that it wasnt. But in any case
the point is that it was not as if the neo cons chased down the lead and found the Taliban to be screwing around. They did nothing to follow up on the lead. This is inexplicable under any normal circumstance

[mjd1982]

This is an interesting way to start off phase 2. First, you'll need to show evidence that hundreds of billions of dollars are spent each year in significant part to make sure we are not the victims of a sneak attack.


Ok, that may be a littlebit speculative, but it is based in the fairly safe premise that governments do not usually want their countries being attacked again and again and again, if they can help it.


Second, and more importantly, you'll need to show that a PH-type event is more unlikely without government involvement. How many PH-type events has the United States seen in it's 230 year lifetime? How many involved government connivance? Answer those two, along with how you came up with those numbers, and you might get me to read past this part of your post.

Gladly. Since there are infrastructutres in place to prevent the occurence of a new PH, these need to be overcome somehow. Either they can be overcome by external agents/factors, or internal ones. If both are in place, there will be more force behind the overcoming of such infrastructures, and more to the point, the fact that you would have the controllers of such infrastructures helping to overcome such infrastructures, increases the chances that such will be overcome

[twinstead]

It may not have been. Of course, this has been reported by Cockburn and others, so you'll have some work to do to prove that it wasnt.

I would imagine that if you are going to use it as some kind of evidence that your theory is correct you might want to prove that it WAS--You know, that whole burden of proof thing.

Otherwise it's just part of the scattergun technique that many CTs use; throw out as much 'evidence' as you can, no matter if it is simple conjecture, already debunked, or out-and-out lies and pretend like you have an avalanche of smoking guns.

[DGM]

It may not have been. Of course, this has been reported by Cockburn and others, so you'll have some work to do to prove that it wasnt. But in any case
the point is that it was not as if the neo cons chased down the lead and found the Taliban to be screwing around. They did nothing to follow up on the lead. This is inexplicable under any normal circumstance
How do you know that they did nothing? How can you be so sure that the Taliban even could hand him over? OSB seems to dance only to his own music, I find it hard to believe he would let anyone rat him out.

[mjd1982]

I would imagine that if you are going to use it as some kind of evidence that your theory is correct you might want to prove that it WAS--You know, that whole burden of proof thing.

Otherwise it's just part of the scattergun technique that many CTs use; throw out as much 'evidence' as you can, no matter if it is simple conjecture, already debunked, or out-and-out lies and pretend like you have an avalanche of smoking guns.
Lol, this is ridiculous!

So here we have a fact being reported by the anchor of MSNBC, the editor of The Nation, and others, and you are trying to tell me that this is conjecture/lies/debunked material???

Please tell me what else you are looking for- a signed affadavit from Mullah Omar?

[gumboot]

I'm confused, I thought the Mainstream Media were evil propaganda tools of the NWO Illuminati mason crocodile people... or whatever...

Now we're meant to take the word of a news anchor at face value?

-Gumboot

[mjd1982]

How do you know that they did nothing? How can you be so sure that the Taliban even could hand him over? OSB seems to dance only to his own music, I find it hard to believe he would let anyone rat him out.
Because MSNBC, one of the largest news organisations in the world, has reported such.

Whether the Taliban would have handd him over or not is irrelevant; I have dealt with this already.

[Unsecured Coins]

Whether the Taliban would have handed him over or not is irrelevant;
wait, back this bus up a second. If they really did offer to hand him over, why would them not actually doing it suddenly turn the offer into one big irrelevance fest?

And what makes this "irrelevant" now?

I have dealt with this already.
No you have not.

[DGM]

Because MSNBC, one of the largest news organisations in the world, has reported such.

Whether the Taliban would have handd him over or not is irrelevant; I have dealt with this already.
So the government decides that they (Taliban) don't have the capability so this makes them guilty of doing nothing. I understand.:confused:

[mortimer]

Gladly. Since there are infrastructutres in place to prevent the occurence of a new PH, these need to be overcome somehow. Either they can be overcome by external agents/factors, or internal ones. If both are in place, there will be more force behind the overcoming of such infrastructures, and more to the point, the fact that you would have the controllers of such infrastructures helping to overcome such infrastructures, increases the chances that such will be overcome

Amount of content that even came close to answering my questions: zero.

[H'ethetheth]

...Since there are infrastructutres in place to prevent the occurence of a new PH, these need to be overcome somehow. Either they can be overcome by external agents/factors, or internal ones. If both are in place, there will be more force behind the overcoming of such infrastructures, and more to the point, the fact that you would have the controllers of such infrastructures helping to overcome such infrastructures, increases the chances that such will be overcome

Amount of content that even came close to answering my questions: zero.No no, he actually answered your question. You see, if a government attacks their own country, it's easier to overcome the defenses because they're in charge of them. It's the path of least resistance and must therefore have happened


...apparently.

[T.A.M.]

Because MSNBC, one of the largest news organisations in the world, has reported such.

Whether the Taliban would have handd him over or not is irrelevant; I have dealt with this already.

So are MSNBC and other MSM sources valid on all occasions, or just when it fits you? Just curious, because I am sure, if you are willing to give MSNBC and CNN as VALID sources, the people here can start bringing out alot of evidence that you may not like.

TAM:)

[Belz...]

Gladly. Since there are infrastructutres in place to prevent the occurence of a new PH, these need to be overcome somehow. Either they can be overcome by external agents/factors, or internal ones. If both are in place, there will be more force behind the overcoming of such infrastructures, and more to the point, the fact that you would have the controllers of such infrastructures helping to overcome such infrastructures, increases the chances that such will be overcome

Perhaps, but this is still speculation. You keep speculating since your first post, here. WHEN are we going to see evidence that supports this speculation ?

[nicepants]

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.

So it's not likely to happen, therefore it shouldn't have happened?

What are the odds that the powerball lottery numbers being drawn this weekend would be 4 8 32 47 51 27?

The odds are 1 in 146,107,962...and yet...it happened. A once-in-a-lifetime event, and it happened. Hmm...but with the odds being so slim, using MJD logic, the result would be suspect.

[Unsecured Coins]

So it's not likely to happen, therefore it shouldn't have happened?

What are the odds that the powerball lottery numbers being drawn this weekend would be 4 8 32 47 51 27?

The odds are 1 in 146,107,962...and yet...it happened. A once-in-a-lifetime event, and it happened. Hmm...but with the odds being so slim, using MJD logic, the result would be suspect.


especially since my numbers were 5 9 33 48 52 and 28.

[aggle-rithm]

Please learnt to dstinguosh between addressing a general argument, and responding to points within that argument. One goes nowhere, and the other creates progress.


...speaking from experience, obviously. Except that he has never tried the one that creates progress, since creating progress in an informed debate can only hurt his cause.

[lapman]

Gladly. Since there are infrastructutres in place to prevent the occurence of a new PH, these need to be overcome somehow. Either they can be overcome by external agents/factors, or internal ones. If both are in place, there will be more force behind the overcoming of such infrastructures, and more to the point, the fact that you would have the controllers of such infrastructures helping to overcome such infrastructures, increases the chances that such will be overcome

So you're claiming that they infrastructure was in place to prevent an internal attack? The PNAC document clearly states that the new PH would be a military attack by a technologically superior, military force. There really was nothing in place to handle what happened on 9/11.

[Kage]

I think that the PNAC --> 9/11 has problems the same way that the lack of WMD in Iraq means no conspiracy. An evil organization would not have done 9/11 if their goals had been spelled out by PNAC, just as they would have faked WMDs had they faked 9/11. People get hung up on the "Pearl Harbor" line, and 9/11 was our generation's Pearl Harbor, but 9/11 was not the Pearl Harbor specified by PNAC.

Intel failures present another issue. We would like to think of our Intel services as an all knowing big brother with the skills of James Bond and super huge resources, but they are not perfect. As good as the NSA is they have orders of magnitude less processing power than google. Are such failures serious? Defintely. Presenting a nefarious reason why these failures happened creates a huge lower bound for the size of the conspiracy. If you make the conspiracy too small then the intel can get high enough and thwart the conspiracy. If you make it too big it becomes impossible to keep the conspiracy a secret. Pomeroo puts the statistics nicely, so I wont step on his toes with that argument. Consider instead the amount of coordination involved in pulling off such a large conspiracy. Coordination scales exponentially with the size of the conspiracy. How do you perform this balet like plan with perfect precision without any of your preparations becoming known? How do you keep the emails secret, the memos unknown, and the meetings secret? How long does it take to plan out such an attack? Was there a contingent plan had Gore won, given that the planning for such an attack would take so much time? Take pomeroo's math on individuals remaining close lipped on the conspiracy and apply that to every email, phone call and letter involved.

It will take more than intel failures and PNAC o prove 9/11 was LIHOP or MIHOP. I rephrase my problem with your argument:

1 - PNAC
2 - Intel failures
3 - ?
4 - 9/11?!

[David Wong]

Because MSNBC, one of the largest news organisations in the world, has reported such.


MSNBC, one of the largest news organizations in the world, also reported that 19 hijackers did 9/11, without PNAC involvement, and that WTC 7 was brought down without the help of explosives.

I guess we can close the thread now. That was easy.

[T.A.M.]

No, unfortunately, like most kookites, he will likely only claim MSM is correct, when it suits his arguement, kind of the same way they treat the NIST Reports.

TAM:)


Please attack the argument and not the person.

[MIKILLINI]

So far no evidence to prove intent, mjd, you are lining up a plausible scenario for a PH/911 event based on a noted exception from a long term planned document.
In order to move this forward, there has to be intent shown. A catastrophic and catalyzing event such as 9/11 does not bridge the gap to a noted exception in a document who's real stated goal is for the long term. The blueprint has no policy for a catastrophic event, only that the noted exception would cause the plan to be altered. Time and events after 9/11 showed the intent of the wot, not PNAC.

[aggle-rithm]

I have yet to hear anything that even comes close to supporting this extremely bold statement from the OP:

...there is only one conclusion that a rational mind will come to, and it is that of the “Truth Movement”...

Besides the fact that the "Truth Movement" has come to no conclusions of which I am aware, I just don't see any of his points leading to such a "slam-dunk" resolution to the argument.

[WildCat]

Besides the fact that the "Truth Movement" has come to no conclusions of which I am aware.
If you laid all troofers end to end, they still wouldn't reach a conclusion.

It's true! :)

[PhantomWolf]

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.

Huh? You do know that Clinton was President when the USS Cole was attacked?

[MIKILLINI]

If you laid all troofers end to end, they still wouldn't reach a conclusion.

It's true! :)

Actually they come to all kinds of conclusions, it's just an accurate one they can't reach. :D

[aggle-rithm]

Huh? You do know that Clinton was President when the USS Cole was attacked?

That reminds me of the troofer who linked to articles about a high-ranking official who shared his views. Supposedly, he was head of the "Star Wars" defense system when Ford was president. This was not only long before the Strategic Defense Initiative came into existence, but before the movie "Star Wars" came out.

[aggle-rithm]

Actually they come to all kinds of conclusions, it's just an accurate one they can't reach. :D

1. Suspicious stuff
2. ?
3. Silverstein's a Joooo!
4. ?
5. INSIDE JOB!LOL!

[mjd1982]

I'm confused, I thought the Mainstream Media were evil propaganda tools of the NWO Illuminati mason crocodile people... or whatever...

Now we're meant to take the word of a news anchor at face value?

-Gumboot
The MSM is systematically servile to powerful interests; but this is neither here nor there. If this is the case, then this report is all the more exatrordinary for it; nothing more. If not, then it also still stands.

Please tell me why you disbelieve the report, oh you seeker of truth?

[mjd1982]

wait, back this bus up a second. If they really did offer to hand him over, why would them not actually doing it suddenly turn the offer into one big irrelevance fest?

And what makes this "irrelevant" now?


No you have not.
You, unsurprisingly, miss the point. It matters not whether they were being serious or not (you have to prove that they were being deceitful); the point is that nothing was done to accept the offer. Thus, the offer of OBL on a plate in Feb 2001 was, either explicitly or tacitly, rejected. by the neo cons.

[mjd1982]

So the government decides that they (Taliban) don't have the capability so this makes them guilty of doing nothing. I understand.:confused:
Please show me where they decided this.

When you fail, please tell me why you have made this assertion, if you are indeed respectful of truth and facts.

[Augustine]

I would suggest studying military history and strategic studies.

9/11 was not a "catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor" as it is used in the context of Rebuilding America's Defenses.

First, Pearl Harbor was militarily catastrophic - the destruction of the U.S. battleship fleet. This led to a transformation out of necessity of U.S. naval tactics which emphasized the aircraft carrier and the submarine - a revolution at the time, and their predominance has continued to this day. 9/11, although certainly catastrophic in terms of loss of life or economic impact, has had zero effect on military tactics, doctrine, organization or strategic thought. All the elements of defense transformation would have occurred absent 9/11 - and in fact were occurring. Shinseki began the transformation of the Army in 1999. This was on the tail of Lind's "Fourth Generation Warfare" concept coming out in 1989, the "Revolution in Military Affairs" concept evolving in the early 1990's, the focus on information operations, cyberspace, etc. dating from the mid-1990's. Do your research.

Second, Pearl Harbor mobilized the industrial base of the United States to support the war effort in WWII - not merely mobilized the political will of the people. The argument that 9/11 similarly mobilized the industrial base is a weak one - I do not think you can find a concrete fact to support that claim. The vast majority of Americans live their lives untouched by the efforts of their military in the GWOT; the same can not be said of Americans during WWII. (Discussions of mobilizing the industrial base were big during the Soviet era, quieted down slightly at the end of the Cold War, and now crop up occasionally in discussions about China.)

Pearl Harbor was an event that drove military transformation due to the catastrophic effect it had on naval forces, and to the mobilizing effect it had on the industrial base to contribute to the war effort. That is what the PNAC document was referring to. 9/11, on the other hand, has not driven military transformation at all (read strategic documents from early 1990's to 1999), and has not mobilized the U.S. industrial base in a manner similar to WWII.

[mjd1982]

No no, he actually answered your question. You see, if a government attacks their own country, it's easier to overcome the defenses because they're in charge of them. It's the path of least resistance and must therefore have happened


...apparently.
It is the path of least resistance, I didnt say that it must therefore have happened. Why did you impute that comment to me?

[mjd1982]

So are MSNBC and other MSM sources valid on all occasions, or just when it fits you? Just curious, because I am sure, if you are willing to give MSNBC and CNN as VALID sources, the people here can start bringing out alot of evidence that you may not like.

TAM:)
If what they have said can be discredited, then fine. If not, then it must be viewed with the qualification that mass media is systematically servile to power. This does not make what they say untrue ipso facto, but it should colour our interpretation, and catalyse further investigation.

If you want to know more about how the MSM functions this way, here are some things you can do:

Read:

Manufacturing Consent (Chomsky/Ed Herman)
Propaganda (Edward Bernays)
http://www.historyisaweapon.com/defcon1/bernprop.html#SECTION1
Public Opinion (Waltr Lippman)
http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/etext04/pbpnn10.txt

Watch:
Manufacturing Consent
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5631882395226827730&q=manufacturing+consent&total=103&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0
Andrew Marr (BBC political editor) interviews Chomsky
http://youtube.com/watch?v=pkKsaRXrvSo

I have also posted about this in relation to 9/11:
http://screwloosechange.xbehome.com/index.php?showtopic=1854&st=0

[stateofgrace]

You, unsurprisingly, miss the point. It matters not whether they were being serious or not (you have to prove that they were being deceitful); the point is that nothing was done to accept the offer. Thus, the offer of OBL on a plate in Feb 2001 was, either explicitly or tacitly, rejected. by the neo cons.

I would like you to be more specific with this.

!. Who brokered this offer?
2 When was it brokered?
3. What conditions were attached to this offer?
4. What was the precise reason it was turned down.

By implication you are saying that UBL was not taken into custody in preparation for 911, that being an orchestrated conspiracy was being played out in front of the world in Feb 2001.

Please link your sources, as I would like to read up on this and be very specific with your answers

[Pardalis]

I would suggest studying military history and strategic studies.

9/11 was not a "catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor" as it is used in the context of Rebuilding America's Defenses.

First, Pearl Harbor was militarily catastrophic - the destruction of the U.S. battleship fleet. This led to a transformation out of necessity of U.S. naval tactics which emphasized the aircraft carrier and the submarine - a revolution at the time, and their predominance has continued to this day. 9/11, although certainly catastrophic in terms of loss of life or economic impact, has had zero effect on military tactics, doctrine, organization or strategic thought. All the elements of defense transformation would have occurred absent 9/11 - and in fact were occurring. Shinseki began the transformation of the Army in 1999. This was on the tail of Lind's "Fourth Generation Warfare" concept coming out in 1989, the "Revolution in Military Affairs" concept evolving in the early 1990's, the focus on information operations, cyberspace, etc. dating from the mid-1990's. Do your research.

Second, Pearl Harbor mobilized the industrial base of the United States to support the war effort in WWII - not merely mobilized the political will of the people. The argument that 9/11 similarly mobilized the industrial base is a weak one - I do not think you can find a concrete fact to support that claim. The vast majority of Americans live their lives untouched by the efforts of their military in the GWOT; the same can not be said of Americans during WWII. (Discussions of mobilizing the industrial base were big during the Soviet era, quieted down slightly at the end of the Cold War, and now crop up occasionally in discussions about China.)

Pearl Harbor was an event that drove military transformation due to the catastrophic effect it had on naval forces, and to the mobilizing effect it had on the industrial base to contribute to the war effort. That is what the PNAC document was referring to. 9/11, on the other hand, has not driven military transformation at all (read strategic documents from early 1990's to 1999), and has not mobilized the U.S. industrial base in a manner similar to WWII.

Great post.

Unfortunately mjd1982 is not going to read it. :(

[Hokulele]

If what they have said can be discredited, then fine. If not, then it must be viewed with the qualification that mass media is systematically servile to power. This does not make what they say untrue ipso facto, but it should colour our interpretation, and catalyse further investigation.


More assertion, assumption, opinion, and inference. Someone please let me know if any evidence shows up in this thread.

[mjd1982]

Perhaps, but this is still speculation. You keep speculating since your first post, here. WHEN are we going to see evidence that supports this speculation ?
I think you are a bit confused. Let me explain:

- I am putting forth concrete facts (e.g. the PNAC doc, the real WOT/RAD, the OBL offer, the warnings to Bush etc). These facts can be deemed evidence.
- I am then interpreting these facts/evidence, very basically, as it is quite simple stuff. This basic interpretation causes the strong probability of government complicity to be evinced.
- We then debate this evidence, with my professed conclusion being that there is sufficient of it to necessitate a new investigation into government complicity, against yours that such interpretation is fallacious.

This is all it is. I think you are getting confused re: speculation vs interpretation. Having argued that a catastrophic and catalysing event was deemed propitious to policy, I am now trying to show, through presentation of elementary facts, and interpretation of them, that warnings of such an event/ways to stop it were put in front of the administration's noses, and then ignored to such a dramatic extent that necessitates a new investigation into their complicity.

[mjd1982]

So it's not likely to happen, therefore it shouldn't have happened?

What are the odds that the powerball lottery numbers being drawn this weekend would be 4 8 32 47 51 27?

The odds are 1 in 146,107,962...and yet...it happened. A once-in-a-lifetime event, and it happened. Hmm...but with the odds being so slim, using MJD logic, the result would be suspect.
No, the chances of it happening are low, so the chances of it happening are low. You have answered your own question.

[mjd1982]

Hahaha... please show me where this is "clearly stated"

[Pardalis]

Hahaha... please show me where this is "clearly stated"

:confused:

[rwguinn]

More assertion, assumption, opinion, and inference. Someone please let me know if any evidence shows up in this thread.
Set your alarm clock, then--you'd hate to oversleep the latest earth-shattering event because there was no reason to wake you up.

(translation for the reading-impaired: "It ain't gonna happen, at least on the part of the twoowoofers")

[DGM]

Please show me where they decided this.

When you fail, please tell me why you have made this assertion, if you are indeed respectful of truth and facts.
I don't know why the offer (If any) was not considered. I was simply stating a plausible explanation. There is no proof either way so how is this part of your smoking gun?

[mjd1982]

I think that the PNAC --> 9/11 has problems the same way that the lack of WMD in Iraq means no conspiracy.

Well that's good, since I never said PNAC --> 9/11 (if i understand u right)

[QUOTE=Kage;2700461]
An evil organization would not have done 9/11 if their goals had been spelled out by PNAC, just as they would have faked WMDs had they faked 9/11.


Sorry, what's your basis for either of these assertions?


People get hung up on the "Pearl Harbor" line, and 9/11 was our generation's Pearl Harbor, but 9/11 was not the Pearl Harbor specified by PNAC.


They didnt specify a new PH strictly, they specified a catastrophic and catalysing event. 911 killed ~3000 people, therefore was catastrophic; it cataysed the WOT, therefore was catalysing. End of.


Intel failures present another issue. We would like to think of our Intel services as an all knowing big brother with the skills of James Bond and super huge resources, but they are not perfect. As good as the NSA is they have orders of magnitude less processing power than google. Are such failures serious? Defintely. Presenting a nefarious reason why these failures happened creates a huge lower bound for the size of the conspiracy.


1stly, the intel failures were 1 of 4 sections I listed. Why do you not address the other 3?

Further, i am simply stating that in light of zero action in face of unprecedented warning, followed by not even a demotion, should necessitate an investigation into complicity, when viewed with the other facts I have presented but people here chose not to discuss seriously.


If you make the conspiracy too small then the intel can get high enough and thwart the conspiracy. If you make it too big it becomes impossible to keep the conspiracy a secret.


I have stated what would need to be done- get a few heads of food chains in line, and then stifle action from the top down. People will get frustrated, threaten to quit, run round with their hair on fire stating something huge is about to happen, or someone's plotting to fly a plane into the WTC, and nothing will happen, since the people at the top, not necessarily many, know whats going on.

Subsequently, you gag a few people, and those who are in the plot will not squeal, for the very least reason since it would be their ticket to the firing squad.

And of course, to state that no suspects have squealed (yet) therefore theyre all innocent, is not a serious argument.


Pomeroo puts the statistics nicely, so I wont step on his toes with that argument.


I havent seen this.


Consider instead the amount of coordination involved in pulling off such a large conspiracy. Coordination scales exponentially with the size of the conspiracy. How do you perform this balet like plan with perfect precision without any of your preparations becoming known? How do you keep the emails secret, the memos unknown, and the meetings secret? How long does it take to plan out such an attack? Was there a contingent plan had Gore won, given that the planning for such an attack would take so much time? Take pomeroo's math on individuals remaining close lipped on the conspiracy and apply that to every email, phone call and letter involved.


as the above 2


It will take more than intel failures and PNAC o prove 9/11 was LIHOP or MIHOP. I rephrase my problem with your argument:

1 - PNAC
2 - Intel failures
3 - ?
4 - 9/11?!

I am not trying to prove it was an inside job, merely present sufficient evidence to illustarte the necessity of a new investigation into gov complicity. Hence stated intent-> gross criminal negligence in failing to prevent subject of stated intent -> investigation into complicity.

I really dont think this is very controversial.

[mjd1982]

MSNBC, one of the largest news organizations in the world, also reported that 19 hijackers did 9/11, without PNAC involvement, and that WTC 7 was brought down without the help of explosives.

I guess we can close the thread now. That was easy.
see above reply to TAM (?)

[mjd1982]

So far no evidence to prove intent,


Other than the stated need for such an event to occur...


mjd, you are lining up a plausible scenario for a PH/911 event


No, the point of the plausible scenario was to show what might plausibly happen in, and only in, the case of a conspiracy. And then, that this is precisely what has happened.


based on a noted exception from a long term planned document.


a)How was it an exception
b)The facets of the transformation would be long term; the need to start implementing was clearly stated as immediate.


In order to move this forward, there has to be intent shown. A catastrophic and catalyzing event such as 9/11 does not bridge the gap to a noted exception in a document who's real stated goal is for the long term.


as above x2


The blueprint has no policy for a catastrophic event, only that the noted exception would cause the plan to be altered.

The plan almost entirely as it was in sept 2000, which shows extraordinary control and execution. The blueprint has no policy for such an event, in that it does not say how such should happen, but it does state its proptiousness in stating that such great, wonderful changes could happen quicker through it.

[QUOTE=MIKILLINI;2700836]
Time and events after 9/11 showed the intent of the wot, not PNAC.

And both are almost exactly the same. Please see my rbuttal to the LC guide on p3 to find out about this (and tell ur friends)

[mjd1982]

Huh? You do know that Clinton was President when the USS Cole was attacked?
Yes, but gulit for it was only ascertained in february

[mjd1982]

I would suggest studying military history and strategic studies.

9/11 was not a "catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor" as it is used in the context of Rebuilding America's Defenses.

First, Pearl Harbor was militarily catastrophic - the destruction of the U.S. battleship fleet. This led to a transformation out of necessity of U.S. naval tactics which emphasized the aircraft carrier and the submarine - a revolution at the time, and their predominance has continued to this day. 9/11, although certainly catastrophic in terms of loss of life or economic impact, has had zero effect on military tactics, doctrine, organization or strategic thought. All the elements of defense transformation would have occurred absent 9/11 - and in fact were occurring. Shinseki began the transformation of the Army in 1999. This was on the tail of Lind's "Fourth Generation Warfare" concept coming out in 1989, the "Revolution in Military Affairs" concept evolving in the early 1990's, the focus on information operations, cyberspace, etc. dating from the mid-1990's. Do your research.


A quite astonishing post. Firstly the doc calls for a "catastrophic... event", not a militarily catastrophic one. You have stated that PH differed from 911 in being solely militarily catastrophic, as opposed to catastrophic. So please explain why you do not feel the death of 2000 people to be catastrophic, and why you demarcate it as remarkable solely for the destruction of some ships.

2ndly, regarding the lack of effect 9/11 has had, assuming, as I do, that you are aware that 911 was catalysed the War on Terror, you must then believe that the WOT has no relation to military "tactics, doctrine, organization or strategic thought". Well, firstly the new strategic thought of pre-emptive strikes- the "5% doctrine" as stated by Cheney- is something new, and something exclusively due to 911.

More to the point, if you, as I have asked probably ~20 people here to do, read by evisceration of the LC Guide on p3, you will see exactly what is being pursued under the aegis of the WOT. It is almost exactly what was advocated in RAD, and as such should settle your thoughts.


Second, Pearl Harbor mobilized the industrial base of the United States to support the war effort in WWII - not merely mobilized the political will of the people. The argument that 9/11 similarly mobilized the industrial base is a weak one - I do not think you can find a concrete fact to support that claim. The vast majority of Americans live their lives untouched by the efforts of their military in the GWOT; the same can not be said of Americans during WWII. (Discussions of mobilizing the industrial base were big during the Soviet era, quieted down slightly at the end of the Cold War, and now crop up occasionally in discussions about China.)


I fail to see how this does not make 911 catastophic or catalysing. It was catastrophic- it killed lots of people; it was catalysing- it started the WOT.

This shouldnt be hard to understand.


Pearl Harbor was an event that drove military transformation due to the catastrophic effect it had on naval forces, and to the mobilizing effect it had on the industrial base to contribute to the war effort. That is what the PNAC document was referring to. 9/11, on the other hand, has not driven military transformation at all (read strategic documents from early 1990's to 1999), and has not mobilized the U.S. industrial base in a manner similar to WWII.

Once again, you are stating that 911 was not "catalysing", militarilty, despite the fact that it has catalysed a potentially endless war, and that it was not such in the way that PNAC wanted, despite the fact that the changes pursued under its aegis, are exactly what they called for. Why must you say this?

[mjd1982]

[QUOTE=stateofgrace;2702887]I would like you to be more specific with this.

!. Who brokered this offer?

the taliban/saudis

2 When was it brokered?

feb 01

3. What conditions were attached to this offer?

dropping of some sanctions

4. What was the precise reason it was turned down.

none was given

all of this should have been clear from the vid. please actually watch it next time.

By implication you are saying that UBL was not taken into custody in preparation for 911, that being an orchestrated conspiracy was being played out in front of the world in Feb 2001.

Haha, except for those too blind to see it (of which there are clearly many).

I am simply stating the facts; sensible people will come to sensible conclusions.

[mjd1982]

I don't know why the offer (If any) was not considered. I was simply stating a plausible explanation. There is no proof either way so how is this part of your smoking gun?
Oh boy, this is getting ridiculous (but all the more hilarious for it!)

It is stated- they did not follow up on the offer. I.e. they rejected it, either tacitly or explicity. This is the fact. You are giving gross, myopic and blinkered speculation as to why this was, and in that scenario, it would be criminally negligent too, which proves my point again.

Please be honest, respect facts, truth, and let these lead you to your conclusions.

[Belz...]

- I am putting forth concrete facts (e.g. the PNAC doc, the real WOT/RAD, the OBL offer, the warnings to Bush etc). These facts can be deemed evidence.

In the sense that you are quoting from these sources, sure.

- I am then interpreting these facts/evidence, very basically, as it is quite simple stuff. This basic interpretation causes the strong probability of government complicity to be evinced.

The only reason why you think it's "quite simple" is because of your inability to see it any other way. Many of us have pointed you in other directions, but you refuse to even look. In other words, your position is due to poor imagination.

- We then debate this evidence, with my professed conclusion being that there is sufficient of it to necessitate a new investigation into government complicity, against yours that such interpretation is fallacious.

So far you have not defended your conclusion.

This is all it is. I think you are getting confused re: speculation vs interpretation.

No, you ARE speculating. You are speculating about the PNAC's motives and preferences, you are speculating about the "propitiousness" of 9/11, and you are speculating about the similarities between Pearl Harbor and 9/11.

Having argued that a catastrophic and catalysing event was deemed propitious to policy, I am now trying to show, through presentation of elementary facts, and interpretation of them, that warnings of such an event/ways to stop it were put in front of the administration's noses

How would letting it happen show anything about "propititiousness" ??

, and then ignored to such a dramatic extent that necessitates a new investigation into their complicity.

Such an investigation has already been made.

[Belz...]

They didnt specify a new PH strictly, they specified a catastrophic and catalysing event. 911 killed ~3000 people, therefore was catastrophic; it cataysed the WOT, therefore was catalysing.

But not catalysing in the way the PNAC discussed it.

Further, i am simply stating that in light of zero action in face of unprecedented warning, followed by not even a demotion, should necessitate an investigation into complicity

Why ?

People will get frustrated, threaten to quit, run round with their hair on fire stating something huge is about to happen, or someone's plotting to fly a plane into the WTC, and nothing will happen, since the people at the top, not necessarily many, know whats going on.

Subsequently, you gag a few people, and those who are in the plot will not squeal, for the very least reason since it would be their ticket to the firing squad.

And you think that throughout history, people have not spoken about these things when threatened ? That seems monstrously naive.

And of course, to state that no suspects have squealed (yet) therefore theyre all innocent, is not a serious argument.

Yeah, JFK CTers say the same thing 45 years later.

[DGM]

Oh boy, this is getting ridiculous (but all the more hilarious for it!)

It is stated- they did not follow up on the offer. I.e. they rejected it, either tacitly or explicity. This is the fact. You are giving gross, myopic and blinkered speculation as to why this was, and in that scenario, it would be criminally negligent too, which proves my point again.

Please be honest, respect facts, truth, and let these lead you to your conclusions.
Would you care to do the same?

[Belz...]

Other than the stated need for such an event to occur...

Liar. They never stated it was a need. Not even close.

No, the point of the plausible scenario was to show what might plausibly happen in, and only in, the case of a conspiracy. And then, that this is precisely what has happened.

ONLY in the case of a conspiracy ? Really ? Are you saying that "cave monkeys" can't possibly crash airliners into skyscrapers because the US is invincible unless it allows itself to get hurt ? Those terrorists are much smarter and much more organised than you think.

b)The facets of the transformation would be long term; the need to start implementing was clearly stated as immediate.

Which is NOT what they were talking about when refering to Pearl Harbor.

The plan almost entirely as it was in sept 2000, which shows extraordinary control and execution

You're continuing to add words that aren't there.

[Belz...]

I fail to see how this does not make 911 catastophic or catalysing. It was catastrophic- it killed lots of people; it was catalysing- it started the WOT.

And how is this war of terror related to what the PNAC asked for ?

[Augustine]

A quite astonishing post. Firstly the doc calls for a "catastrophic... event", not a militarily catastrophic one. You have stated that PH differed from 911 in being solely militarily catastrophic, as opposed to catastrophic. So please explain why you do not feel the death of 2000 people to be catastrophic, and why you demarcate it as remarkable solely for the destruction of some ships.

Rebuilding America's Defenses is referring to a catastrophic event in the context of defense transformation, not merely catastrophic in a general sense. The destruction of "some ships" drove the tactical innovation that led to victory and the development of current naval doctrine. A natural disaster may be a catastrophic event, but it will hardly spur defense transformation now, will it?

2ndly, regarding the lack of effect 9/11 has had, assuming, as I do, that you are aware that 911 was catalysed the War on Terror, you must then believe that the WOT has no relation to military "tactics, doctrine, organization or strategic thought". Well, firstly the new strategic thought of pre-emptive strikes- the "5% doctrine" as stated by Cheney- is something new, and something exclusively due to 911.

Horribly wrong. America has used pre-emption, or prevention, as justification for numerous military actions since the early 1800's. The "Bush Doctrine" is re-packaged and re-emphasized foreign policy specifically targeted to terrorism supporters, but the United States has used pre-emption as a national security strategy for over one hundred ninety years.

More to the point, if you, as I have asked probably ~20 people here to do, read by evisceration of the LC Guide on p3, you will see exactly what is being pursued under the aegis of the WOT. It is almost exactly what was advocated in RAD, and as such should settle your thoughts.

It is exactly what defense strategists have been advocating since the mid-1990's. What is your point?

I fail to see how this does not make 911 catastophic or catalysing. It was catastrophic- it killed lots of people; it was catalysing- it started the WOT.

This shouldnt be hard to understand.

And yet you do not. Again, let me reiterate - catastrophic in terms of loss of live does not drive defense transformation. If it did, the nations affected by the tsunami would be currently undergoing defense transformation, right? They are not. Secondly, we are not talking solely about catalyzing, we are talking about catalyzing defense transformation. The transformation of the DoD was underway prior to 911. 911 did not drive that process.

Once again, you are stating that 911 was not "catalysing", militarilty, despite the fact that it has catalysed a potentially endless war, and that it was not such in the way that PNAC wanted, despite the fact that the changes pursued under its aegis, are exactly what they called for. Why must you say this?

I say 911 was not catalyzing for defense transformation because it is true. The changes called for in the PNAC document were not new or revolutionary; they were what strategists had been saying from 1989 on. 911 was not the catalyst for those changes; they would have occurred regardless. 911, although catastrophic in many ways, was not catastrophic in any way that affected the defense transformation that was already underway.

[lapman]

They didnt specify a new PH strictly, they specified a catastrophic and catalysing event. 911 killed ~3000 people, therefore was catastrophic; it cataysed the WOT, therefore was catalysing. End of.
Not even close. The PNAC was strictly talking about military action. 9/11 was not. Just because we ended up taking military action does not mean that 9/11 was the event the PNAC was referring to. Especially since it did not speed up the time line to achieve the goals that the PNAC wanted to achieve any more than the "catastrophic and catalyzing" events of the USS Cole and the Kenya bombings did. So you're logic is horrendously flawed. We were already threatening war with the Taliban for supporting OBL and Al Qaeda prior to 9/11. All 9/11 did was force us to make good on our threat.

[rwguinn]

Rebuilding America's Defenses is referring to a catastrophic event in the context of defense transformation, not merely catastrophic in a general sense. The destruction of "some ships" drove the tactical innovation that led to victory and the development of current naval doctrine. A natural disaster may be a catastrophic event, but it will hardly spur defense transformation now, will it?
...
Gentlemen and ladies:
We stand in the shadow of a true scholar in Augustine.
Hats off, please.
Well done, Augustine!

[H'ethetheth]

It is the path of least resistance, I didnt say that it must therefore have happened. Why did you impute that comment to me?It's the conclusion you seem to have reached, perhaps not because of this argument alone, but since you're not advancing any new ones I thought I'd go ahead and say what I said.

This implies however that you think this is a fairly probable scenario, which I think is, well, bonkers, really.
The first reason being that making people indiscriminately kill thousands of their countymen is not a very easy thing to do or keep quiet.
Secondly, in the case of september 11th, the defenses that needed to be overcome were metal detector gates and a handful of unarmed civilians, the most important of whom had instructions to meet the demands of hijackers and keep the passengers calm.

[Myriad]

No, the point of the plausible scenario was to show what might plausibly happen in, and only in, the case of a conspiracy. And then, that this is precisely what has happened.

You have to establish the "and only in" part of that argument. Otherwise, as you know, even if your other premises are accepted, any attempt to conclude that a conspiracy exists, from those statements, would be a simple affirming the consequent logical fallacy. (A conspiracy would cause X to happen, X happened, therefore a conspiracy exists.)

So, everything hinges on the "...and only in..." part of that argument. You must show that 9/11 could not have happened without a conspiracy. To do that you must, at the very least, show that conspirators in the U.S. Government performed specific acts that caused or allowed 9/11 to happen.

If you can't do that, your argument is a logical fallacy that goes nowhere.

And if by some chance you can do it, then you have no need of your speculative "plausible scenario" regarding PNAC, you'd have actual evidence of a conspiracy.

So, after all this arguing about whether or not 9/11 is like Pearl Harbor and whether or not PNAC wanted such an event to happen, you're back in the same boat with every other truther: needing to show evidence of what the conspirators did, in order for your argument to go anywhere.

Congratulations. After 20 pages of arguing, you've reached Square One.

Respectfully,
Myriad

[mjd1982]

In the sense that you are quoting from these sources, sure.

The only reason why you think it's "quite simple" is because of your inability to see it any other way. Many of us have pointed you in other directions, but you refuse to even look. In other words, your position is due to poor imagination.


Please give me an example of where i have "refused to look"


So far you have not defended your conclusion.

No, you ARE speculating. You are speculating about the PNAC's motives and preferences, you are speculating about the "propitiousness" of 9/11, and you are speculating about the similarities between Pearl Harbor and 9/11.


To give 1 example, I am interpreting the document to draw simple conclusions. To state that people would want a revolutionary, wonderful change to happen sooner or later is speculative, is, well, a bit silly I would say. Not least for the reason that i could sat to draw the opposite conclusion is speculative. Please show me how that isnt.


How would letting it happen show anything about "propititiousness" ??


Ha... because if it wasnt propitious, they would have stopped it. You know, stopped it?


Such an investigation has already been made.

And the gross inadequacies of it have been mentioned by both the people instrumental in calling for it, as well as the people who wrote it. I have dealt with this b4; you must have been "refusing to look".

[mjd1982]

But not catalysing in the way the PNAC discussed it.


No; it just catalysed everything they asked for.


Why ?


Please quote the whole sentence in context; then you wont have to ask such a question.


And you think that throughout history, people have not spoken about these things when threatened ? That seems monstrously naive.


Who is threatening them? Who are these people that are to be threatened?


Yeah, JFK CTers say the same thing 45 years later.

No expert on this, but heard of E Howard Hunt?

[mjd1982]

Liar. They never stated it was a need. Not even close.


I love the way I'm asked to move on from a topic that I state hasnt been addressed properly (by you guys), and then we have to come back to it since it hasnt been addressed properly.

"To state" does not necessarily mean to be present in writing; something can be stated very clearly in not so many words. I.e. if someone says 2x is good, and x can happen much much sooner with y", then they are deeming y propitious. This is quite elementary.


ONLY in the case of a conspiracy ? Really ? Are you saying that "cave monkeys" can't possibly crash airliners into skyscrapers because the US is invincible unless it allows itself to get hurt ? Those terrorists are much smarter and much more organised than you think.


Please read, and think, before you post. I did not say that 9/11 could only have happened in case of a conspiracy. God, after 20 pages we have finally descended to SLC levels. I was referring to the sequence of events that I carefully detailed at the top of this section, which you have not bothered to read properly. Go read it.


Which is NOT what they were talking about when refering to Pearl Harbor.


Which was?


You're continuing to add words that aren't there.

Like what?

[mjd1982]

And how is this war of terror related to what the PNAC asked for ?
OH MY GOD!!!

Read this,

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

and dont ask that question again.

[mjd1982]

Rebuilding America's Defenses is referring to a catastrophic event in the context of defense transformation, not merely catastrophic in a general sense. The destruction of "some ships" drove the tactical innovation that led to victory and the development of current naval doctrine. A natural disaster may be a catastrophic event, but it will hardly spur defense transformation now, will it?


All wrong. The event that is called for is one which has 2 distinct qualities: a) catastrophic, and b) catalysing. A tsunami does fit one half of the equation, which is why PNAC modified it with the second half, catalysing. The absurdity of your statement "a catastrophic event in the context of defense transformation" illustrates this nicely- they are calling for an event that is catastrophic (this is a adjective that can sit on its own), and catalysing (this cannot- catalysing of what?- hence we can safely infer militarily catalyzing).

This should only have taken a couple of seconds thought.


Horribly wrong. America has used pre-emption, or prevention, as justification for numerous military actions since the early 1800's. The "Bush Doctrine" is re-packaged and re-emphasized foreign policy specifically targeted to terrorism supporters, but the United States has used pre-emption as a national security strategy for over one hundred ninety years.


I hope you are not being serious about the "terrorism supporters" statement...

In any case, yes, it is not something "new", granted; however, it is something renewed, at least in terms of governmental policy, which is, in fact, the point. It is taking the US in a different direction, radically different if you examine the whole picture, than it was going before. If you have read what I linked you to, you will see this too.


It is exactly what defense strategists have been advocating since the mid-1990's. What is your point?


What the hell does this matter? Who cares one jot about what strategists have been saying- it is about implementation, and there is a reason why countries havent been invaded and occupied arbitrarilty, why space hasnt been militarised, why cyberspace hasnt been transformed into a defense tool, why nuclear strategy hasnt taken the direction it is taking now for so long, why US troops havent been redeployed to the stations they are now for so long, why the DoD hasnt been transformed with the basis that it is now etc etc etc.

If you have read the links, you will see that it is the WOT/911/RAD that is the premise upon which these strategies are now being pursued, not the words of some military strategist.


And yet you do not. Again, let me reiterate - catastrophic in terms of loss of live does not drive defense transformation. If it did, the nations affected by the tsunami would be currently undergoing defense transformation, right?They are not.


As above. The tsunami was a catastrophic event, but not a catalysing one. You should understand the import of the second adjective, rather than having it subsumed by the 1st.


Secondly, we are not talking solely about catalyzing, we are talking about catalyzing defense transformation. The transformation of the DoD was underway prior to 911. 911 did not drive that process.


The DoD is just one example, and the fact that its transformation was underway does not affect the fact that it is now being pursued under the aegis of the WOT. As you will not need me to explain to you, this will almost certainly give the transformation a bit of a shot in the arm. Understand the difference betweem something being implemented because some people think it is advisable policy, and because people think we in a neverending catastrophic war against and implacable, renewable enemy.


I say 911 was not catalyzing for defense transformation because it is true. The changes called for in the PNAC document were not new or revolutionary; they were what strategists had been saying from 1989 on.


The implementation of them was new; please understand this very simple point.


911 was not the catalyst for those changes; they would have occurred regardless.


a) How do you know this?
b) Why do u think they woudl have been pursued with the vigour that they are now with this cataclysmic "war" as its justification?


911, although catastrophic in many ways, was not catastrophic in any way that affected the defense transformation that was already underway.

As above, in every sense.

[WildCat]

Ha... because if it wasnt propitious, they would have stopped it. You know, stopped it?
What a beautiful example of circular reasoning in its purest form!

[mjd1982]

Not even close. The PNAC was strictly talking about military action. 9/11 was not.


What??? Excuse me, please show me where PNAC were talking "strictly about military action", truly this is self deception of the worst kind.



Just because we ended up taking military action does not mean that 9/11 was the event the PNAC was referring to.


It was catastrophic, and it catalysed what they asked for. So how not?


Especially since it did not speed up the time line to achieve the goals that the PNAC wanted to achieve any more than the "catastrophic and catalyzing" events of the USS Cole and the Kenya bombings did.


How did such attacks cause any sort of military transformation?


So you're logic is horrendously flawed.


???

U r a comedian?


We were already threatening war with the Taliban for supporting OBL and Al Qaeda prior to 9/11. All 9/11 did was force us to make good on our threat.

Haha.. well, you were also offering them a "carpet of gold", in return for cooperation over strategic resources, so... go figure.

http://archive.democrats.com/view.cfm?id=5166

[mjd1982]

Gentlemen and ladies:
We stand in the shadow of a true scholar in Augustine.
Hats off, please.
Well done, Augustine!

???

ETA- Actually, though I didnt think I would say this b4 joining, by jref standards, u might be correct!

[Jonnyclueless]

It will take me a long time to catch up on the thread. But is someone trying to imply that the PNAC web site is evidence of a conspiracy again?

[mjd1982]

It's the conclusion you seem to have reached, perhaps not because of this argument alone, but since you're not advancing any new ones I thought I'd go ahead and say what I said.


Err... there's 2500 words on foreknowledge at the top of this section. Feel free to address it whenever you choose (familiar pattern starting again...)


This implies however that you think this is a fairly probable scenario, which I think is, well, bonkers, really.
The first reason being that making people indiscriminately kill thousands of their countymen is not a very easy thing to do or keep quiet.


Err... how do you know?


Secondly, in the case of september 11th, the defenses that needed to be overcome were metal detector gates and a handful of unarmed civilians, the most important of whom had instructions to meet the demands of hijackers and keep the passengers calm.

But this is just laughable. You seriously think that that is all that is standing in the way of any random person and 9/11? What the hell do u think the intel industry is for?

[mjd1982]

You have to establish the "and only in" part of that argument. Otherwise, as you know, even if your other premises are accepted, any attempt to conclude that a conspiracy exists, from those statements, would be a simple affirming the consequent logical fallacy. (A conspiracy would cause X to happen, X happened, therefore a conspiracy exists.)

So, everything hinges on the "...and only in..." part of that argument. You must show that 9/11 could not have happened without a conspiracy. To do that you must, at the very least, show that conspirators in the U.S. Government performed specific acts that caused or allowed 9/11 to happen.

If you can't do that, your argument is a logical fallacy that goes nowhere.

And if by some chance you can do it, then you have no need of your speculative "plausible scenario" regarding PNAC, you'd have actual evidence of a conspiracy.

So, after all this arguing about whether or not 9/11 is like Pearl Harbor and whether or not PNAC wanted such an event to happen, you're back in the same boat with every other truther: needing to show evidence of what the conspirators did, in order for your argument to go anywhere.

Congratulations. After 20 pages of arguing, you've reached Square One.

Respectfully,
Myriad

This'll be quick- please read the post to which you are replying first. Then reply.

[WildCat]

How did such attacks cause any sort of military transformation?
It didn't, and if you had any sort of reading comprehension abilities you'd have seen that lapman says they didn't, and neither did 9/11 and thus your goofy, tortured interpretation of one line of the PNAC document is fatally flawed.

[mjd1982]

It will take me a long time to catch up on the thread. But is someone trying to imply that the PNAC web site is evidence of a conspiracy again?
Errr... well 1stly its not their "website" Mr Clueless, but their biennial policy white paper.
2ndly, it is evidence of their deeming of a catastrophic and catalysing event as being propitious to policy, which gives us nothing more than a framework within which to proceed.
We are now dealing with foreknowledge. Please join in.

[mjd1982]

It didn't, and if you had any sort of reading comprehension abilities you'd have seen that lapman says they didn't, and neither did 9/11 and thus your goofy, tortured interpretation of one line of the PNAC document is fatally flawed.
I think you might mean "tortuous", but never mind.

The point is that if that is the case, then the attacks on the Cole etc were not catalysing. This is pretty simple.

[DGM]

It will take me a long time to catch up on the thread. But is someone trying to imply that the PNAC web site is evidence of a conspiracy again?
Your already up to speed.

[WildCat]

But this is just laughable. You seriously think that that is all that is standing in the way of any random person and 9/11? What the hell do u think the intel industry is for?
Actually, the metal detectors weren't even standing in the way because small knives such as those used by the hijackers were allowed on planes prior to 9/11 - that's why they used them. The only things standing in the hijackers way was the cabin crew who were trained to cooperate with hijackers and negotiate upon landing, and the passengers who were told to sit tight because a bomb was on board. The cat was let out of the bag on Flight 93, and the passengers did thwart that attack, though the effort proved fatal to them.

You're failing miserably here also mjd1982... :rolleyes:

[SpitfireIX]

mjd1982, I asked you two specific questions in my post 752 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2697902&postcount=752)

How do you know the government could "fairly easily connive" in this case? How many people would have to have been subverted? What if some of them said "no?"


Are you advocating LIHOP or MIHOP? If LIHOP, how could "they" affect the timing of the attack to make it right before the QDR?? If MIHOP, why would there have been any actionable warnings?? Please explain this apparent contradiction in your "theory."


Please respond.

[WildCat]

The point is that if that is the case, then the attacks on the Cole etc were not catalysing. This is pretty simple.
And neither was 9/11, from PNAC's POV.

[WildCat]

I think you might mean "tortuous", but never mind.
No, I used it correctly.

Main Entry: 2torture
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): tor·tured; tor·tur·ing http://www.m-w.com/images/audio.gif (http://javascript<b></b>:popWin('/cgi-bin/audio.pl?tortur02.wav=torturing')) /'torch-ri[ng], 'tor-ch&-/
1 : to cause intense suffering to : TORMENT (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/torment)
2 : to punish or coerce by inflicting excruciating pain
3 : to twist or wrench out of shape : DISTORT (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/distort), WARP (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/warp)
synonym see AFFLICT (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/afflict)
- tor·tur·er http://www.m-w.com/images/audio.gif (http://javascript<b></b>:popWin('/cgi-bin/audio.pl?tortur03.wav=torturer')) /'tor-ch&r-&r/ noun

Definition 3 btw mjd1982.

[Myriad]

This'll be quick- please read the post to which you are replying first. Then reply.

Okay.

No, the point of the plausible scenario was to show what might plausibly happen in, and only in, the case of a conspiracy. And then, that this is precisely what has happened.

You have to establish the "and only in" part of that argument. Otherwise, as you know, even if your other premises are accepted, any attempt to conclude that a conspiracy exists, from those statements, would be a simple affirming the consequent logical fallacy. (A conspiracy would cause X to happen, X happened, therefore a conspiracy exists.)

So, everything hinges on the "...and only in..." part of that argument. You must show that 9/11 could not have happened without a conspiracy. To do that you must, at the very least, show that conspirators in the U.S. Government performed specific acts that caused or allowed 9/11 to happen.

If you can't do that, your argument is a logical fallacy that goes nowhere.

And if by some chance you can do it, then you have no need of your speculative "plausible scenario" regarding PNAC, you'd have actual evidence of a conspiracy.

So, after all this arguing about whether or not 9/11 is like Pearl Harbor and whether or not PNAC wanted such an event to happen, you're back in the same boat with every other truther: needing to show evidence of what the conspirators did, in order for your argument to go anywhere.

Congratulations. After 20 21 pages of arguing, you've reached you're still on Square One.

Respectfully,
Myriad

[SpitfireIX]

. . . You have to establish the "and only in" part of that argument. Otherwise, as you know, even if your other premises are accepted, any attempt to conclude that a conspiracy exists, from those statements, would be a simple affirming the consequent logical fallacy. (A conspiracy would cause X to happen, X happened, therefore a conspiracy exists.) . . . [emphasis original][emphasis added]


I doubt he knows this--I pointed it out quite a while back, and he failed to respond. Someone else asked him if he'd understood my point, and he still failed to respond.

[Myriad]

I doubt he knows this--I pointed it out quite a while back, and he failed to respond. Someone else asked him if he'd understood my point, and he still failed to respond.


My basis for conjecturing that he knows it is that he bothered to include the words "and only in" when he has not even tried to show that the 9/11 attacks (let alone any catalyzing and catastrophic attack whatsoever) would have been impossible without a government conspiracy. If he didn't know the gaping logic error was there, why would he try to cover it with a weak unsupported claim?

I'm not saying that's definitely the case, only that I have a reason to suspect it.

Respectfully,
Myriad

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Okay.



You have to establish the "and only in" part of that argument. Otherwise, as you know, even if your other premises are accepted, any attempt to conclude that a conspiracy exists, from those statements, would be a simple affirming the consequent logical fallacy. (A conspiracy would cause X to happen, X happened, therefore a conspiracy exists.)

So, everything hinges on the "...and only in..." part of that argument. You must show that 9/11 could not have happened without a conspiracy. To do that you must, at the very least, show that conspirators in the U.S. Government performed specific acts that caused or allowed 9/11 to happen.

If you can't do that, your argument is a logical fallacy that goes nowhere.

And if by some chance you can do it, then you have no need of your speculative "plausible scenario" regarding PNAC, you'd have actual evidence of a conspiracy.

So, after all this arguing about whether or not 9/11 is like Pearl Harbor and whether or not PNAC wanted such an event to happen, you're back in the same boat with every other truther: needing to show evidence of what the conspirators did, in order for your argument to go anywhere.

Congratulations. After 20 21 pages of arguing, you've reached you're still on Square One.

Respectfully,
Myriad
Quite correct, and in short
This is known as affirming the consequent (http://www.galilean-library.org/int16.html#affirming_the_consequent) and is a logical fallacy. It is expressed as:
P1: If A then B;
P2: B;
C: Therefore, A.

The generalized expression of why it is fallacious is:
P1: If A then B;
P2: If C then B;
P3: B;
C: Therefore, A.

Expressed as such, it is clear why it is not a sound logical argument.

It can be made in to a sound logical argument with the addition of another premise (which must be shown to be true), such that:
P1: If A then B;
P2: Only A can cause B;
P3: B;
C: Therefore, A.

[Jonnyclueless]

Errr... well 1stly its not their "website" Mr Clueless, but their biennial policy white paper.
2ndly, it is evidence of their deeming of a catastrophic and catalysing event as being propitious to policy, which gives us nothing more than a framework within which to proceed.
We are now dealing with foreknowledge. Please join in.

So what exactly are you implying? Please fill me in. What's the significance of this framework?

Foreknowledge of what?

[MIKILLINI]

mjd1982, I asked you two specific questions in my post 752 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2697902&postcount=752)







Please respond.

At this point Spitfire, he's flying a Messerschmidt ME 110 and you are on his tail. He's gonna get shot down here real quick. ;)

[Corsair 115]

At this point Spitfire, he's flying a Messerschmidt ME 110 and you are on his tail. He's gonna get shot down here real quick. ;)Not if the rear gunner is a crack shot. One hit in the cooling system of that liquid-cooled engine and down it goes. Now, a nice radial-engined aircraft, on the other hand, doesn't suffer from this weakness. You can shoot out entire cylinders and the engine can keep running. ;)

[Jocce]

The event that is called for is one which has 2 distinct qualities: a) catastrophic, and b) catalysing

You're still twisting the wording to reflect your own interpretation. Nowhere in PNAC is this called for. It's hard to take you seriously when you keep doing that.

[H'ethetheth]

Err... there's 2500 words on foreknowledge at the top of this section. Feel free to address it whenever you choose (familiar pattern starting again...)



Err... how do you know? Very simple. If you're right, they failed to keep it a secret. In fact, if you're right, they outright announced that they thought it would be a good thing if it happened and proceded to publish all the foreknowledge they could have acted upon to stop it, including all kinds of classified documents. The mind boggles.
And another thing: Would you like to be responsible for killing possibly 10,000 of your countrymen? Anyone you know, perhaps?

But this is just laughable. You seriously think that that is all that is standing in the way of any random person and 9/11? What the hell do u think the intel industry is for?Yes.
Putting together all the pieces of this puzzle is easier when you know what to look for. They didn't.
All I see is a selection of [rule8]-ups that has been meticulously sifted from a no doubt larger list of unrelated [rule8]-ups. In some cases, those responsibe have tried to deny but got caught in the end, because some people don't just ask questions.

Also,
I think you might mean "you", but never mind.

[SpitfireIX]

Not if the rear gunner is a crack shot. One hit in the cooling system of that liquid-cooled engine and down it goes. Now, a nice radial-engined aircraft, on the other hand, doesn't suffer from this weakness. You can shoot out entire cylinders and the engine can keep running. ;)


I'll still most likely get him, even if he gets me, though. :D

[H'ethetheth]

Is this the new "I can't believe it's not kittens" topic?

[Dave Rogers]

I'll still most likely get him, even if he gets me, though. :D

The big question, of course, is - B, C or E wing? Four 303's throw a lot of bullets around but there's no real stopping power; do you trade for the two extra cannon or the two 0.50's?

Dave

[twinstead]

Yes.
Putting together all the pieces of this puzzle is easier when you know what to look for. They didn't.
All I see is a selection of [rule8]-ups that has been meticulously sifted from a no doubt larger list of unrelated [rule8]-ups. In some cases, those responsibe have tried to deny but got caught in the end, because some people don't just ask questions.


If you already KNOW it's a conspiracy before you start, all the pieces that rational people see as unrelated, irrelevant, or misunderstood will certainly fit together to conform to your preconceived opinion.

We've seen it a thousand times. If you took all the things that are conjecture, half-truths, incorrect science, political bias, and out-and-out falsehoods away from your 'list', you'd find it would shrink to insignificance.

[Belz...]

Please give me an example of where i have "refused to look"[QUOTE]

Well I, for one, and Aggle-rithm if I remember correctly, pointed to the fact that the PNAC did NOT consider it propitious. You just hand-waved that.

[QUOTE]To state that people would want a revolutionary, wonderful change to happen sooner or later is speculative, is, well, a bit silly I would say. Not least for the reason that i could sat to draw the opposite conclusion is speculative. Please show me how that isnt.

Remember the car crash accident analogy ? Just because something would be good, doesn't mean it was caused by those who'd see it as a good thing. Of course, IT WOULDN'T BE GOOD, so your whole point fails, anyway.

Ha... because if it wasnt propitious, they would have stopped it. You know, stopped it?

How could they stop it if they didn't know it was going to happen ? See, you're assuming that the good ol' US of A is invincible, and that any and all attacks would be spotted and stopped, and that any attack that DOES make it is necessarily allowed to happen.

Of course, that doesn't make sense. No one is invincible, and no one would claim that the US government is 100% efficient.

No; it just catalysed everything they asked for.

Really ? US economy has dropped since 9/11, and things aren't exactly going well in Iraq for the military. Do you live in the US ? I don't. If you do, could you tell me how all this has improved the US situation ?

Please quote the whole sentence in context; then you wont have to ask such a question.

I see you simply don't want to answer.

Who is threatening them? Who are these people that are to be threatened?

I have no idea. You're the one who brought it up.

No expert on this, but heard of E Howard Hunt?

Nope.

[Belz...]

"To state" does not necessarily mean to be present in writing; something can be stated very clearly in not so many words.

The problem with this line of thought is that you can add words that you see fit anywhere. Stick to the words that ARE there, please.

Please read, and think, before you post. I did not say that 9/11 could only have happened in case of a conspiracy.

Yes, you did. Why just one post ago I answered your claim that they would have stopped it.

Which is NOT what they were talking about when refering to Pearl Harbor.

Which was?

A bad thing.

You're continuing to add words that aren't there.

Like what?

"We want a new Pearl Harbor".

OH MY GOD!!!

Read this,

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

and dont ask that question again.

You want me to read that whole page again ?

Just answer the question, instead:

fail to see how this does not make 911 catastophic or catalysing. It was catastrophic- it killed lots of people; it was catalysing- it started the WOT.
And how is this war of terror related to what the PNAC asked for ?

[Belz...]

This implies however that you think this is a fairly probable scenario, which I think is, well, bonkers, really.
The first reason being that making people indiscriminately kill thousands of their countymen is not a very easy thing to do or keep quiet.

Err... how do you know?

Because to do so would require many, many people, and that, historically, even very, very small conspiracies break down quickly.

This isn't the X-files.

The point is that if that is the case, then the attacks on the Cole etc were not catalysing. This is pretty simple.

After the fact, no.

[Swing Dangler]

Because to do so would require many, many people, and that, historically, even very, very small conspiracies break down quickly.
This isn't the X-files.
After the fact, no.

You state it would require many, many, people. What proof do you have?

Lets look at history?

How many Nazi leaders planned the Holocaust? How many actively participated in it? How long did it take this massive conspiracy to be exposed?

[Swing Dangler]

Originally Posted by Augustine View Post
Horribly wrong. America has used pre-emption, or prevention, as justification for numerous military actions since the early 1800's. The "Bush Doctrine" is re-packaged and re-emphasized foreign policy specifically targeted to terrorism supporters, but the United States has used pre-emption as a national security strategy for over one hundred ninety years.

Do you have a source for this?

[Swing Dangler]

After many pages of drivel, we come to the bombshell: Osama was offered to Bush by the Taliban! Radical leftist Alexander Cockburn floated this myth in a column. But how credible is it? It must be considered somewhat curious that the legion of professional Bush-bashers is silent on the subject.http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4196/is_20010209/ai_n10670252 (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4196/is_20010209/ai_n10670252)

Try reading this article, Pomeroo from CNN (http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/10/07/ret.us.taliban/index.html)about the offer.

Apparently there was more than one attempt at the offer.
Bush ignored questions about the Taliban's latest offer. From the above article.

And yes, why would Bush bashers remain silent on something so important that was reported on by the mainstream media? Is that gate open or closed? ;)

And then the Taliban after being rejected before the bombing, offers to talk again about the handover.

Bush rejects Taliban offer to hand Bin Laden over (http://www.guardian.co.uk/waronterror/story/0,1361,573975,00.html)-Source: Guardian Unlimited
But alas, Bush apparently isn't interested in the man responsible for 9/11. It really does make you wonder why, doesn't it Pom?

[gumboot]

You state it would require many, many, people. What proof do you have?

Lets look at history?

How many Nazi leaders planned the Holocaust? How many actively participated in it? How long did it take this massive conspiracy to be exposed?


It didn't take any time to expose. It was self evident when Jews started getting rounded up and carted off to death camps. It was self evident in 1939 when Hitler said publicly that WW2 would be a war to end European Jewry.

-Gumboot

[Dave Rogers]

Try reading this article, Pomeroo from CNN (http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/10/07/ret.us.taliban/index.html)about the offer.

You've posted two links that don't say what you claim they say. One is an offer from the Taliban that if the US stopped bombing Afghanistan they would talk about handing over Bin Laden to an unspecified third country, and the other is an offer to put Bin Laden on trial in Afghanistan, under Islamic law. Nowhere is there a clear offer to hand over Bin Laden, and both of these efforts look like simple bluff by the Taliban to save their skins without committing themselves to anything. I hate to compliment the man, but it looks like Bush was right to reject these non-offers.

Dave

[DGM]

"The Taliban has been given the opportunity to surrender all the terrorists in Afghanistan and to close down their camps and operations," the president said. "Full warning has been given, and time is running out."
"The president made clear his demands," said an administration official, who asked not to be identified. "Those demands are not subject to negotiation and it is time for the Taliban to act now."

How do you get did nothing out of that article?

[Gravy]

How many Nazi leaders planned the Holocaust?Many. How many actively participated in it?Many thousands. How long did it take this massive conspiracy to be exposed?Having broken the German codes, the British were aware of the systematic mass-elimination of Jews by the autumn of 1941.

Your point?

[Swing Dangler]

[QUOTE]Many.
I agree. Many, but a number would be nice.



Many thousands. Debatable but acceptable.

Having broken the German codes, the British were aware of the systematic mass-elimination of Jews by the autumn of 1941.
Your point?

My point? Well now it is your point. As your own point proves this is not factual:
Belz-Because to do so would require many, many people, and that, historically, even very, very small conspiracies break down quickly.

A large conspiracy involving possibly thousands didn't break down, it was discovered by a country outside of the conspiracy, specifically as you state, the British. And the Holocaust conspiracy continued after the discovery of outside sources. Thank you Gravy, you helped me prove Belz's point wrong.

Taking Belz's logic and proving it wrong with an historical example shows that 9/11 even if it did require many, many, many people, does not mean it couldn't take place because it would break down quickly.

[aggle-rithm]

Errr... well 1stly its not their "website" Mr Clueless, but their biennial policy white paper.


I notice that, having failed in his attempt to pretend to address the arguments, he has now reverted to the typical troofer tactic of making fun of screen names and/or avatars.

[Swing Dangler]

Having broken the German codes, the British were aware of the systematic mass-elimination of Jews by the autumn of 1941.

After accepting this statement as fact, I decided to check. I'm not so sure this your statement is factual.

Wartime Codebreakers Missed Clues to Holocaust
Coded Nazi messages intercepted by Britain could have exposed the scope of the Holocaust years before the liberation of the death camps, but Allied codebreakers failed to fully understand the information they had, according to United States government analysis of intelligence from the era.
Source: Guardian Unlimited (http://www.buzzle.com/editorials/8-1-2005-74010.asp), via Buzzle.com

Reports of massacres, but not a report of the entire scope of the holocaust.

[Gravy]

A large conspiracy involving possibly thousands didn't break down, it was discovered by a country outside of the conspiracy, specifically as you state, the British.I see I must quote you again, with emphasis:
How long did it take this massive conspiracy to be exposed?


And the Holocaust conspiracy continued after the discovery of outside sources. It seems you have neglected to consider that small interposing factor, THE WORLD WAR.


Thank you Gravy, you helped me prove Belz's point wrong. No, I showed that you are profoundly ignorant of history (but we already knew that), and that you wouldn't know a ridiculous logical fallacy if it bit you on the ass.

[H'ethetheth]

You state it would require many, many, people. What proof do you have?

Lets look at history?

How many Nazi leaders planned the Holocaust? How many actively participated in it? How long did it take this massive conspiracy to be exposed?Hmmm let's see: Other than the fact that I wouldn't call the holocaust a conspiracy so much I'd say: Some 15 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wannsee_conference), at the very least several hundreds, and at most three years (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_trials) respectively.

ETA: Crap, too late.

[aggle-rithm]

Lets look at history?

How many Nazi leaders planned the Holocaust? How many actively participated in it? How long did it take this massive conspiracy to be exposed?

Was Nazi Germany an open or closed society, in comparison to the US in 2001?

Yes or no?

[Gravy]

After accepting this statement as fact, I decided to check. I'm not so sure this your statement is factual.

Wartime Codebreakers Missed Clues to Holocaust
Coded Nazi messages intercepted by Britain could have exposed the scope of the Holocaust years before the liberation of the death camps, but Allied codebreakers failed to fully understand the information they had, according to United States government analysis of intelligence from the era.
Source: Guardian Unlimited (http://www.buzzle.com/editorials/8-1-2005-74010.asp), via Buzzle.com

Reports of massacres, but not a report of the entire scope of the holocaust.
..
RICHARD BREITMAN: This is an area that requires further research, and I have not been working in London. I've been working here. But what I have seen here indicates that these particular decodes were distributed to a range of offices within the British Secret Service, to the Air Ministry, to the Ministry of Economic Warfare, and a summary of some items was passed up to Prime Minister Churchill's office to the point where by mid September a British intelligence analyst wrote, we do not propose to continue sending reports about atrocities in the Soviet Union to the prime minister--and I'm paraphrasing, rather than giving you a direct quote--because it is perfectly obvious that the Nazis are killing every Jew that they can lay their hands on. Source (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/europe/november96/holocaust_11-20.html)

(Edit) From your link:
One particularly chilling memorandum, written by a British official on September 11 1941, refers to German massacres in the Soviet Union and concludes: "The fact that the police are killing all Jews that fall into their hands should now be sufficiently well appreciated. It is not therefore proposed to continue reporting these butcheries unless so requested."

[SpitfireIX]

The big question, of course, is - B, C or E wing? Four 303's throw a lot of bullets around but there's no real stopping power; do you trade for the two extra cannon or the two 0.50's?

Dave


From what I've read, the Spitfire IXc couldn't carry the two extra cannon, because of its heavier engine. My preferred armament is 2x20mm and 4x.303in--the 2x20mm and 2x.50in just seems so, so, well . . . American. :blush:

ETA If I had it to do over, I would use the nick Spitfire IXc (or Spitfire_IXc for sites that don't allow spaces in nicks). But I've used SpitfireIX on too many sites already (though my YouTube nick is SpitfireIXb, as SpitfireIX and SpitfireIXc had already been taken :().

[aggle-rithm]

After accepting this statement as fact, I decided to check. I'm not so sure this your statement is factual.

Wartime Codebreakers Missed Clues to Holocaust
Coded Nazi messages intercepted by Britain could have exposed the scope of the Holocaust years before the liberation of the death camps, but Allied codebreakers failed to fully understand the information they had, according to United States government analysis of intelligence from the era.
Source: Guardian Unlimited (http://www.buzzle.com/editorials/8-1-2005-74010.asp), via Buzzle.com

Reports of massacres, but not a report of the entire scope of the holocaust.

You have to keep things in perspective. At the same time six million Jews were being killed in Europe, 20 million Chinese were being slaughtered by the Japanese.

Why didn't someone do something?!?

[H'ethetheth]

A large conspiracy involving possibly thousands didn't break down, it was discovered by a country outside of the conspiracy, specifically as you state, the British. And the Holocaust conspiracy continued after the discovery of outside sources. Thank you Gravy, you helped me prove Belz's point wrong. You think the allies found out before most Germans did? Do you have a source for that?

[aggle-rithm]

While we're looking at WWII, it's important to remember what an insane time that was in world history. There is NO comparison to the political situation in 2001. If an event the size of 9/11 had occured during the war, it would have been a burp in the wind (the only reason Pearl Harbor is so well remembered is its timing).

You want failure to defend territory? The loss of the Phillipines makes the intelligence failures of 9/11 look like tiddlywinks. General MacArthur knew WHO was going to attack, WHEN they were going to attack, and WHERE they were coming from, and he STILL got caught with his pants down! Where's the conspiracy there?

You want body count? Imagine ten times the number of people killed in 9/11, and imagine it happening every day for five years.

You want LIHOP? The Allies frequently allowed their own people to be attacked so the Germans would not realize their codes had been broken. In those days, it was easy to trade a few lives for many.

These were extreme times, and they called for extreme sacrifices. There is no way you can claim that an event during this time is a historical precedent for the peacetime world sixty years later. Such a claim is, frankly, insane.

[Swing Dangler]

You've posted two links that don't say what you claim they say. One is an offer from the Taliban that if the US stopped bombing Afghanistan they would talk about handing over Bin Laden to an unspecified third country, and the other is an offer to put Bin Laden on trial in Afghanistan, under Islamic law. Nowhere is there a clear offer to hand over Bin Laden, and both of these efforts look like simple bluff by the Taliban to save their skins without committing themselves to anything. I hate to compliment the man, but it looks like Bush was right to reject these non-offers.
Dave

Did Bush choose to allow the handover of Bin Laden, yes or no? If the answer is no, you should contact the author of the article and have them correct the historical record. If the answer is yes, then all should read to understand the article itself.

Yep. And within the world of diplomacy, negotiations between two countries require talks. I did not state the handover would be unconditional without negotiations of say the lifting of sanctions prior to the attack on the country, etc. The point was, Bush rejected the first offer that had conditions associated with it and went to war. Then Bush rejected a second offer by the Taliban to try to stop the destruction as one of the conditions of their country. In the second article, Bush states he doesn't have to offer evidence or prove anything of Bin Laden's guilt. "We know he did it."
Would the same standard apply to America, if another country required the handover of major political figure for crimes without offering evidence of said crimes? Of course not.

As an American, I want OBL's head on a plate, whether it is here, there, or most appropriately, the World Court. See NWO. But instead we get the war in Afghanistan, American men and women in body bags, the destruction of that country and it's innocent civilians, a temporary weaking of the Taliban, and finally, no Bin Laden and the war goes on.

Explaining to me how Bush was right in rejecting all diplomatic offers and pulling the trigger of America's military might?

[Belz...]

You state it would require many, many, people. What proof do you have?

The simple fact that hundreds of people would have to be involved in the demolitions; that many, many more would have to be involved in planning the false hijackings and, according to some, replacing the planes with military ones. That every structural expert in the world would have to be paid off, etc. That's thousands of people, Swing, if not tens of thousands.

How many Nazi leaders planned the Holocaust? How many actively participated in it? How long did it take this massive conspiracy to be exposed?

When was this a secret ?

The Nazi agenda included discrimination against the Jews and there was no
doubt that they were being rounded up and shot.

A large conspiracy involving possibly thousands didn't break down

It's the SECRET part of the conspiracy that breaks down. The Nazi plan wasn't secret for long.

Thank you Gravy, you helped me prove Belz's point wrong.

I'm sorry you don't understand my point, then.

[Belz...]

As an American, I want OBL's head on a plate, whether it is here, there, or most appropriately, the World Court. See NWO. But instead we get the war in Afghanistan, American men and women in body bags, the destruction of that country and it's innocent civilians, a temporary weaking of the Taliban, and finally, no Bin Laden and the war goes on.

How would YOU have caught him ?

[Dave Rogers]

Did Bush choose to allow the handover of Bin Laden, yes or no? If the answer is no, you should contact the author of the article and have them correct the historical record. If the answer is yes, then all should read to understand the article itself.

As I said, your sources make it clear that there was no realistic offer of a handover. Bush (or more likely his advisors) appears to have concluded that the Taliban was not making an offer in good faith, and that there was no point responding.

Yep. And within the world of diplomacy, negotiations between two countries require talks. I did not state the handover would be unconditional without negotiations of say the lifting of sanctions prior to the attack on the country, etc. The point was, Bush rejected the first offer that had conditions associated with it and went to war. Then Bush rejected a second offer by the Taliban to try to stop the destruction as one of the conditions of their country. In the second article, Bush states he doesn't have to offer evidence or prove anything of Bin Laden's guilt. "We know he did it."
Would the same standard apply to America, if another country required the handover of major political figure for crimes without offering evidence of said crimes? Of course not.

Most of this is irrelevant, especially speculation about what America would or would not have done had it been Afghanistan. You've implied that there was a clear offer made in good faith to hand Bin Laden over to America, and clearly there was not, or anything like it; your opinion that no such offer should have been made, or would have been expected to be made, doesn't change the fact that it wasn't made. Once you get into negotiations, it's no longer a simple decision, it's a matter for judgement. So Bush chose to ignore an offer that would have left Afghanistan free to continue hosting Al-Qaeda's training organisation and wouldn't have even compelled them to hand over Bin Laden; hardly a no-brainer to accept.

Dave

[Kage]

I think that the PNAC --> 9/11 has problems the same way that the lack of WMD in Iraq means no conspiracy.

Well that's good, since I never said PNAC --> 9/11 (if i understand u right)

I thought that was what we spent the first 20 odd pages of this thread discussing? Maybe I was a bit unclear. The symbol "-->" is "implies." I more or less mean, "PNAC implies that 9/11 was an inside job or was let to happen on purpose." This is false for many reasons that have been pointed out to you.


An evil organization would not have done 9/11 if their goals had been spelled out by PNAC, just as they would have faked WMDs had they faked 9/11.
Sorry, what's your basis for either of these assertions?

The basis is the fact that the WOT does less for transformation than a war with a nation such as North Korea, Iran, or a limited exchange with China. Each of these are achievable with less effort than 9/11, and the result of these types of PH will be closer to the transformation described by PNAC.


People get hung up on the "Pearl Harbor" line, and 9/11 was our generation's Pearl Harbor, but 9/11 was not the Pearl Harbor specified by PNAC.
They didnt specify a new PH strictly, they specified a catastrophic and catalysing event. 911 killed ~3000 people, therefore was catastrophic; it cataysed the WOT, therefore was catalysing. End of.

Somewhat the same as above. The WOT generally puts the most money into very low tech equipment and units, such as infantry and SOF, and takes away money from the Air Force and the like. Multiple expensive programs have been scrapped, and Rumsfelds Net Centric Warfare isn't going anywhere. This would be the opposite effect of a limited war with a more technicaly adept enemy. You harp on catalysing and catastrophic but aren't paying attention to what 9/11 was catalysing into.


Intel failures present another issue. We would like to think of our Intel services as an all knowing big brother with the skills of James Bond and super huge resources, but they are not perfect. As good as the NSA is they have orders of magnitude less processing power than google. Are such failures serious? Defintely. Presenting a nefarious reason why these failures happened creates a huge lower bound for the size of the conspiracy.
1stly, the intel failures were 1 of 4 sections I listed. Why do you not address the other 3?

Further, i am simply stating that in light of zero action in face of unprecedented warning, followed by not even a demotion, should necessitate an investigation into complicity, when viewed with the other facts I have presented but people here chose not to discuss seriously.

If I get your point, intel failures are they key way the Bush admin let/made 9/11 happen. Therefore I think it is a key point to adress. These posts are getting encyclopedic in length, and i want to avoid carpal tunnel syndrome.

I'm not going to argue with this, given that I think the intel failures were unacceptable. I'm no fan of the Bush admin and dislike their take on accountability. I just don't see how this means they made it happen or let it happen on purpose.


If you make the conspiracy too small then the intel can get high enough and thwart the conspiracy. If you make it too big it becomes impossible to keep the conspiracy a secret.

I have stated what would need to be done- get a few heads of food chains in line, and then stifle action from the top down. People will get frustrated, threaten to quit, run round with their hair on fire stating something huge is about to happen, or someone's plotting to fly a plane into the WTC, and nothing will happen, since the people at the top, not necessarily many, know whats going on.

For starters, Tenet probably would have to have been in on it, yet he is where you get some of those warnings from. How does that work?

I think that you are also misunderstanding the way intel angencies work on the analyst side. All PDBs and other documents are consensus efforts that go through huge amounts of collaboration and revision. One person "at the top of the food chain" in an agency is certainly not enuogh to let/make 9/11 happen on purpose.

Subsequently, you gag a few people, and those who are in the plot will not squeal, for the very least reason since it would be their ticket to the firing squad.

And of course, to state that no suspects have squealed (yet) therefore theyre all innocent, is not a serious argument.

Well, you would need a large enough conspiracy to send people to the firing squad, and you would need to be able to do it without their letters and proof getting to say, the NYT. Not easily done in the age of the internet.

A more ridiculus argument is that nobody has come forward, therefore it is a conspiracy. I have no burden to prove the negative.


Pomeroo puts the statistics nicely, so I wont step on his toes with that argument.
I havent seen this.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2697273#post2697273


It will take more than intel failures and PNAC to prove 9/11 was LIHOP or MIHOP. I rephrase my problem with your argument:

1 - PNAC
2 - Intel failures
3 - ?
4 - 9/11?!
I am not trying to prove it was an inside job, merely present sufficient evidence to illustarte the necessity of a new investigation into gov complicity. Hence stated intent-> gross criminal negligence in failing to prevent subject of stated intent -> investigation into complicity.

I really dont think this is very controversial.

I still don't understand whether you think that the Bush admin let or made 9/11 happen. You say that the Bush admin did not respond to intel in order to let 9/11 happen, then you say that they did not respond to the USS Cole bombing in order to wait for 9/11. How did they know the bigger event was coming? How did they get this to work over two administrations? How did they plan it to fit in with the DOD review? I can't tell if you are a LIHOPper or a MIHOPper, and you should probably clarify.

Personally I'd like to know where Rove's emails have gone, but that has nothing to do with 9/11.

BTW -- Let's keep it to smaller posts in the future. This takes way too long.

[Augustine]

What the hell does this matter? Who cares one jot about what strategists have been saying- it is about implementation


Ladies and gentlemen, I give you willful ignorance.

The strategists matter because they are the ones who originate the plans and policy which get implemented – THAT IS WHY YOU SHOULD STUDY THEM. So you do not wind up some Chicken Little, "sky-is-falling", paranoid type who reads sinister world conspiracy implications in what is a rather mundane policy document. When strategists are all tending to point in the same direction on a particular policy, it’s going to GET IMPLEMENTED. PNAC Rebuilding America’s Defenses is really little more than a rewrite of draft Defense Policy Guidance from 1992, which came out to refocus defense planning after the Cold War, produced under SecDef Cheney. Little surprise that his ideas would be implemented when an administration that he was a prime member of came into power, is it? I mean, for 99% of the population, this is common sense. Why are you having such a hard time grasping this?

How do I know it would have been implemented regardless? Because I am actually in the U.S. Military, and I watch what is coming down the pike, and read the Strategic Studies coming out of the AWC, CSS, Carlisle, etc. - in short I try to stay informed, which I highly recommend you give a try. It will require you to give up your crazy conspiracy theories :( , but it is so much more enjoyable to reside in the real world ;) . If you choose to believe PNAC Rebuilding America's Defenses was some super-sinister conspiracy master plan, well....have fun with that!! Let me know how that works out for you! Cheers!

[Augustine]

Do you have a source for this?

History. Are you challenging any aspect of that statement?

[Swing Dangler]

You think the allies found out before most Germans did? Do you have a source for that?

No. Your misunderstanding is not the context of the statement. Please refer to Belz's comment about the nature of conspiracies and the breakdown of such conspiracies from within.

Was Nazi Germany an open or closed society, in comparison to the US in 2001?

Yes or no?
That is a little vague. Could you place a date on the question.

aggle-rithm While we're looking at WWII, it's important to remember what an insane time that was in world history. There is NO comparison to the political situation in 2001. If an event the size of 9/11 had occured during the war, it would have been a burp in the wind (the only reason Pearl Harbor is so well remembered is its timing).
The mental state of the time and the political climate is essentially irrelevant to Belz's point.

You have to keep things in perspective. At the same time six million Jews were being killed in Europe, 20 million Chinese were being slaughtered by the Japanese. Why didn't someone do something?!?
Excellent question.

There is no way you can claim that an event during this time is a historical precedent for the peacetime world sixty years later. Such a claim is, frankly, insane.
Please re-read this Belz-Because to do so would require many, many people, and that, historically, even very, very small conspiracies break down quickly.
In the case of the possibility of 9/11 as inside job and stating that as a conspiracy it would breakdown because of the number of people that might be involved has be proven a fallacy because of a single historical example, the Holocaust. And now I suppose we can throw in the conspiracy to kill 20 million Chinese that did not break down.


Thanks again, Gravy: Although atrocities were known, there is no direct evidence of the systematic conspiracy to murder very Jew. Even Breitman within the context of his conversation uses what appears to be hindsight. ...and I'm paraphrasing, rather than giving you a direct quote--because it is perfectly obvious that the Nazis are killing every Jew that they can lay their hands on.
Yes, knowing what we now know it is perfectly obvious. But then, there were reports of atrocities, but not total knowlege of the conspiracy. Even so, the conspiracy according to the theory that the size or numbers of the conspiratros is to large so it would "break down quickly" still takes place.
Breitman reinforces this idea as his comment from your source below:


RICHARD BREITMAN: I wouldn't go that far, no. I would say that Hitler, Himmler, other top officials were extremely determined to kill as many Jews as they could. I don't think--barring internal political turmoil-(that whole falling from within break down early thing)-that the outside world could have persuaded them not to go ahead.

I do think, however, that a serious publicity offensive might have caused problems for them at least in alerting Jews across Europe that this might be their fate and in reducing the level of innocent sort of cooperation with the Nazis, because people were--many people were deported to extermination camps, not knowing what lay ahead of them. And had there been a publicity offensive, it is quite possible that the sweeps that occurred and the deportations that occurred would have been much less efficient.

Again, you would expect this last bit to happen had the conspiracy broke down early but sadly for Jews and many others, this did not happen.

[Swing Dangler]

As I said, your sources make it clear that there was no realistic offer of a handover. Bush (or more likely his advisors) appears to have concluded that the Taliban was not making an offer in good faith, and that there was no point responding.

Appear to have concluded? No that is pure speculation and presenting an unsupported excuse for refusing to negotiate terms instead of waging war. In fact, it would have been excellent press material to present to the world this "turn over" offer if it would have been shady or in anyway not in good faith.

Most of this is irrelevant, especially speculation about what Americawould or would not have done had it been Afghanistan. You've implied that there was a clear offer made in good faith to hand Bin Laden over to America, and clearly there was not, or anything like it; your opinion that no such offer should have been made, or would have been expected to be made, doesn't change the fact that it wasn't made.

I pointed out the speculation in your own comment.
No what I stated is posted below. Trying to assert an implication(to America/in good faith) when there is no such implication.
Your statement is not genuine as you can read exactly what I stated below.

Once you get into negotiations, it's no longer a simple decision, it's a matter for judgement.
I agree. Your problem is that there were no negotiations with the Taliban. It was an outright refusal for a handover.

So Bush chose to ignore an offer that would have left Afghanistan free to continue hosting Al-Qaeda's training organisation and wouldn't have even compelled them to hand over Bin Laden; hardly a no-brainer to accept.
Dave

Of course now you are speculating as you falsely accused me of doing, as you have no idea what would have been brought to the table by either side since no diplomacy was used; no negotiations. Your speculation is trying to attach a hypothetical positive moral value to the decision to not accept Bin Laden.
The one thing the Taliban asked for on each attempt was evidence of Bin Laden's involvement.

The simple fact that hundreds of people would have to be involved in the demolitions; that many, many more would have to be involved in planning the false hijackings and, according to some, replacing the planes with military ones. That every structural expert in the world would have to be paid off, etc. That's thousands of people, Swing, if not tens of thousands.
Complete and utter speculation to support your contention that if 9/11 as an inside job conspiracy can't not take place because of the speculative size of the conspirators.

Belz-
It's the SECRET part of the conspiracy that breaks down. The Nazi plan wasn't secret for long.
Interesting, because you didn't state that in your original comment. Apparently the secret of the conspiracy, which is the actual planning of the event didn't break down, as the plan was put into practice and the holocaust took place. Sure people witnessed discrimination, random killings, etc. But how much of the public actually knew what was taking place in the death camps?
The point is if many people have to be involved in a conspiracy, then the conspiracy will break down is a fallacy.

How would YOU have caught him ?
1. I would have put into position U.S. armed forces to invade Afghanistan.
2. I would have presented to the United Nations and the World Court all of the evidence against Bin Laden, proving without a doubt he was responsible for 9/11.
3. After presenting every detail, I would have offered the following condition to the world and Afghanistan: "Now that the world has seen the evidence of Bin Laden's involvement with 9/11, and the fact that his involvement has violated Islamic law, secular law, and International law, you will have until this time frame to hand over Bin Laden to the proper authorities, be it the UN, the US, etc. If you do not, we will consider the actions of Afghanistan as an act of war."

By doing so you display to the Islamic world the true character of Bin Laden thereby stifling any resistance by true Muslims. You use war as the last resort because it is American's coming home in body bags and innocent civilians being buried there. You provide a clear case to our own Armed Forces and our own population and why they are sacrificing their lives in a foreign war with the goal of capturing a man.
And finally it prevents things like this being said:
"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."
- G.W. Bush, 3/13/02

"I am truly not that concerned about him."
- G.W. Bush, repsonding to a question about bin Laden's whereabouts,
3/13/02 (The New American, 4/8/02)

[tsig]

Oh boy, this is getting ridiculous (but all the more hilarious for it!)

It is stated- they did not follow up on the offer. I.e. they rejected it, either tacitly or explicity. This is the fact. You are giving gross, myopic and blinkered speculation as to why this was, and in that scenario, it would be criminally negligent too, which proves my point again.

Please be honest, respect facts, truth, and let these lead you to your conclusions.


Ignorance laughs in the face of knowledge.

[aggle-rithm]

In the case of the possibility of 9/11 as inside job and stating that as a conspiracy it would breakdown because of the number of people that might be involved has be proven a fallacy because of a single historical example, the Holocaust. And now I suppose we can throw in the conspiracy to kill 20 million Chinese that did not break down.


You're missing the point that I and other posters are trying to make: You can't take occurances from an EXTREME period in history, when whole societies were engaged in life-or-death struggles, and use them as a precedent for speculative atrocities supposedly committed by American leaders in 2001. Many things that were accepted without a thought in those days would be unthinkable in today's world, unless you begin with a pre-conceived notion that our leaders are more evil and manipulative (and COMPETENT) than they appear to be.

In fact, even if you compare post-9/11 with WWII, it's a different world, despite the fact that we are at war as we were then. In WWII, it was accepted as a matter of course that you bombed the crap out of civilians in order to break the national will to wage war. Today, we are extremely careful to avoid non-combatant casualties.

How do you reconcile this with the notion that American leaders think nothing of killing thousands of their OWN civilians?

[aggle-rithm]

By doing so you display to the Islamic world the true character of Bin Laden thereby stifling any resistance by true Muslims.

Unfortunately, most Muslims in the hot spots of the world are probably not what you would define as "true" Muslims. Do you REALLY think they will make such a radical change in their world-view just because they are presented with evidence?

YOU don't. Why would they?

[tsig]

You state it would require many, many, people. What proof do you have?

Lets look at history?

How many Nazi leaders planned the Holocaust? How many actively participated in it? How long did it take this massive conspiracy to be exposed?

When the war ended.

It was of curse the jews own fault.

They goaded the germans to kill them.

[tsig]

From what I've read, the Spitfire IXc couldn't carry the two extra cannon, because of its heavier engine. My preferred armament is 2x20mm and 4x.303in--the 2x20mm and 2x.50in just seems so, so, well . . . American. :blush:

ETA If I had it to do over, I would use the nick Spitfire IXc (or Spitfire_IXc for sites that don't allow spaces in nicks). But I've used SpitfireIX on too many sites already (though my YouTube nick is SpitfireIXb, as SpitfireIX and SpitfireIXc had already been taken :().

How does Mustang vs Spitfire match up?

[Belz...]

Please re-read this In the case of the possibility of 9/11 as inside job and stating that as a conspiracy it would breakdown because of the number of people that might be involved has be proven a fallacy because of a single historical example, the Holocaust.

Have you been reading the responses to this examples ? It seems you haven't.

Once the plan was underway, there was NO REASON to keep it a secret. And make no mistake, every single person that was involved in carrying out this plan was IN ON IT. It was huge, and it was not secret by any stretch of the imagination. Your example fails, Swing.

Again, you would expect this last bit to happen had the conspiracy broke down early

Do you even know what I meant by "break down" ?

[nicepants]

Ha... because if it wasnt propitious, they would have stopped it. You know, stopped it?

Logical fallacy.

"It happened, therefore, they let it happen"

You must prove that it would have been impossible for these attacks to take place in such a way that the government would either not know about it in time or otherwise would not be able to stop said attack.

[The Almond]

[...]

Please re-read this In the case of the possibility of 9/11 as inside job and stating that as a conspiracy it would breakdown because of the number of people that might be involved has be proven a fallacy because of a single historical example, the Holocaust. And now I suppose we can throw in the conspiracy to kill 20 million Chinese that did not break down.


I might be late into this discussion, but I've noticed that your definition of conspiracy is a bit vague. For me, a conspiracy is a plan of action, carried out by a group of people in secret, whose purpose is to commit a crime, and then not be punished for the consequences, either by supplying false evidence or by maintaining utter secrecy about the actions and plans of the conspirators.

Military actions, by definition, are not conspiracies. They are certainly not carried out in secret, and history shows that neither group perpetrating the action have escaped punishment. In arguing that the Holocaust was a conspiracy, you operate on the idea that because people didn't know about it, it was supposed to be a secret. That's a non-sequitor. Hitler's invasion of Poland and establishment of the Warsaw ghettos were not the actions of a conspiracy, despite the fact that the plans to do so were kept secret.

[HeyLeroy]

Have we gotten to 7WTC and the foreknowledge of exactly where the fires would burn/exactly where the falling pieces of the Tower would impact yet?

[Unsecured Coins]

not yet, patience, leroy! remember your training!

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

not yet, patience, leroy! remember your training!
Yeah, yeah, "patience"; how long will that take?

[Unsecured Coins]

for that, I direct you to that group over there, the ones that wait for the next Guns and Roses CD. They can tell you all about it

[Redtail]

How does Mustang vs Spitfire match up?

The P-51 mustang is just a flat out better plane. (He said holding a large "biased" sign over his head.:p)

[Kage]

I'm pretty sure that people had knowledge of the concentration camps by 1942, given that the subject comes up in Casablanca. As far as the knowledge of the extent of the final solution, I have no idea what they knew in advance of the liberations of the camps. I don't think that the germans were that concerned about keeping it secret.

[Pardalis]

for that, I direct you to that group over there, the ones that wait for the next Guns and Roses CD. They can tell you all about it

You mean the Velvet Revolver new album?

July the 3rd ;)

[tsig]

not yet, patience, leroy! remember your training!

Yeh always piss away from the light.

[MIKILLINI]

From what I've read, the Spitfire IXc couldn't carry the two extra cannon, because of its heavier engine. My preferred armament is 2x20mm and 4x.303in--the 2x20mm and 2x.50in just seems so, so, well . . . American. :blush:

ETA If I had it to do over, I would use the nick Spitfire IXc (or Spitfire_IXc for sites that don't allow spaces in nicks). But I've used SpitfireIX on too many sites already (though my YouTube nick is SpitfireIXb, as SpitfireIX and SpitfireIXc had already been taken :().

You could've have used the Hawker Hurricane, I believe the Mark I's were fitted with the 8x 0.303 cannon and the Merlin II or III engine with a Rotol 3 bladed prop.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

for that, I direct you to that group over there, the ones that wait for the next Guns and Roses CD. They can tell you all about it
Not familiar with Boot to the Head?

[MIKILLINI]

The P-51 mustang is just a flat out better plane. (He said holding a large "biased" sign over his head.:p)

But those Brits let Packard use the Merlin engine design for it.:p

[MIKILLINI]

Is this how it goes? PNAC signees "off the record" speak;whispering, conspiring. Hey guys, listen..Terrorist threats are increasing every day and it looks like this persistant one..Osama Bin Laden appears to be the most prevalent; But isn't that the son of...shhhh!! Doesn't matter if she does business with the Carlyle group. She thinks Osama is still a good boy, but thats beside the point, he's just misunderstood. Well listen, if we just let things ride...and keep things blocked toward the FBI...maybe that Osama will come here and hijack a plane himself...We can then have our catastrophic event...quicker with full spectrum dominance. But Rummy, quit going on about Iraq, we would have to bomb Afghanistan first...what? Iraq has better targets? Ok we have to find out which airports are the most lax on security, and make sure they are airports who will look the other way at box cutters.
ok , the match begins tomorrow. :rolleyes:

[Unsecured Coins]

You mean the Velvet Revolver new album?

July the 3rd ;)


Touche!

[mjd1982]

mjd1982, I asked you two specific questions in my post 752 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2697902&postcount=752)

Please respond.

Excuse me. Your 1st question:


How do you know the government could "fairly easily connive" in this case?


That is speculation on my part, but it is based in fairly sound reasoning. 1stly, all major actiond (e.g accepting the hand over of OBL; dealing with the CSG etc) will be done by the Executive Branch. People lower down the chain can kick and scream, and did, but this comes to nothing if the people at the top of this particular tree are committed to doing nothing.
Further, you can repeat this at other organisations such as the FBI. I have already stated that, according to Dick Clarke, Louis Freeh had "back channels" to certain parts of the GOP, which would create a perfectly reasonable scenario for his involvement, even absent "subversion". And of course, with him at the top of the organisation for 8 years, it is probable that his senior subordinates would have been of a similar mindset to him, having been selected by him


How many people would have to have been subverted?


Now this is a silly question. Are you expecting me to pull a number out of a hat? The reason for calling for a new investigation is to determine minutiae such as that; as you will be aware, stating that the conspiracy would have had >100 people involved is zero basis for stating that it did not happen.


What if some of them said "no?"


Ditto the above.


Are you advocating LIHOP or MIHOP? If LIHOP, how could "they" affect the timing of the attack to make it right before the QDR?? If MIHOP, why would there have been any actionable warnings?? Please explain this apparent contradiction in your "theory."


Again, something that would be ascertained in an investigation. One way it could have happened would have been for an organisation to have had a man on the inside of AQ, as French Intel did, who could have informed the US what was happening when, and maybe influenced events favourably to what the US wanted.

This is just an example of how it could have worked. There are many others.

I have little time for acronyms, as they dont have much serious value.

[mjd1982]

Okay.

You have to establish the "and only in" part of that argument. Otherwise, as you know, even if your other premises are accepted, any attempt to conclude that a conspiracy exists, from those statements, would be a simple affirming the consequent logical fallacy. (A conspiracy would cause X to happen, X happened, therefore a conspiracy exists.)

So, everything hinges on the "...and only in..." part of that argument. You must show that 9/11 could not have happened without a conspiracy. To do that you must, at the very least, show that conspirators in the U.S. Government performed specific acts that caused or allowed 9/11 to happen.

If you can't do that, your argument is a logical fallacy that goes nowhere.

And if by some chance you can do it, then you have no need of your speculative "plausible scenario" regarding PNAC, you'd have actual evidence of a conspiracy.

So, after all this arguing about whether or not 9/11 is like Pearl Harbor and whether or not PNAC wanted such an event to happen, you're back in the same boat with every other truther: needing to show evidence of what the conspirators did, in order for your argument to go anywhere.

Congratulations. After 20 21 pages of arguing, you've reached you're still on Square One.

Respectfully,
Myriad

Loath though I am to waste time re-explaining elementary details to people too lazy to look, the "plausible scenario" comment relates to the sequence of foreknowledge that I spent a lot of time outlining; not to the fact of 911 being an inside job. This is astonishingly basic.

To recap in any case, that Bush should reject the offer of OBL on a plate; that he should demote the one organisation that is most likely to stop AQ, who he has been told are an urgent and deadly threat, upon their submission to him of strategies to combat them, offering no explanation; and that he should be warned 40 times of the imminent threat of an AQ attack on US interests, and do nothing is a scenario so extreme, that it points only to complicity in AQ interests, on one level or another. Even if there are alternative explanations, such behaviour is at the very least, criminal negligence; when viewed in light of PNAC, sensible and honest people will come to sensible and honest conclusions.

[HeyLeroy]

(snip)
I have little time for acronyms, as they dont have much serious value.

Is that sarcasm?

[mjd1982]

You're still twisting the wording to reflect your own interpretation. Nowhere in PNAC is this called for. It's hard to take you seriously when you keep doing that.
This has been dealt with. You responded. I responded back. If you want to contest the point, then respond back again (=debate), rather than just repeating your point.

[mjd1982]

Very simple. If you're right, they failed to keep it a secret. In fact, if you're right, they outright announced that they thought it would be a good thing if it happened


right


and proceded to publish all the foreknowledge they could have acted upon to stop it, including all kinds of classified documents.


Excuse me? Where are the "all kinds of classified documents"? What have they published?


The mind boggles.


So an ipso facto argument from incredulity. Need I remind you, that the boggling of your mind does not have any bearing on facts.

And i should state here, how depressing, and unsurprising yet disappointing it is, that already, the arguments being proffered by the purported guardians of the facts, are descending into arguments from incredulity. Look at many of the posts now. "It would have been too big" "How do you keep people quiet?" "How many people do you think were involved" etc. No. This is of zero relevance, and has zero worth. That you think they wouldnt have been stupid enough to state the propitiousness of a new PH, so they didnt, is worthless as an argument. That you think it would have been too big a plot so it didnt happen, is again, worthless as an argument. So stop with these primitive arguments, start respecting facts and their logical corrollaries.


And another thing: Would you like to be responsible for killing possibly 10,000 of your countrymen? Anyone you know, perhaps?


No. What the hell is your point?


Yes.
Putting together all the pieces of this puzzle is easier when you know what to look for. They didn't.
All I see is a selection of [rule8]-ups that has been meticulously sifted from a no doubt larger list of unrelated [rule8]-ups. In some cases, those responsibe have tried to deny but got caught in the end, because some people don't just ask questions.


Hahaha... oh boy, what a seeker of truth you are.

Please go through my list, and explain how they are all just screw ups, warranting no further investigation.

[Redtail]

But those Brits let Packard use the Merlin engine design for it.:p

Hey nothing at all against the Merlin. I love the sound of those things.:D

[mjd1982]

If you already KNOW it's a conspiracy before you start, all the pieces that rational people see as unrelated, irrelevant, or misunderstood will certainly fit together to conform to your preconceived opinion.

We've seen it a thousand times. If you took all the things that are conjecture, half-truths, incorrect science, political bias, and out-and-out falsehoods away from your 'list', you'd find it would shrink to insignificance.
Please give me examples of each of such.

When you fail, tell me why you tried.

[WildCat]

To recap in any case, that Bush should reject the offer of OBL on a plate;
To recap, this never happened and you look foolish for claiming it was so.

[HeyLeroy]

mjd1982, when are you gonna get to 7WTC?

[MIKILLINI]

Hey nothing at all against the Merlin. I love the sound of those things.:D

I agree:cool:

[mjd1982]

[QUOTE=mjd1982;2703492]Please give me an example of where i have "refused to look"[QUOTE]

Well I, for one, and Aggle-rithm if I remember correctly, pointed to the fact that the PNAC did NOT consider it propitious. You just hand-waved that.


How is that hand waving? I have adressed this a million times, to you and to others. I have waited for rebuttals following on from that. But no.


Remember the car crash accident analogy ? Just because something would be good, doesn't mean it was caused by those who'd see it as a good thing. Of course, IT WOULDN'T BE GOOD, so your whole point fails, anyway.


Right... So you are HeyLeroy in disguise.

I dont even know where to begin with this one! ok
1. I have dealt with this a million times already
2. It is an horrific analogy, since the person has little capacity to cause a car crash by himself covertly. This is very hard.
3. It was good, since it has enabled PNAC to achieve a huge degree of what they wanted.


How could they stop it if they didn't know it was going to happen ? See, you're assuming that the good ol' US of A is invincible, and that any and all attacks would be spotted and stopped, and that any attack that DOES make it is necessarily allowed to happen.

Of course, that doesn't make sense. No one is invincible, and no one would claim that the US government is 100% efficient.


Oh God... please start improving the quality of your posts if you want me to spend time replying to them. A good 1st tip- read mine, and understand them. It will help you a lot.

To start with just 2 ways to stop them, when Bush was told in June/July that AQ had cells in the US, he could have had people scope them out. He did nothing. 2nd, when OBL was offered on a plate in feb, he could have said yes.

I assume you are a yank? If so, does the fact that your pres did neither of these things not get you a tad peeved?


Really ? US economy has dropped since 9/11,


http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/RRiraqWar.html#fn56

Read and understand


and things aren't exactly going well in Iraq for the military.


So?


Do you live in the US ? I don't. If you do, could you tell me how all this has improved the US situation ?


No i dont. If you want to know, read the post on p3 that I referred u to.


I see you simply don't want to answer.

I have no idea. You're the one who brought it up.

Nope.

I cannot see what these lines were referring to, so I cant reply to them. I could go and look, but if i'm honest, see the 1st line of my reply to ur 3rd quote.

[mjd1982]

You've posted two links that don't say what you claim they say. One is an offer from the Taliban that if the US stopped bombing Afghanistan they would talk about handing over Bin Laden to an unspecified third country, and the other is an offer to put Bin Laden on trial in Afghanistan, under Islamic law. Nowhere is there a clear offer to hand over Bin Laden, and both of these efforts look like simple bluff by the Taliban to save their skins without committing themselves to anything. I hate to compliment the man, but it looks like Bush was right to reject these non-offers.

Dave
Yes, but if you read the link that I provided, you will see that a prior offer occurred in feb 01, for him to be handed over to the Saudis, to be given to the US. Why did Bush refuse?

[WildCat]

To start with just 2 ways to stop them, when Bush was told in June/July that AQ had cells in the US, he could have had people scope them out. He did nothing.
This is astonishing in what it reveals about your complete ignorance of the way US agencies work. You really think that the FBI would have needed explicit permission from the POTUS to investigate known terrorists inside the US? Really, this is incredible!

2nd, when OBL was offered on a plate in feb, he could have said yes.
Except this never happened... :rolleyes:

[Unsecured Coins]

http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/RRiraqWar.html#fn56

Read and understand.

Read and understand this - that link you keep bringing up is 4 YEARS OLD. Can we get something from 2007 from you or is that asking too much

[mjd1982]

Was Nazi Germany an open or closed society, in comparison to the US in 2001?

Yes or no?
How interesting! Much better than your last post.

You should probably know that Goebbels system of Propaganda was largely based on the teachings of Edward Bernays, who was the advocate of the "new Propaganda", designed for american societies, which has been practised by presidents from Coolidge onwards. You can read more about this in his book, Propaganda (1928). Chapter 7 is the most germane, but here's a nice quote from the start:


THE conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country.
We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of. This is a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organized. Vast numbers of human beings must cooperate in this manner if they are to live together as a smoothly functioning society.


Once again, note that Bernays' influence has been considerable, and his principles continue to be followed, with astonishing closeness, even today.

Thus the manufacture of consent in Nazi Germany, and that in the "free west" today, has a remarkably strong underlying thread.

Now, though tangential, the point about the Holocaust is an interesting one, since germans at the time were largely unaware of it. It obviously wasnt being reported; fine, Jews were being carted away, people would have become aware of this, but gassed to death? How would anyone find out about this? Unless someone can show me otherwise, this was not something that was known in Germany until 1945 or after. Ditto operation T4, which was in place before 1939, killing ~78,000 people before it was terminated before the start of ww2 (it may have been re-started after that, I'm not sure). So this was outside a wartime environment, and using many of the techniques detailed by Bernays, no one knew about it. You can strike parallels with countless details re:9/11 (e.g. the offer of OBL in feb 01), but this is something I will post a thread on later, since it is quite important. I have posted a reply to one chap already with a load of links for those who want to find out more about the western propaganda system.

[MIKILLINI]

This is astonishing in what it reveals about your complete ignorance of the way US agencies work. You really think that the FBI would have needed explicit permission from the POTUS to investigate known terrorists inside the US? Really, this is incredible!


Except this never happened... :rolleyes:

Is Kabir Mohabbat been verified on this story? Because I haven't found anything that would confirm his claim...Which is he could set up Bin laden to be handed over to the Government or notify the State Department where Bin Laden would be so the U.S. could send over a cruise missile to said location. How extraordinary is that? :rolleyes:

[mjd1982]

You think the allies found out before most Germans did? Do you have a source for that?
If you're really interested in this, read the 2nd part of Sir Ian Kershaws biog on Hitler ("Nemesis"). This shoud be instructive.

[HeyLeroy]

Right... So you are HeyLeroy in disguise.


http://liveu-33.vo.llnwd.net/vidilife/image/2006/10/10/946639/1193533L.gif
For What It's Worth

by
Buffalo Springfield

There's somethin' happenin' here
What it is ain't exactly clear
There's a man with a gun, over there
Tellin' me I got to beware

(I think it's time we)
Stop, children, what's that sound?
Everybody look - what's goin' down?

There's battle lines bein' drawn
Nobody's right if everybody's wrong
Young people speakin' their minds
Gettin' so much resistance from behind

(It's time we)
Stop, hey, what's that sound?
Everybody look - what's goin' down?

What a field day for the heat
A thousand people in the street
Singin' songs and carryin' signs
Mostly sayin', "hooray for our side"

(It's time we)
Stop, hey, what's that sound?
Everybody look - what's goin' down?

Paranoia strikes deep
Into your life it will creep
It starts when you're always afraid
Step out of line, the man come and take you away

(We better)
Stop, hey, what's that sound?
Everybody look - what's goin' down?
(We better)
Stop, hey, what's that sound?
Everybody look - what's goin' down?
(We better)
Stop, now, what's that sound?
Everybody look - what's goin' down?
(We better)
Stop, children, what's that sound?
Everybody look - what's goin' down?

[mjd1982]

While we're looking at WWII, it's important to remember what an insane time that was in world history. There is NO comparison to the political situation in 2001. If an event the size of 9/11 had occured during the war, it would have been a burp in the wind (the only reason Pearl Harbor is so well remembered is its timing).


Thats a little bit distortive. You are stating that the death of people in peacetime is nothing to remember since more people get killed in war? This is because in peacetime, it is not to be expected that thousands of people should die in an instant, whereas this is not the case in wartime.


You want failure to defend territory? The loss of the Phillipines makes the intelligence failures of 9/11 look like tiddlywinks. General MacArthur knew WHO was going to attack, WHEN they were going to attack, and WHERE they were coming from, and he STILL got caught with his pants down! Where's the conspiracy there?


Right. But did he directly reject chances to stop the attack. And why did he screw up. Your example, of which I know nothng, means very very little.


You want body count? Imagine ten times the number of people killed in 9/11, and imagine it happening every day for five years.


death in war is different from death in peace


You want LIHOP? The Allies frequently allowed their own people to be attacked so the Germans would not realize their codes had been broken. In those days, it was easy to trade a few lives for many.


Hahaha... well, I'm sure that this is almost precisely the argument that Cheney et al believed in re: 911. 3,000 dead, but what a great trade off. How ironic that you should float that argument; how accurate it is!


These were extreme times, and they called for extreme sacrifices.


and again.


There is no way you can claim that an event during this time is a historical precedent for the peacetime world sixty years later. Such a claim is, frankly, insane.

Errr... but you did just that with your Phillipines analogy....

Oh, and nice argument from incredulity btw! We're notching these babies up here...

[mjd1982]

How would YOU have caught him ?
Errr... when he's offered to you, say yes!

[mjd1982]

As I said, your sources make it clear that there was no realistic offer of a handover. Bush (or more likely his advisors) appears to have concluded that the Taliban was not making an offer in good faith, and that there was no point responding.



Most of this is irrelevant, especially speculation about what America would or would not have done had it been Afghanistan. You've implied that there was a clear offer made in good faith to hand Bin Laden over to America, and clearly there was not, or anything like it; your opinion that no such offer should have been made, or would have been expected to be made, doesn't change the fact that it wasn't made. Once you get into negotiations, it's no longer a simple decision, it's a matter for judgement. So Bush chose to ignore an offer that would have left Afghanistan free to continue hosting Al-Qaeda's training organisation and wouldn't have even compelled them to hand over Bin Laden; hardly a no-brainer to accept.

Dave
Read my link please.

[Unsecured Coins]

but according to you, whether they handed him over or not is.. irrelevant

[WildCat]

mjd1982, do you think that the FBI would have needed explicit permission from the POTUS to investigate al Qaeda terrorists in the US prior to 9/11?

It seems your entire premise depends on your answer being "yes".

[mjd1982]

I thought that was what we spent the first 20 odd pages of this thread discussing? Maybe I was a bit unclear. The symbol "-->" is "implies." I more or less mean, "PNAC implies that 9/11 was an inside job or was let to happen on purpose." This is false for many reasons that have been pointed out to you.


If such has been pointed out to me, it would be strange, but not unsurprising, since it is something I have not argued.

PNAC show that 911 was deemed propitious to policy. This lends us a good framework within which to operate. This has been dealt with in my OP to this section ,and illustrates that the probabiltiy that 911 could have happened absent gov complicty is very very very slim.


The basis is the fact that the WOT does less for transformation than a war with a nation such as North Korea, Iran, or a limited exchange with China. Each of these are achievable with less effort than 9/11, and the result of these types of PH will be closer to the transformation described by PNAC.


If there is one thing i could scream to this entire thread (I have done many times already), it would be to read my dismantling of the LC Guide, pnac section on p3. This will show you that the WOT has effected the transformation almost completely in the way that they envisaged.


Somewhat the same as above. The WOT generally puts the most money into very low tech equipment and units, such as infantry and SOF, and takes away money from the Air Force and the like. Multiple expensive programs have been scrapped, and Rumsfelds Net Centric Warfare isn't going anywhere. This would be the opposite effect of a limited war with a more technicaly adept enemy. You harp on catalysing and catastrophic but aren't paying attention to what 9/11 was catalysing into.


This is completely wrong. As above.


If I get your point, intel failures are they key way the Bush admin let/made 9/11 happen.


No. Miles off. That is one section of 4, and the least damning. Please go back and read the other 3.


Therefore I think it is a key point to adress. These posts are getting encyclopedic in length, and i want to avoid carpal tunnel syndrome.

I'm not going to argue with this, given that I think the intel failures were unacceptable. I'm no fan of the Bush admin and dislike their take on accountability. I just don't see how this means they made it happen or let it happen on purpose.


as above


For starters, Tenet probably would have to have been in on it, yet he is where you get some of those warnings from. How does that work?


He would, probably, not have been in on it. But that is neither here nor there.


I think that you are also misunderstanding the way intel angencies work on the analyst side. All PDBs and other documents are consensus efforts that go through huge amounts of collaboration and revision. One person "at the top of the food chain" in an agency is certainly not enuogh to let/make 9/11 happen on purpose.


I know this. My point is the (non) reaction of the men (and woman ) who are on the receiving end.


Well, you would need a large enough conspiracy to send people to the firing squad, and you would need to be able to do it without their letters and proof getting to say, the NYT. Not easily done in the age of the internet.


Letters saying what- "I was a co-plotter in 911"? Who the hell is going to write that? This is yet another argument from incredulity


A more ridiculus argument is that nobody has come forward, therefore it is a conspiracy. I have no burden to prove the negative.


I, nor anyone I have heard, have never argued this.


http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2697273#post2697273


1stly, I would argue with both his numbers, and his percentages, which changes things totally. I will post on this later, as it is imporrtant. But more to the point to argue that no one has squealed proves anything, is worthless.


I still don't understand whether you think that the Bush admin let or made 9/11 happen.


I believe, though my precise speculation counts for little, that they knew it was coming, massaged it a bit to suit their ends, let it happen, and then aggravated it as per my OP.


You say that the Bush admin did not respond to intel in order to let 9/11 happen, then you say that they did not respond to the USS Cole bombing in order to wait for 9/11. How did they know the bigger event was coming?


Cos they had the intel warnings, telling them exactly that.


How did they get this to work over two administrations?


?


How did they plan it to fit in with the DOD review?


What review?

[QUOTE=aggle-rithm;2705075]
I can't tell if you are a LIHOPper or a MIHOPper, and you should probably clarify.

I dont think that this is of much importance. Stick to my arguments, and point out holes in them if there are such. Acronyms mean nothing.

[Jonnyclueless]

d.

PNAC show that 911 was deemed propitious to policy. This lends us a good framework within which to operate. This has been dealt with in my OP to this section ,and illustrates that the probabiltiy that 911 could have happened absent gov complicty is very very very slim.



I don't know too much about this stuff. Could you point me to the part where PNAC says that 911 was deemed propitious to policy? And what is the significance of that. Thanks!

[mjd1982]

Ladies and gentlemen, I give you willful ignorance.

The strategists matter because they are the ones who originate the plans and policy which get implemented – THAT IS WHY YOU SHOULD STUDY THEM. So you do not wind up some Chicken Little, "sky-is-falling", paranoid type who reads sinister world conspiracy implications in what is a rather mundane policy document. When strategists are all tending to point in the same direction on a particular policy, it’s going to GET IMPLEMENTED. PNAC Rebuilding America’s Defenses is really little more than a rewrite of draft Defense Policy Guidance from 1992, which came out to refocus defense planning after the Cold War, produced under SecDef Cheney. Little surprise that his ideas would be implemented when an administration that he was a prime member of came into power, is it? I mean, for 99% of the population, this is common sense. Why are you having such a hard time grasping this?

How do I know it would have been implemented regardless? Because I am actually in the U.S. Military, and I watch what is coming down the pike, and read the Strategic Studies coming out of the AWC, CSS, Carlisle, etc. - in short I try to stay informed, which I highly recommend you give a try. It will require you to give up your crazy conspiracy theories :( , but it is so much more enjoyable to reside in the real world ;) . If you choose to believe PNAC Rebuilding America's Defenses was some super-sinister conspiracy master plan, well....have fun with that!! Let me know how that works out for you! Cheers!

Good. So the changes in RAD would have been implemented regardless.

Now, please tell me where this has been denied? For, as you will surely be aware, and as I have pointed out to you, the point is not whether they would have been implemented at some point, rather whether they would have been done sooner rather than later. This is why RAD talks about a catastrophic and catalysing event, to aid that it happens sooner.

Consequently, yet again, you fail to address the point, by a country mile. Please tell me why you find this so hard?

[DGM]

PNAC show that 911 was deemed propitious to policy. This lends us a good framework within which to operate. This has been dealt with in my OP to this section ,and illustrates that the probabiltiy that 911 could have happened absent gov complicty is very very very slim.

Just because you keep repeating it doesn't make it true!

[mjd1982]

Ignorance laughs in the face of knowledge.
Hmmm... really makes you think...

A very wise post.

[mjd1982]

Logical fallacy.

"It happened, therefore, they let it happen"

You must prove that it would have been impossible for these attacks to take place in such a way that the government would either not know about it in time or otherwise would not be able to stop said attack.
Excuse, me; they would have tried to stop it, given that they had ample opportunity, which no one on this board wants to address.

This is the point.

[WildCat]

mjd1982, do you think that the FBI would have needed explicit permission from the POTUS to investigate al Qaeda terrorists in the US prior to 9/11?

It seems your entire premise depends on your answer being "yes".
:whistling

[mjd1982]

To recap, this never happened and you look foolish for claiming it was so.
Hahaha... Is it possible to frame posts? Is there someone i need to ask?

[mjd1982]

Is Kabir Mohabbat been verified on this story? Because I haven't found anything that would confirm his claim...Which is he could set up Bin laden to be handed over to the Government or notify the State Department where Bin Laden would be so the U.S. could send over a cruise missile to said location. How extraordinary is that? :rolleyes:
sorry, who the hell is he?

[WildCat]

Hahaha... Is it possible to frame posts? Is there someone i need to ask?
http://home.mindspring.com/~turniton/COTC/saywhat.jpg

[Pardalis]

rather whether they would have been done sooner rather than later.

Cant' you see that this "sooner rather than later" idiocy you keep babbling about doesn't add nor prove anything?

It's completely meaningless. Everybody wants things to happen sooner than later.

Geez.

[mjd1982]

mjd1982, do you think that the FBI would have needed explicit permission from the POTUS to investigate al Qaeda terrorists in the US prior to 9/11?

It seems your entire premise depends on your answer being "yes".
No, they did investigate in some scenarios. I have posted about this to you many times.

The point in this instance is that even if not, the fact is that he did not sanction any actions. If the President is told that there are AQ cells in the US, and that they are plotting an act of terror, doing zero is not justifiable. According to you and your mates, it is. Why do you do this?

ps- didnt you say this board would be a "challenge"?!

[mjd1982]

Cant' you see that this "sooner rather than later" idiocy you keep babbling about doesn't add nor prove anything?

It's completely meaningless. Everybody wants things to happen sooner than later.

Geez.
Hehehe, ok cool, so we can agree that PNAC wanted the transformation to happen sooner rather later; thus they did deem that a new PH was propitious to policy, and all other arguments are meaningless.

Thank you! I have been arguing this for some time now.

[Pardalis]

thus they did deem that a new PH was propitious to policy

No.

[mjd1982]

I don't know too much about this stuff. Could you point me to the part where PNAC says that 911 was deemed propitious to policy? And what is the significance of that. Thanks!
Yes sure. 2nd page of ch 5, 1st full para.

That is all you need to understand for now. Tell me when you have.

[mjd1982]

Just because you keep repeating it doesn't make it true!
It does,in terms of this thread, unless it is fully contested, which it has not been.

[WildCat]

No, they did investigate in some scenarios. I have posted about this to you many times.
Ok...

The point in this instance is that even if not, the fact is that he did not sanction any actions. If the President is told that there are AQ cells in the US, and that they are plotting an act of terror, doing zero is not justifiable. According to you and your mates, it is. Why do you do this?
Now you've just contradicted yourself. You can't say the FBI knew about, but did not pursue the al Qaeda terrorists in the US because they didn't get explicit permission from Bush to do so. The FBI doesn't work that way...

ps- didnt you say this board would be a "challenge"?!
Your inability to understand how badly you are failing here in no way negates the fact that you are failing here in a big way.

[DGM]

It does,in terms of this thread, unless it is fully contested, which it has not been.
Or has been fully proved. Which it has not.

[DGM]

ps- didnt you say this board would be a "challenge"?!

You have accomplished nothing in 25 pages. How is that not a challenge?

[Kage]

A simple note, but MJD, you've quoted me as aggle-rithm in your reply.


If Tenet wasn't in on it how would it work? Did they just do nothing at the CIA? The intel failures on thwarting the actual plan happened at very low levels. How many people do you need to run this conspiracy? Other conspiracies (such as Iran-Contra) were exposed rather quickly.

[Jonnyclueless]

Yes sure. 2nd page of ch 5, 1st full para.

That is all you need to understand for now. Tell me when you have.

I'm not sure what book I should be looking in for the page and chapter. Is there a PDF available? I see the web site for PNAC, but don't know how to refer to chapters or pages, or which report on their site those refer to.

Thanks.

[Jonnyclueless]

I'm not sure what book I should be looking in for the page and chapter. Is there a PDF available? I see the web site for PNAC, but don't know how to refer to chapters or pages, or which report on their site those refer to.

Thanks.

I think I may have found the part being referenced possibly. but that talks about Pearl Harbor, not 9/11. And that chapter is talking about getting new technology to be better prepared for that type of event. So I am confused as to what the issue is here.

I'm looking at a PDF called "Building America's Defenses", so it could be I am looking at the wrong paper.

It's basically saying that we need to update our technology and get around the problem which is that making such a transformation takes a long time short of some big event happening. It's not saying anything about creating such an event, it's saying we shouldn't wait for such an event to make things happen faster.

The big point being keeping the most up to date technology without wasting money.

[Augustine]

Good. So the changes in RAD would have been implemented regardless.

Now, please tell me where this has been denied? For, as you will surely be aware, and as I have pointed out to you, the point is not whether they would have been implemented at some point, rather whether they would have been done sooner rather than later. This is why RAD talks about a catastrophic and catalysing event, to aid that it happens sooner.


Where has this been denied? Hmmm.....


Originally Posted by Augustine http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2703082#post2703082)
911 was not the catalyst for those changes; they would have occurred regardless.

a) How do you know this?
b) Why do u think they woudl have been pursued with the vigour that they are now with this cataclysmic "war" as its justification?


Now why would you have challenged me on "how I knew this", if you agreed with it? It must be so hard being misinformed, you forget where your stance should be....anyhoo, so we agree the defense transformation would have occurred regardless of the occurrence of 9/11.

Now, what exactly happened sooner? Please compare and contrast nuclear policy and global missile defense with Clinton National Security policy, outline the differences and when they occurred. Also, when exactly was Army Space Command established? Who was President then? What exactly was the transformation that occurred sooner than it would have (regardless as we both agree) with regard to Space? Again, please reference pre-2001 national security strategy documents in your response. Thanks, cheers! (You may learn something yet!)

[Kage]

A parallel to PNAC: A real group, that I will rename BASE, released several "white papers" saying that they desired to cause the US to become entangled in multiple long term military engagements in the mideast, thus weakening America's ability to control political realities in the region and allowing BASE to strike US military assets via asymmetric means. BASE hopes to use mideast turmoil to create a large number of failed states which can then become controlled under a larger government more suitable to BASE's idiology. BASE also released a "white paper" calling for large scale attacks against American interests.

BASE found the 9/11 attacks completely propitious to their ends, and I conclude probably would have done everything they could to cause 9/11 to happen.

Casually, I would say BASE is a much more likely force behind 9/11 than PNAC.

[DGM]

I think I may have found the part being referenced possibly. but that talks about Pearl Harbor, not 9/11. And that chapter is talking about getting new technology to be better prepared for that type of event. So I am confused as to what the issue is here.

I'm looking at a PDF called "Building America's Defenses", so it could be I am looking at the wrong paper.

It's basically saying that we need to update our technology and get around the problem which is that making such a transformation takes a long time short of some big event happening. It's not saying anything about creating such an event, it's saying we shouldn't wait for such an event to make things happen faster.

The big point being keeping the most up to date technology without wasting money.
Your in the right place . The only problem is you need to read the whole thing to really get the jist of it. Hey it's only 90ish pages. Not what I call light reading but try the NIST report sometime.

[MIKILLINI]

Coincidence? No. All design and no luck; that is almost certain. For the document is very specific about how such transformations should be achieved. They should not occur one by one by one; that would be useless. There needs to be a global framework for all these changes, aligned, moreover, with domestic policy. How long will it take for these crucial changes to happen? Many decades; we as readers can gauge that this would potentially vitiate the goal of the 21st Century being an American one; so how to do it quickly? Well, the document does tell us.
Yes the document tells us what is going to be done to make the 21st Century
an American one. But here is your plausibility problem;

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

You are saying this snippet here is the heart of the matter of your hubris...i.e. some of the signatories of this document were already intending to allow a catastrophic and catalyzing occurrence to happen, that they were formulating design, possibly terrorism, to happen on American soil, of course keeping in mind that many of these signatories are/were part and parcel of the Bush Administration?
I'll wait for your answer to respond

[gumboot]

A parallel to PNAC: A real group, that I will rename BASE, released several "white papers" saying that they desired to cause the US to become entangled in multiple long term military engagements in the mideast, thus weakening America's ability to control political realities in the region and allowing BASE to strike US military assets via asymmetric means. BASE hopes to use mideast turmoil to create a large number of failed states which can then become controlled under a larger government more suitable to BASE's idiology. BASE also released a "white paper" calling for large scale attacks against American interests.

BASE found the 9/11 attacks completely propitious to their ends, and I conclude probably would have done everything they could to cause 9/11 to happen.

Casually, I would say BASE is a much more likely force behind 9/11 than PNAC.



Well said.

-Gumboot

[AZCat]

A parallel to PNAC: A real group, that I will rename BASE, released several "white papers" saying that they desired to cause the US to become entangled in multiple long term military engagements in the mideast, thus weakening America's ability to control political realities in the region and allowing BASE to strike US military assets via asymmetric means. BASE hopes to use mideast turmoil to create a large number of failed states which can then become controlled under a larger government more suitable to BASE's idiology. BASE also released a "white paper" calling for large scale attacks against American interests.

BASE found the 9/11 attacks completely propitious to their ends, and I conclude probably would have done everything they could to cause 9/11 to happen.

Casually, I would say BASE is a much more likely force behind 9/11 than PNAC.


This "BASE" group sounds dangerous; perhaps we should be keeping an eye on them?

[Jonnyclueless]

Your in the right place . The only problem is you need to read the whole thing to really get the jist of it. Hey it's only 90ish pages. Not what I call light reading but try the NIST report sometime.

NIST is too big and over my head for me. That's why we have experts, they can deal with that stuff. I did a search of the PNAC paper and found no references to 9/11 though. Maybe I could have just missed it.

[R.Mackey]

A parallel to PNAC: A real group, that I will rename BASE, released several "white papers" saying that they desired to cause the US to become entangled in multiple long term military engagements in the mideast, thus weakening America's ability to control political realities in the region and allowing BASE to strike US military assets via asymmetric means. BASE hopes to use mideast turmoil to create a large number of failed states which can then become controlled under a larger government more suitable to BASE's idiology. BASE also released a "white paper" calling for large scale attacks against American interests.

BASE found the 9/11 attacks completely propitious to their ends, and I conclude probably would have done everything they could to cause 9/11 to happen.

Casually, I would say BASE is a much more likely force behind 9/11 than PNAC.

I agree, that's very well put, and knocks the heck out of the retarded PNAC argument. Pity that some people will never stop to consider this, simply because it doesn't reinforce their own biases.

[H'ethetheth]

Excuse me? Where are the "all kinds of classified documents"? What have they published?The list you supplied, the one with the forewarnings, contains information from declassified documents. (Yes, I Googled "Paul Thompson's 911 Timeline-> Warning Signs", like you said). To me this conveys that the documents were probably classified at some point.

So an ipso facto argument from incredulity. Need I remind you, that the boggling of your mind does not have any bearing on facts.

And i should state here, how depressing, and unsurprising yet disappointing it is, that already, the arguments being proffered by the purported guardians of the facts, are descending into arguments from incredulity. Look at many of the posts now. "It would have been too big" "How do you keep people quiet?" "How many people do you think were involved" etc. No. This is of zero relevance, and has zero worth. That you think they wouldnt have been stupid enough to state the propitiousness of a new PH, so they didnt, is worthless as an argument. That you think it would have been too big a plot so it didnt happen, is again, worthless as an argument. So stop with these primitive arguments, start respecting facts and their logical corrollaries. I'll be the first to admit that my credulity is lacking in favour of a US government conspiracy.
However, demanding a new investigation after the one that has brought to light the very list of 'suspect' forewarnings you base your demand on, seems a bit odd. But say I go along with the fact that the failure to prevent the 9/11 attacks is suspect, what is your reason to don't trust the previous investigators to come to the conclusion you come to?

No. What the hell is your point?Take a wild guess. Even better, I'll save you the effort: Normal people don't do that. The odds that the conspirators were able to recruit enough sociopaths among the ranks of government agencies to pull off such a conspiracy and not screw up are vanishingly small. In fact, you clearly contend that they totally screwed up their homicidal conspiracy by both publically announcing their plans beforehand and publishing the screw-ups afterward. I contend that they just screwed up their intelligence gathering.
Who's arguing from incredulity here?

But I think I see what kind of conspiracy you think may have happened. It would have to be a conspiracy where the conspirators
1. recruit some maniacs to fly aircraft into buildings or
2. allow existing maniacs to fly their airplanes into buildings, because they were going to anyway.

Am I right?

Hahaha... oh boy, what a seeker of truth you are.:rolleyes:

Please go through my list, and explain how they are all just screw ups, warranting no further investigation.I can't tell without knowing who exactly got the warnings, or knowing how the different intelligence agencies communicate with eachother, or how many unrelated warnings about other terror attacks with trains, car bombs, ships, dirty nukes, anthrax, small pox, doomsday machines or space lasers gave more specific information and demanded more immediate action at the time.
Do you?

[Dave Rogers]

Yes, but if you read the link that I provided, you will see that a prior offer occurred in feb 01, for him to be handed over to the Saudis, to be given to the US. Why did Bush refuse?

I'm losing track of this thread - can you re-post the link please?

Dave

[Dave Rogers]

You could've have used the Hawker Hurricane, I believe the Mark I's were fitted with the 8x 0.303 cannon and the Merlin II or III engine with a Rotol 3 bladed prop.

Right (although the 0.303 isn't a cannon), but a Hurri against a Mustang? I don't think so. Anyway, if you just want firepower, take a Beaufighter - four 20mm cannon, six 0.303 MG's and eigh 60lb rockets. Not a dogfighter by any stretch, though.

Dave

[H'ethetheth]

Some additions to my latest post, mjd.

I must admit that I found only one declassified document (http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB116/pdb8-6-2001.pdf) here (http://www.wanttoknow.info/911timeline2pg). The point however stands that intelligence information is always classified at some point. The media only get what they get because someone in the intelligence industry wants them to.

I also found this interesting. Behind this snippet:Aug 27, 2001: An FBI supervisor says he’s trying to keep a hijacker from “flying a plane into the WTC.” [Senate Report (Hill #2), 10/17/02] Headquarters chastises him for notifying the CIA.If you read the Senate report Hill #1 (http://foi.missouri.edu/terrorintelligence/intelligcomm/hill6.pdf) you will encounter this in their concluding remarks:
These changes to the law [the partiot act], and the shock of September 11 itself, have had some beneficial impacts on the ability and willingness of the Intelligence agencies and their personnel to share information with one another and with non-Intelligence Community agencies and personnel. Whether and to what extent this impact can be sustained remains to be seen. and

As this review suggests, the Intelligence Community made several impressive
advances in fighting terrorism since the end of the Cold War, but many fundamental steps were not taken. Individual components of the Community scored impressive successes or strengthened their effort against terrorism, but important gaps remained. These included many problems outside the control or responsibility of the Intelligence Community, such as the sanctuary terrorists enjoyed in Afghanistan and legal limits on information sharing between intelligence and law enforcement officials.

However, another major contributing factor was that the Intelligence Community did not fully learn the lessons of past attacks. On September 11, 2001 al-Qa’ida was able to exploit the gaps in the U.S. counterterrorism structure, some of which were remeditable, to carry out its devastating attacks.Is the senate committee in on it too? Or are they just not intelligent enough to see these screw ups for what you think they are?

Ook?

[mjd1982]

Ok...


Now you've just contradicted yourself. You can't say the FBI knew about, but did not pursue the al Qaeda terrorists in the US because they didn't get explicit permission from Bush to do so. The FBI doesn't work that way...


Your inability to understand how badly you are failing here in no way negates the fact that you are failing here in a big way.
That is not the point. FBI agents did go and investigate certain things, but were prevented from taking any concrete measures by people higher up. I, since the simple rebuttal is "intel failures are normal", am looking just at Bush for the moment, and what he did.

So, he was told that there were AQ cells in the US, plotting a terror attack. What did he do in response. And why.

[Jocce]

You're still twisting the wording to reflect your own interpretation. Nowhere in PNAC is this called for. It's hard to take you seriously when you keep doing that.


This has been dealt with. You responded. I responded back. If you want to contest the point, then respond back again (=debate), rather than just repeating your point.

The only thing you said was something to the effect of "of course it's better if it happens sooner than later and therefor 911 was propitious to plan". I am merely pointing out that you state a lot of personal opinion as facts in this thread...also.

[mjd1982]

Or has been fully proved. Which it has not.
Whether it has been fully proved or not gets evinced by its being fully contested. Until that has been done, it prevails. Si the ball is in your (pl) court

[mjd1982]

The only thing you said was something to the effect of "of course it's better if it happens sooner than later and therefor 911 was propitious to plan". I am merely pointing out that you state a lot of personal opinion as facts in this thread...also.
No i dont. I have outlined very specifically why this is the case, and taken much time over it too, as you well know. Please go back and contest it, or else, leave it uncontested, as I have just detailed.

[mjd1982]

A simple note, but MJD, you've quoted me as aggle-rithm in your reply.


If Tenet wasn't in on it how would it work? Did they just do nothing at the CIA? The intel failures on thwarting the actual plan happened at very low levels. How many people do you need to run this conspiracy? Other conspiracies (such as Iran-Contra) were exposed rather quickly.
Sorry abot the quote.

In terms of Tenet, all that hd to be done, was what was done- he collates th intel, delivers it to the principals, who iggnore it.

The rest of your questions all relate to what would be discovered by investigation, and have nothing to do with whether it was an inside job or not.

[mjd1982]

I think I may have found the part being referenced possibly. but that talks about Pearl Harbor, not 9/11. And that chapter is talking about getting new technology to be better prepared for that type of event. So I am confused as to what the issue is here.

I'm looking at a PDF called "Building America's Defenses", so it could be I am looking at the wrong paper.

It's basically saying that we need to update our technology and get around the problem which is that making such a transformation takes a long time short of some big event happening. It's not saying anything about creating such an event, it's saying we shouldn't wait for such an event to make things happen faster.

The big point being keeping the most up to date technology without wasting money.
It is the right paper. Please read the whole thing. It doesnt refer to "911" because it was written a yr in advance.

To gain elucidation on the paper, read http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=84473&page=3

[mjd1982]

Where has this been denied? Hmmm.....



Now why would you have challenged me on "how I knew this", if you agreed with it? It must be so hard being misinformed, you forget where your stance should be....anyhoo, so we agree the defense transformation would have occurred regardless of the occurrence of 9/11.


Good. So you agree that I didnt say that it wouldnt have happened. I agree that you think it would have happened, nothing more. It is, of course, completely irrelevant whether you think this or, not, as I shall come to...


Now, what exactly happened sooner? Please compare and contrast nuclear policy and global missile defense with Clinton National Security policy, outline the differences and when they occurred. Also, when exactly was Army Space Command established? Who was President then? What exactly was the transformation that occurred sooner than it would have (regardless as we both agree) with regard to Space? Again, please reference pre-2001 national security strategy documents in your response. Thanks, cheers! (You may learn something yet!)

Errr... buddy, not that I will write it off, but the chances of me learning anything of note from you, are probably slim to none. The point, that should not be very hard to miss, is that PNAC do not believe that such would happen sooner, absent a catastrophic and catalysing event, hence why they wrote it in their doc. So, what you are arguing, is that PNAC were wrong. This may be. I dont care. The only fact that matters is that they thought it, and thus they thought that a new PH would be propitious to policy. End.

[mjd1982]

A parallel to PNAC: A real group, that I will rename BASE, released several "white papers" saying that they desired to cause the US to become entangled in multiple long term military engagements in the mideast, thus weakening America's ability to control political realities in the region and allowing BASE to strike US military assets via asymmetric means. BASE hopes to use mideast turmoil to create a large number of failed states which can then become controlled under a larger government more suitable to BASE's idiology. BASE also released a "white paper" calling for large scale attacks against American interests.

BASE found the 9/11 attacks completely propitious to their ends, and I conclude probably would have done everything they could to cause 9/11 to happen.

Casually, I would say BASE is a much more likely force behind 9/11 than PNAC.
sorry, who the hell is base?

[mjd1982]

Yes the document tells us what is going to be done to make the 21st Century
an American one. But here is your plausibility problem;



You are saying this snippet here is the heart of the matter of your hubris...i.e. some of the signatories of this document were already intending to allow a catastrophic and catalyzing occurrence to happen, that they were formulating design, possibly terrorism, to happen on American soil, of course keeping in mind that many of these signatories are/were part and parcel of the Bush Administration?
I'll wait for your answer to respond
"Hubris"?

I am saying that this shows that a catastrophic and catalysing event was deemed propitious to policy by a significant number of neo cons who would be charged with running and protecting the US on and up to 911. That is all. (I have said this many times btw)

[mjd1982]

I agree, that's very well put, and knocks the heck out of the retarded PNAC argument. Pity that some people will never stop to consider this, simply because it doesn't reinforce their own biases.
riiiight....

[Jocce]

Yes sure. 2nd page of ch 5, 1st full para.

That is all you need to understand for now. Tell me when you have.

"Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor. Domestic politics and industrial policy will shape the pace and content of transformation as much as the requirements of current missions.

A decision to suspend or terminate aircraft carrier production, as recommended by this report and as justified by the clear direction of military technology, will cause great upheaval. Likewise, systems entering production today - the F-22 fighter, for example - will be in service inventories for decades to come. 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. The expense associated with some programs can make them roadblocks to the larger process of transformation - the Joint Strike Fighter program, at a total of approximately $200 billion, seems an unwise investment. Thus, this report advocates a two-stage process of change - transition and transformation - over the coming decades."

For your convenience i bolded some parts that points out some reasons why you would sometimes want a slower process. I also took the liberty to italize (sp.) and bold the last line which tells what this report actually recommends/calls for/deems propituous to plan.

Anything else is speculation on your part that they are lying when they say they prefer a process of change rather than an immediate transformation.

[Matthew Best]

sorry, who the hell is base?

Is he having a laugh? He's having a laugh! </Extras>

[MortFurd]

sorry, who the hell is base?
Some one you should familiarize yourself with:
The folks more commonly known as Al Queda. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_queda)
"The Base" is the english translation of Al Queda.



Can we ship these troofers back for some functional ones? The latest batch seems to have been delivered without basic knowledge and skills.

[mjd1982]

The list you supplied, the one with the forewarnings, contains information from declassified documents. (Yes, I Googled "Paul Thompson's 911 Timeline-> Warning Signs", like you said). To me this conveys that the documents were probably classified at some point.


U have qualified this later, so I wont bother.


I'll be the first to admit that my credulity is lacking in favour of a US government conspiracy.
However, demanding a new investigation after the one that has brought to light the very list of 'suspect' forewarnings you base your demand on, seems a bit odd.


But they didnt. Thats why you dont know most of them. The timeline is msm reports. My stuff comes from here and there. Moreover, there is a difference between stating the facts, and dealing with them. So for instance one thing the Comm dealt with was the fact that the system was "blinking red", and Bush was warned 40 times, but did nothing. Then silence. This is not dealt with, this is not criticised, this is not investigated, it is left to be forgotten about; an uncomfortable silence. This should not happen in a report into the attacks.


But say I go along with the fact that the failure to prevent the 9/11 attacks is suspect, what is your reason to don't trust the previous investigators to come to the conclusion you come to?


As above- they havent touched some of the most important facts (e.g. the OBL handover), and they havent dealt with any of the others.


Take a wild guess. Even better, I'll save you the effort: Normal people don't do that. The odds that the conspirators were able to recruit enough sociopaths among the ranks of government agencies to pull off such a conspiracy and not screw up are vanishingly small.


Again, that is completely untrue. The US government has been responsible for the murder of literally millions of people since 1945; leaders like Carter, Truman, Clinton, Kennedey- you deem these people to be "sociopaths"? These people come across as the most normal, genteel, respectable politicians... but since government is a power centre, the propensity to sacrifice human life, and do immoral things, is inherent. To quote Hans Morgenthau, the father of post war US diplomacy:


The statesman must think in terms of the national interest, conceived as power among other powers. The popular mind, unaware of the fine distinctions of the statesman’s thinking, reasons more often than not in the simple moralistic and legalistic terms of absolute good and absolute evil."[


Put this principle in neo con hands, and it gets a rocket boost.

Finally, to frame this in a topical situation, you have the PNAC doc, which was written/co signed by maybe up to 60 people, all endorsing this view as to the propitousness of a catastrophic attack on ths US for geo politics. So where is the difficulty in keeping a secret, when you already have so many people who believe in it?


In fact, you clearly contend that they totally screwed up their homicidal conspiracy by both publically announcing their plans beforehand and publishing the screw-ups afterward. I contend that they just screwed up their intelligence gathering.
Who's arguing from incredulity here?


No, they didnt screw it up, because the public is sufficicently cowed to accept any subterfuge in order to not have to believe that their government is guilty of this; even by arguing that "911 was not a new PH"; or that WTC7 was not imploded (more on that later, of course). So there was no screw up; politicians know the way the public mind works very well. To quote Bernays:


No serious sociologist any longer believes that the voice of the people expresses any divine or specially wise and lofty idea. The voice of the people expresses the mind of the people, and that mind is made up for it by the group leaders in whom it believes and by those persons who understand the manipulation of public opinion. It is composed of inherited prejudices and symbols and cliches and verbal formulas supplied to them by the leaders.



But I think I see what kind of conspiracy you think may have happened. It would have to be a conspiracy where the conspirators
1. recruit some maniacs to fly aircraft into buildings or
2. allow existing maniacs to fly their airplanes into buildings, because they were going to anyway.

Am I right?


For the moment, assume 2.
:rolleyes:



I can't tell without knowing who exactly got the warnings, or knowing how the different intelligence agencies communicate with eachother, or how many unrelated warnings about other terror attacks with trains, car bombs, ships, dirty nukes, anthrax, small pox, doomsday machines or space lasers gave more specific information and demanded more immediate action at the time.
Do you?

Ok, well dont worry about that. Just think about Bush/Cheney et al. What did they do and why.

[mjd1982]

Some one you should familiarize yourself with:
The folks more commonly known as Al Queda. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_queda)
"The Base" is the english translation of Al Queda.



Can we ship these troofers back for some functional ones? The latest batch seems to have been delivered without basic knowledge and skills.
Hahaha... ok, my bad.

[DGM]

Whether it has been fully proved or not gets evinced by its being fully contested. Until that has been done, it prevails. Si the ball is in your (pl) court
The ball is actually in your court. We can do this forever and there will still be no investigation. These points have been beaten to death by hundreds of people. No amount of speculation is ever going to change the fact that the PNAC does not connect to 9/11.

[mjd1982]

A parallel to PNAC: A real group, that I will rename BASE, released several "white papers" saying that they desired to cause the US to become entangled in multiple long term military engagements in the mideast, thus weakening America's ability to control political realities in the region and allowing BASE to strike US military assets via asymmetric means. BASE hopes to use mideast turmoil to create a large number of failed states which can then become controlled under a larger government more suitable to BASE's idiology. BASE also released a "white paper" calling for large scale attacks against American interests.

BASE found the 9/11 attacks completely propitious to their ends, and I conclude probably would have done everything they could to cause 9/11 to happen.

Casually, I would say BASE is a much more likely force behind 9/11 than PNAC.
Right. So "BASE" have a plan to do all this. How is this relevant? I dont dispute their involvement, nor their assuming a large weight of guilt. We all know that. Of course, this does not mean anything about PNAC/Bush admin, which is what the argument relates to.

[mjd1982]

The ball is actually in your court. We can do this forever and there will still be no investigation. These points have been beaten to death by hundreds of people. No amount of speculation is ever going to change the fact that the PNAC does not connect to 9/11.
Hahaha...its not speculation, its debate my friend. You can either engage in it, or not. Sitting there saying "it didnt happen, your wrong", just wastes your time more than anyone else.

[mjd1982]

I'm losing track of this thread - can you re-post the link please?

Dave
http://youtube.com/watch?v=zK-te3Y0m5A

[mjd1982]

Some additions to my latest post, mjd.

I must admit that I found only one declassified document (http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB116/pdb8-6-2001.pdf) here (http://www.wanttoknow.info/911timeline2pg). The point however stands that intelligence information is always classified at some point. The media only get what they get because someone in the intelligence industry wants them to.

I also found this interesting. Behind this snippet:If you read the Senate report Hill #1 (http://foi.missouri.edu/terrorintelligence/intelligcomm/hill6.pdf) you will encounter this in their concluding remarks:
and

Is the senate committee in on it too? Or are they just not intelligent enough to see these screw ups for what you think they are?

Ook?
As above, just focus on Bush et al