The 9/11 Conspiracy Facts [Archive] - Page 5

mjd1982

21st June 2007, 05:15 AM

"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.

Ok, the answer has been given a thousand times already, but i'll do it again. 1stly, I dont say that they are calling for immediate change.

More to the point, they have a choice. The change can happen soon with a new PH, or long absent a new PH. So, when they state what they advocate, they can either say
1. "this report advocates a two-stage process of change - transition and transformation - over the coming decades."
or
2. "This report advoates the occurence of a new PH which should occur ideally before the 2001 QDR".

It is not going to do the latter. This does not mean that it doesnt deem the latter propitous; it just means that the former is the option that it has opted to openly advocate, unsurprising, since the other option is insane.

If you bear this fact in mind, your interpretation of the rest of the quote should be clearer.

Gravy

21st June 2007, 05:16 AM

Is he having a laugh? He's having a laugh! </Extras>The irrational side of me wishes that he's having a laugh. The rational side offers $20 that he's not. Any takers?

mjd1982

21st June 2007, 05:17 AM

So 1000 post later what have you got everyone/anyone to agree on.
I'm not looking to "get people to agree" with me. I state the facts, I debate them, and people , if they are honest and sensible, will come to honest and sensible conclusions. If they are not, then they wont. If they are cowardly, they wont even bother engaging. seriously. I think the latter can be said for most participants on this thread.

Gravy

21st June 2007, 05:18 AM

Hahaha... ok, my bad.Holy crap.

mjd1982

21st June 2007, 05:20 AM

The irrational side of me wishes that he's having a laugh. The rational side offers $20 that he's not. Any takers?
And right on cue look who we have! Well timed Gravy. Youve been busy amending your LC Guide i presume.

Quick question- in your foreknowledge section, you omit any reference to Bush being offered OBL in feb 01, or that he was warned by Tenet 40 times, or that he demoted the main hindrance to an AQ attack, pretty much as soon as he got into office.

Why did you do this? To quote yourself, was it cowardice or incompetence?

mjd1982

21st June 2007, 05:22 AM

It's been explained before - you can't believe in LIHOP and MIHOP at the same time; they're mutually exclusive!

How can Al-Qaeda have been involved at the same time as the Bush government, if, as you contend, PNAC shows evidence of government complicity?
LMAO... This is getting desperate, SLC levels.

I have explained this too many times. The PNAC doc shows that they deemed a new PH propitious to policy. The forewarnings showed they knew that one was coming, and did nothing to stop it.

Stop getting confused by acronyms, and concentrate on the facts.

mjd1982

21st June 2007, 05:24 AM

Well, gee. They've explicitly said that they plan to do all of these things.

You've got a single vague reference that you've tortured and stretched to make it sound like 9/11 was PNAC's plan.

Al Queda: Clear "we are going to kick your ass."
PNAC: "It'd fark up our plans if someone kicked our ass."

Who would any reasonable person figure did it? Al Queda.
How would it "fark" them up??! Read the document please.

And how the hell is it "vague"? I think we have another HL in disguise here...

Oh, and I agree that a reasonable person would think AQ did it, assuming that reasonable person had no idea of the facts. If they did, they would come to the conclusions that are evident from this thread.

I note, btw, that no one wants to argue foreknowledge. Why is this?

Gravy

21st June 2007, 05:25 AM

state the facts, I debate them, and people , if they are honest and sensible, will come to honest and sensible conclusions.
No, you state your opinion, which you mistake for fact. Then you lie about what you've said (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2697936&postcount=753). Then you ignore tough questions. That's all disturbing behavior.

Honest and sensible people here have come to sensible conclusions about your claims. Your inability to see that, and that the burden of proof for your claims remains with you, is your problem.

Jocce

21st June 2007, 05:26 AM

Ok, the answer has been given a thousand times already, but i'll do it again. 1stly, I dont say that they are calling for immediate change.
Well, actually you did say that on many ocassions and I can point you to those posts if necessary.

More to the point, they have a choice. The change can happen soon with a new PH, or long absent a new PH. So, when they state what they advocate, they can either say
1. "this report advocates a two-stage process of change - transition and transformation - over the coming decades."
or
2. "This report advoates the occurence of a new PH which should occur ideally before the 2001 QDR".

Ehh, actually there are many shades of grey but for the sake of this discussion, agreed.

It is not going to do the latter. This does not mean that it doesnt deem the latter propitous; it just means that the former is the option that it has opted to openly advocate, unsurprising, since the other option is insane.

And here begins your speculation again. You are speculating that they deem a rapid transformation preferable but are lying because they can't tell the truth. Interpretation, speculation, fantasies, call it what you want but it's not a fact.

If you bear this fact in mind, your interpretation of the rest of the quote should be clearer.

You mean if I accept your speculative interpretation I will "understand" the rest of the quote as you do. Nice try.

Gravy

21st June 2007, 05:33 AM

And right on cue look who we have! Well timed Gravy. Youve been busy amending your LC Guide i presume.Feel free to point out any errors when you find them. I don't own the website and didn't do the coding, but if there's a major error I'll get it fixed. There are some minor errors, but no one has pointed out anything major that I've gotten wrong yet. I made it 2/3 of the way through a huge revision of that document after LC2ER was released, but got bored with it when it was over 250 pages.

Quick question- in your foreknowledge section, you omit any reference to Bush being offered OBL in feb 01, or that he was warned by Tenet 40 times, or that he demoted the main hindrance to an AQ attack, pretty much as soon as he got into office.

Why did you do this? To quote yourself, was it cowardice or incompetence?Can you point out where in Loose Change that appears? I thought I knew that video extremely well, and in fact I included a transcript of its narration.

volatile

21st June 2007, 05:33 AM

LMAO... This is getting desperate, SLC levels.

I have explained this too many times. The PNAC doc shows that they deemed a new PH propitious to policy. The forewarnings showed they knew that one was coming, and did nothing to stop it.

Stop getting confused by acronyms, and concentrate on the facts.

What? You either believe:

a) that the government (or a cabal within it) MADE 9/11 happen as a means to their nefarious ends (MIHOP), and actively orchestrated the events, either by hiring the hijackers or by more exotic means (explosive detonations etc.)

b) the government discovered what Al-Qaeda were planning, and deliberately hid this knowledge from the relevant parties (TSA, for example) in order that the plan would succeed. (LIHOP)

You can't believe both of these scenarios, as they are mutually exclusive. Your "facts" swing violently between these two positions, although in the quote above you seem to be settling into LIHOP.

Is it your contention, then, that the US government had NO HAND WHATSOEVER in planning or carrying out the Al-Qaeda sponsored hijackings of 9/11 (and that they were indeed hijackings, and that there was no other nefarious technological involvement such as explosive charges in the WTC buildings), just that once the plan was uncovered by the intelligence services, those intelligence services members conspired to prevent their discovery from coming to the notice of the police, TSA and other appropriate agencies because the Al-Qaeda plan would be useful to the government's pre-stated political aims?

Please clarify. If this is indeed your position (and you've been quite coy about it), then please state as such and we can move on.

Belz...

21st June 2007, 05:35 AM

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.

You're forgetting their ability to go to the media. Or make a web site.

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.

Actually, it is. Since thousands of people would have to be involved, we KNOW, historically, that the secret would not have remained hidden for long. Since NO ONE has spoken out, it's a safe bet that said conspiracy does not exist. Otherwise we have to add ANOTHER assumption as to why no one spoke out.

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

We don't seek the truth. That usually boils down to circular reasoning.

How is that hand waving?

Well, you didn't respond. Perhaps you can correct this perception of mine by answering it now, in summary.

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.

1. Irrelevant.
2. You have no idea how she could cause an accident. You've decided to alter the parameters of the scenario to make it impossible, but that changes NOTHING about the analogy. You're coming right back to your assumption that means entails action.
3. What they wanted ? How exactly have those changes been good ?

Oh God... please start improving the quality of your posts if you want me to spend time replying to them.

Your condescending tone is noted.

2nd, when OBL was offered on a plate in feb, he could have said yes.

You keep claiming that. Source, please ?

when Bush was told in June/July that AQ had cells in the US, he could have had people scope them out

This isn't a movie, mjd. Just because you think something's coming doesn't mean you can magically sweep these people from where they are and bring them to justice.

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?

I'm Canadian.

Read and understand

Yeah, so ? What was this link supposed to accomplish ?

volatile

21st June 2007, 05:37 AM

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.

How would it "fark" them up??! Read the document please.

And how the hell is it "vague"? I think we have another HL in disguise here...

Oh, and I agree that a reasonable person would think AQ did it, assuming that reasonable person had no idea of the facts. If they did, they would come to the conclusions that are evident from this thread.

I note, btw, that no one wants to argue foreknowledge. Why is this?

My emphasis.

You've gone from stating that you didn't doubt Al-Qaeda's involvement, to doubting it again in less than a page.

Can you see why we're not really buying your "argument"?

Belz...

21st June 2007, 05:42 AM

PNAC show that 911 was deemed propitious to policy.

Nonsense, since they don't mention 9/11 in the document.

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.

You have STATED it, but not shown it.

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

No, it's a historical fact.

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

Exactly ?

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.

Acronyms mean something, bloke. Obviously, since they represent words. I don't like them, myself, but then your username is "mjd1982".

Hahaha... ok, my bad.

So, do you agree that 9/11 was propitious to Al Qaeda's policy ?

H'ethetheth

21st June 2007, 05:52 AM

As above, just focus on Bush et alBut Bush doesn't enter into the shortcomings uncovered by this senate committee. Lots of the errors in passing along foreknowledge never got to the level of Bush because the people who screwed up were generally much farther down the ladder and generally tried to cover their tracks because of possible consequences for their livelyhood and reputation etc. There are very few instances that would hinge on Bush remaining inactive. That is the point I'm trying to get across.
But, you got me interested at least, which is good. I'll read through the reports later. I'm supposed to be working, you see.

And about sociopaths: I'm not talking about presidents. I'm not talking about soldiers killing foreign guerilleros or civilians in a silly war against global communism or terrorism or drugs or whatever.
I'm talking about people who would kill or be part of a secret plot to kill 10,000 innocent civilians in their own country, just to increase defence R&D spending and prolong their nation's hegemony.
I believe you will not find a lot of people who will do this kind of dirty work, especially since the plot you announced seems to involve blowing up at least one building without making too many people suspect that it was in fact blown up, as part of a secret plot to kill up to 10,000 civilians, just to increase defence R&D spending and prolong their nation's hegemony.

WildCat

21st June 2007, 06:19 AM

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.
Unsupported speculation.

So, he was told that there were AQ cells in the US, plotting a terror attack. What did he do in response. And why.
What should have been done? You've provided no evidence whatsoever that they knew who the terrorists were, where they were, when they planned to attack, how they would attack, etc etc.

Guess what? Somewhere in the Chicago area, a bank robbery will occur in the next week. What should be done mjd1982?

WildCat

21st June 2007, 06:22 AM

sorry, who the hell is base?
Perhaps the Arabic translation can help you out a bit... not as informed as you think you are, are you?

Dave Rogers

21st June 2007, 06:36 AM

tsig

21st June 2007, 06:51 AM

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 can get behind the BASE.

pnac is just a document the BASE is for real.

tsig

21st June 2007, 07:16 AM

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.

There's no debate It Happened.

mjd it's not a happy world to be in

or a real great way to see.

But that's the way the world works

Since life came from the sea.

Augustine

21st June 2007, 08:23 AM

So we agree that defense transformation would have occurred regardless of 9/11. Good.

but the chances of me learning anything of note from you, are probably slim to none.

This is an excellent illustration of your own stubborn arrogant ignorance. I would hope you would at least have learned the value of understanding the larger context in which documents are written, and the importance of understanding the evolution and development of the strategic thought behind them. Too bad. :(

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.

I am not arguing that PNAC was wrong; I am arguing that you are wrong. PNAC was stating a very simple fact that nearly every military historian would agree on: military transformation is typically a long slow process (or even nonexistent), without some (generally) catastrophic event which catalyzes military transformation. There have been catastrophic events, even catastrophic military events, which did not catalyze military transformation. You have claimed that 9/11 was a catastrophic event which catalyzed military transformation. You have offered no evidence in support of this claim. You have admitted that 9/11 was unnecessary for the implementation of the policies of transformation. You have provided no evidence that 9/11 in any way accelerated the transformation which was already underway. So I am saying that YOU are QUITE WRONG in that assertion. 9/11, while catastrophic, has had a relatively minor impact on a transformation process which was already underway.

Again, how's that mindset working out for you?

P.S. Did you notice that the one goal that was actually mentioned in the same paragraph as the "new Pearl Harbor" - cancelling the Joint Strike Fighter program - hasn't occurred? Why do you think this is? What does this tell you about the significance of the rest of the paragraph that you conveniently have your blinders on for? I would say enjoy your research, but well...enjoy the darkness!

nicepants

21st June 2007, 09:05 AM

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.

1 - Proof that they knew the exact people, places, times to be involved in the attack?

2 - Proof that they did not try to stop it?

mjd1982

21st June 2007, 12:29 PM

No, you state your opinion, which you mistake for fact. Then you lie about what you've said (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2697936&postcount=753). Then you ignore tough questions. That's all disturbing behavior.

Oh dear. How sad. Is this not pathetic?

It would be instructibe to sum up our conducts on this thread. I have stated fact (e.g. PNAC, the WOT, foreknowledge etc), I have debated this (how this shows propitiousness, criminal negligence, where this leads us etc), and then I wait to be challenged. Sometimes people do, most times, people don't

You, will either argue from incredulity, saying things are wrong because you deem them "batcrap insane", making snide comments from a distance (incidentally, learn this difference between "writing their plan for attacking the US into RAD", and its need being stated; and then stop accusing me of lying), or arguing trivialities. Of course you are happy to post disproportionately on the Holocaust, but when it comes to debating the essential points on here, you would rather not; much like most of your colleagues.

I understand you have built up an identity for yourself as a "debunker", and it would hurt you to have such torn down, but I am pretty disappointed. OTers speak so highly of you; and yet here you are, running scared from a 24 year old Brit, who has hardly ever even been to NY. Have some balls, and come out and debate the points. Alternatively, retract your position.

Honest and sensible people here have come to sensible conclusions about your claims. Your inability to see that, and that the burden of proof for your claims remains with you, is your problem.

No, honest and sensible people will debate the claims, and then come to conclusions about them. This should not be hard to understand. There are some such here, but as is clear to anyone following this thread, you are not one of them.

volatile

21st June 2007, 12:39 PM

The word "hubris" springs rapidly to mind...

mjd1982

21st June 2007, 12:42 PM

Well, actually you did say that on many ocassions and I can point you to those posts if necessary.

I say, and have said many times, that they state (tacitly) the propitiousness of a new PH. Different.

Ehh, actually there are many shades of grey but for the sake of this discussion, agreed.

ok

And here begins your speculation again. You are speculating that they deem a rapid transformation preferable but are lying because they can't tell the truth. Interpretation, speculation, fantasies, call it what you want but it's not a fact.

But come on. Let's be precise about what we are calling speculation, since it is all too easy to use it as a blanket word to cover even the most elementary instances where even if something if overwhelmingly implied, its implication can be denied since it is speculative to make the inference. To give an example, of the top of my head, "I really wanna play football tomorrow. If it rains, we will not be able to play". Now here, is is speculation to say that I am hoping it does not rain. Yet for the purposes of a sane argument, it would be ridiculous to dismiss that claim as "speculation/fantasy" as you do. Doing such, as I stated, throws a blanket over all types of inference, even the most basic, and as such, renders all inference useless, fantasy. This is not a framework for any type of serious discussion.

So we have to look closer. Clearly "speculation" is a sliding scale. Something can be closer to simple, elementary inference, whereas something else could indeed be fantasy. So what do we have with PNAC. Well, as Ive posted a number of times, there are 3 elements that make this inference, highly elementary:
1. All else being equal, people want good things to happen sooner rather than later. PNAC dee, the transformation to be good, thus they want it to happen sooner rather than later.
2. It is stated that such a transformation must be crystalised in decison makers minds by Oct 2001. Thus a new PH would have to occur soon, in order for their wishes to be consummated.
3. The aim of PNAC is to militraily create a platform that will project US hegemony and make the 21st Century the American Century. Thus, it is logical that they would want this platform to be created soon, so they could actively project US hegemony and create an American 21st Century, rather than wait, have it potentially jeopardised by other elements.

These must be the basis for such a debate, as I have been saying since #419.

mjd1982

21st June 2007, 12:46 PM

Feel free to point out any errors when you find them. I don't own the website and didn't do the coding, but if there's a major error I'll get it fixed. There are some minor errors, but no one has pointed out anything major that I've gotten wrong yet. I made it 2/3 of the way through a huge revision of that document after LC2ER was released, but got bored with it when it was over 250 pages.

Can you point out where in Loose Change that appears? I thought I knew that video extremely well, and in fact I included a transcript of its narration.
Oh boy... Read here as I believe, you've been asked to do many times already:

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

Excuse my impetuousness. But as stated earlier, since your guide is in essence, a defense of the absence of gov connivance, please respond to the points made at the top of the foreknowledge section.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=84473&page=19

volatile

21st June 2007, 12:47 PM

Could you clarify your position as to the actual involvement of the US government, MJD - as asked in Post 1014 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2708269&postcount=1014). Did they MAKE it happen, or simply LET it happen? And what of Al-Qaeda (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2708274&postcount=1016)?

It really would help us see where you're coming from, and prevent us going round in circles, which we're still doing.

mjd1982

21st June 2007, 12:48 PM

What? You either believe:

a) that the government (or a cabal within it) MADE 9/11 happen as a means to their nefarious ends (MIHOP), and actively orchestrated the events, either by hiring the hijackers or by more exotic means (explosive detonations etc.)

b) the government discovered what Al-Qaeda were planning, and deliberately hid this knowledge from the relevant parties (TSA, for example) in order that the plan would succeed. (LIHOP)

You can't believe both of these scenarios, as they are mutually exclusive. Your "facts" swing violently between these two positions, although in the quote above you seem to be settling into LIHOP.

Is it your contention, then, that the US government had NO HAND WHATSOEVER in planning or carrying out the Al-Qaeda sponsored hijackings of 9/11 (and that they were indeed hijackings, and that there was no other nefarious technological involvement such as explosive charges in the WTC buildings), just that once the plan was uncovered by the intelligence services, those intelligence services members conspired to prevent their discovery from coming to the notice of the police, TSA and other appropriate agencies because the Al-Qaeda plan would be useful to the government's pre-stated political aims?

Please clarify. If this is indeed your position (and you've been quite coy about it), then please state as such and we can move on.
I havent been coy at all, Ive stated it many times; it is their in my OP. They knew it was coming, they let it happen, and they aggravated it. They would also, I would guess, massaged it a bit as well, e.g. to ensure it happened at the right time, place etc.

volatile

21st June 2007, 12:54 PM

I havent been coy at all, Ive stated it many times; it is their in my OP. They knew it was coming, they let it happen, and they aggravated it. They would also, I would guess, massaged it a bit as well, e.g. to ensure it happened at the right time, place etc.

Those are two entirely contradictory positions. You can't stand back and let something happen at the same time as conspiring to make it happen. It's one, or the other.

They knew it was coming, they let it happen *and* they aggravated and massaged it? How so? Please clarify.

mjd1982

21st June 2007, 12:56 PM

You're forgetting their ability to go to the media. Or make a web site.

Find out about Anthony Schaffer and Sibel Edmonds.

Also, re: the msm, please read this OP:

http://screwloosechange.xbehome.com/index.php?showtopic=1854

[QUOTE=Belz...;2708272]
Actually, it is. Since thousands of people would have to be involved,

Not true

we KNOW, historically, that the secret would not have remained hidden for long. Since NO ONE has spoken out, it's a safe bet that said conspiracy does not exist. Otherwise we have to add ANOTHER assumption as to why no one spoke out.

as above

We don't seek the truth. That usually boils down to circular reasoning.

what r u doing here then?

Well, you didn't respond. Perhaps you can correct this perception of mine by answering it now, in summary.

being sincere here, cam u please remind me of the point, i will respond

1. Irrelevant.
2. You have no idea how she could cause an accident. You've decided to alter the parameters of the scenario to make it impossible, but that changes NOTHING about the analogy. You're coming right back to your assumption that means entails action.

No I havent. i am stating the gov could relatively easily have covertly allowed it to happen. How could the old lady have done this?

3. What they wanted ? How exactly have those changes been good ?

It matters not if they were good, they were the changes that PNAC deemed to be good. End of.

Your condescending tone is noted.

You keep claiming that. Source, please ?

it has been given many times, and never answered coherently

http://youtube.com/watch?v=zK-te3Y0m5A

This isn't a movie, mjd. Just because you think something's coming doesn't mean you can magically sweep these people from where they are and bring them to justice.

I didnt say they shoud have been. I'm saying someone should have tried, To have not can only realistically be explained 1 way

mjd1982

21st June 2007, 12:58 PM

When I state "did it", I mean exclusively.

Excuse the occasional lack of clarity, I am posting a hell of a lot.

mjd1982

21st June 2007, 12:59 PM

Nonsense, since they don't mention 9/11 in the document.

You have STATED it, but not shown it.

No, it's a historical fact.

Exactly ?

Acronyms mean something, bloke. Obviously, since they represent words. I don't like them, myself, but then your username is "mjd1982".

So, do you agree that 9/11 was propitious to Al Qaeda's policy ?
"Bloke"?

mjd1982

21st June 2007, 01:02 PM

Those are two entirely contradictory positions. You can't stand back and let something happen at the same time as conspiring to make it happen. It's one, or the other.

They knew it was coming, they let it happen *and* they aggravated and massaged it? How so? Please clarify.
I know that someone is coming to steal my neighbours car at 12.00. I ensure that my cars arent parked in their usual spacea, crammed 1 in front and 1 behind, to ensure that they can indeed nick it. I then walk away, hands in pockets, not informing anyone of whatis going to happen. So I LIHOP abd MIHOP. Lets have no more on this; its irrelevant.

DavidJames

21st June 2007, 01:02 PM

I havent been coy at all, Ive stated it many times; it is their in my OP. They knew it was coming, they let it happen, and they aggravated it. They would also, I would guess, massaged it a bit as well, e.g. to ensure it happened at the right time, place etc.Fair enough. Please tell me who, specifically, should be accused of conspiracy to commit mass murder and provide the evidence you would like to submit to the authorities. While you're at it, please tell us who you are and where you live. In case someone would like to start publicly accusing you of a federal crime. Of course, the evidence, like your's would be rumor, hearsay and innuendo. I'm sure you'll be okay with that, though.

HeyLeroy

21st June 2007, 01:03 PM

I havent been coy at all, Ive stated it many times; it is their in my OP. They knew it was coming, they let it happen, and they aggravated it. They would also, I would guess, massaged it a bit as well, e.g. to ensure it happened at the right time, place etc.

Hasn't it been your contention (on the SLC forum) that conspirators unknown "made" 7 World Trade Center collapse with pre-planted explosives? Have you now abandoned that stance?

HyJinX

21st June 2007, 01:05 PM

Lets have no more on this; its irrelevant.

All who agree...say "AYE"!

mjd1982

21st June 2007, 01:07 PM

But Bush doesn't enter into the shortcomings uncovered by this senate committee.

y should i care about the senate committee?

Lots of the errors in passing along foreknowledge never got to the level of Bush because the people who screwed up were generally much farther down the ladder and generally tried to cover their tracks because of possible consequences for their livelyhood and reputation etc.

40 warnings in ~30 weeks of an impending AQ attack on US interests. Thats a lot.

And let's not forget his demotion of Clarke, which i have expanded upon earlier.

There are very few instances that would hinge on Bush remaining inactive. That is the point I'm trying to get across.

And the handing over of OBL in feb 01?

But, you got me interested at least, which is good. I'll read through the reports later. I'm supposed to be working, you see.

Thanks

And about sociopaths: I'm not talking about presidents. I'm not talking about soldiers killing foreign guerilleros or civilians in a silly war against global communism or terrorism or drugs or whatever.
I'm talking about people who would kill or be part of a secret plot to kill 10,000 innocent civilians in their own country, just to increase defence R&D spending and prolong their nation's hegemony.
I believe you will not find a lot of people who will do this kind of dirty work, especially since the plot you announced seems to involve blowing up at least one building without making too many people suspect that it was in fact blown up, as part of a secret plot to kill up to 10,000 civilians, just to increase defence R&D spending and prolong their nation's hegemony.

You know about East Timor? 100's of 1000's of landless peasants slaughtered with US imprimatur (and of course weapons). This was for hegemonic aims, just like 911, and was approved by the likes of Walter Mondale and Jimmy Carter and Gerald Ford, far less odious appearning creatures than Dick Cheney or Richard Perle.

DGM

21st June 2007, 01:08 PM

mjd1982

21st June 2007, 01:10 PM

One quick question for MJD1982:

Given that the relevant sentence would have been no less relevant to their thesis if they were omitted, do you think the inclusion of the words "absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor" in RAD could have been deemed by its writers likely to cast suspicion on PNAC, were they in fact planning to execute such a catastrophic and catalyzing event themselves?

Dave
Well, not significant suspicion anyway. There will be sufficient people who will accept any subterfuge in order not to believe that their government has done this. Such subterfuges are all too evident on this board. That, combined with the western propaganda system that i have touched upon a few times here, means that any suspicion will not be significant, i.e. it will never do anything. You can extend this to all of 911.

mjd1982

21st June 2007, 01:12 PM

Fair enough. Please tell me who, specifically, should be accused of conspiracy to commit mass murder and provide the evidence you would like to submit to the authorities. While you're at it, please tell us who you are and where you live. In case someone would like to start publicly accusing you of a federal crime. Of course, the evidence, like your's would be rumor, hearsay and innuendo. I'm sure you'll be okay with that, though.
Errr.. this may well be the worst post her so far.

I am not accusing any one person, I am stating that there needs to be an investigation to deem who should be the accused. This has been stated many times.

Such as post as yours, is pretty worthless to any form of sensible discussion.

DGM

21st June 2007, 01:15 PM

40 warnings in ~30 weeks of an impending AQ attack on US interests. Thats a lot.

How many threats does the US get every day? You must know this to say that 40 in 30 weeks is a lot.

H'ethetheth

21st June 2007, 01:15 PM

All who agree...say "AYE"!
I have to admit that I agree that his scenario is possible as far as I understand it, and I don't know his stance on the collapses yet.
It would however require a near infallible intelligence apparatus to pull off a "LIHOP with massage". The evidence for anything remotely resembling this isn't there. In fact, he's provided a lot of evidence to the contrary in fact, but of course this can be construed as the devious machinations of a near infallible intelligence apparatus...

sigh...

Belz...

21st June 2007, 01:18 PM

I have stated fact (e.g. PNAC, the WOT, foreknowledge etc)

Those are NOT facts, Mjd. The pathetic part is you not recognising this.

I have debated this (how this shows propitiousness, criminal negligence, where this leads us etc)

Debating opinions as though they were facts is not productive.

You, will either argue from incredulity, saying things are wrong because you deem them "batcrap insane"

Godzilla destroyed the world trade center:

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_608045881cf508972.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=3210)

You may safely hand-wave it and call it insane. No need to go into much detail.

but when it comes to debating the essential points on here, you would rather not; much like most of your colleagues.

What IS it with you truthers and your obsession with that word ? Do you think I've ever met Gravy ? Or that we work for the same NWO-sponsored organisation ?

I understand you have built up an identity for yourself as a "debunker", and it would hurt you to have such torn down

Are you going to argue, or just flame ?

OTers speak so highly of you; and yet here you are, running scared from a 24 year old Brit, who has hardly ever even been to NY.

I don't think ol' Gravy is scared. A little tired of the likes of you, maybe.

No, honest and sensible people will debate the claims, and then come to conclusions about them. This should not be hard to understand.

It isn't, and I have. You are wrong.

But come on. Let's be precise about what we are calling speculation, since it is all too easy to use it as a blanket word to cover even the most elementary instances where even if something if overwhelmingly implied

Even if you add "overwhelmingly" it doesn't change the fact that your interpretation of the implications is NOT shared by other posters here. Instead of falling into the same trap as many others and assuming that if 1000 people disagree with you, they are automatically wrong because you know in your heart that you are correct, try and consider that YOU may be wrong.

All else being equal, people want good things to happen sooner rather than later. PNAC dee, the transformation to be good, thus they want it to happen sooner rather than later.

A catastrophic event that kills civilians and that DOESN'T launch a war that promotes technical advancement is NOT good.

It is stated that such a transformation must be crystalised in decison makers minds by Oct 2001. Thus a new PH would have to occur soon, in order for their wishes to be consummated.

There's that speculation, again.

The aim of PNAC is to militraily create a platform that will project US hegemony and make the 21st Century the American Century. Thus, it is logical that they would want this platform to be created soon

Do you know how long the 21st century still has to go ?

mjd1982

21st June 2007, 01:19 PM

So we agree that defense transformation would have occurred regardless of 9/11. Good.

No we dont. In time, possibly.

This is an excellent illustration of your own stubborn arrogant ignorance. I would hope you would at least have learned the value of understanding the larger context in which documents are written, and the importance of understanding the evolution and development of the strategic thought behind them. Too bad. :(

In this context, it has zero relevance. So theres no point me reading it.

I am not arguing that PNAC was wrong; I am arguing that you are wrong. PNAC was stating a very simple fact that nearly every military historian would agree on: military transformation is typically a long slow process (or even nonexistent), without some (generally) catastrophic event which catalyzes military transformation. There have been catastrophic events, even catastrophic military events, which did not catalyze military transformation.

Excellent. So you agree that a catastrophic and catalysing event is deemed propitious to policy?

You have claimed that 9/11 was a catastrophic event which catalyzed military transformation. You have offered no evidence in support of this claim.

Other than the links I have given you, which, possibly due to stubborn, arrogant ignorance, you refuse to read.

You have admitted that 9/11 was unnecessary for the implementation of the policies of transformation.

Err... please show me where this has been done.

You have provided no evidence that 9/11 in any way accelerated the transformation which was already underway. So I am saying that YOU are QUITE WRONG in that assertion. 9/11, while catastrophic, has had a relatively minor impact on a transformation process which was already underway.

911 has catalysed the WOT. Do you agree with that? And does the WOT create any kind of transformation in military behaviour?

Next, tell me what you feel the WOT to entail.

Again, how's that mindset working out for you?

P.S. Did you notice that the one goal that was actually mentioned in the same paragraph as the "new Pearl Harbor" - cancelling the Joint Strike Fighter program - hasn't occurred? Why do you think this is? What does this tell you about the significance of the rest of the paragraph that you conveniently have your blinders on for? I would say enjoy your research, but well...enjoy the darkness!

No, I have addressed this para, and the point about the JSF time and again. Please read the thread. The reason why it carries little to no weight, is that it is but one item that is not being carried out- there are not too many that are not- and this is reflective of execution, rather than design. Since we are arguiing about PNAC's designs rather than their execution, your point is worthless, i'm afraid.

mjd1982

21st June 2007, 01:22 PM

1 - Proof that they knew the exact people, places, times to be involved in the attack?

They dont need this. If you know people are planning to rob your house inthe next week, do you do nothing, because youdont know when/who/where theyre gonna come from? Of course not.

Bad point.

2 - Proof that they did not try to stop it?

The 911 Comm report. Bush got 40 warnings, but took zero action in response.

Oh, and I know you guys dont like talkin about this one, but the OBL offer in Feb 01?

Belz...

21st June 2007, 01:22 PM

Not true

IT IS true, Mjd. How many people who COULD have stopped it could not BECAUSE of interference from the people TO WHOM they communicate this information TO ?

as above

Really ? How many massive conspiracies have remained hidden for so long ?

what r u doing here then?

Practicing better English than you are, apparently.

In case you didn't get what I was saying, "seeking" the truth usually means having the conclusion well in advance. I don't do that.

No I havent. i am stating the gov could relatively easily have covertly allowed it to happen. How could the old lady have done this?

Someone mentioned rigging brakes. Haven't you been reading this stuff ?

It matters not if they were good, they were the changes that PNAC deemed to be good. End of.

Ah, so now you're a mind-reader ??

it has been given many times, and never answered coherently

http://youtube.com/watch?v=zK-te3Y0m5A

I don't have sound at work, and I don't care for youtube. Transcript, please ?

I didnt say they shoud have been. I'm saying someone should have tried

You don't even know if they could!

Belz...

21st June 2007, 01:23 PM

"Bloke"?

That's your whole answer ?

40 warnings in ~30 weeks of an impending AQ attack on US interests. Thats a lot.

Yeah, IF you know WHERE they'll strike.

mjd1982

21st June 2007, 01:25 PM

Hasn't it been your contention (on the SLC forum) that conspirators unknown "made" 7 World Trade Center collapse with pre-planted explosives? Have you now abandoned that stance?
aggravated

mjd1982

21st June 2007, 01:26 PM

It is actually possible to be both ways. The big problem is you involve a lot more people that could potentially speak out or simply not cooperate.
Not that this matter much, but how?

mjd1982

21st June 2007, 01:29 PM

How many threats does the US get every day? You must know this to say that 40 in 30 weeks is a lot.
Not 40 warnings, 40 times at PDB's that the topic came up. 40 times nothing was done by Bush, Cheney, Rummy and Rice.

This has been addressed before, but the seriousness of the warnings can be gauged from the fact that their gravity was deemed "unprecedented" by Tenet, who had been around at the millennium terror threat; the system was "blinking red" according to him; he was "teariing his hair out" according to Armitage, and an FBI source repeats that the warnings had "never been so bad". See the 911 timeline for more.

mjd1982

21st June 2007, 01:30 PM

That's your whole answer ?

Yeah, IF you know WHERE they'll strike.
If you know people are planning to rob your house inthe next week, do you do nothing, because youdont know when/who/where theyre gonna come from? Of course not.

Redtail

21st June 2007, 01:36 PM

If you know people are planning to rob your house inthe next week, do you do nothing, because youdont know when/who/where theyre gonna come from? Of course not.

But you know they are going to rob YOUR HOUSE, thus you know where they are going to strike.

mjd1982

21st June 2007, 01:37 PM

I have to admit that I agree that his scenario is possible as far as I understand it, and I don't know his stance on the collapses yet.

That is irrelevant to the thrust of the argument, since the points here stand as evidence of it as and of themselves.

It would however require a near infallible intelligence apparatus to pull off a "LIHOP with massage". The evidence for anything remotely resembling this isn't there.

Please tell me how.

In terms of massage, you understand this would simply involve having someone on the inside, influentially? You find this hard to conceive? The French had this. (http://www.911blogger.com/node/7948)

In fact, he's provided a lot of evidence to the contrary in fact, but of course this can be construed as the devious machinations of a near infallible intelligence apparatus...

sigh...

Such as?

HeyLeroy

21st June 2007, 01:43 PM

mjd1982

21st June 2007, 01:46 PM

But you know they are going to rob YOUR HOUSE, thus you know where they are going to strike.
Pfff.. come on! You understand the point. Let's say its a very big house!

DGM

21st June 2007, 01:47 PM

Not that this matter much, but how?
I was agree with you that you could be LIHOP and MIHOP. Making it happen would have to involve more people because you are doing more.

HeyLeroy

21st June 2007, 01:48 PM

Things aren't going so well here, are they, mjd1982?

H'ethetheth

21st June 2007, 01:49 PM

y should i care about the senate committee?Because they were presented the same list of intelligence screw-ups and came to a conclusion different from yours.

40 warnings in ~30 weeks of an impending AQ attack on US interests. Thats a lot.About 1024 molecules in a glass of water. That's also a lot.
It tells us nothing at all however. It's only useful if you know how many of the total amount of warnings were actually relevant and specific to 9/11.
I would believe without trouble that intelligence agencies receive 40 warnings a week of similar nature.

And let's not forget his demotion of Clarke, which i have expanded upon earlier.Missed that, sorry. I'll have a look. On a related note: I must say I'm in awe of your posting ability.

And the handing over of OBL in feb 01?I'm still catching up, sorry.

You know about East Timor? 100's of 1000's of landless peasants slaughtered with US imprimatur (and of course weapons). This was for hegemonic aims, just like 911, and was approved by the likes of Walter Mondale and Jimmy Carter and Gerald Ford, far less odious appearning creatures than Dick Cheney or Richard Perle.What? I fail to see the semblance between the two. The relation between the Indonesian government and army, and East Timor is very different from the relation between the US government and New York city. No countrymen, no conspiracy, no relevance.
You're going to tell me the massacres in Rwanda are also a good example next, right?

Redtail

21st June 2007, 01:52 PM

Pfff.. come on! You understand the point. Let's say its a very big house!

Yes I understand your point and it's a very poor one.

HyJinX

21st June 2007, 01:55 PM

Pfff.. come on! You understand the point. Let's say its a very big house!

Now that was funny.

Ok...instead of a single house, let's say they're going to rob your neighborhood. Say there's 50 houses in the neighborhood. You get intel that someone will rob one of these houses, someday...but you're not sure when, which house, how, or who the robber(s) are exactly. Doesn't this seem to fit your scenario a little better than someone robbing a single home?

DGM

21st June 2007, 01:55 PM

But you know they are going to rob YOUR HOUSE, thus you know where they are going to strike.

Let's say its a very big house!

Or 200 houses all over the country! (makes it tougher huh)

Augustine

21st June 2007, 01:56 PM

No we dont. In time, possibly.

This is tiresome, proving something and then you retreat and I have to prove it all over again. Would defense transformation have occurred regardless? Was it already underway? If you say it would not have, then why not? Justify.

In this context, it has zero relevance. So theres no point me reading it.
To the contrary, it is quite relevant. You might appreciate this if you actually did some reading on strategy.

So you agree that a catastrophic and catalysing event is deemed propitious to policy?

In addition to your strategic studies, I would suggest you include reading comprehension. In much of military history, catastrophic and catalyzing events were required for military transformation (can you think of any pre-1982?). The purpose of strategists is to anticipate the future and spur transformation without the catastrophic and catalyzing event occurring.

Identify a catastrophic and catalyzing event prior to 1982. Was it "propitious to policy"? If the transformation that it engendered could have been undertaken without the event occurring, would that have been preferable?

911 has catalysed the WOT. Do you agree with that? And does the WOT create any kind of transformation in military behaviour?

The GWOT has not been the prime driver behind any element of transformation. Most elements of transformation were in place prior to the GWOT. The GWOT is a prolonged campaign; the military is but one element, and must remain ready, capable, and positioned to perform any number of other missions.

P.S. Clarke was never demoted.

P.S.S. The Taliban never offered to turn over Bin Laden to the U.S. in February 2001. They offered to have him tried for the 1998 Embassy bombings (which he had been convicted of in 1998) by a group of Muslim clerics. It was hardly a serious offer, and given how Al Qaeda had used our courtroom evidence in the 1993 trial to tighten their own security measures against us, it would have been lunacy for the U.S. to accept the offer. Additionally, this gives the lie to their offers in late 2001 - it took them some 2-1/2 years of international pressure after UBL's conviction just to give us a worthless offer; why wait another 2+ years after 9/11 to go through the same bs?

HyJinX

21st June 2007, 02:04 PM

I present this wonderful gift to all rational thinkers posting in this thread (you know who you are ;)). Please feel free to smack your head against this glorious wall whenever the need strikes.

H'ethetheth

21st June 2007, 02:09 PM

That is irrelevant to the thrust of the argument, since the points here stand as evidence of it as and of themselves. I disagree. To pull of this conspiracy there have to be as few as possible Americans doing dirty jobs. Rigging buildings with secret fire-proof explosives is not going to help.

Please tell me how. They would need to know exactly who would strike when, where and how, depending on the extent of the massage (read demolitions) they would have to know how likely it would be that the buildings would collapse by themselves, or fall onto other buidings enough to make it plausible enough to implode it without any experts suspecting anything.

In terms of massage, you understand this would simply involve having someone on the inside, influentially? You find this hard to conceive? The French had this. (http://www.911blogger.com/node/7948)I can go along with that up to the point of controlled demolitions.

Such as?The entire list of forewarnings. The senate committee, whose judgment you choose to ignore, does not construe this as machinations of an infallible intelligence apparatus but rather the shortcomings of a scattered unprepared intelligence community.

Jonnyclueless

21st June 2007, 02:11 PM

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

OK, just checking. So if we're all in agreement that it doesn't make any reference to 9/11, then what seems to be the problem?

H'ethetheth

21st June 2007, 02:13 PM

I present this wonderful gift to all rational thinkers posting in this thread (you know who you are ;)). Please feel free to smack your head against this glorious wall whenever the need strikes.Thanks!

I'm warming up to it.

David Wong

21st June 2007, 02:18 PM

I've missed a few pages. Have we gotten to WTC7 yet? Or any evidence that closes the gargantuan gap between:

"PNAC may have wanted a new Pearl Harbor"

and

"PNAC blew up buildings and worked with the terrorists."

DGM

21st June 2007, 02:22 PM

OK, just checking. So if we're all in agreement that it doesn't make any reference to 9/11, then what seems to be the problem?
Start reading this thread from the beginning. Don't worry you'll get the idea after a few pages. Also read your PM's

HyJinX

21st June 2007, 02:23 PM

Jonnyclueless

21st June 2007, 02:26 PM

I fail to even see a part where PNAC even implies wanting a new Pearl Harbor. I do however see a complaint about how events such as ones like Pearl Harbor have been the only motivation in advancing technology, which they are trying to do without such events.

In other words, we need to keep technology advancing and not have to wait for a pearl harbor type event.

Didn't Alex Jones predict 9/11? Guess he must be involved too eh?

Jonnyclueless

21st June 2007, 02:29 PM

Start reading this thread from the beginning. Don't worry you'll get the idea after a few pages. Also read your PM's

All I see from that is people making vast assumption. Nothing that in any way shows any connection between PNAC and 9/11. Perhaps you could point out something specific. Because if reading the thread is supposed to fill me in, it certainly didn't do the trick. So maybe pointing out some specifics will help insure I didn't overlook something you wanted me to see.

nicepants

21st June 2007, 02:31 PM

They dont need this. If you know people are planning to rob your house inthe next week, do you do nothing, because youdont know when/who/where theyre gonna come from? Of course not.

Your analogy contradicts itself!

In your analogy we know WHERE and WHEN, and the TYPE of attack. (Your house, next week, robbery)

Did bush know WHAT TYPE of attack, and WHERE and WHEN said attacks would take place?

What do you think he should have done?

The 911 Comm report. Bush got 40 warnings, but took zero action in response.

So someone warned you that your house was going to be broken into...But you'd also received similar warnings about your car, office, and house in the months prior, none of which resulted in the warned-of attack being carried out, and you're supposed to act on this warning moreso than the others?

Is every warning accurate? Is he supposed to act on each one? Do you know how many other warnings he got during the same time?

DGM

21st June 2007, 02:39 PM

All I see from that is people making vast assumption. Nothing that in any way shows any connection between PNAC and 9/11. Perhaps you could point out something specific. Because if reading the thread is supposed to fill me in, it certainly didn't do the trick. So maybe pointing out some specifics will help insure I didn't overlook something you wanted me to see.
You understand just fine. Now, explain it to MJ and this thread won't go another 27 pages.

PS we all get it!

simakperrce

21st June 2007, 03:01 PM

The fact is... <big snip> ...this doesn’t prove anything <another big snip>

M

You could have said the same you did here in 4300 words in a mere two and spared us all a lot of time: "Cui bono"?

Instead, my wordprocessor counts 17 occurrences of the word "fact", 6 occurences of the word "facts" and 6 occurences of the word "evidence" in your original post, not counting similar verbage like "Coincidence? No." or "this is almost certain".

However, the repetition of the word "truth" ad infinitum does truth not automatically make. For the excessive use of the word "fact" and it's various derivates, your OP, albeit equally excessive, curiously lacks the actual existence of such, with the exception of the basic evidence we all agree upon (that there was an attack on 9/11 for example).

I would also like to point out to you that there is a difference between "advance warning" and "foreknowledge". I can warn you that you might get hit by a flash when you go outside, but foreknowledge implies that I KNOW you are going to get hit, which I certainly don't. As such, there was no "foreknowledge" of 9/11.

Stylistically I would advice you to drop your somewhat patronizing tone. The stuff you have posted here is nothing new, and is more or less a rehash of things you can find on Indymedia and similar outlets. The peope who post it there generally don't gloat about either, because it's but another rehash of something they found elsewhere. To give you credit, your mastery of the english language is rather impressive (unlike mine, but i am not a native speaker) and the post is indeed well written.

In essence, however, your OP relies to a great part on (politically motivated?) conjecture and 20/20 hindsight and has the signature CT "outside-in" design: conclusion exists (NWO, New PH), now let's wade through the evidence and cherry pick the pieces that corroberate this. All investigations that were conducted, however, have been done so from the inside out: facts first, conclusions afterwards. That's how investigations are normally run, and I think even an "independent" one has to be conducted in that fashion to be taken seriously.

I doubt, though, that you Truthers will be able to pull this off. This event is too important for you to leave it up to mundane fact-finding. 9/11 has become the campfire for all those who have lost their orientation and it is THE opportunity of the 21. Century to reunite all the "lost souls", frustrated by the demise of socialism and the challenges of globalization, and mold a "movement" out of them which becomes the stronger the more distinct and clearer the enemy. An enemy who has to be larger than life, and eviler than evil, against which every tiny act of dissent has to look like a heroic gesture and a fight for the TRUTH.

This is not a fact, BTW, but only my opinion.

HyJinX

21st June 2007, 03:08 PM

You could have said the same you did here in 4300 words in a mere two and spared us all a lot of time: "Cui bono"?

Instead, my wordprocessor counts 17 occurrences of the word "fact", 6 occurences of the word "facts" and 6 occurences of the word "evidence" in your original post, not counting similar verbage like "Coincidence? No." or "this is almost certain".

However, the repetition of the word "truth" ad infinitum does truth not automatically make. For the excessive use of the word "fact" and it's various derivates, your OP, albeit equally excessive, curiously lacks the actual existence of such, with the exception of the basic evidence we all agree upon (that there was an attack on 9/11 for example).

I would also like to point out to you that there is a difference between "advance warning" and "foreknowledge". I can warn you that you might get hit by a flash when you go outside, but foreknowledge implies that I KNOW you are going to get hit, which I certainly don't. As such, there was no "foreknowledge" of 9/11.

Stylistically I would advice you to drop your somewhat patronizing tone. The stuff you have posted here is nothing new, and is more or less a rehash of things you can find on Indymedia and similar outlets. The peope who post it there generally don't gloat about either, because it's but another rehash of something they found elsewhere. To give you credit, your mastery of the english language is rather impressive (unlike mine, but i am not a native speaker) and the post is indeed well written.

In essence, however, your OP relies to a great part on (politically motivated?) conjecture and 20/20 hindsight and has the signature CT "outside-in" design: conclusion exists (NWO, New PH), now let's wade through the evidence and cherry pick the pieces that corroberate this. All investigations that were conducted, however, have been done so from the inside out: facts first, conclusions afterwards. That's how investigations are normally run, and I think even an "independent" one has to be conducted in that fashion to be taken seriously.

I doubt, though, that you Truthers will be able to pull this off. This event is too important for you to leave it up to mundane fact-finding. 9/11 has become the campfire for all those who have lost their orientation and it is THE opportunity of the 21. Century to reunite all the "lost souls", frustrated by the demise of socialism and the challenges of globalization, and mold a "movement" out of them which becomes the stronger the more distinct and clearer the enemy. An enemy who has to be larger than life, and eviler than evil, against which every tiny act of dissent has to look like a heroic gesture and a fight for the TRUTH.

This is not a fact, BTW, but only my opinion.

Beautifully written and amazingly accurate. If you're a woman...we're making out.

Augustine

21st June 2007, 03:08 PM

Did bush know WHAT TYPE of attack, and WHERE and WHEN said attacks would take place?

What do you think he should have done?

Is every warning accurate? Is he supposed to act on each one? Do you know how many other warnings he got during the same time?

Our little scholar may want to add "actionable intelligence" to the list of concepts he needs to read up on before he returns. Clarke thought suicide hijacking would have just been one more speculative theory against an already massive volume of threats - tens or even hundreds of thousands.

simakperrce

21st June 2007, 03:19 PM

If you're a woman...we're making out.

Sorry, to disappoint you.
I am still pretty hot, though :blush:

Belz...

21st June 2007, 03:35 PM

Well, not significant suspicion anyway. There will be sufficient people who will accept any subterfuge in order not to believe that their government has done this.

Oh, please. How many people in the US do you think actually trust politicians ?

Who could disbelieve that Bush could let an attack happen in order to further his own goals ?

But where's the evidence ? That's the rub.

Such subterfuges are all too evident on this board. That, combined with the western propaganda system that i have touched upon a few times here, means that any suspicion will not be significant, i.e. it will never do anything. You can extend this to all of 911.

This is just preaching on your part.

Not 40 warnings, 40 times at PDB's that the topic came up. 40 times nothing was done by Bush, Cheney, Rummy and Rice.

Source, please.

Yeah, IF you know WHERE they'll strike.
If you know people are planning to rob your house inthe next week, do you do nothing, because youdont know when/who/where theyre gonna come from? Of course not.

Yes, that is PRECISELY what I said. IF you know WHERE they'll strike.

MIKILLINI

21st June 2007, 04:09 PM

Hubris: Overbearing pride or presumption; arrogance

I will state that I do believe that those who are not “Truthers” fall into 2 categories- ill informed (~90%) and deluded (the rest). I mean deluded not as some blind pejorative, rather in the strict sense of the word- they will ignore, manipulate and select evidence in order to squeeze it into a story that fits nicely with their preconceived, but ultimately baseless view of how the world might work. This has been illustrated time and again on the SLC, but I hope will not be the case here.

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.

What I'm asking here is are you implying that the Neocons, who put together this PNAC document, had no intention of a long term plan, as spelled out in the document, but they also made a decision and allegedly knew in the midst of writing it that this would happen quicker if there was a catastrophic and catalyzing event and secretly planned how to go about it, or what it would take for the event to happen? Or did the Bush Administration, with many of the Neocons who signed the document, plan to make it happen after the election?
What you are showing and telling Me is one or the other....In your interpretation of this document, you are trying to prove that the intent of the neocons was favorable toward a catastrophic and catalyzing event so that transformation would take place sooner. So it had to be planned; When
and how was it planned and who made these decisions? Where is the evidence for this?

volatile

21st June 2007, 04:45 PM

I know that someone is coming to steal my neighbours car at 12.00. I ensure that my cars arent parked in their usual spacea, crammed 1 in front and 1 behind, to ensure that they can indeed nick it. I then walk away, hands in pockets, not informing anyone of whatis going to happen. So I LIHOP abd MIHOP. Lets have no more on this; its irrelevant.

It isn't irrelevant at all... it's at the core of your argument. I'd like to see you spell out what you think happened on 9/11 without analogy (how did the government "massage" the events, exactly?), but nevertheless, let's address the one above.

The above example is LIHOP. Had warnings, did nothing. A more plausible MIHOP example would involve you calling the robbers directly to tell them your neighbour's car was unlocked, or indeed you stealing your neighbour's car yourself. This seems to be more like what you're accusing the US government of in relation to 911.

I'll ask again for clarification on exactly your version of events. You said you didn't doubt Al-Qaeda's involvement - how were they involved? You said the USG "massaged" the events? How did they massage them?

Please be clear and concise - otherwise we'll be none the wiser.

WildCat

21st June 2007, 04:48 PM

Is every warning accurate? Is he supposed to act on each one? Do you know how many other warnings he got during the same time?
I asked mjd1982 this many times at SLC. How many warnings in the 5 years before 9/11, how many after? How many is typical? He will not answer these questions, instead he will ignore them and go off on a tangent.

All puff, no substance with this one.

Jocce

21st June 2007, 04:50 PM

1. All else being equal, people want good things to happen sooner rather than later. PNAC dee, the transformation to be good, thus they want it to happen sooner rather than later.

You obviously didn't bother to read or try to comprehend why I bolded some parts earlier. You're wrong on point 1. Fast is not always better. Deal with it.

mjd1982

21st June 2007, 05:17 PM

I'm just gonna respond to a few for the moment

Because they were presented the same list of intelligence screw-ups and came to a conclusion different from yours.

No they werent. If you have a source that shows otherwise, please show me.

About 1024 molecules in a glass of water. That's also a lot.
It tells us nothing at all however. It's only useful if you know how many of the total amount of warnings were actually relevant and specific to 9/11.
I would believe without trouble that intelligence agencies receive 40 warnings a week of similar nature.

NO- not 40 intel warnings; 40 times the president was warned of the immininent threat. You know what aPDB is? A distillation of the most pressing intel reports from the DCI. 40 times the imminent threat of an AQ attack was
on the agenda; 40 times nothing was done.

Missed that, sorry. I'll have a look. On a related note: I must say I'm in awe of your posting ability.

I'm still catching up, sorry.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=zK-te3Y0m5A

What? I fail to see the semblance between the two. The relation between the Indonesian government and army, and East Timor is very different from the relation between the US government and New York city. No countrymen, no conspiracy, no relevance.

They are both examples of the US engaging, indirectly, in mass murder; Timor on a far greater scale than 911. And nobody really giving a s***. That is the point.

ETA- Ur point is ~that mass murderers for geo political gain couldnt be running the US with impunity, that such a phenomenon woudlnt be so comon, I'm telling you that it never hasnt happened.

You're going to tell me the massacres in Rwanda are also a good example next, right?

The US's role was much different there from in Timor.

mjd1982

21st June 2007, 05:20 PM

Now that was funny.

Ok...instead of a single house, let's say they're going to rob your neighborhood. Say there's 50 houses in the neighborhood. You get intel that someone will rob one of these houses, someday...but you're not sure when, which house, how, or who the robber(s) are exactly. Doesn't this seem to fit your scenario a little better than someone robbing a single home?
Good. So u own all 50 houses. You know someone is going to ransack one of them imminently. I guess u do nothing?

WildCat

21st June 2007, 05:54 PM

NO- not 40 intel warnings; 40 times the president was warned of the immininent threat. You know what aPDB is? A distillation of the most pressing intel reports from the DCI. 40 times the imminent threat of an AQ attack was
on the agenda; 40 times nothing was done.
How many warnings are typical? How many were there in, say, the last 5 years?

http://youtube.com/watch?v=zK-te3Y0m5A
Which is just Olbermann commenting on the same question from the Pakistani reporter. It's already been addressed by Augustine why this wasn't an offer to "turn him over to the US". Once again, you are 100% wrong with your interpretation of events.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Wait until we get to WTC 7, when mjd1982 claims the FDNY knew the buildings were to be demolished with pre-planted explosives, put in place where the conspirators knew there would be no fires! It's priceless!

mjd1982

21st June 2007, 05:55 PM

This is tiresome, proving something and then you retreat and I have to prove it all over again. Would defense transformation have occurred regardless? Was it already underway? If you say it would not have, then why not? Justify.

It may or may not have done. I cannot say. Were certain elements of it underway? Please show me.

To the contrary, it is quite relevant. You might appreciate this if you actually did some reading on strategy.

In addition to your strategic studies, I would suggest you include reading comprehension. In much of military history, catastrophic and catalyzing events were required for military transformation (can you think of any pre-1982?). The purpose of strategists is to anticipate the future and spur transformation without the catastrophic and catalyzing event occurring.

Identify a catastrophic and catalyzing event prior to 1982. Was it "propitious to policy"? If the transformation that it engendered could have been undertaken without the event occurring, would that have been preferable?

If policy was, in the eyes of policymakers, a radical overhaul of military stance, then it may have been that such an event would have been propitious to policy. Perhaps. Although if this was not stated, then we do not know whether the people in charge would have thought the same, which is all that mattters.

The GWOT has not been the prime driver behind any element of transformation. Most elements of transformation were in place prior to the GWOT. The GWOT is a prolonged campaign; the military is but one element, and must remain ready, capable, and positioned to perform any number of other missions.

Right fine.

1. Control the new international commons of cyberspace

From the National Strategy to Cyberspace:

A Case for Action
The terrorist attacks against the United States
that took place on September 11, 2001, had a
profound impact on our Nation. The federal
government and society as a whole have been
forced to reexamine conceptions of security on
our home soil, with many understanding only
for the first time the lengths to which selfdesignated
enemies of our country are willing to
go to inflict debilitating damage.
We must move forward with the understanding
that there are enemies who seek to inflict
damage on our way of life. They are ready to
attack us on our own soil, and they have shown
a willingness to use unconventional means to
execute those attacks.While the attacks of
September 11 were physical attacks, we are
facing increasing threats from hostile adversaries
in the realm of cyberspace as well.

Individual and National Risk
Management
Until recently overseas terrorist networks had
caused limited damage in the United States. On
September 11, 2001, that quickly changed. One
estimate places the increase in cost to our
economy from attacks to U.S. information
systems at 400 percent over four years.While
those losses remain relatively limited, that too
could change abruptly.
Every day in the United States individual
companies, and home computer users, suffer
damage from cyber attacks that, to the victims,
represent significant losses. Conditions likewise
exist for relative measures of damage to occur
on a national level, affecting the networks and
systems on which the Nation depends:
• Potential adversaries have the intent;
• Tools that support malicious activities are
broadly available; and,
• Vulnerabilities of the Nation’s systems are
many and well known.

2. Transform the DoD

From the DoD website (http://www.defenselink.mil/transformation/about_transformation.html)

TRANSFORMATION OVERVIEW

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

3. Provide sufficient budgetary allocations

From the 2007 Army budget overview

Themes

- Win the long war

4. Maintain Nuclear Strategic Superiority

From the 2005 budget presentation to congress (http://www.spacedaily.com/news/nuclear-doctrine-04c.html)

"Nuclear weapons will remain a critical element in U.S. national security," U.S. National Nuclear Security Administrator Linton Brooks said Tuesday at the conservative Heritage Foundation.

The Bush administration has operated under that premise, working to expand research on new kinds of nuclear bombs.

"While we will reduce the number of deployed (nuclear) forces, we have to plan against an uncertain future," Brooks said.

The first step of the new plan came with the Nuclear Posture Review submitted to Congress by the Bush Pentagon in December 2001.

The review states: "Terrorists or rogue states armed with weapons of mass destruction will likely test America's security commitments to its allies and friends. In response, we will need a range of capabilities to assure friend and foe alike of U.S. resolve. A broader array of capability is needed to dissuade states from undertaking political, military or technical courses of action that would threaten U.S. and allied security."

And of course:

Our report is published in a presidential
election year. The new administration will
need to produce a second Quadrennial
Defense Review shortly after it takes office.
We hope that the Project’s report will be
useful as a road map for the nation’s
immediate and future defense plans.

This leaves the next
president of the United States with an
enormous challenge: he must increase
military spending to preserve American
geopolitical leadership, or he must 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. This choice
will be among the first to confront the
president: new legislation requires the
incoming administration to fashion a
national security strategy within six months
of assuming office, as opposed to waiting a
full year, and to complete another
quadrennial defense review three months
after that.

The 1st lines of said QDR:

On September 11, 2001, the United States came under vicious,
bloody attack. Americans died in their places of work. They died
on American soil. They died not as combatants, but as innocent
victims. They died not from traditional armies waging traditional
campaigns, but from the brutal, faceless weapons of terror. They died as
the victims of war - a war that many had feared but whose sheer horror
took America by surprise.
The war the nation fights today is not a war of America's choosing. It is a
war that was brought violently and brutally to America's shores by the evil
forces of terror. It is a war against America and America's way of life. It is
a war against all that America holds dear. It is a war against freedom itself.
The attack on the United States and the war that has been visited upon us
highlights a fundamental condition of our circumstances: we cannot and
will not know precisely where and when America's interests will be
threatened, when America will come under attack, or when Americans
might die as the result of aggression. We can be clear about trends, but
uncertain about events. We can identify threats, but cannot know when
or where America or its friends will be attacked. We should try mightily to
avoid surprise, but we must also learn to expect it. We must constantly
strive to get better intelligence, but we must also remember that there will
always be gaps in our intelligence. Adapting to surprise - adapting quickly
and decisively - must therefore be a condition of planning.
...
the attack on the United States on September 11, 2001 will require us to move forward more rapidly in these directions, even while we are engaged in
the war against terrorism.

And of course, I could go on.

So as you see, there are a number of action that are being pursued under the specific aegis of 911. Whether they would have been done or not is immaterial; the fact is that they are being pursued as part of the WOT.

P.S. Clarke was never demoted.

I know you know better than him, but Bill Clinton disagrees (http://youtube.com/watch?v=WYNI5RPOlp4)

"When I left, i left a comprehensive counter terror strategy, and the best guy, Dick Clarke, who got demoted"

Research, then post please.

P.S.S. The Taliban never offered to turn over Bin Laden to the U.S. in February 2001. They offered to have him tried for the 1998 Embassy bombings (which he had been convicted of in 1998) by a group of Muslim clerics. It was hardly a serious offer, and given how Al Qaeda had used our courtroom evidence in the 1993 trial to tighten their own security measures against us, it would have been lunacy for the U.S. to accept the offer. Additionally, this gives the lie to their offers in late 2001 - it took them some 2-1/2 years of international pressure after UBL's conviction just to give us a worthless offer; why wait another 2+ years after 9/11 to go through the same bs?

Wrong. 1stly, post sources if you want me to take ur assertions seriously. 2ndly, watch and learn:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=zK-te3Y0m5A

WildCat

21st June 2007, 05:55 PM

Good. So u own all 50 houses. You know someone is going to ransack one of them imminently. I guess u do nothing?
I guarantee you someone will rob a bank in the Chicago metropolitan area within the next week, what should be done mjd1982?

I can also guarantee that there will be a gang murder this weekend in Chicago, what should be done? Can you answer these questions?

mjd1982

21st June 2007, 05:59 PM

I disagree. To pull of this conspiracy there have to be as few as possible Americans doing dirty jobs. Rigging buildings with secret fire-proof explosives is not going to help.
They would need to know exactly who would strike when, where and how, depending on the extent of the massage (read demolitions) they would have to know how likely it would be that the buildings would collapse by themselves, or fall onto other buidings enough to make it plausible enough to implode it without any experts suspecting anything.

I can go along with that up to the point of controlled demolitions.

No, since as I said, the evidence i have presented stands as and of itself, i.e. my point can be proved simply on those 2 points, intent and foreknowledge. One can not believe the rest, and still agree with the thrust of the argument

The entire list of forewarnings. The senate committee, whose judgment you choose to ignore, does not construe this as machinations of an infallible intelligence apparatus but rather the shortcomings of a scattered unprepared intelligence community.

I am not dealing with the intel community (just 1 of the 4 points).

mjd1982

21st June 2007, 06:02 PM

Your analogy contradicts itself!

In your analogy we know WHERE and WHEN, and the TYPE of attack. (Your house, next week, robbery)

Did bush know WHAT TYPE of attack, and WHERE and WHEN said attacks would take place?

What do you think he should have done?

So someone warned you that your house was going to be broken into...But you'd also received similar warnings about your car, office, and house in the months prior, none of which resulted in the warned-of attack being carried out, and you're supposed to act on this warning moreso than the others?

Is every warning accurate? Is he supposed to act on each one? Do you know how many other warnings he got during the same time?
Hmmm... so lets expand, as done before. You own 50 houses in a neighbourhood. You know that 1 of them is about to be savagely attacked imminently. What do you do?

What should Bush have done? Listen to what Bob Kerrey from the 911 Comm suggests:

,“[B]y the way, there’s a credible case that the president’s own negligence prior to 9/11 at least in part contributed to the disaster in the first place.… [I]n the summer of 2001, the government ignored repeated warnings by the CIA, ignored, and didn’t do anything to harden our border security, didn’t do anything to harden airport country, didn’t do anything to engage local law enforcement, didn’t do anything to round up INS and consular offices and say we have to shut this down, and didn’t warn the American people. The famous presidential daily briefing on August 6, we say in the report that the briefing officers believed that there was a considerable sense of urgency and it was current. So there was a case to be made that wasn’t made.… The president says, if I had only known that 19 Islamic men would come into the United States of America and on the morning of 11 September hijack four American aircraft, fly two into the World Trade Center, one into the Pentagon, and one into an unknown Pennsylvania that crashed in Shanksville, I would have moved heaven and earth. That’s what he said. Mr. President, you don’t need to know that. This is an Islamic Jihadist movement that has been organized since the early 1990s, declared war on the United States twice, in ‘96 and ‘98. You knew they were in the United States. You were warned by the CIA. You knew in July they were inside the United States. You were told again by briefing officers in August that it was a dire threat. And what did you do? Nothing, so far as we could see on the 9/11 Commission.”

mjd1982

21st June 2007, 06:04 PM

You could have said the same you did here in 4300 words in a mere two and spared us all a lot of time: "Cui bono"?

Instead, my wordprocessor counts 17 occurrences of the word "fact", 6 occurences of the word "facts" and 6 occurences of the word "evidence" in your original post, not counting similar verbage like "Coincidence? No." or "this is almost certain".

However, the repetition of the word "truth" ad infinitum does truth not automatically make. For the excessive use of the word "fact" and it's various derivates, your OP, albeit equally excessive, curiously lacks the actual existence of such, with the exception of the basic evidence we all agree upon (that there was an attack on 9/11 for example).

I would also like to point out to you that there is a difference between "advance warning" and "foreknowledge". I can warn you that you might get hit by a flash when you go outside, but foreknowledge implies that I KNOW you are going to get hit, which I certainly don't. As such, there was no "foreknowledge" of 9/11.

Stylistically I would advice you to drop your somewhat patronizing tone. The stuff you have posted here is nothing new, and is more or less a rehash of things you can find on Indymedia and similar outlets. The peope who post it there generally don't gloat about either, because it's but another rehash of something they found elsewhere. To give you credit, your mastery of the english language is rather impressive (unlike mine, but i am not a native speaker) and the post is indeed well written.

In essence, however, your OP relies to a great part on (politically motivated?) conjecture and 20/20 hindsight and has the signature CT "outside-in" design: conclusion exists (NWO, New PH), now let's wade through the evidence and cherry pick the pieces that corroberate this. All investigations that were conducted, however, have been done so from the inside out: facts first, conclusions afterwards. That's how investigations are normally run, and I think even an "independent" one has to be conducted in that fashion to be taken seriously.

I doubt, though, that you Truthers will be able to pull this off. This event is too important for you to leave it up to mundane fact-finding. 9/11 has become the campfire for all those who have lost their orientation and it is THE opportunity of the 21. Century to reunite all the "lost souls", frustrated by the demise of socialism and the challenges of globalization, and mold a "movement" out of them which becomes the stronger the more distinct and clearer the enemy. An enemy who has to be larger than life, and eviler than evil, against which every tiny act of dissent has to look like a heroic gesture and a fight for the TRUTH.

This is not a fact, BTW, but only my opinion.
Errr... well, all I would reply to this post has been nicely encapsulated by the author in its last line.

WildCat

21st June 2007, 06:06 PM

I know you know better than him, but Bill Clinton disagrees (http://youtube.com/watch?v=WYNI5RPOlp4)
So how come al Qaeda still existed after 8 years of President Clinton? How did most of the planning for 9/11 take place during the Clinton Administration and Clarke's tenure?

mjd1982

21st June 2007, 06:06 PM

Oh, please. How many people in the US do you think actually trust politicians ?

Who could disbelieve that Bush could let an attack happen in order to further his own goals ?

But where's the evidence ? That's the rub.

This is just preaching on your part.

Source, please.

Yes, that is PRECISELY what I said. IF you know WHERE they'll strike.
1. To believe he lied about Iraq? Yes. That he killed 3000 US? No

2. Hmmm... maybe

3. The 911 comm report; you really should have read that by now

4. Analogy as above

Jonnyclueless

21st June 2007, 06:06 PM

WildCat

21st June 2007, 06:07 PM

Hmmm... so lets expand, as done before. You own 50 houses in a neighbourhood. You know that 1 of them is about to be savagely attacked imminently. What do you do?
If you want to be more accurate, your number should be (conservatively) at least 50,000. That's just US-affiliated targets throughout the world.

mjd1982

21st June 2007, 06:09 PM

Hubris: Overbearing pride or presumption; arrogance

What I'm asking here is are you implying that the Neocons, who put together this PNAC document, had no intention of a long term plan, as spelled out in the document,

The WOT is a long term plan, by definition pretty much. It was just implemented, and the platform for it, created soon.

but they also made a decision and allegedly knew in the midst of writing it that this would happen quicker if there was a catastrophic and catalyzing event

this is true

and secretly planned how to go about it, or what it would take for the event to happen?Or did the Bush Administration, with many of the Neocons who signed the document, plan to make it happen after the election?

I dont know when they planned it

What you are showing and telling Me is one or the other....In your interpretation of this document, you are trying to prove that the intent of the neocons was favorable toward a catastrophic and catalyzing event so that transformation would take place sooner.

yes

So it had to be planned; When
and how was it planned and who made these decisions? Where is the evidence for this?

Such minutiae will be determined by the investigation i call for

mjd1982

21st June 2007, 06:12 PM

It isn't irrelevant at all... it's at the core of your argument. I'd like to see you spell out what you think happened on 9/11 without analogy (how did the government "massage" the events, exactly?), but nevertheless, let's address the one above.

The above example is LIHOP. Had warnings, did nothing. A more plausible MIHOP example would involve you calling the robbers directly to tell them your neighbour's car was unlocked, or indeed you stealing your neighbour's car yourself. This seems to be more like what you're accusing the US government of in relation to 911.

I'll ask again for clarification on exactly your version of events. You said you didn't doubt Al-Qaeda's involvement - how were they involved? You said the USG "massaged" the events? How did they massage them?

Please be clear and concise - otherwise we'll be none the wiser.
- Deemed the events propitiousness
- Did nothing to stop it; acted to ensure it would not be hindered (Clarke demotion; OBL not handed over; no retaliation for Cole)
- Attack massaged in order to have it happen at the right time and place, via an insider, a la the french (http://www.911blogger.com/node/7948)
- Attacks aggravated, through implosion of wtc7 (for sure), others, I'm not sure

mjd1982

21st June 2007, 06:14 PM

You obviously didn't bother to read or try to comprehend why I bolded some parts earlier. You're wrong on point 1. Fast is not always better. Deal with it.

all else being equal

think before u post please

Gravy

21st June 2007, 06:14 PM

It would be instructibe to sum up our conducts on this thread.Excellent.

You: Base your entire argument on opinion and logical fallacies. Don't understand the difference between speculation and fact. Unable to do the most basic research. Refuse to see evidence that directly refutes your claims. When your horribly flawed reasoning is pointed out to you, you insist that others are not honest and sensible. Believe whatever you think supports your position, even if it's not supported by any evidence at all. When caught lying, continue to tell the same lies. In short, a sad credophile.

Me: Asked if you had anything new to bring to the discussion. You didn't. Pointed out your errors of fact, your refusal to do basic research, and that your entire argument is based on opinion and logical fallacies. Pointed out your continued lies. In short, a skeptic who doesn't suffer fools gladly.

mjd1982

21st June 2007, 06:15 PM

I guarantee you someone will rob a bank in the Chicago metropolitan area within the next week, what should be done mjd1982?

I can also guarantee that there will be a gang murder this weekend in Chicago, what should be done? Can you answer these questions?
For the former, strengthen security in banks in metropolitan Chicago

WildCat

21st June 2007, 06:18 PM

What should Bush have done? Listen to what Bob Kerrey from the 911 Comm suggests:
Do you know what Kerrey said about the Clinton Admin's efforts?

eta: ah screw it. I'm just going to give you a sample:
Every single time I heard the [Clinton] administration come up before the intelligence committee that I was on, maybe just trying to keep doing what you had done for years before, it was we're going to send the FBI to investigate this stuff. And I would say, "My God, I don't understand this." They killed airmen in Khobar Towers. They attacked our facilities in East Africa. They attacked our sailors on the Cole. I don't understand and still today don't understand why the military wasn't given a dominant role.

Gravy

21st June 2007, 06:21 PM

Oh boy... Read here as I believe, you've been asked to do many times already:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=84473&page=3
Your statements of opinion have been noted several times. Sorry, the evidence does not show or suggest that in 2000 prominent neo-cons published a plan to slaughter thousands of Americans in a Pearl Harbor-like attack.

Excuse my impetuousness. But as stated earlier, since your guide is in essence, a defense of the absence of gov connivance, please respond to the points made at the top of the foreknowledge section.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=84473&page=19My Loose Change guide iis a line-by-line examination of that video. I asked you to show me where your claim appears in Loose Change. As you know, it doesn't. I didn't discuss your claim because it's your claim. Should I have also discussed mini-nukes destroying the WTC?

WildCat

21st June 2007, 06:22 PM

For the former, strengthen security in banks in metropolitan Chicago
Which banks?

mjd1982

21st June 2007, 06:26 PM

Still wondering what one has to do with the other...I guess I'm just dense..

As for the warnings, prior to 9/11 the President (not just Bush) would receive 100s of warnings a day on possible threats. Knowing which ones to take seriously is not easy.

Tomorrow a crime will be committed. There you have your warning, now go stop it.
Ok Jonny, my God...

Look. You have a document. It is, to an astonishing degree, a blueprint for the WOT (War On Terror). (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=84473&page=3) Not only does it state the individual elements, but also that they have to be pursued under one global banner, it should be crystalised in decision makers bminds by Oct 2001, and that they will take a long time absent a catastrophic and catalysing event like a new PH.

This doc is signed by many of the men who will be in charge of running and protecting the US on and up to 911. Now, there is a huge secutiry infrastructure in place, in order to stop a new PH happening. This means that the chances of one happening, absent gov complicity, are very small. With gov complicity wouldnt be hard, since they are the ones at the controls, right? So when this happens, and the gov has stated its propitiousness only 12 mths ago, something smells fishy, no? Further, when such occurs, bang in time as had been stated, things look very dodgy indeed. So let's move on, bearing this in mind.

When Bush came to power, he had been warned by the Clinton admin that AQ were a deadly and urgent threat. He was handed a doc by the counter terror czar, Dick Clarke, on 25th Jan, entitled "Strategies for dealing with AQ". Bearing in mind that AQ were th most likely people to do a new PH, Bush demoted Clarke the next day.

Bush was then offered OBL by the Taliban in Feb. He said no thanks.

He was then warned 40 times just at PDB's, just by Tenet, the DCI, of the imminient threat of an AQ attack. He did nothing. He was told that they were AQ cells in the US, and that they were plotting hijackings. He did nothing.

Read this
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline&before_9/11=warnings
Watch this
http://youtube.com/watch?v=zK-te3Y0m5A
And read "Against all enemies" by Dick Clarke.

This will all help u

ETA- Oh, and just to remind you, th argument here is that there is sufficient evidence of gov complicity to warrant an investigation into it.

mjd1982

21st June 2007, 06:27 PM

Which banks?
all

mjd1982

21st June 2007, 06:28 PM

Excellent.

You: Base your entire argument on opinion and logical fallacies. Don't understand the difference between speculation and fact. Unable to do the most basic research. Refuse to see evidence that directly refutes your claims. When your horribly flawed reasoning is pointed out to you, you insist that others are not honest and sensible. Believe whatever you think supports your position, even if it's not supported by any evidence at all. When caught lying, continue to tell the same lies. In short, a sad credophile.

Me: Asked if you had anything new to bring to the discussion. You didn't. Pointed out your errors of fact, your refusal to do basic research, and that your entire argument is based on opinion and logical fallacies. Pointed out your continued lies. In short, a skeptic who doesn't suffer fools gladly.
Ok, your getting a bit tiresome now. Either address the points and be shown up, or evade them and have everyone on this board see you for the fraudster you would appear to be.

mjd1982

21st June 2007, 06:30 PM

Your statements of opinion have been noted several times. Sorry, the evidence does not show or suggest that in 2000 prominent neo-cons published a plan to slaughter thousands of Americans in a Pearl Harbor-like attack.

My Loose Change guide iis a line-by-line examination of that video. I asked you to show me where your claim appears in Loose Change. As you know, it doesn't. I didn't discuss your claim because it's your claim. Should I have also discussed mini-nukes destroying the WTC?
Eugh....

as above. How pathetic.

mjd1982

21st June 2007, 06:31 PM

Do you know what Kerrey said about the Clinton Admin's efforts?

eta: ah screw it. I'm just going to give you a sample:
Good!

twinstead

21st June 2007, 06:31 PM

For the former, strengthen security in banks in metropolitan Chicago

What?

Are you implying that since the police in Chicago know that a bank will be robbed, all they have to do is 'strengthen security in banks' to prevent it?

Does that also mean that if another bank is robbed, which we KNOW will happen, that means there is some kind of conspiracy afoot? I mean seriously, all they had to do was strengthen security.

They knew one of the finite number of banks in the Chicago metro area was going to be robbed. The fact that one was still robbed despite this knowledge certainly is suspicious.

WildCat

21st June 2007, 06:31 PM

all
And how will this be done? You do know there's more banks than police available to guard them, don't you? The same applies to guarding potential terrorist targets...

WildCat

21st June 2007, 06:33 PM

Does that also mean that if another bank is robbed, which we KNOW will happen, that means there is some kind of conspiracy afoot?
There must be! You know there's an average of 4 bank robberies a week in the Chicago area! OMGCONSPIRACY!!!!11!!1!11!1!!1

mjd1982

21st June 2007, 06:35 PM

This is slightly tangential , but having just watched "La vita e bella", I feel I should state this-

Isnt it funny how in the 30's, German scientists, government scientists, all believed for real, that Aryans were the superior race. Examining quantitative data, they came to the same conclusions as their government. Ditto the roles of other leading, what one would have thought to have been , independent voices; much of clergy, academia etc. All sold to the Nazi ideals. I have touched on this before, and will do again, but it is something to think about perhaps.

Redtail

21st June 2007, 06:41 PM

WildCat

21st June 2007, 06:41 PM

Redtail

21st June 2007, 06:43 PM

You just Godwin'd your own thread... and this is completely irrelevant to 9/11 and also a nonsensical comparison.

Godwin, I keep seeing that term, what does it mean?

JimBenArm

21st June 2007, 06:46 PM

You just Godwin'd your own thread... and this is completely irrelevant to 9/11 and also a nonsensical comparison.
Oh, but don't you see we're just like the Germans were? Blinded by false science? Only the TruthersTM know how things really work.

AZCat

21st June 2007, 06:46 PM

Godwin, I keep seeing that term, what does it mean?

Godwin's Law entry at Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_Law)

WildCat

21st June 2007, 06:46 PM

Godwin, I keep seeing that term, what does it mean?
Godwin's Law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_Law): As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one.

Gravy

21st June 2007, 06:49 PM

Ok Jonny, my God...

Look. You have a document. It is, to an astonishing degree, a blueprint for the WOT (War On Terror). (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=84473&page=3) In my Loose Change guide I pointed out the instances where terrorism was mentioned in "Rebuilding America's Defenses." It is quite clear that terrorism was not considered to be a major part of global defense strategy.

Can you point out where PNAC advocates the U.S. abandoning its bases in Saudi Arabia and spending hundreds of billions of dollars and thousands of lives in invading and occupying Iraq?

Oh, that's right, it doesn't. Yet you claim they wrote what is to an "astonishing degree" a blueprint for the War on Terror. That somehow omitted these things? That is astonishing.

This reminds me of Randi's example of the "Psychic Friends Network" telephone scammers who employed 2400 "psychics," yet not one of them predicted that the company would go bankrupt the next day.

twinstead

21st June 2007, 06:50 PM

Of course, what mjd doesn't seem to grasp is those German scientists were conspiracy theorists. Had the internet been around then we debunkers would be all over THEM as well.

Redtail

21st June 2007, 06:54 PM

Ahhh I see. Thanks!

Unsecured Coins

21st June 2007, 06:54 PM

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v295/Jaye77/godwinslaw.gif

Unsecured Coins

21st June 2007, 06:57 PM

This reminds me of Randi's example of the "Psychic Friends Network" telephone scammers who employed 2400 "psychics," yet not one of them predicted that the company would go bankrupt the next day.

If I call a psychic and she doesn't pick up the phone before it rings, I hang up.

Jonnyclueless

21st June 2007, 06:58 PM

Ok Jonny, my God...

Look. You have a document. It is, to an astonishing degree, a blueprint for the WOT (War On Terror). (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=84473&page=3) Not only does it state the individual elements, but also that they have to be pursued under one global banner, it should be crystalised in decision makers bminds by Oct 2001, and that they will take a long time absent a catastrophic and catalysing event like a new PH.

This doc is signed by many of the men who will be in charge of running and protecting the US on and up to 911. Now, there is a huge secutiry infrastructure in place, in order to stop a new PH happening. This means that the chances of one happening, absent gov complicity, are very small. With gov complicity wouldnt be hard, since they are the ones at the controls, right? So when this happens, and the gov has stated its propitiousness only 12 mths ago, something smells fishy, no? Further, when such occurs, bang in time as had been stated, things look very dodgy indeed. So let's move on, bearing this in mind.

When Bush came to power, he had been warned by the Clinton admin that AQ were a deadly and urgent threat. He was handed a doc by the counter terror czar, Dick Clarke, on 25th Jan, entitled "Strategies for dealing with AQ". Bearing in mind that AQ were th most likely people to do a new PH, Bush demoted Clarke the next day.

Bush was then offered OBL by the Taliban in Feb. He said no thanks.

He was then warned 40 times just at PDB's, just by Tenet, the DCI, of the imminient threat of an AQ attack. He did nothing. He was told that they were AQ cells in the US, and that they were plotting hijackings. He did nothing.

Read this
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline&before_9/11=warnings
Watch this
http://youtube.com/watch?v=zK-te3Y0m5A
And read "Against all enemies" by Dick Clarke.

This will all help u

ETA- Oh, and just to remind you, th argument here is that there is sufficient evidence of gov complicity to warrant an investigation into it.

OK, so you're just making a huge assumption. Yet when Alex Jones does the same thing and make a very vague prophecy (or "blueprint" that is bound to become true, then it must be so. And no one accuses him of anything.

It's the naustrodamus syndrome. Make a bunch o vague enough statements and you can predict the future. But again, you are simply drawing wild conclusions here and can't back them up with anything tangible.

Wow, what are the chances of there being a catastrophe in the future? What's the chances of a group wanting to fight terrorism on a global level since at the time it was starting to get out of hand? What's the chances of a group wanting to advance technology? What's the chances of the world starting to become a more global community with things like the internet taking off and all.

And again, what is that evidence and why doesn't one of you guys who feels so strongly go investigate? I myself cannot work purely on speculation and conjecture. I don't think the law or any court system can either, so that is probably your big road block. And luckily our court system doesn't work like that or anyone could just simply make up anything about anyone else under the pretex that it seems coincidental in their opinion.

Vote for Pedro.

AZCat

21st June 2007, 07:04 PM

Of course, what mjd doesn't seem to grasp is those German scientists were conspiracy theorists. Had the internet been around then we debunkers would be all over THEM as well.

Imagine a JREF circa 1930...

Ado1930: You debunkers LOLZ!1! Aryan race is better, see this YouTube video with hip swing soundtrack!!!!
<youtube link to Loose Reichsmarks>

Heil!!!onez...

WoodrowFan: Your video has been discussed ad nauseum here, but I am willing to post 14 elegantly written points detailing various discrepancies or outright lies.
<info follows...>

RouX: All the points made in the video are debunked in my Guide to Loose Reichmarks.

Ado1930: Are you all toools of the Weimars? Shills!

heiL!@!!!

And so on...

stateofgrace

21st June 2007, 07:06 PM

Unsecured Coins

21st June 2007, 07:09 PM

he's from Texas, add more twang

twinstead

21st June 2007, 07:12 PM

he's from Texas, add more twang

Actually, I think Bush actually said it in a bad Scottish accent, for dramatic effect.

MIKILLINI

21st June 2007, 07:29 PM

Well this must be theoretical Chrono-synclastic infundibulum of mjd. (My apologies Gravy) mjd, I'll give you credit for your persistance, and theoreticly give you credit for the case your attempting to make.

DGM

21st June 2007, 07:37 PM

What should Bush have done? Listen to what Bob Kerrey from the 911 Comm suggests:

This Bob Kerrey.

Kerrey's behavior during the 9/11 hearings — hectoring witnesses, mugging for the cameras, delivering a windy monologue to Dr. Condoleezza Rice ("Dr. Clarke") and then complaining about his time being "eaten up" — has been abominable. But it was Kerrey's shameful TV appearance on Monday night alone that should disqualify him as a commissioner on a federal panel investigating the deadliest enemy attack on American soil.

Catapulted back into the limelight thanks to the mass murder of 3,000 innocent men, women, and children, Kerrey took advantage of his terrorist-induced celebrity to appear on Comedy Central's The Daily Show with Jon Stewart.

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/malkin200404281058.asp

SpitfireIX

21st June 2007, 07:42 PM

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v295/Jaye77/godwinslaw.gif

Okay, I have to ask--is this a real card from a real CCG, or did someone make it up?

Unsecured Coins

21st June 2007, 07:53 PM

someone made it up for me because of this tool on MySpace who was comparing US Troops to Nazis and called for everyone to support Iraqis in the war. He also said he was a "terminally injured" ballerina who also studied jui-jitsu and was "fairly confident" he could "choke out 70-80% of the entire Armed forced in less than a minute"

Gravy

21st June 2007, 08:12 PM

He also said he was a "terminally injured" ballerina who also studied jui-jitsu and was "fairly confident" he could "choke out 70-80% of the entire Armed forced in less than a minute"Over a million people? That is good!

Unsecured Coins

21st June 2007, 08:28 PM

that's what I said. I even volunteered to be first in line.

JimBenArm

21st June 2007, 08:33 PM

that's what I said. I even volunteered to be first in line.
Yeah, let him try to choke out your hair, dude!

Unsecured Coins

21st June 2007, 08:37 PM

i see now I need an avatar change.... :(

Slayhamlet

21st June 2007, 08:43 PM

Unsecured Coins

21st June 2007, 08:44 PM

Support the Iraqis in the war? Which ones? The ones killing the Shiites or the ones killing the Sunnis?

the ones getting killed by the evil Imperialist Nazi American Troops.

David Wong

21st June 2007, 09:30 PM

Oh, please. How many people in the US do you think actually trust politicians ?

Who could disbelieve that Bush could let an attack happen in order to further his own goals ?

Or Hillary Clinton, or John Kerry, or Al Gore, or Ronald Reagan or JFK, or anyone else. Evidence says all are equally likely to allow an attack in order to further "their own goals."

Evidence... or lack of.

nicepants

21st June 2007, 10:03 PM

So, mjd....if you were the president, and received reports that an attack from Al Queda was "eminent"....what would you do to stop it?

David Wong

21st June 2007, 10:08 PM

I predict his aswer will be:

"Increase security."

He'll run away before he has to provide any actual details, such as how long the security crackdown will last. And he will desperately avoid any discussion of loss of rights and outrage from citizens when they find out it's taking them 3 hours to board a plane because of some vague threat that an attack might happen sometime somewhere possibly involving planes.

Though it's fascinating to see someone from the Truther side basically saying something like the Patriot Act - or another act that does exactly the same thing - should have been implemented even sooner than it actually was. After all, if he's not talking about increased powers for investigators to stop terrorism, then what's he talking about?

PhantomWolf

21st June 2007, 10:13 PM

Okay so I skipped the last 4 pages. Has mjd1982 actually posted any facts yet?

AZCat

21st June 2007, 10:13 PM

MIKILLINI

21st June 2007, 10:14 PM

Godwin's Law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_Law): As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one.

Mjd's theory; keep the circular reasoning going, enough to go beyond 1100 posts. :rolleyes: Thats just part 1 out of 4.

It's time to move on to the next area of his conspiracy theory.

H'ethetheth

22nd June 2007, 01:49 AM

I'm just gonna respond to a few for the moment
No they werent. If you have a source that shows otherwise, please show me.
I'm going to dig through the senate committee reports when I get back from my vacation. I hope I'll still be able to add something to this discussion then though.

NO- not 40 intel warnings; 40 times the president was warned of the immininent threat. You know what aPDB is? A distillation of the most pressing intel reports from the DCI. 40 times the imminent threat of an AQ attack was
on the agenda; 40 times nothing was done.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=zK-te3Y0m5A
I'm going to need to do some reading in the 9/11 commission report as well, I guess.

They are both examples of the US engaging, indirectly, in mass murder; Timor on a far greater scale than 911. And nobody really giving a s***. That is the point. Not my point, it isn't.
My point is that it is difficult to recruit people to be responsible for killing 10,000 of their own. People that could be their family and friends. That's my point.
You're talking about people selling guns to, and allowing people to fight that are both far away and unrelated. I don't think people in Oregon would generally shrug if New York were to invade Pennsylvania.

ETA- Ur point is ~that mass murderers for geo political gain couldnt be running the US with impunity, that such a phenomenon woudlnt be so comon, I'm telling you that it never hasnt happened.And that's where you're wrong. I'm not at all concerned with the US specifically. I'm concerned with the difficulty of getting people to murder their own.

The US's role was much different there from in Timor.Again, the role of the US is completely immaterial to the point I'm trying to get across. The reason why you personally would not be recruited to be responsible for killing 10,000 innocent Americans is the same reason why very few Americans would. Normal people don't do that, and depending on the amount and form of 'massage', you will need quite a few Americans willing to do just that to pull off this conspiracy.

No, since as I said, the evidence i have presented stands as and of itself, i.e. my point can be proved simply on those 2 points, intent and foreknowledge. One can not believe the rest, and still agree with the thrust of the argumentNo, I'm sorry, it doesn't work that way. Your "Massaged It into Happening Exactly As Planned" (MIHEAP) theory is only remotely plausible if very few Americans have blood on their hands. The advance warning evidence is possibly consistent with that, I can't tell until I read up. On the other hand, anything that involves controlled demolition on that scale and in secret requires a lot of low level conspirators that are very directly going to be responsible for killing people.

I am not dealing with the intel community (just 1 of the 4 points).Fine, I'm not up to speed there anyway, as it appears, and on vacation for the next week and a half.

Dave Rogers

22nd June 2007, 02:48 AM

Well, not significant suspicion anyway. There will be sufficient people who will accept any subterfuge in order not to believe that their government has done this. Such subterfuges are all too evident on this board. That, combined with the western propaganda system that i have touched upon a few times here, means that any suspicion will not be significant, i.e. it will never do anything. You can extend this to all of 911.

So you're saying that PNAC were so confident that nobody could possibly suspect them that they included a statement in their document, that didn't need to be there in order to justify the aims of their policy, that gave away the whole conspiracy? The statement that, according you, is the primary cause of suspicion against them? Why are they leaving such obvious clues? You see, this is the contradiction at the heart of all conspiracy theories - that the conspiracy is so secret that nobody can penetrate the inner circle, so efficient that they can manipulate the entire world to follow their will without knowing it, and yet so careless that they leave obvious clues when there was no benefit to be derived from doing so. It requires simultaneous postulates of infallibility and stupidity.

Dave

Dave Rogers

22nd June 2007, 03:02 AM

Bush was then offered OBL by the Taliban in Feb. He said no thanks.

I checked this out, as you requested. The Taliban offered to put OBL on trial in an Islamic court, presided over by three Islamic clerics, in a third country. Bush declined.

OK, so we have three offers: twice to put OBL on trial under Islamic law in a third country, where there is a distinct possibility, given careful choice of judges, that OBL could admit all his actions, claim that they were justified under Islamic law, and not only get off scot free but be able to claim double jeopardy against any future attempts at prosecution; and finally, after the bombing had started, to talk about extradition on the condition that the bombing stop immediately.

You've argued that all these offers were reasonable from the point of view of the Taliban, but that's missing the point by a substantial margin. If you stand by your statement that Bush's first priority should have been the capture of Bin Laden (and not, for example, dismantling the substantial Al-Qaeda infrastructure in Afghanistan), and that therefore he should have taken one of these offers, then you should be able to see that none of these offers represented a certain handover of OBL to the USA, so there was judgement to be exercised in whether to accept, or even seriously consider, any of them. As long as there's a judgement call to be made, making it one way or the other cannot be seen as proof of unwillingness to capture OBL. All Bush's actions can equally well be explained as total distrust of the Taliban, itself not an entirely unreasonable position.

Dave

Belz...

22nd June 2007, 05:34 AM

No they werent. If you have a source that shows otherwise, please show me.

Yeah. Heaven forbit that intelligent people might reach different conclusions when presented with the same information.

If policy was, in the eyes of policymakers, a radical overhaul of military stance

Hold it, right there, slick. Did they actually say that they needed a radical overhaul ?

Whether they would have been done or not is immaterial; the fact is that they are being pursued as part of the WOT.

It's quite material. If they would have been done anyway means that the fact that they are being pursued is IRRELEVANT.

3. The 911 comm report; you really should have read that by now

Don't be obtuse. Reference, please.

Such minutiae will be determined by the investigation i call for

Evidence is minutiae ? Interesting.

Belz...

22nd June 2007, 05:43 AM

- Deemed the events propitiousness

Wrong.

- Did nothing to stop it; acted to ensure it would not be hindered (Clarke demotion; OBL not handed over; no retaliation for Cole)

These have already been answered, and yet you continue to use them. Do you actually have the ability to learn ?

Attack massaged in order to have it happen at the right time and place, via an insider, a la the french (http://www.911blogger.com/node/7948)

Hmmm..... massaged...

- Attacks aggravated, through implosion of wtc7 (for sure), others, I'm not sure

"For sure" ? Who in the world cared about 7 WTC collapsing ? How was the attack aggravated by it ? How is it an "implosion" "for sure" ?

Look. You have a document. It is, to an astonishing degree, a blueprint for the WOT (War On Terror).

That's your conclusion, not a premise. Circular reasoning. Unless they mention the war on terror in the document.

it should be crystalised in decision makers bminds by Oct 2001

They asked for a PLAN within a certain number of months, not for the transformations to be underway. You quoted that part, yourself.

and that they will take a long time absent a catastrophic and catalysing event like a new PH.

Wrong. Those were about the transformations, not the plan.

Bush was then offered OBL by the Taliban in Feb. He said no thanks.

Did you read why ?

Belz...

22nd June 2007, 05:44 AM

Or Hillary Clinton, or John Kerry, or Al Gore, or Ronald Reagan or JFK, or anyone else. Evidence says all are equally likely to allow an attack in order to further "their own goals."

Evidence... or lack of.

What I meant was that whether you believe that Bush is evil and quite capable of doing such a thing is irrelevant without evidence that he DID.

twinstead

22nd June 2007, 05:46 AM

I would submit that every one of these truthers who have come on this board and demanded a 'new investigation' would reject any conclusion other than 'it was an inside job'.

This new investigation stuff is just lip service; their minds are already made up.

Besides, exactly who would perform this investigation? Loose change? The government? The Scholars for Truth? The crack investigative team at PrisonPlanet? Mrs. Johnson's 3rd grade class at Lincoln Elementary School?

Belz...

22nd June 2007, 05:57 AM

This new investigation stuff is just lip service; their minds are already made up.

No! NO! Say it is not so, twinstead!! They SAID they had an open mind!!

WildCat

22nd June 2007, 06:10 AM

Okay so I skipped the last 4 pages. Has mjd1982 actually posted any facts yet?
Perhaps this will be the big day!

volatile

22nd June 2007, 06:14 AM

- Deemed the events propitiousness
- Did nothing to stop it; acted to ensure it would not be hindered (Clarke demotion; OBL not handed over; no retaliation for Cole)
- Attack massaged in order to have it happen at the right time and place, via an insider, a la the french (http://www.911blogger.com/node/7948)
- Attacks aggravated, through implosion of wtc7 (for sure), others, I'm not sure

This post is very, very important. For the first time, we have something approaching a clear statement of opinion from Mr D, and it's now his full ideas are beginning to emerge that we also can start to see them unravel...

It seems he believes that Al-Qaeda did indeed propagate the attacks, but when their plans were uncovered, the US government infiltrated. This infiltration was not to undermine the operation, but to ensure its success.

MjD, here is issue #1 - you expect us to accept that the infiltrator and his handlers are fully aware of the plan, and showed no qualms as to its intent. Which one of the planners was the insider? Atta? Zarqawi? OBL himself? Please elaborate, MjD.

Here's issue #2 - if Al-Qaeda were going to attack anyway - something which would still have been unprecedented - why go to the risk of "massaging"? It defies logical sense to set up a massive covert, risky, illegal, immoral and absurd plan to aid something that was going to happen anyway.

Here's Issue #3 - See your point re: "warnings". Which parts of the government are complicit, and which ones aren't? Quite simply, if the government were involved in the plot, there'd be no need for warnings, would there? That is to say - if clear and concise warnings were given, they were presumably given by someone not involved in the massaging plot you allege, which implies there is a branch of the FBI separate from the perpetrators. If this is the case, where are the people who gave these warnings now? Why have they not spoken out? Which people are in and which are out?

Here's Issue #4 - Why implode WTC7? Most people who aren't involved in the 911 debunking / conspiracy discussion aren't even aware of WTC7 and its collapse. If you've already massaged the attack such as to ensure its success (ie that plans would hit the Towers) , why go to the extra risk of aggravating it, seeing as the collapse of the towers itself is clearly important and shocking enough as to overshadow the WTC7 collapse in the minds of the populace anyway?

Those are just some of the reasons why your conflation of LIHOP and MIHOP conspiracies fall apart at the briefest and most cursory of glances...

stateofgrace

22nd June 2007, 07:39 AM

Of course MDG you want to believe that this entire event was staged and that all the warnings were purposefully ignored to allow it to happen. Nothing at all was happening in the world in the run up to 911, there were nothing else to worry about and the US were not receiving any other warning from anywhere at the time. The US, its security forces, the CIA, the FBI did not have to worry about state sponsored terrorism, countries like Syria, Iran, Korea or any other would be sponsors of terrorism. They were not in the slightest bit concerned at other world events that were going on at the time, poverty did not exist, the Aids crisis was not there, the effects of global warning was a non issue. They did have to worry about Africa, Asia, the Middle East or Russia and of course the USG did not have bother whatsoever about a thing that was happening in Europe. Pakistan and Afghanistan were non issues even though they were recognised as major sites of terrorist activity. Israel and the Palestinians were non issues and deserved no attention. The US government did not have concentrate on any domestic issues at all; they were simply mundane things that sorted themselves out. Things like abortion, gun laws, violent crime, white supremacists and neo Nazi groups and other forms of social issues did not need addressing, not did the health care system and the education system. All the US had to concentrate on at the time was forty warnings of a possible terrorist attack from some mad man thousands of miles away. Every single event beyond this is completely incidental and beside the point because there were no other issues to worry about at all. Warnings that were so clear and so precise it is beyond belief, according to MDG, that they missed them, not only that they ignored them. According to you MDG there is no mitigation, nothing else to worry about, no excuse. They should have gone out and done something about it, arrested them; they should have got their man.

It is so easy with the benefit hindsight to condemn isn’t it MGD? Jesus, you don’t even live in the real world, you simply pick out the bits you want to use to condemn, and simply ignore everything else. You know something I don’t smoke but people do, they are warned everyday to stop or it will kill them ,they don’t they continue to smoke, maybe we should condemn such people, stop any form of medical care, after all they warned, everyday in fact. Hey while we are at let’s stopping any form of medical treatment for HIV sufferers, they were warned, not to have unsafe sex but they ignored it. People are warned everyday, people miss these warning, people have other things going on around them, they live in a false sense of security will means they get on with their life’s and ignore clear and precise warning. Warnings that with the benefit of hindsight they should have seen but missed. Heck while we are at it lets stop treating alcoholics after all it is their entire fault they missed the warnings, they did not take any notice of the warnings.

I get fed up with you guys spewing your self righteous condemnation onto internet forums, picking out the bits you want and concentrating on these only. As though those involved with these warnings could not possibly feel any worse than they already do, they now have to put up with internet conspiracy theories accusing them of not only missing these warning but doing so on purposes. They have to live with their mistakes for the rest of their lifes, you do not. You can simply pick and choose which ever bits you want and roundly condemn for failing to protect and failing in their duty. Sitting back in some smug self satisfaction that you would never have done something like this, after all you never miss a warning, never make a mistake; you are super man, the saviour of humanity that wants to bang everybody up for missing the warning sings. Maybe you should start with HIV sufferers, alcoholics and smokers who develop cancer first, I am sure these unfortunate individuals deserve the same treatment you wish upon anybody else who makes a mistake and misses the warnings.

Individuals that despite their best efforts were unable to stop this dreadful event from happening are the people you choose to target, you choose to punish. I thought I would have my rant before I went out and enjoyed myself tonight, after all it is friday night and I will in all probably have a few too many and enjoy myself tonight. I will ignore all the warnings that alcohol is bad for me and actually enjoy myself, maybe you should try it once in awhile, opps sorry forgot you never miss the warnings.

mjd1982

22nd June 2007, 09:23 AM

And how will this be done? You do know there's more banks than police available to guard them, don't you? The same applies to guarding potential terrorist targets...
You make an effort. If you succeed, you succeed, if you fail, uve tried.

If you dont even try, then you are criminally negligent. Simple.

mjd1982

22nd June 2007, 09:25 AM

What?

Are you implying that since the police in Chicago know that a bank will be robbed, all they have to do is 'strengthen security in banks' to prevent it?

Does that also mean that if another bank is robbed, which we KNOW will happen, that means there is some kind of conspiracy afoot? I mean seriously, all they had to do was strengthen security.

They knew one of the finite number of banks in the Chicago metro area was going to be robbed. The fact that one was still robbed despite this knowledge certainly is suspicious.
Its not about preventing it; its about trying to prevent it. This is the job of any agency whose task it is to protect something.

Understand that, and this will become a lot clearer for u.

Augustine

22nd June 2007, 09:27 AM

Were certain elements of it underway? Please show me.

I have pointed you in the right direction several times now. You are covering your ears, closing your eyes, and singing "LALALALA"...review national strategy documents and defense documents from the previous administration - specifically identify which precise programs and policies were suddenly magically implemented Sept 12, 2001 or afterwards which had never been mentioned before except in the PNAC document. You will find none.

If policy was, in the eyes of policymakers, a radical overhaul of military stance, then it may have been that such an event would have been propitious to policy.

This was not a "radical overhaul" of military stance. Review the 1997 QDR and the National Defense Panel report. Transformation had been underway for some time, pretty much since we realized that the Cold War was over, and basing troops in Western Europe to defend against the Soviet Hordes was a concept we needed to abandon. Configuring our forces to mirror another superpower that we might conceivably face in a grand air/land/sea battle was also something we needed to review. This was known since the early 1990's, and underway prior to the PNAC document being published. PNAC did not represent a radical overhaul of the 1997 QDR, although it certainly contained a few differences - unsurprising, since its authors were members of the opposing party, and making their own pitch for inclusion into the 2001 QDR should their party win. Again, not much substantial difference from 1992 Defense Policy Guidance draft floated under SecDef Cheney.

1. Control the new international commons of cyberspace

2. Transform the DoD

3. Provide sufficient budgetary allocations

4. Maintain Nuclear Strategic Superiority

And of course, I could go on.

So as you see, there are a number of action that are being pursued under the specific aegis of 911. Whether they would have been done or not is immaterial; the fact is that they are being pursued as part of the WOT.

Don't be fatuous. Do you expect national security documents produced after 9/11 to contain no mention of 9/11?? Of course not, don't be silly. "Maintain nuclear strategic superiority" has been a mainstay of national strategic policy for longer than you've been alive, junior, it did not spring from PNAC's paper into being. "Transform the DoD" has been around since 1997 QDR, sorry, nothing new to see here. (BTW, "Global missile defense" that you were prattling about back on page 3, has also been around since Reagan, and renewed under Clinton's 1997 QDR - even your hero Chomsky was railing against Clinton's Missile Defense. Nothing new there either.) Cyberspace - again, see Richard Clarke, Clinton administration, QDR 1997 and more. These elements are not a part of the GWOT; if the GWOT ended tomorrow, they would continue.

I know you know better than him, but Bill Clinton disagrees (http://youtube.com/watch?v=WYNI5RPOlp4)
Research, then post please.

Oh ho, the master researcher himself has chastized me!! :dl:
Wow, Bill Clinton, in an interview with Chris Wallace, what a source!!
Let me be more precise, Richard Clarke was not demoted prior to 9/11, as you implied. Following 9/11, Richard Clarke was given a new position, which some viewed as a demotion. Clinton may be thinking of this - or he may simply be being defensive and lashing out (Bill Clinton is not exactly known for being "rigorous with the truth"). Perhaps you could be more precise as well. How was Richard Clarke demoted? When? Why?

Wrong. 1stly, post sources if you want me to take ur assertions seriously. 2ndly, watch and learn
Keith Olbermann?? :dl: Oh, I am crying from laughing so hard!! I have truly learned the extent of your research skills today!!!

Cheers, junior! Look forward to reading more of your "work"!

mjd1982

22nd June 2007, 09:32 AM

Of course, what mjd doesn't seem to grasp is those German scientists were conspiracy theorists. Had the internet been around then we debunkers would be all over THEM as well.
Wrong.

A CT connotes, in general parlance, a theory that contradicts an establishment view on something, which then pins a form of guilt upon an establishment/authoritarian body.

In this instance, the establishment view was the Aryans were the superior race. If that view were being debated here, the dynamic would result in the majority of people (a la Nazi Germany) buying the rhetoric of the scientists and the msm, and stating that anyone who believes differently is accusing the government scientists, and journalists of being "shills". No doubt "NWO" would be thrown in somewhere.

I urge people to read Propaganda by Bernays (http://www.historyisaweapon.com/defcon1/bernprop.html), esp ch1 and 6. I have already written about this here. This will enlighten you as to why to not trust msm, establishment sources that will have an inherent pro-establishment bias.

The pattern is repeating itself here quite nicely.

mjd1982

22nd June 2007, 09:46 AM

In my Loose Change guide I pointed out the instances where terrorism was mentioned in "Rebuilding America's Defenses." It is quite clear that terrorism was not considered to be a major part of global defense strategy.

Ook ook ook!

My friend, sorry to wake you from your slumber, but as I have pointed out to you (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=84473&page=3), the War on Terror is neither
1) a war on terror- no sane person is going to wage a war against an abstract noun
2) a war on terrorism- just a few infamous terrorists living in political asylum in the US: Posada Carriles, Orlando Bosch, Gonzalo Sanchez de Lozada, Carlos Sanchez Berzain
3) a war on Islamic terrorism- the US is currently supporting the Mujahadin el Khalq in Iran, and is now arming Sunni militants, ex AQ allies, in Iraq (http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F60C14FC3C5B0C728DDDAF0894DF4044 82)

So what is it? It is a strategy of advancing US hegemony through military means. You can gauge this by seeing what precisely is being pursued under the aegis of 911. I have given you many links for this on p3; you can see my recent lengthy response to Augustine for more.

Can you point out where PNAC advocates the U.S. abandoning its bases in Saudi Arabia and spending hundreds of billions of dollars and thousands of lives in invading and occupying Iraq?

The need for bases in the Persian Gulf, is stated many times:

the Clinton Administration has
continued the fiction that the operations of
American forces in the Persian Gulf are
merely temporary duties. Nearly a decade
after the Gulf War, U.S. air, ground and
naval forces continue to protect enduring
American interests in the region

In the Persian Gulf region, the
presence of American forces, along with
British and French units, has become a semipermanent
fact of life. Though the
immediate mission of those forces is to
enforce the no-fly zones over northern and
southern Iraq, they represent the long-term
commitment of the United States and its
major allies to a region of vital importance.
Indeed, the United
States has for
decades sought to
play a more
permanent role in
Gulf regional
security. While
the unresolved
conflict with Iraq
provides the
immediate
justification, the
need for a
substantial
American force
presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of
the regime of Saddam Hussein.

etc.

For the invasion of Iraq, ditto the above, plus many many more:

We
cannot allow
North Korea,
Iran, Iraq or
similar states to
undermine American leadership, intimidate
American allies or threaten the American
homeland itself. The blessings of the
American peace, purchased at fearful cost
and a century of effort, should not be so
trivially squandered.

Moreover, the theater-war analysis done for
the QDR assumed that Kim Jong Il and
Saddam Hussein each could begin a war –
perhaps even while employing chemical,
biological or even nuclear weapons – and
the United States would make no effort to
unseat militarily either ruler. In both cases,
past Pentagon wargames have given little or
no consideration to the force requirements
necessary not only to defeat an attack but to
remove these regimes from power and
conduct post-combat stability operations.

Oh, that's right, it doesn't. Yet you claim they wrote what is to an "astonishing degree" a blueprint for the War on Terror. That somehow omitted these things? That is astonishing.

lol, as above

This reminds me of Randi's example of the "Psychic Friends Network" telephone scammers who employed 2400 "psychics," yet not one of them predicted that the company would go bankrupt the next day.

Nice anecdote, thanks.

Light on content as usual. Well done!

mjd1982

22nd June 2007, 09:49 AM

OK, so you're just making a huge assumption. Yet when Alex Jones does the same thing and make a very vague prophecy (or "blueprint" that is bound to become true, then it must be so. And no one accuses him of anything.

Come on Jonny, Alex Jones could not cause 911 to happen, start thinking b4 u post

It's the naustrodamus syndrome. Make a bunch o vague enough statements and you can predict the future. But again, you are simply drawing wild conclusions here and can't back them up with anything tangible.

gimme some vague statements. And follow the thread o the argument pls

Wow, what are the chances of there being a catastrophe in the future? What's the chances of a group wanting to fight terrorism on a global level since at the time it was starting to get out of hand? What's the chances of a group wanting to advance technology? What's the chances of the world starting to become a more global community with things like the internet taking off and all.

Errr... A catastrophe coulld happen; that it should happen when the people in charge with stopping it have just stated its propitiousness, and taken all precautions not to stop it, is something that warrants investigatins.

And again, what is that evidence and why doesn't one of you guys who feels so strongly go investigate? I myself cannot work purely on speculation and conjecture. I don't think the law or any court system can either, so that is probably your big road block. And luckily our court system doesn't work like that or anyone could just simply make up anything about anyone else under the pretex that it seems coincidental in their opinion.

Vote for Pedro.

I have few jurisdictional powers outside my own house, i'm afraid.

mjd1982

22nd June 2007, 09:51 AM

Let me get this straight MJD you reckon after Bush, the President of the USA, received clear, precise and spot on warnings, forty in total,that read perfectly clearly four planes were going to be hijacked on Sept 11th and flown into the landmark buildings, he said something like

“Ah just ignore them, nobody will notice"?
He received sufficient warnings tht there was a deadly attack coming on his country, def thru AQ, prob through hijackings. He did nothing for airports/planes/borders; he knew that there were AQ cells in the country but did nothing to stop this, and he was offered OBL, but said no. end.

JonnyFive

22nd June 2007, 09:52 AM

Okay so I skipped the last 4 pages. Has mjd1982 actually posted any facts yet?

Sure, he's posted a lots of facts. For example:

-PNAC existed.
-PNAC prepared a report.
-There was a terrorist attack on 9/11/2001 (or 11/9/2001 for you Commie-Nazis that use the dd/mm/yyyy date arrangement).
-There is a country called "The United States of America."
-"Propitious" is a word, and means what mjd uses it to mean.
-George W. Bush and William J. Clinton were both US presidents at one point, and Bush is currently the US president.
-The US is currently at war with Iraq.

See? Lots of facts.

mjd1982

22nd June 2007, 09:52 AM

This Bob Kerrey.

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/malkin200404281058.asp
Oh yep, so everything he says must have been wrong.

Please make serious points, since I am taking the time to respond.

mjd1982

22nd June 2007, 09:55 AM

So, mjd....if you were the president, and received reports that an attack from Al Queda was "eminent"....what would you do to stop it?
imminent.

I would do something. Order the finding of the AQ cells. Accept OBL's handover. Try to tighten border security. Try to tighten airport/airplane security. Hold meetings. Pass terror threats down to police etc. And that is just from the top of my head.

JonnyFive

22nd June 2007, 09:57 AM

...Accept OBL's handover...

I missed the part where you provided evidence this actually happened. Could you please post it again, just for us semi-lurkers. Pretty please?

mjd1982

22nd June 2007, 10:00 AM

I'm going to dig through the senate committee reports when I get back from my vacation. I hope I'll still be able to add something to this discussion then though.

I'm going to need to do some reading in the 9/11 commission report as well, I guess.

Not my point, it isn't.
My point is that it is difficult to recruit people to be responsible for killing 10,000 of their own. People that could be their family and friends. That's my point.
You're talking about people selling guns to, and allowing people to fight that are both far away and unrelated. I don't think people in Oregon would generally shrug if New York were to invade Pennsylvania.

And that's where you're wrong. I'm not at all concerned with the US specifically. I'm concerned with the difficulty of getting people to murder their own.

Again, the role of the US is completely immaterial to the point I'm trying to get across. The reason why you personally would not be recruited to be responsible for killing 10,000 innocent Americans is the same reason why very few Americans would. Normal people don't do that, and depending on the amount and form of 'massage', you will need quite a few Americans willing to do just that to pull off this conspiracy.

I would venture that if someone was willing to sponsor the genocide of 100's of 1000's of landless peasants for geo politics, someone who was in the public's eyes. a dove, then someone who is viewed as a hawk would be capable of doing much more for geo politics.

No, I'm sorry, it doesn't work that way. Your "Massaged It into Happening Exactly As Planned" (MIHEAP) theory is only remotely plausible if very few Americans have blood on their hands. The advance warning evidence is possibly consistent with that, I can't tell until I read up. On the other hand, anything that involves controlled demolition on that scale and in secret requires a lot of low level conspirators that are very directly going to be responsible for killing people.

Fine, I'm not up to speed there anyway, as it appears, and on vacation for the next week and a half.

I didnt say exactly as it happened. Maybe they wanted it to happen in June; thus avoid the embarassment of more untouched warnings. Maybe they wanted the 4th plane to fly into wtc7. Maybe they wanted OBL to be more at the forefront, rather than KSM. I dont know. It didnt have to be just like that.

ETA- Enjoy ur holiday!

mjd1982

22nd June 2007, 10:01 AM

http://youtube.com/watch?v=zK-te3Y0m5A

stateofgrace

22nd June 2007, 10:02 AM

He received sufficient warnings tht there was a deadly attack coming on his country, def thru AQ, prob through hijackings. He did nothing for airports/planes/borders; he knew that there were AQ cells in the country but did nothing to stop this, and he was offered OBL, but said no. end.

Ok so here is the plan then, get lots of warnings,ignore them,don't step up security, don't pursue active AQ cells in the country, don't strengthen security at airports, don't accept the hand over of UBL, don’t make the slightest token effort whatsoever to cover your tracks and then say

" Ok , now lets hope nobody notices"

mjd1982

22nd June 2007, 10:02 AM

I missed the part where you provided evidence this actually happened. Could you please post it again, just for us semi-lurkers. Pretty please?
http://youtube.com/watch?v=zK-te3Y0m5A

Augustine

22nd June 2007, 10:02 AM

I would do something. Order the finding of the AQ cells. Accept OBL's handover. Try to tighten border security. Try to tighten airport/airplane security. Hold meetings. Pass terror threats down to police etc. And that is just from the top of my head.

:dl:

Oh, great stuff!!!

"How would you find AQ cells?" "I would order them found." Genius, I tell you!! Please send your resume and samples of your strategic thinking to the Pentagon straightaway, your talents cannot be wasted!!

"Accept nebulous offer of possible handover to 3d party country and disclose US intelligence, and intelligence-gathering methods to non-allied, likely hostile parties." Genius!! :( Well, it wouldn't have stopped 9/11 (plans already in place at that point), but nice try to give away the farm to our enemies nonetheless.

"Try. Try. Hold meetings." :dl: Are you sure you don't already work at the Pentagon?

"Just from the top of your head". I think it originated much lower than that. Not surprising, that's where most of your stuff comes from.

mjd1982

22nd June 2007, 10:08 AM

So you're saying that PNAC were so confident that nobody could possibly suspect them that they included a statement in their document, that didn't need to be there in order to justify the aims of their policy, that gave away the whole conspiracy? The statement that, according you, is the primary cause of suspicion against them? Why are they leaving such obvious clues?

No, I state that the statement indicates taht they deemed it propitous. Nothing else. Maybe they hadnt crystalsed the plan by then. I dont know.

You see, this is the contradiction at the heart of all conspiracy theories - that the conspiracy is so secret that nobody can penetrate the inner circle, so efficient that they can manipulate the entire world to follow their will without knowing it, and yet so careless that they leave obvious clues when there was no benefit to be derived from doing so. It requires simultaneous postulates of infallibility and stupidity.

Dave

No, I have said many times this is as bungled and blatant an inside job as could be conceived. It has the Bush admin's mark all over it. The PNAC doc is one such example; WTC7 is another easy one.

The notion of infallibility in your eyes, is merely the reflection of the notions expounded by the likes of Bernays, Lippman (http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/etext04/pbpnn10.txt) and Chomsky regarding the manipulation of the public psyche. My Nazi analogy was an attempt to shed light on this phenomenon. People will accept any subterfuge in order to not have to believe something that is highly unpalatable. 911 is a perfect example of such. To give an example on this board, the denial of the OBL handover video, with people asking me to prove it happened... something is very awry when posts like that start appearing on what is meant to be a rationalist's board.

Belz...

22nd June 2007, 10:10 AM

You make an effort. If you succeed, you succeed, if you fail, uve tried.

If you dont even try, then you are criminally negligent. Simple.

So your answer is that all available policemen should watch ALL the banks instead of, say, patrolling the streets and answering calls for help ?

Its not about preventing it; its about trying to prevent it. This is the job of any agency whose task it is to protect something.

So points for efforts, then ?

Understand that, and this will become a lot clearer for u.

If only life were so simple, eh ?

mjd1982

22nd June 2007, 10:12 AM

I checked this out, as you requested. The Taliban offered to put OBL on trial in an Islamic court, presided over by three Islamic clerics, in a third country. Bush declined.

OK, so we have three offers: twice to put OBL on trial under Islamic law in a third country, where there is a distinct possibility, given careful choice of judges, that OBL could admit all his actions, claim that they were justified under Islamic law, and not only get off scot free but be able to claim double jeopardy against any future attempts at prosecution; and finally, after the bombing had started, to talk about extradition on the condition that the bombing stop immediately.

Please post this source, as in the video there is no mention of the trial.

In any case, this has little relevance. Saudi Arabia is a US client state, and has extraordinarily strong links to the Bush's in particular. The selection of judges would be made to favour the US, not OBL- this would be inconceivable. Ultimately, if the US wanted him handed over, he would be; it is not that hard to interpret Islamic law to convict OBL, and thus not too hard to find clerics to do so.

You've argued that all these offers were reasonable from the point of view of the Taliban, but that's missing the point by a substantial margin. If you stand by your statement that Bush's first priority should have been the capture of Bin Laden (and not, for example, dismantling the substantial Al-Qaeda infrastructure in Afghanistan), and that therefore he should have taken one of these offers, then you should be able to see that none of these offers represented a certain handover of OBL to the USA, so there was judgement to be exercised in whether to accept, or even seriously consider, any of them. As long as there's a judgement call to be made, making it one way or the other cannot be seen as proof of unwillingness to capture OBL. All Bush's actions can equally well be explained as total distrust of the Taliban, itself not an entirely unreasonable position.

Dave

as above

mjd1982

22nd June 2007, 10:17 AM

Yeah. Heaven forbit that intelligent people might reach different conclusions when presented with the same information.

Hold it, right there, slick. Did they actually say that they needed a radical overhaul ?

u could find out for yourself

Terminating marginal programs like the
Crusader howitzer, trimming administrative
overhead, base closings and the like will not
free up resources enough to finance the
radical overhaul the Army needs.

It's quite material. If they would have been done anyway means that the fact that they are being pursued is IRRELEVANT.

You need to find out under what banner the changes are being pursued, at least to some degree, to find out what the WOT consists of

Don't be obtuse. Reference, please.

http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/index.htm

Evidence is minutiae ? Interesting.

Small, less relevants bits, yes.

Belz...

22nd June 2007, 10:17 AM

A CT connotes, in general parlance, a theory that contradicts an establishment view on something, which then pins a form of guilt upon an establishment/authoritarian body.

I'd say a CT is the culmination of one's paranoid delusions regarding the motives of people who disagree with him.

1) a war on terror- no sane person is going to wage a war against an abstract noun

Aren't you being a little overtly obtuse, here ?

So what is it? It is a strategy of advancing US hegemony through military means.

You don't think the US government wants to disarm potential terrorists from carrying out a new attack on US soil or US interests ??

Errr... A catastrophe coulld happen; that it should happen when the people in charge with stopping it have just stated its propitiousness, and taken all precautions not to stop it, is something that warrants investigatins.

The only problem is that they DIDN'T state it, and HAVEN'T taken any precautions not to stop it. These are your interpretation of words that were not spoken. And I don't care for personal opinions in such a debate.

He received sufficient warnings tht there was a deadly attack coming on his country, def thru AQ, prob through hijackings. He did nothing for airports/planes/borders

Again, can you find a reason why ?

he was offered OBL, but said no. end.

DID YOU READ THE GIVEN REASONS WHY ? Are you actually READING anything ?

twinstead

22nd June 2007, 10:18 AM

No, I have said many times this is as bungled and blatant an inside job as could be conceived. It has the Bush admin's mark all over it. The PNAC doc is one such example; WTC7 is another easy one.

Then explain how this inept conspiracy could fool so many experts in the relevant scientific fields? That's the gist of the idiot savant nature of your claims. Remember, just because you say for example that the WTC7 is obviously a CD means nothing. Except for a very few, the vast majority of experts from around the world have no problem with the official story.

In fact, it is studied around the world probably in just about every structural engineering college, and used to alter building codes.

What you are saying is it was so bungled an inside job that even YOU and other internet warriors could figure it out, but all those structural engineers and professional investigators are either in on it or just simply not as sharp as you guys are.

Rational people become suspicious when those unqualified to make judgments about very technical things declare them so 'obvious' and 'blatant' that anybody can see it.

mjd1982

22nd June 2007, 10:19 AM

Belz...

22nd June 2007, 10:22 AM

I would do something. Order the finding of the AQ cells. Accept OBL's handover. Try to tighten border security. Try to tighten airport/airplane security. Hold meetings. Pass terror threats down to police etc. And that is just from the top of my head.

The problem with all this is that it is hindsight. Do you know what they say about hindsight, mjd ?

I didnt say exactly as it happened. Maybe they wanted it to happen in June; thus avoid the embarassment of more untouched warnings. Maybe they wanted the 4th plane to fly into wtc7. Maybe they wanted OBL to be more at the forefront, rather than KSM. I dont know. It didnt have to be just like that.

Maybe you're just making that stuff up as you go.

No, I state that the statement indicates taht they deemed it propitous.

That's fine. I state that you are wrong.

No, I have said many times this is as bungled and blatant an inside job as could be conceived.

Then WHERE'S THE EVIDENCE ?

Forget the propitiousness. EVIDENCE, please.

People will accept any subterfuge in order to not have to believe something that is highly unpalatable.

You mean, like having to believe that the government is not all-evil ?

nicepants

22nd June 2007, 10:22 AM

You make an effort. If you succeed, you succeed, if you fail, uve tried.

If you dont even try, then you are criminally negligent. Simple.

Is your contention is that bush did not try to stop the 9/11 attacks?

What should he have done to prevent them?

JonnyFive

22nd June 2007, 10:24 AM

http://youtube.com/watch?v=zK-te3Y0m5A

Sorry, but Youtube is a blocked URL by our firewall at the office. Do you have a summary of the evidence or another link that's not a video?

mjd1982

22nd June 2007, 10:24 AM

This post is very, very important. For the first time, we have something approaching a clear statement of opinion from Mr D, and it's now his full ideas are beginning to emerge that we also can start to see them unravel...

It seems he believes that Al-Qaeda did indeed propagate the attacks, but when their plans were uncovered, the US government infiltrated. This infiltration was not to undermine the operation, but to ensure its success.

MjD, here is issue #1 - you expect us to accept that the infiltrator and his handlers are fully aware of the plan, and showed no qualms as to its intent. Which one of the planners was the insider? Atta? Zarqawi? OBL himself? Please elaborate, MjD.

this would be uncovered via investigation

Here's issue #2 - if Al-Qaeda were going to attack anyway - something which would still have been unprecedented - why go to the risk of "massaging"? It defies logical sense to set up a massive covert, risky, illegal, immoral and absurd plan to aid something that was going to happen anyway.

to ensure it happened in a favourable time, place etc

Here's Issue #3 - See your point re: "warnings". Which parts of the government are complicit, and which ones aren't? Quite simply, if the government were involved in the plot, there'd be no need for warnings, would there? That is to say - if clear and concise warnings were given, they were presumably given by someone not involved in the massaging plot you allege, which implies there is a branch of the FBI separate from the perpetrators. If this is the case, where are the people who gave these warnings now? Why have they not spoken out? Which people are in and which are out?

It implies that not the entire government is involved, i.e. there will be people out there doing there jobs, reporting intel, and people doing their "jobs", ignoring them

Here's Issue #4 - Why implode WTC7? Most people who aren't involved in the 911 debunking / conspiracy discussion aren't even aware of WTC7 and its collapse. If you've already massaged the attack such as to ensure its success (ie that plans would hit the Towers) , why go to the extra risk of aggravating it, seeing as the collapse of the towers itself is clearly important and shocking enough as to overshadow the WTC7 collapse in the minds of the populace anyway?

This will be dealt with in time

Those are just some of the reasons why your conflation of LIHOP and MIHOP conspiracies fall apart at the briefest and most cursory of glances...

Well, crisis averted.

Belz...

22nd June 2007, 10:25 AM

u could find out for yourself

I'm not the one making your claims. You are.

http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/index.htm

I'm not asking you to give me the whole report. Specific page and paragraph, please. I'm not going to peruse through the whole thing to find one sentence.

Terminating marginal programs like the
Crusader howitzer, trimming administrative
overhead, base closings and the like will not
free up resources enough to finance the
radical overhaul the Army needs.

I don't think that word means what you think it means in this context.

Belz...

22nd June 2007, 10:27 AM

Rational people become suspicious when those unqualified to make judgments about very technical things declare them so 'obvious' and 'blatant' that anybody can see it.

Engrave this in your mind, Mjd.

nicepants

22nd June 2007, 10:28 AM

to ensure it happened in a favourable time, place etc

If Al Queda is truly our enemy, why would they cooperate with the government's efforts to "massage" the attack, as you suggest?

Dave Rogers

22nd June 2007, 10:28 AM

Please post this source, as in the video there is no mention of the trial.

Best I could find was http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4196/is_20010209/ai_n10670252, if you've got a link to any other text articles I'd be interested.

In any case, this has little relevance. Saudi Arabia is a US client state, and has extraordinarily strong links to the Bush's in particular. The selection of judges would be made to favour the US, not OBL- this would be inconceivable. Ultimately, if the US wanted him handed over, he would be; it is not that hard to interpret Islamic law to convict OBL, and thus not too hard to find clerics to do so.

Your faith in the determination of the Islamic world to support American interests is rather surprising. The proposal was for one Afghan (i.e. pro-Taliban) judge, one Saudi, and one other to be determined. It doesn't say by whom it should be determined. Basically, it's a pig in a poke - there are too few details and plenty of wiggle room for the Taliban. It's by no means an open-and-shut offer to hand over Bin Laden, and you're misrepresenting it if you claim it was.

Dave

Belz...

22nd June 2007, 10:28 AM

this would be uncovered via investigation

And what if it doesn't ? What then ?

to ensure it happened in a favourable time, place etc

Nice speculation.

It implies that not the entire government is involved, i.e. there will be people out there doing there jobs, reporting intel, and people doing their "jobs", ignoring them

Typical Hollywood plot.

twinstead

22nd June 2007, 10:29 AM

I have never seen such a collection of conjecture, half truths, lies, and recycled soundly debunked 'facts' called obvious.

I'll need to recheck my dictionary, because we may have a disagreement on the very definitions of the words 'evidence' and 'obvious'.

I'd love to see you complete your investigation and present your case in a court of law. I would pay to see it. You remind me of an arrogant school-yard bully who can't fight his way out of a paper bag--how you can so arrogantly proclaim that this conspiracy as 'obvious' is beyond me.

TjW

22nd June 2007, 10:31 AM

No, I state that the statement indicates taht they deemed it propitous. Nothing else. Maybe they hadnt crystalsed the plan by then. I dont know.

Perhaps they never crystallized a plan to create a new Pearl Harbor at all.

mjd1982

22nd June 2007, 10:39 AM

I have pointed you in the right direction several times now. You are covering your ears, closing your eyes, and singing "LALALALA"...review national strategy documents and defense documents from the previous administration - specifically identify which precise programs and policies were suddenly magically implemented Sept 12, 2001 or afterwards which had never been mentioned before except in the PNAC document. You will find none.

1stly, you have just said, "read strategy documents". I've asked you to show me some germane ones, You havent.

2ndly, learn the difference between a strategy being broached, even being implemented, and being rigorously pursued as a matter of life and death. This will resolve your confusion.

This was not a "radical overhaul" of military stance. Review the 1997 QDR and the National Defense Panel report. Transformation had been underway for some time, pretty much since we realized that the Cold War was over, and basing troops in Western Europe to defend against the Soviet Hordes was a concept we needed to abandon. Configuring our forces to mirror another superpower that we might conceivably face in a grand air/land/sea battle was also something we needed to review. This was known since the early 1990's, and underway prior to the PNAC document being published. PNAC did not represent a radical overhaul of the 1997 QDR, although it certainly contained a few differences - unsurprising, since its authors were members of the opposing party, and making their own pitch for inclusion into the 2001 QDR should their party win. Again, not much substantial difference from 1992 Defense Policy Guidance draft floated under SecDef Cheney.
[/quote

The latter of which was not implemented.

In terms of radical changes:

[quote]
Terminating marginal programs like the
Crusader howitzer, trimming administrative
overhead, base closings and the like will not
free up resources enough to finance the
radical overhaul the Army needs.

Design
and research on a future CVX carrier
should continue, but should aim at a
radical design change

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.

when
the results of vigorous experimentation
introduce radically new weapons, concepts
of operation, and organization to the armed
services.

this initial process of transformation
must be just the first step toward a more
radical reconfiguring of the Army.

Just one adjective.

Don't be fatuous. Do you expect national security documents produced after 9/11 to contain no mention of 9/11?? Of course not, don't be silly. "Maintain nuclear strategic superiority" has been a mainstay of national strategic policy for longer than you've been alive, junior, it did not spring from PNAC's paper into being. "Transform the DoD" has been around since 1997 QDR, sorry, nothing new to see here. (BTW, "Global missile defense" that you were prattling about back on page 3, has also been around since Reagan, and renewed under Clinton's 1997 QDR - even your hero Chomsky was railing against Clinton's Missile Defense. Nothing new there either.) Cyberspace - again, see Richard Clarke, Clinton administration, QDR 1997 and more. These elements are not a part of the GWOT; if the GWOT ended tomorrow, they would continue.

The simple way to determine what the WOT consists of is to see what is being pursued, to any significant degree, under its aegis. I have given you a few examples. If you follow the distinction i showed you at the top, you woud understand this better.

In any case, this is a pretty elementary concept to understand.

Oh ho, the master researcher himself has chastized me!! :dl:
Wow, Bill Clinton, in an interview with Chris Wallace, what a source!!
Let me be more precise, Richard Clarke was not demoted prior to 9/11, as you implied. Following 9/11, Richard Clarke was given a new position, which some viewed as a demotion. Clinton may be thinking of this - or he may simply be being defensive and lashing out (Bill Clinton is not exactly known for being "rigorous with the truth"). Perhaps you could be more precise as well. How was Richard Clarke demoted? When? Why?

Obviously, your completely wrong. His position was one of dealing with Principals. On Jan 26th, he was demoted to dealing with Deputies, having given Rice a doc the day b4, entitled "Strategies for dealing with AQ".

Keith Olbermann?? :dl: Oh, I am crying from laughing so hard!! I have truly learned the extent of your research skills today!!!

Cheers, junior! Look forward to reading more of your "work"!

Good. So since you are unwilling to contest that point, we will leave it as I stated.

stateofgrace

22nd June 2007, 10:40 AM

If Al Queda is truly our enemy, why would they cooperate with the government's efforts to "massage" the attack, as you suggest?

That’s a point Mjd, if it is so obviously an inside job why doesn’t Al Qaeda come clean? Why don't they simply set the record straight and completely destroy the USG? Why would Al Qaeda or UBL for that matter feel the need to keep it all secret for so long?

mjd1982

22nd June 2007, 10:41 AM

Ok so here is the plan then, get lots of warnings,ignore them,don't step up security, don't pursue active AQ cells in the country, don't strengthen security at airports, don't accept the hand over of UBL, don’t make the slightest token effort whatsoever to cover your tracks and then say

" Ok , now lets hope nobody notices"
Hahaha... yeh, and you dont!

mjd1982

22nd June 2007, 10:45 AM

:dl:

Oh, great stuff!!!

"How would you find AQ cells?" "I would order them found." Genius, I tell you!! Please send your resume and samples of your strategic thinking to the Pentagon straightaway, your talents cannot be wasted!!

Please think b4 u post.

I was asked what would I have done in response to the warnings. For the warnings about the cells in the US, i would have ordered that they be found, i.e. efforts to find them.

"Accept nebulous offer

y nebulous?

of possible handover

y possible?

to 3d party country

a US client state

and disclose US intelligence, and intelligence-gathering methods to non-allied, likely hostile parties." Genius!! :( Well, it wouldn't have stopped 9/11 (plans already in place at that point), but nice try to give away the farm to our enemies nonetheless.

what the hell are you talking about?

"Try. Try. Hold meetings." :dl: Are you sure you don't already work at the Pentagon?

Better than doing nothing.

mjd1982

22nd June 2007, 10:47 AM

So your answer is that all available policemen should watch ALL the banks instead of, say, patrolling the streets and answering calls for help ?

So points for efforts, then ?

If only life were so simple, eh ?
No, I said make an effort. Try and stop the killing of innocent people. Not hard.

Billdave2

22nd June 2007, 10:48 AM

Hello, I have been lurking for awhile and have decided the I am ready to jump in to this discussion. Since I am new I will start with a small issue and get into the bigger stuff later.

In post #1028 MJD1982 stated that some statements are so overwhelmingly impplied that they can not be termed speculation. Since everything he has argued so far is based on these "overwhelmingly implied" statements, I am surprised that he thinks the example he uses fits this description.

But come on. Let's be precise about what we are calling speculation, since it is all too easy to use it as a blanket word to cover even the most elementary instances where even if something if overwhelmingly implied, its implication can be denied since it is speculative to make the inference. To give an example, of the top of my head, "I really wanna play football tomorrow. If it rains, we will not be able to play". Now here, is is speculation to say that I am hoping it does not rain. Yet for the purposes of a sane argument, it would be ridiculous to dismiss that claim as "speculation/fantasy" as you do. Doing such, as I stated, throws a blanket over all types of inference, even the most basic, and as such, renders all inference useless, fantasy. This is not a framework for any type of serious discussion.

How states that since he wants to play football, and can't if it rains, therefore he doesn't want it to rain. This is a falicy since he could very well want to play football, but want it rain even more. Afterall, if he is a farmer and it hasn't rained in weeks it would be "propitious" for him if it did, even though he wouldn't get to play football. I know this may seem like a trivial argument but it goes to show how assuming/implying/speculating can never be taken as evidence.

mjd1982

22nd June 2007, 10:49 AM

The problem with all this is that it is hindsight. Do you know what they say about hindsight, mjd ?

Maybe you're just making that stuff up as you go.

That's fine. I state that you are wrong.

Then WHERE'S THE EVIDENCE ?

Forget the propitiousness. EVIDENCE, please.

You mean, like having to believe that the government is not all-evil ?
The evidence is being debated on this thread. It usually has "MJD1982" next to it, just to give u a clue

mjd1982

22nd June 2007, 10:54 AM

Sorry, but Youtube is a blocked URL by our firewall at the office. Do you have a summary of the evidence or another link that's not a video?
Runs to the extent of:

"Tho conventional thought, debunked since by the 911 Comm report that Clinton refused an offer for OBL's handover to the US from Sudan in 98, it is rare to ask such questions of Bush. Even rarer to see this clip, from a WH press conference, of a question about exactly this offer from the Taliban after the gov knew that AQ had attacked th Cole"

(Afhgan(?) journalist to Fleischer) "The Taliban have stated that they are willing to hand OBL over to Saudi Arabia, in return for dropping of sanctions and they have a deal they want to make with the US. Any comment?"
(AF) "Let me take that and get back to you on that"

"There is no record of any subsequent discussion on that matter."

mjd1982

22nd June 2007, 10:55 AM

If Al Queda is truly our enemy, why would they cooperate with the government's efforts to "massage" the attack, as you suggest?
How do they know its the gov. Read:
http://www.911blogger.com/node/7948

stateofgrace

22nd June 2007, 11:02 AM

Hahaha... yeh, and you dont!

Unlike a bright spark like yourself, nobody fools you hey?

So your plan to date is.

1. Publish documented laying down plan for global expansion
2. Ignore all warnings of impending terrorist attack
3. Groom UBL.
4. Allow UBL to go free.
5. Don’t improve homeland security
6. Sit back and watch as 3000 of your countrymen are murdered
7. Start wars.
8. Leave lots and lots of clues.
9. Hope nobody notices

Please when you get out of the student bar, don't become a politician, because if you truly believe this is how things happen in the real world, heaven help us.

DGM

22nd June 2007, 11:02 AM

Oh yep, so everything he says must have been wrong.

Please make serious points, since I am taking the time to respond.
It's called showing a possible bias in his opinion. It's something thinking people do to establish credibility.

mjd1982

22nd June 2007, 11:04 AM

Best I could find was http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4196/is_20010209/ai_n10670252, if you've got a link to any other text articles I'd be interested.

Your faith in the determination of the Islamic world to support American interests is rather surprising. The proposal was for one Afghan (i.e. pro-Taliban) judge, one Saudi, and one other to be determined. It doesn't say by whom it should be determined. Basically, it's a pig in a poke - there are too few details and plenty of wiggle room for the Taliban. It's by no means an open-and-shut offer to hand over Bin Laden, and you're misrepresenting it if you claim it was.

Dave
I hear Cockburn wrote about it, but cannot find it.

Ok, 2 things. 1stly, that report comes ~ 2 weeks before the vid I posted. By this time, the offer is stated as for him to be handed over to SA. Nothing about Afghan clerics is mentioned or implied.

2ndly, u r being distortive talking about the Islamic world. There is a huge difference in US stance in Egypt, Saudi, Bahrain, vs in Syria, Palestine and Iran. The Saudis are the clients of the US, and they will bend to the wll of the US inevitably, especially in an issue as insignificant to them as OBL, vs US support. Thus the chances are overwhelmingly stacked in the US's favour, and for them not to take this, given what the offer represents, is astonishing.

mjd1982

22nd June 2007, 11:05 AM

That’s a point Mjd, if it is so obviously an inside job why doesn’t Al Qaeda come clean? Why don't they simply set the record straight and completely destroy the USG? Why would Al Qaeda or UBL for that matter feel the need to keep it all secret for so long?

as above

mjd1982

22nd June 2007, 11:08 AM

Augustine

22nd June 2007, 11:08 AM

1stly, you have just said, "read strategy documents". I've asked you to show me some germane ones, You havent.

Ladies and gentlemen, this is an excellent illustration of why the US rejected the Taliban's offer. If I was a fool, I would immediately begin working on a reading list for Junior1982, despite the fact that I have strewn numerous clues throughout my posts already. However, when I delivered said list, he would ignore it, and say that they "aren't germane" (as he has done every time prior in this thread when I urged him to study the development of national-level strategic documents). "Why should I care", "irrelevant", other ignorant excuses. However, I see that this is not a sincere request for guidance on reading, so I disregard it.

2ndly, learn the difference between a strategy being broached, even being implemented, and being rigorously pursued as a matter of life and death. This will resolve your confusion.

Precisely why I will not waste time preparing a "Strategy Primer" for Junior. It will not fit into his circular reasoning. Where are those goalposts again? Oh, right, moved again...

In terms of radical changes:
Just one adjective.

Perhaps if your analysis was more than word-searching the document, you might have a better understanding. Oxford, was it? Oh well....

Obviously, your completely wrong. His position was one of dealing with Principals. On Jan 26th, he was demoted to dealing with Deputies, having given Rice a doc the day b4, entitled "Strategies for dealing with AQ".

What was his title? "One of Dealing With Principals"? Or something else? Do you know? Is that all you have to support this "demotion"?

Good. So since you are unwilling to contest that point, we will leave it as I stated.

Right, post a youtube video, call it "evidence", do a victory lap while I am still scratching my head at the decline of Western education. What next, wikipedia? Conspiracy website? Prisonplanet?

Augustine

22nd June 2007, 11:19 AM

I was asked what would I have done in response to the warnings. For the warnings about the cells in the US, i would have ordered that they be found, i.e. efforts to find them.

Wow!! That sounds so much better, like you have a real plan or something! :rolleyes:

y nebulous?
If this was such an ironclad, straightforward offer from the Taliban government with no conditions, why is the only evidence you can find of it a question asked at a press conference based on a report in the India Globe and corroborated nowhere else?
(Or for your reading skills: y? B cuz it wuz not 4 reals.)

y possible?
No promises were made. Possible. Dictionary is your friend, use it.

what the hell are you talking about?
I apologize, I forgot that you do not understand intelligence. (Or strategy.) Ask a more specific question, and I will try to answer in small words for you. (Translated for your reading skills: :o my bad, I will b ez 4 u 2 git from now on)

volatile

22nd June 2007, 11:26 AM

this would be uncovered via investigation

Which means that you have no evidence for an "insider", and you've just made it up. Right?

to ensure it happened in a favourable time, place etc

Etc? So, you're now trying to tell us that the US found out about an Al-Qaeda plot, but that they realised it was a terrible plot and they could do a better job themselves?

It implies that not the entire government is involved, i.e. there will be people out there doing there jobs, reporting intel, and people doing their "jobs", ignoring them

If someone gave an unambiguous warning, as you suggest, and if another branch of the government deliberately ignored the warning (well, "ignored" isn't the right word, seeing as they were involved in the plot), where is that someone now? Why haven't they come out and say "I told Mr X on 1/9/01 that an attack was to be carried out in manner X,Y and Z - nothing was done AT ALL"? Indeed, this "someone" is likely to be a team and hierarchy of people. No cracks yet. Why ever not?

Which is this secret branch of the government / security services which is able to carry out subterfuge, infiltration, explosive demolition and mass murder without any of the other branches of government knowing about it? Where are they based? How are they funded? How are they equipped? Which members of the executive know? Which members of the judiciary? You're making this up as you go along, you've seen too many movies.

This will be dealt with in time

If you have EVIDENCE (not speculation) that WTC7 was brought down by explosive devices planted by or in collusion with a branch of the US government, why the hell are you waiting to tell us. Write an article, tell Interpol, win the Pulitzer Prize!

What's stopping you?

stateofgrace

22nd June 2007, 11:54 AM

The questions was

That’s a point Mjd, if it is so obviously an inside job why doesn’t Al Qaeda come clean? Why don't they simply set the record straight and completely destroy the USG? Why would Al Qaeda or UBL for that matter feel the need to keep it all secret for so long?

You dodged them with this load of rubbish.

2ndly, u r being distortive talking about the Islamic world. There is a huge difference in US stance in Egypt, Saudi, Bahrain, vs in Syria, Palestine and Iran. The Saudis are the clients of the US, and they will bend to the wll of the US inevitably, especially in an issue as insignificant to them as OBL, vs US support. Thus the chances are overwhelmingly stacked in the US's favour, and for them not to take this, given what the offer represents, is astonishing.

Al Qaeda as sworn to over throw the Saudi Arabian Royal family, they want Saudi returning to a pure Islamic state. UBL is no ally to the Saudi Royal family so your special relationship between the US and Saudi Arabia does not wash and does not in anyway answer the questions. They stand and until you provide a coherent answer you are dismissed as a cter who is simply making BS up.

Stop making stuff up and answer the questions.

HeyLeroy

22nd June 2007, 12:06 PM

Hasn't it been your contention (on the SLC forum) that conspirators unknown "made" 7 World Trade Center collapse with pre-planted explosives? Have you now abandoned that stance?aggravated

What does that mean? Conspirators unknown "aggravated" the 7 World Trade Center collapse with pre-planted explosives? You've "aggravated" your stance? What?

For the former, strengthen security in banks in metropolitan Chicago

Which banks?

all

Who pays?

negativ

22nd June 2007, 12:19 PM

Oh, great stuff!!!

"How would you find AQ cells?" "I would order them found." Genius, I tell you!! Please send your resume and samples of your strategic thinking to the Pentagon straightaway, your talents cannot be wasted!!

At the very least, it would make for a great new episode of How To Do It!

tNfGyIW7aHM

JonnyFive

22nd June 2007, 12:26 PM

Runs to the extent of:

"Tho conventional thought, debunked since by the 911 Comm report that Clinton refused an offer for OBL's handover to the US from Sudan in 98, it is rare to ask such questions of Bush. Even rarer to see this clip, from a WH press conference, of a question about exactly this offer from the Taliban after the gov knew that AQ had attacked th Cole"

(Afhgan(?) journalist to Fleischer) "The Taliban have stated that they are willing to hand OBL over to Saudi Arabia, in return for dropping of sanctions and they have a deal they want to make with the US. Any comment?"
(AF) "Let me take that and get back to you on that"

"There is no record of any subsequent discussion on that matter."

That's it? That's the only source you have for this claim you keep stating as absolute fact?

Please tell me you have something more substantial than a White House "no comment" about a potential Taliban deal. At least tell me that the video has the actual recording of that exchange rather than some jerk just talking about how it might've happened.

Billdave2

22nd June 2007, 12:28 PM

I am not a farmer. It is a trivial point, and as such warrants a trivial answer, sorry, but true.

But I have just as much proof that you are a farmer as you have that the writer's of th PNAC knew about 9/11 in advance.

You have stated that some statements can be assumed to mean something simply because it is propitous for a goal you have (ex you want to play football, but say you can't if it rains, i.e. you don't want it to rain). I have shown how there is it least one circumstance where that would be false. Likewise to say that 9/11 was propitious to the PNAC assumes that NOT having a 9/11 attack would not be even more propitous to the PNAC. It is a baseless assumuption.

Belz...

22nd June 2007, 01:15 PM

No, I said make an effort. Try and stop the killing of innocent people. Not hard.

Not hard ? When you don't have an actual clue of WHERE or WHEN the attack is coming, it's actually VERY hard to even try to stop something like that.

The evidence is being debated on this thread. It usually has "MJD1982" next to it, just to give u a clue

The evidence is not being debated at all. We're debating if it was "propitious" to policy. So far it wouldn't matter if it were, because we have NO EVIDENCE THAT they made it or let it happen.

lapman

22nd June 2007, 01:58 PM

The evidence is not being debated at all. We're debating if it was "propitious" to policy. So far it wouldn't matter if it were, because we have NO EVIDENCE THAT they made it or let it happen.

The real culprits are the people that are afraid to fly! 9/11 would be "propitious" to their policy of not flying. All airplanes were grounded and all you have to do in get on the watch list and voilà! No more flying. There you go folks. Now if you can prove that Bush is afraid of flying, you have your connection. :D

The Almond

22nd June 2007, 02:56 PM

HeyLeroy

22nd June 2007, 03:03 PM

I just wanted to note that you made an excellent point here Billdave, and it's too bad mjd didn't bother to address it.

It's not propitious to his argument. :D

David Wong

22nd June 2007, 03:33 PM

Home from work again, and I've missed another couple of pages. Have we gotten to WTC7 and how we got from the PNAC statement to PNAC complicity?

I don't see those posts but maybe they're small...

SpitfireIX

22nd June 2007, 03:39 PM

Home from work again, and I've missed another couple of pages. Have we gotten to WTC7 and how we got from the PNAC statement to PNAC complicity?

I don't see those posts but maybe they're small...

To summarize the previous two pages:

:deadhorse :monkey: :tinfoil

Jonnyclueless

22nd June 2007, 03:40 PM

Come on Jonny, Alex Jones could not cause 911 to happen, start thinking b4 u post

gimme some vague statements. And follow the thread o the argument pls

Errr... A catastrophe coulld happen; that it should happen when the people in charge with stopping it have just stated its propitiousness, and taken all precautions not to stop it, is something that warrants investigatins.

I have few jurisdictional powers outside my own house, i'm afraid.

So then you are just making conjecture as I have pointed out. No, of course Alex Jones could not have caused such a thing, because he's not a "bad guy". He doesn't fit the stereo type of evil people who control everything. PNAC fits your stereo type so we can make all the wild assumptions and conjecture and speculation we want.

How well do you think your argument would hold up in a court of law?

"Well your honor, it sounds like what we want to hear, so therefore the party is guilty. Evidence? Well no sir, but just look at how they fit our stereo type."

Jonnyclueless

22nd June 2007, 03:43 PM

Augustine

22nd June 2007, 03:50 PM

I must really be stupid. 31 pages and I still don't see a connection made between 9/11 and PNAC. Yet I am just told to read through the thread. Is there a certain number of times of reading through before it becomes clear? Is this like one of those pictures you have to stair at to see the sailboat?

I just don't think I am cut out for this mental exercise...

Read some Chomsky. Then you will learn that if you believe anything Western governments/the U.S./Israel say, you are brainwashed by propaganda. However, when you swallow unquestioningly every piece of drivel from the enemies of Western governments/the U.S./Israel, you are an intellectual. Hardly surprising the woo-woos love him. After all, bombing an empty pharmaceutical plant in Sudan was much much worse than whatever was done to us on 9/11 (which we deserved of course).

Is there a vomit smilie?

HeyLeroy

22nd June 2007, 04:04 PM

http://liveu-77.vo.llnwd.net/vidilife/image/2006/10/10/946639/1193577L.gif

MIKILLINI

22nd June 2007, 04:08 PM

As a result of your diligence mjd, you will be granted a hearing scheduled for a date to be determined later before this judge;

http://www.chriswylde.com/alfred_e_neuman.jpg

volatile

22nd June 2007, 04:29 PM

Read some Chomsky. Then you will learn that if you believe anything Western governments/the U.S./Israel say, you are brainwashed by propaganda. However, when you swallow unquestioningly every piece of drivel from the enemies of Western governments/the U.S./Israel, you are an intellectual. Hardly surprising the woo-woos love him. After all, bombing an empty pharmaceutical plant in Sudan was much much worse than whatever was done to us on 9/11 (which we deserved of course).

Is there a vomit smilie?

Chomsky is very, very anti-911 conspiracy theories, though! He certainly doesn't believe in government conspiracy.

LoDqDvbgeXM&NR=1

stateofgrace

22nd June 2007, 04:58 PM

I must really be stupid. 31 pages and I still don't see a connection made between 9/11 and PNAC. Yet I am just told to read through the thread. Is there a certain number of times of reading through before it becomes clear? Is this like one of those pictures you have to stair at to see the sailboat?

I just don't think I am cut out for this mental exercise...

No, no you are far from stupid; it is akin to one of those movies that you really, really look forward to seeing. The ones that get all the hype, you cannot wait to see it. Only to realise from very early stage it is a complete waste of time, you have been ripped off. But you have to see it through, right to the bitter end. Hoping it will get better, only to realise the further on it goes the sillier it gets, climaxing with the most stupid ending imaginable.

Unfortunately I feel this movie is far from over.

Belz...

22nd June 2007, 05:36 PM

No, no you are far from stupid; it is akin to one of those movies that you really, really look forward to seeing. The ones that get all the hype, you cannot wait to see it. Only to realise from very early stage it is a complete waste of time, you have been ripped off. But you have to see it through, right to the bitter end. Hoping it will get better, only to realise the further on it goes the sillier it gets, climaxing with the most stupid ending imaginable.

You're talking about "Doom", right ?

SpitfireIX

22nd June 2007, 05:50 PM

http://liveu-77.vo.llnwd.net/vidilife/image/2006/10/10/946639/1193577L.gif

You had to ask, didn't you? :faint:

Brainache

23rd June 2007, 08:04 AM

What gets me annoyed about this thread? I'm glad you asked:
MJD seems to have a certain amount of intelligence, as do most others posting here. He seems to be educated, as do most others, but MJD seems to be of the opinion that only he is really educated. Only he has any intelligence. Anyone who disagrees with MJD can't be intelligent or educated, apparently.

Dear MJD,
where does one learn such conceit? Where do you get the arrogance to assume such superiority? There are many people here older, more experienced and at least as well educated as yourself, how do you reach the conclusion that you know more than anyone else?

You have taken a few phrases from the PNAC document and spun a paranoid web around them. How is it that you cling to this paranoid web even after its nature has been pointed out to you?

What investment do you have in the conspiracy theory that prevents you from seeing it for what it is?

Assume for a moment that there is no conspiracy. Assume that the world is not as dark and sinister as you pretend. Try just for a little while to imagine that not everything revolves around shadowy secret plans for world domination.

I'm not saying that there aren't bad people in the world doing bad things, just that the bad guys aren't organising themselves to take away your freedoms. If your (and my) freedoms are being lost, it isn't because of some faceless global elite, it's because people like you (and me) aren't doing enough to stop it.

What can we do Mr Brainache? I hear you ask, well we could stop posting pointless rubbish on the net and get involved in local politics. Or maybe create some meaningful art or something. The point is, even if this thread lasts for another 100,000 posts, nothing will have been solved.

End of semi-drunken rant.
Thank you.

Unsecured Coins

23rd June 2007, 08:11 AM

Dear MJD,
where does one learn such conceit?
Oxford.

End of semi-drunken rant.
Reminds me of the time I came home one night and my wife asks me "What the hell are you doing coming into this house half drunk?"

I said "I ran out of farkin' money"

HeyLeroy

23rd June 2007, 12:29 PM

You had to ask, didn't you? :faint:

Got this one, too: http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/6197458857c9c6d70.gif

SpitfireIX

23rd June 2007, 12:45 PM

Got this one, too: http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/6197458857c9c6d70.gif

Thank you for sharing that with us. :rolleyes:

twinstead

23rd June 2007, 08:30 PM

End of semi-drunken rant.

SEMI? Hell, if you can't manage a full drunken rant then you have no business posting in this board, mister! ;)

Brainache

23rd June 2007, 09:50 PM

SEMI? Hell, if you can't manage a full drunken rant then you have no business posting in this board, mister! ;)

Yeah well, I'm trying to cut down. My 43 year old body doesn't cope with hangovers as well as it once did. Plus my typing whilst drunk looks a bit like this: lcoh[ao eíhf[8vy dc'kjn'dlj á;ljdiydyffj l;jdbwo'8y. So I try to avoid it.

Unsecured Coins

23rd June 2007, 09:58 PM

lcoh[ao eíhf[8vy dc'kjn'dlj á;ljdiydyffj l;jdbwo'8y.

you better apologize for saying that about my momma!!

Brainache

23rd June 2007, 10:05 PM

you better apologize for saying that about my momma!!

Hey I'm sorry. What can I say? I was drunk.

kookbreaker

23rd June 2007, 10:08 PM

you better apologize for saying that about my momma!!

Take it up with the Tequila monster. I'm just passing along messages.

(wait...no...)

Dam Mad Elf.

Pardalis

23rd June 2007, 11:21 PM

http://www.chriswylde.com/alfred_e_neuman.jpg

Jason?

MIKILLINI

24th June 2007, 01:08 AM

Jason?

Or Ted Koppel; Formerly of the "evil" mainstream ABC Nightline

mjd1982

24th June 2007, 03:03 PM

Unlike a bright spark like yourself, nobody fools you hey?

So your plan to date is.

1. Publish documented laying down plan for global expansion

Yes

2. Ignore all warnings of impending terrorist attack

yes

3. Groom UBL.

How groom?

4. Allow UBL to go free.

dont take him in

5. Don’t improve homeland security

more or less

6. Sit back and watch as 3000 of your countrymen are murdered

yes, not too dissimilar from Katrina, as i understand

7. Start wars.

yes

8. Leave lots and lots of clues.

they get left, tho i doubt this is intentional

9. Hope nobody notices

No, know that people are sufficiently myopic enough to accept any subterfuge to prevent them from noticing.

Please when you get out of the student bar, don't become a politician, because if you truly believe this is how things happen in the real world, heaven help us.

This post is a pretty clear enunciation of my previous point

mjd1982

24th June 2007, 03:12 PM

Ladies and gentlemen, this is an excellent illustration of why the US rejected the Taliban's offer.

If you are 1stly clear on what the offer was, which you arent.

The offer was not to have him tried by some Taliban clerics under Shariah law in Afghanistan. It was to have him tried in a US client/proxy state, Saudi Arabia. How this could realistically be a much more favourable offer, i would like to know.

If I was a fool, I would immediately begin working on a reading list for Junior1982, despite the fact that I have strewn numerous clues throughout my posts already. However, when I delivered said list, he would ignore it, and say that they "aren't germane" (as he has done every time prior in this thread when I urged him to study the development of national-level strategic documents). "Why should I care", "irrelevant", other ignorant excuses. However, I see that this is not a sincere request for guidance on reading, so I disregard it.

Well, you may be right. Though I would perhaps be interesting in reading non neo con military strategy docs at some point, since this has nothing to do with the point at hand, it is of little interest to me now. I will explain this to you again.

Just because such ideas had been conceived, or even if such ideas had started to be implemented, this does not mean that 911 would not have been propitious to policy. If, as I think you have acknowledged at another point, you realise that changes happen quicker in a time of "deadly war", than in peace, then you will understand both my point, and that of PNAC when they state that such changes need a new PH to happen in quicker time.

Precisely why I will not waste time preparing a "Strategy Primer" for Junior. It will not fit into his circular reasoning. Where are those goalposts again? Oh, right, moved again...

if you want to argue the points,go ahead. If not, your evasion wil be noted by all.

Perhaps if your analysis was more than word-searching the document, you might have a better understanding. Oxford, was it? Oh well....

Since this point has zero value, there is no need to address it and my original point remains uncontested

What was his title? "One of Dealing With Principals"? Or something else? Do you know? Is that all you have to support this "demotion"?

Demotion by title is meaningless, effectively. Demotion by role is all that matters.

This should not be hard to understant.

Right, post a youtube video, call it "evidence", do a victory lap while I am still scratching my head at the decline of Western education. What next, wikipedia? Conspiracy website? Prisonplanet?

Good. So if it is such lousy evidence, you should have no problem debunking it. I will, and have been, waiting for such.

While your at it, you may want to get in touch with MSNBC and let them know about the gross mendacity of ther lead anchor. Until you do, your argument is yet the more worthless.

mjd1982

24th June 2007, 03:22 PM

Wow!! That sounds so much better, like you have a real plan or something! :rolleyes:

Of course, such reasoning implies that were you president and told that AQ had cells in the US and were plotting to attack the US, you would do nothing.
Please confirm this is the case

If this was such an ironclad, straightforward offer from the Taliban government with no conditions, why is the only evidence you can find of it a question asked at a press conference based on a report in the India Globe and corroborated nowhere else?
(Or for your reading skills: y? B cuz it wuz not 4 reals.)

Errr... excuse me, but this is unadulterated, steaming, stinking nonsense.

I have a 10 minute editorial piece from the lead anchor of one of the biggest news orgs in the world. You have posted an article yourself, and there is also one, according to Pomeroo, from Alex Cockburn, the editor of the Nation. So it was widely reported. Now, what you are arguing, is that if there were strings attached, then that means that the press had no need to report it; nothing, nowhere. This is of course, garbage, since the press reports trivialities day after day after day. The offer of the biggest single human threat to civilian life in the US being offered on trial in a US client state, or anywhere else for that matter, is news I'm afraid, and if you want to know a more likely explanation why everyone does not know about it, you may want to read the many books and vids I have linked you and others to re: mass media as propaganda.

In any case, you still have to explain why you, in your position of relative total ignorance are calling Cockburn and Olbermann liars.

No promises were made. Possible. Dictionary is your friend, use it.

Even if Mullah Omar had "promised", the offer would still be possible, since the reneging of it would not be impossible. Brain is your friend, us it.

Unsecured Coins

24th June 2007, 03:28 PM

yes, not too dissimilar from Katrina, as i understand

you mean... we took away their ability to get out WAAAAY before the storm so we could watch them die on CNN?

bawahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.....

That's rich.

mjd1982

24th June 2007, 03:41 PM

Which means that you have no evidence for an "insider", and you've just made it up. Right?

No, it means that there are certain small details which I will not know. I do not know who suggested the idea from PNAC, I dont know who pulled what strings etc etc... these details are inconsequential, and have no bearing on anything of relevance here.

Etc? So, you're now trying to tell us that the US found out about an Al-Qaeda plot, but that they realised it was a terrible plot and they could do a better job themselves?

No, I am speculating that they massaged elements of the plot so that it would fit in to their scheme. That I am speculating about this has again no relevance to the thrust of my argument.

If someone gave an unambiguous warning, as you suggest, and if another branch of the government deliberately ignored the warning (well, "ignored" isn't the right word, seeing as they were involved in the plot), where is that someone now? Why haven't they come out and say "I told Mr X on 1/9/01 that an attack was to be carried out in manner X,Y and Z - nothing was done AT ALL"? Indeed, this "someone" is likely to be a team and hierarchy of people. No cracks yet. Why ever not?

Once again, this is of zero logical value. That no one has come out and volunteered themselves for the firing squad is meaningless, and should not be used in any serious debate on the matter.

Which is this secret branch of the government / security services which is able to carry out subterfuge, infiltration, explosive demolition and mass murder without any of the other branches of government knowing about it? Where are they based? How are they funded? How are they equipped? Which members of the executive know? Which members of the judiciary? You're making this up as you go along, you've seen too many movies.

I'm not saying that there is a secret branch of the government that does these things. I think that the meat of the work is done by the principals (PNAC et al), and the rest is probably done by parts of the FBI/CIA, as any black ops (Ajax, PBSUCCESS etc) are.

If you have EVIDENCE (not speculation) that WTC7 was brought down by explosive devices planted by or in collusion with a branch of the US government, why the hell are you waiting to tell us. Write an article, tell Interpol, win the Pulitzer Prize!

What's stopping you?

We are not debating that yet