The 9/11 Conspiracy Facts

[mjd1982]

Hello all!

It’s nice to finally be here. Having all too quickly exhausted the rational capacities of the SLC forum, I come here in search of… well, opposition, challenge, truth, enlightenment, many different things I guess.

The fact is that although debunking TT CD theories, and no plane hitting the Pentagon is quite easy, when it comes to addressing the real hard facts, there is only one conclusion that a rational mind will come to, and it is that of the “Truth Movement” (I notice you have Eric Hufschmid and Rick Siegel in your popular tags, but no PNAC or Paul Thompson). Namely, that there is sufficient evidence of US government complicity in 9/11 for an independent investigation to be held. The fact that there are so many people, or indeed, people at all, who still cling on to the government’s version of events, is, I feel, reflective of an extraordinary but evident social phenomenon, on which I have posted at the SLC, and on which I will post here in time.

Just before we get into things, I will state that I do believe that those who are not “Truthers” fall into 2 categories- ill informed (~90%) and deluded (the rest). 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. Let’s be honest, and open minded.

(You may follow how the thread went on the SLC - it has the same title (I have omitted Northwoods for expediency’s sake):


The thread came to its own conclusions, elaborated upon towards the end.)

PS- I have just noticed that I cannot post URLs here (?) So excuse the sloppyness in my trying to get around this.

***

The 9/11 Inside Job

“The individual is handicapped by coming face to face with a conspiracy so monstrous, he cannot believe it exists”

- J. Edgar Hoover, FBI Director 1935-1972


Volition

“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.”

- Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz et al

On evidence that we have to hand, the case begins in September 2000, with the publication of a very important document. “Rebuilding America’s Defenses” was the last major neo conservative white paper to come out prior to the inception of the Bush administration. Its members included a significant number of men in important positions in the US government on and up to 9/11. It could be seen, therefore, not only as a blueprint for neo-conservative policy, but also of the policy of the administration that was to take office in January 2001. Such a suspicion would be proved accurate in time.

What is so extraordinary about this document, is that what it lays out in black and white, is, to a startling degree, what we now call the “War on Terror”. It is not perfect, but it’s pretty good. It need not be stated to an educated audience that the “WoT” is not in fact a war against terrorism, something which the US still quite openly supports; nor against terror- to fight an abstract noun is something that not even the Bush administration would take seriously; but it is a large lattice of policies, aimed at developing and entrenching US hegemony for the decades to come through aggressive military means. The WoT is not the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan; those wars are but a small part of the spectrum. Much larger, and more important changes are being pursued under its aegis- the militarization of space, the use of cyberspace as a defense tool, enormous increases in military budgets and personnel, renewal of material, transformation of the DoD, repositioning of global forces to protect strategic interests, securing of such interests… I could go on. But I need not- anyone who has read the PNAC document will be familiar with the processes that are happening right now, because they are, to a great degree, what was called for by the document. Except now, they are being pursued, not under the banner of “Rebuilding America’s Defenses”, but rather the WoT”. In short, these 2 are essentially the same thing.

Coincidence? No. All design and no luck; that is almost certain. For the document is very specific about how such transformations should be achieved. They should not occur one by one by one; that would be useless. There needs to be a global framework for all these changes, aligned, moreover, with domestic policy. How long will it take for these crucial changes to happen? Many decades; we as readers can gauge that this would potentially vitiate the goal of the 21st Century being an American one; so how to do it quickly? Well, the document does tell us.

“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.”

This is the only sentence in the doc that covers how, soon. Given that such crucial transformations happening in months/years, rather than decades is favourable to PNAC/the neo conservative ideologues who formed the heart of the Bush administration, then we can conclude that a new Pearl Harbour is deemed propitious to policy for the Bush administration as of September 2000.

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


Foreknowledge

“No warnings”

Ex- White House spokesman Ari Fleischer

Now, what a number of people maintain against the TM, is that the scale for government complicity to be feasible is impossible. It is surely too great a task. Of course, nothing could be further from the truth. All that is required for the CT to be correct, is that the government brings a few heads of food chains into line, gets a whole load of warnings, ignores them all, and bam! The attacks happen. Afterwards you will hear a shedload of complaints about how there were loads of warnings, how intel agents were barred from doing there jobs, how leads went un-followed up, how the White House was warned countless times, how agents threatened to resign in protest, how people knew that these guys were in the country etc etc… followed by subterfuges that would be completely unbelievable under any other circumstance for why things didn’t happen- the CIA and FBI were too proud to talk to one another; it was a foreign attack happening on domestic soil, so no one knew who was in charge; and then a whole load of unanswered questions that nobody acts on. In any case, let’s look at the forewarnings.

Some of you may be aware of Paul Thompson’s 9/11 Timeline, as featured in the film “9/11 Press for Truth”. This is a collation of mainstream media articles which illustrate forewarnings of 9/11 as reported by the MSM. There are about 150 of them relating to Bush. Have a look.

(Google Paul Thompson's 911 Timeline-> Warning Signs)

There are clearly too many to mention, but to give just a random selection (please note that if you click on the above link, you will find all these articles sourced back to the original/details of the edition/date/authors etc):

- May- July 2001: Over a two-month period, the NSA reports that “at least 33 communications indicating a possible, imminent terrorist attack.”
- May 16-17, 2001: US Warned Bin Laden Supporters inside US and Planning an Attack
- May 29, 2001: Clarke (ex US Head of Counter Terrorism) Asks for More to Be Done to Stop Expected Al-Qaeda Attacks
- May 30, 2001: FBI Is Warned of Major Al-Qaeda Operation in the US Involving Hijackings, Explosives, and/or New York City
- June 2001: Germans Warn of Plan to Use Aircraft as Missiles on US and Israeli Symbols
- June 2001: US Intelligence Warns of Spectacular Attacks by al-Qaeda Associates
- June-July 2001: Terrorist Threat Reports Surge, Frustration with White House Grows
- Summer 2001: Threat Alerts Increase to Record High
- Summer 2001: Israel Warns US of ‘Big Attack’
- Summer 2001: Al-Qaeda Plot Described as Upcoming ‘Hiroshima’ on US Soil
- June 21, 2001: Senior Al-Qaeda Officials Say Important Surprises Coming Soon
- June 22, 2001: CIA Warns of Imminent Al-Qaeda Suicide Attack
- June 23, 2001: White House Warned ‘Bin Laden Attacks May Be Imminent’
- June 25, 2001: Clarke Tells Rice That Pattern of Warnings Indicates an Upcoming Attack
- June 28, 2001: Tenet (ex CIA Director) Warns of Imminent Al-Qaeda Attack
- June 28, 2001: Clarke Warns Rice That Threat Level Has Reached a Peak
- Late Summer 2001: Jordan Warns US That Aircraft Will Be Used in Major Attack Inside the US
- July 2001: India Warns US of Possible Terror Attacks
- July 1, 2001: Senators Warn of Al-Qaeda Attack Within Three Months
- July 5, 2001: Ashcroft (ex US Attorney General) Is Warned of Imminent, Multiple Attacks from Al-Qaeda
- July 6, 2001: CIA Warns Upcoming Al-Qaeda Attack Will Be ‘Spectacular’ and Different
- July 6, 2001: Clarke Tells Rice to Warn Agencies to Prepare for 3 to 5 Simultaneous Attacks; No Apparent Response
- July 10, 2001: FBI Agent Sends Memo Warning That Inordinate Number of Muslim Extremists Are Learning to Fly in Arizona
- July 10, 2001: CIA Director Gives Urgent Warning to White House of Imminent, Multiple, Simultaneous Al-Qaeda Attacks, Possibly Within US
- July 16, 2001: British Spy Agencies Warn Al-Qaeda Is in The Final Stages of Attack in the West
- Late July 2001: Taliban Foreign Minister Tries to Warn US and UN of Huge Attack Inside the US
- Late July 2001: Argentina Relays Warning to the US
- Late July 2001: Egypt Warns CIA of 20 Al-Qaeda Operatives in US; Four Training to Fly; CIA Is Not Interested
- Late July 2001: CIA Director Believes Warnings Could Not ‘Get Any Worse’
- August 2001: Russia Warns US of Suicide Pilots
- Early August 2001: Government Informant Warns Congressmen of Plan to Attack the WTC
- Early August 2001: Britain Warns US Again; Specifies Multiple Airplane Hijackings
- August 6, 2001: Bush Briefing Titled ‘Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US’
- August 8-15, 2001: Israel Reportedly Warns of Major Assault on the US
- August 15, 2001: CIA Counterterrorism Head: We Are Going to Be Struck Soon
- August 23-27, 2001: Minnesota FBI Agents ‘Absolutely Convinced’ Moussaoui Plans to Hijack Plane; They Are Undermined by FBI Headquarters
- August 23, 2001: Mossad Reportedly Gives CIA List of Terrorist Living in US; at Least Four 9/11 Hijackers Named
- August 30, 2001-September 4, 2001: Egypt Warns al-Qaeda Is in Advanced Stages of Planning Significant Attack on US
- September 4, 2001: Mossad Gives Another Warning of Major, Imminent Attack
- September 10, 2001: NSA Intercepts: ‘The Match Begins Tomorrow’ and ‘Tomorrow Is Zero Hour’
- September 10, 2001: US Intercepts: ‘Watch the News’ and ‘Tomorrow Will Be a Great Day for Us’
- September 10, 2001: US Generals Warned Not to Fly on Morning of 9/11


What is important here, is not just that there were so many specific warnings, but that in response, NOTHING was done. Absolutely nothing, absent 1 cabinet meeting on the 4th September. This is not surprising of course, given that a catastrophic terrorist attack on US soil had been stated to be propitious to US policy only months earlier. In fact, the wheels had started to turn pretty early. On 25th January, Dick Clarke, the counter terrorism czar (whose book “Against all Enemies” should be read by all who want to know more on the Bush admin’s apathy to the unprecedented threat of a catastrophic terror attack) sent a document to Condi Rice, entitled “Strategy for eliminating the threat of Al Qaeda”. The response? Demotion. A pretty effective way of turning the volume down on warnings of an AQ threat. Clarke was now dealing with deputy/junior cabinet members- slowing down any anti-terror measures ”by months”. Indeed Bush had been warned in November by both Clinton and Sandy Berger of the urgency of getting AQ. But nothing.

Now… let’s keep that in mind for the following. As we know from the 9/11 Commission Report, Bush was warned 40 times prior to 9/11 of the threat of an AQ attack on US interests, just by Tenet, just at PDB’s. And how urgent was this threat? Unprecedented, in Tenet’s words; even greater than the millennium terror threat. Tenet was running round with his hair on fire, according to Dick Armitage. The warnings had never been so bad, according to an FBI source (see the Timeline for all links here). But nothing, nowhere, never.

Moreover, as we know from Bob Kerrey, Bush was even aware that the terrorists were in the country: “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 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.”

Most astonishingly of all, is the fact that OBL was offered to the US by the Taleban in February 2001, in return for dropping of sanctions. This offer, clearly, was not taken up.

For more on all these facts, watch YouTube- "All the presidents lies"

Now, let’s bear in mind what our goal is here- to illustrate whether there is a need to “re-open 9/11”, to investigate government complicity. I think it is clear, just from the above, that the case for an independent investigation is pretty unshakable.
What we have here in terms of forewarnings is at the very least a clear instance of criminal negligence. But what makes things much clearer (and murkier) is the fact that the people who would be guilty of such neglect in ignoring this mass of warnings of a large scale attack, had only months earlier advocated the importance of such an attack happening. The threat of a new Pearl Harbour, one that would allow the Neo Cons to create their “arsenal of democracy”, and the geo-political order so explicitly outlined in “Rebuilding America’s Defences”, was in front of their very eyes from the day they took office. But it was actively and consciously ignored, and led to the desired results- a new Pearl Harbour, and the rebuilding of America’s defenses.


9/11

There is such a chasm between the facts of this day, and what has been reported in the mainstream media, that the majority of people are not even aware of the most rudimentary facts of the day, one of the most newsworthy days any of our lives. I will address 2 smoking guns.

WTC7

Another indication of how little the public knows about 9/11 can be gauged from the fact that the vast majority of people in this country are not even aware how many buildings fell on 9/11. And those that are will most likely never have seen the 3rd and final building to fall that day, World Trade Centre 7, collapse. It is unprecedented, that in an age where information travels so freely, that so many people are unaware of one of the most rudimentary facts of the most newsworthy day of our lives.

WTC 7 was a 47 storey building, 100m north of the North Tower that housed the offices of the CIA, the Secret Service, the Mayor’s Emergency Management Office, the IRS, and the SEC, among others. At 5.20 pm on 9/11, it was taken down in a manner that raised eyebrows. In the words of top Dutch implosion expert Danny Jowenko: “This is controlled demolition. Absolutely certain. This is a hired job done by a team of experts.” Or to quote emeritus Professor in structural analysis and construction at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Hugo Bachmann: “In my opinion WTC7 was with the utmost probability brought down by controlled demolition done by experts". Also, emeritus Professor in structural analysis and construction at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Joerg Schneider: "WTC7 was with the utmost probability brought down by explosives".

The official government story is that the tower was damaged by falling debris, and so fell in a manner that just looked like an implosion, but it was actually structural failure. Any doubts as to this can be put to bed by the testimony of 1st responders both at the time, and subsequently, who state they were told to get away from the building, because it was about to be imploded:
(Google video- WTC7- The smoking gun of 9/11)

I am aware that there is testimony regarding suspicions that the building was at risk, and this is not testimony I deny; I have no doubt that those firefighters thought the building would collapse. Nonetheless, nor do I deny the testimony provided in the above video, and anyone who will accept only one will have to justify why they deny the other.

In line with this notion of foreknowledge as to the collapse of WTC7, is the astonishing recent revelation that the BBC and CNN both reported the collapse of the building while it was still standing, and in the case of the BBC, while the reporter was standing in front of it:

Incidentally, another interesting fact about 9/11 is that the owner of the WTC complex, Larry Silverstein, had his offices on the 88th floor of the North Tower. But by a surprising coincidence, on this day, Larry didn’t make it in, as he had a doctor’s appointment, and his 2 kids, Lisa and Roger, who worked with him, didn’t make it either- they were running late.

Luck of the devil I guess.

Let’s not forget our aim- is this sufficient evidence to warrant a new independent investigation?

William Rodriguez et al

Another fact that has not seen a speck of daylight in the mainstream media, is the multiple, identical reports, of a bomb going off in the basement of the North Tower seconds before the 1st plane had hit. This bomb injured and hospitalised civilians, yet was completely ignored by the authorities, not investigated anywhere, and whitewashed from the 9/11 Commission Report.

Witnesses to this include William Rodriguez, Felipe David, Jose Sanchez, Salvatore Giambanco, Mike Pecoraro and Philip Morelli. Rodriguez is the foremost proponent of this in the public eye, having gained a measure of celebrity post 9/11- he was the last man out of the North Tower, being in fact pulled from the rubble. He was the master janitor in the building, having worked there for 20 years, and as such he had the master key. When the attacks happened, he was helping the firefighters, running up and down the stairs, unlocking doors, and helping people get out, until the towers collapsed. After 9/11, he was honour at the WH 5 times, and the Republicans wanted him to be their poster boy for the War on Terror. One problem though- he was urging an investigation into the bombs that went off in the basement, and that he claimed were going of all over the building as he was running around (he assumed at the time that they had been planted by the terrorists). He was soon ditched by the GOP, and every reference he has made to bombs has been edited out by the MSM, as you will all be able to testify.

Now… I am aware of the “debunking” of the above claims that have stemmed from this forum. This is fine. However, bearing in mind our oft-stated aim, I will ask one question-

Please name 1 instance in history, in an advanced society, where there has been multiple, independent testimony, in addition to injury and hospitalisation of civilians, of a bomb in an important and populous location (the North Tower, rather than the basement), that has not been investigated by authorities, and has indeed been actively whitewashed from mainstream public record (e.g. the 9/11 Commission Report) by the government/mainstream media- and which has not involved government conspiracy? Such an occurrence is clearly enough to raise serious suspicions, and as such, deserves a full independent investigation (including into the non-investigation).

Incidentally, anyone acquainted with the Propaganda Model should come to a simple conclusion regarding this evidence, but more on that in a sec.


Refutations

I hope that having read all of this you will be able to come to your own conclusions about the events of that day, a day that will probably define the rest of our lives. Whether you come to the same conclusions as myself, or that you have concrete refutations alibis for the facts presents above, do let me know especially in the case of the latter. Let me just deal with some of the most common counters to what I have presented:

- With such a huge plot, surely someone would have squealed by now/ Bush can’t be that bad a guy/ This administration isn’t smart enough to pull something like this off.

I group all of these together, since they all appear to have the same flaw. In assessing the validity of a conclusion, you should assess the validity of the propositions that lead to the conclusions, ensure that they do lead inexorably to that conclusion, and then you know that your conclusion is valid. What you shouldn’t do, as all the above statements do, is look past the propositions at the conclusion, and then refute it based on any deductions that might get drawn from it. No one has squealed yet, so well done to them. Bush would I’m afraid, appear to be such a bad guy (maybe not so hard to believe); and as should be clear, this was not well executed - as I hope to have shown, this could not be much more of a blatant, and bunglingly executed inside job.

- Surely the anti-Bush press would be all over this if it was credible

As well as falling foul of the problems I listed above, as has been shown compelling by Chomsky and Herman, the mainstream media, certainly in the US, functions as a tool of government propaganda; there is little reason to believe the UK press functions otherwise. I may write another post on this later, I think it’s pretty important, but should you wish to find out more about it, please read “Manufacturing Consent” by the aforementioned authors; it is generally recognised as one of Chomsky’s most important works. 9/11 could not be a stronger instance of the self censoring function of the mass media at work- 2 startling examples have already been listed in the William Rodriguez testimony and the WTC 7 story.

I have posted on the SLC under the heading "9/11 and the Propagande Model"


The Play’s the Thing

Posit a specific guilt in front of a suspect, and maybe, like Hamlet, you can catch his reaction, which might help your conclusion…

(Youtube: "George Bush caught off guard about september 11th")

**********


Alright… Let’s go! Starting from the top would be best. I await your responses.

M

[Stellafane]

Welcome to the forum!

(stands aside to let the big kids handle this)


ETA: You do realize that a post this long (over 4000+ words) and a rather scattershot approach (seems to touch on multiple topics, with additional verbiage whose relevance isn't immediately apparent to me), may actually discourage debate, rather than promote it? Personally, I'd be disinclined to put in the time and effort required to read your post, understand it, and respond properly, even if I were qualified to do so. You mention exhausting the resources of SLC. If this is typical of your postings there, the resource most exhausted may have been patience, rather than intellectual firepower.

[JimBenArm]

Welcome.
Oh, and stand by to repel boarders. Hope you're ready!

[stateofgrace]

On evidence that we have to hand, the case begins in September 2000, with the publication of a very important document. “Rebuilding America’s Defenses” was the last major neo conservative white paper to come out prior to the inception of the Bush administration. Its members included a significant number of men in important positions in the US government on and up to 9/11. It could be seen, therefore, not only as a blueprint for neo-conservative policy, but also of the policy of the administration that was to take office in January 2001. Such a suspicion would be proved accurate in time.



So before they commit mass murder they published a document laying it all down, right?

Rather than keep it all one big secret they tell everybody what they are planning, beforehand, right?

ETA...

So a summary of your story is they told everybody beforehand what they were going to do in the PNAC document, got loads of warning from all over the world, ignored them and set up a command centre in WTC 7 to run the show on 911.

UBL is actually just be fitted up for all this despite the multiple of warning that the US received beforehand about him and Al Qaeda and despite the fact he has repeatedly admitting being involved?

Correct me if I am wrong.

[ConspiRaider]

Everything in your OP has already been hashed over so many times in this forum that I'd be surprised if any JREFer wasted even one minute going over it again.

Nothing to see here, move along.

Or, write a book, or see if you can get in as a last corroborator for Loose Change Final Cut.

Didn't you do any searching here before posting? Or go to many of the posted links that exhaustively dispel twoofer twoof? Please do so.

[scissorhands]

Why take so long to get round to the same old recycled and debunked garbage.
I really thought, judging by the length and attempted verbosity of the post that you would have at least included something new.
Try to dress it up as much as you want.
You cant make a silk purse out of a sows ear.
(at least I think thats the saying)

[maccy]

Welcome to the Forum!

I haven't posted here much recently, but it'll be interesting to see how this one goes.

You'll be able to post links after 15 posts (it's an anti-spam thing).

I suggest you stick to the first part of your post (PNAC and warnings) and leave WTC7 alone for the time being - otherwise we're in danger of the argument becoming very difficult to follow.

The thing that strikes immediately is: in what way was 9/11 like Pearl Harbor? Or to put it another way: was Pearl Harbor a domestic terrorist attack using hijacked planes?

If you haven't already read them, you should also consider these:

http://www.911myths.com/html/new_pearl_harbour.html
http://www.911myths.com/html/the_grand_chessboard.html
http://www.911myths.com/html/foreknowledge.html

[JamesB]

This is a collation of mainstream media articles which illustrate forewarnings of 9/11 as reported by the MSM. There are about 150 of them relating to Bush.

So let me get this straight. You believe that the Bush administration ignored warnings of a future attack by Muslim fundamentalists?

[Liszt]

So before they commit mass murder they published a document laying it all down, right?

Rather than keep it all one big secret they tell everybody what they are planning, beforehand, right?

What about Hitler´s Mein Kampf? (I haven´t read it, so do not know)

But I have seen some rather nasty stuff about depopulation in Zbig Brz´s Techtronic Era book, and a few others.

It isn´t proof of anything of course. Unless Hitler did write about mass murder before 1940ish, in which case, yes, "they" have published a document about commiting mass murder before they did it.

[mjd1982]

Welcome to the forum!

(stands aside to let the big kids handle this)


Thank you for the welcome.


ETA: You do realize that a post this long (over 4000+ words) and a rather scattershot approach (seems to touch on multiple topics, with additional verbiage whose relevance isn't immediately apparent to me), may actually discourage debate, rather than promote it? Personally, I'd be disinclined to put in the time and effort required to read your post, understand it, and respond properly, even if I were qualified to do so. You mention exhausting the resources of SLC. If this is typical of your postings there, the resource most exhausted may have been patience, rather than intellectual firepower.


Actually, the post is organised into 4 very distinct parts (as shown by the use of headings), which give it a pretty clear shape. And, as I said, we can start from the 1st section, and proceed on.The SLC could manage to go through it, so I'm sure a smart bunch like you can do the same.

But feel free to step aside if you choose.

[maccy]

mid1982

If you get time among all the posts that will come your way, perhaps you can engage in this thought experiment:

Gore wins the 2000 election, how would have acted in the lead-up to September 2001 that would have been different to Bush and would have stopped the hijackers?

[Juustin]

Welcome to the forum.

That being said, the 2004 Truth Movement just called, it wants its arguments back.

[mjd1982]

Woooah!!! replies here come thick and fast! This is good.

I do have to go out, but let me just say that for everyone stating "This has been debunked ad nauseam", well, its funny since a) this is exactly what was said on the SLC, with zero to back it up, and b), I referred to this exact point in the 4th line of the OP. You could have at least read that far.

Finally the argument which has unfortunately come up already, that "They didnt state the usefulness of a new PH because they wouldnt", doesnt address the fact that they did. If you want to contest that fact rationally, then please do; anything else is pretty worthless.

Oh, also, as I said to Stellafane, sorry about the length, but we can approach this by section- there are 4, pretty clear, and we can start with PNAC if everyone's happy.

thanks

M

[stateofgrace]

What about Hitler´s Mein Kampf? (I haven´t read it, so do not know)

But I have seen some rather nasty stuff about depopulation in Zbig Brz´s Techtronic Era book, and a few others.

It isn´t proof of anything of course. Unless Hitler did write about mass murder before 1940ish, in which case, yes, "they" have published a document about commiting mass murder before they did it.

Oh I see so the plan goes something like this then?

“Lets tell everybody we want a new PearlHarbour, get lots and lots of warnings before hand, ignore them, allow Al Qaeda to hijack four planes, fly them into land mark buildings, blow up the towers. This we will control from WTC 7 which we will later blow up. Later on we will blame Al Qaeda".

This is the plan, right? This is the great plan that they hoped would fool the entire world and hope nobody noticed?

[Liszt]

mid1982

If you get time among all the posts that will come your way, perhaps you can engage in this thought experiment:

Gore wins the 2000 election, how would have acted in the lead-up to September 2001 that would have been different to Bush and would have stopped the hijackers?

Gore did win the 2000 election :)

He may have thought "pig****, I´m not dealing with this. Bush can have it. I´m hungry."


Liszt, please comply with your membership agreement; in this case, Rule 8. I'm going to redact the word in question, but in the future, please be aware of it. Thanks...

[Liszt]

Oh I see so the plan goes something like this then?

“Lets tell everybody we want a new PearlHarbour, get lots and lots of warnings before hand, ignore them, allow Al Qaeda to hijack four planes, fly them into land mark buildings, blow up the towers. This we will control from WTC 7 which we will later blow up. Later on we will blame Al Qaeda".

This is the plan, right? This is the great plan that they hoped would fool the entire world and hope nobody noticed?

I´m not a 911 CTist, but look at Iran contra. No one belived that, at first.

Who knows how the minds of these demi gods/psychos work.

[Firestone]

...
Incidentally, another interesting fact about 9/11 is that the owner of the WTC complex, Larry Silverstein, had his offices on the 88th floor of the North Tower. But by a surprising coincidence, on this day, Larry didn’t make it in, as he had a doctor’s appointment, and his 2 kids, Lisa and Roger, who worked with him, didn’t make it either- they were running late.

Luck of the devil I guess.
...:rolleyes:
William Rodriguez was also late at work on 9/11, and this saved his life.

Isn't that an interesting fact and a surprising coincidence as well?

Luck of the devil too, I guess?

[nicepants]

:rolleyes:
William Rodriguez was also late at work on 9/11, and this saved his life.

I've used this excuse with my boss....he doesn't see it the same way I do...

Gore did win the 2000 election :)

Getting the most popular votes does not the presidential election win. :boggled:

[T.A.M.]

The other posters here are correct, almost all of your points have been discussed repeatedly here. If I have the time later today, and if noone else has done so, I might have a few comments, but it is basically the same old tire tripe we hear here all the time.

Since it is clear you already have your mind made up, I will not waste your time with links to reliable evidence, as I am sure you consider the 9/11 commission report, NIST, FEMA, Moussaoui Trial all "Govt Shill" type material.

Good luck. I am sure if we all tell you we are tired of addressing the issues, you will claim victory...good for you.

TAM:)

[ConspiRaider]

Thank you for the welcome.

Actually, the post is organised into 4 very distinct parts (as shown by the use of headings), which give it a pretty clear shape. And, as I said, we can start from the 1st section, and proceed on.The SLC could manage to go through it, so I'm sure a smart bunch like you can do the same.

But feel free to step aside if you choose.
Rather cheeky, are you. Condescending too.

We can start from nowhere in your OP, because it's old and it's tired and it's been flamed long, long ago.

Since you feel this strongly about the entire 9/11 situation, then maybe you will tell us about the legal case you undoubtedly are bringing against the monstrous U.S. Gov perpetrators, and its stage and progress. That would at least be somewhat interesting.

[DGM]

Just so everyone can get up to speed.

http://screwloosechange.xbehome.com/index.php?showtopic=1775

[MortFurd]

I'm only going to address one part of that monster. Note the section I bolded .

(Google Paul Thompson's 911 Timeline-> Warning Signs)

There are clearly too many to mention, but to give just a random selection (please note that if you click on the above link, you will find all these articles sourced back to the original/details of the edition/date/authors etc):

- May- July 2001: Over a two-month period, the NSA reports that “at least 33 communications indicating a possible, imminent terrorist attack.”
- May 16-17, 2001: US Warned Bin Laden Supporters inside US and Planning an Attack
- May 29, 2001: Clarke (ex US Head of Counter Terrorism) Asks for More to Be Done to Stop Expected Al-Qaeda Attacks
- May 30, 2001: FBI Is Warned of Major Al-Qaeda Operation in the US Involving Hijackings, Explosives, and/or New York City
- June 2001: Germans Warn of Plan to Use Aircraft as Missiles on US and Israeli Symbols
- June 2001: US Intelligence Warns of Spectacular Attacks by al-Qaeda Associates
- June-July 2001: Terrorist Threat Reports Surge, Frustration with White House Grows
- Summer 2001: Threat Alerts Increase to Record High
- Summer 2001: Israel Warns US of ‘Big Attack’
- Summer 2001: Al-Qaeda Plot Described as Upcoming ‘Hiroshima’ on US Soil
- June 21, 2001: Senior Al-Qaeda Officials Say Important Surprises Coming Soon
- June 22, 2001: CIA Warns of Imminent Al-Qaeda Suicide Attack
- June 23, 2001: White House Warned ‘Bin Laden Attacks May Be Imminent’
- June 25, 2001: Clarke Tells Rice That Pattern of Warnings Indicates an Upcoming Attack
- June 28, 2001: Tenet (ex CIA Director) Warns of Imminent Al-Qaeda Attack
- June 28, 2001: Clarke Warns Rice That Threat Level Has Reached a Peak
- Late Summer 2001: Jordan Warns US That Aircraft Will Be Used in Major Attack Inside the US
- July 2001: India Warns US of Possible Terror Attacks
- July 1, 2001: Senators Warn of Al-Qaeda Attack Within Three Months
- July 5, 2001: Ashcroft (ex US Attorney General) Is Warned of Imminent, Multiple Attacks from Al-Qaeda
- July 6, 2001: CIA Warns Upcoming Al-Qaeda Attack Will Be ‘Spectacular’ and Different
- July 6, 2001: Clarke Tells Rice to Warn Agencies to Prepare for 3 to 5 Simultaneous Attacks; No Apparent Response
- July 10, 2001: FBI Agent Sends Memo Warning That Inordinate Number of Muslim Extremists Are Learning to Fly in Arizona
- July 10, 2001: CIA Director Gives Urgent Warning to White House of Imminent, Multiple, Simultaneous Al-Qaeda Attacks, Possibly Within US
- July 16, 2001: British Spy Agencies Warn Al-Qaeda Is in The Final Stages of Attack in the West
- Late July 2001: Taliban Foreign Minister Tries to Warn US and UN of Huge Attack Inside the US
- Late July 2001: Argentina Relays Warning to the US
- Late July 2001: Egypt Warns CIA of 20 Al-Qaeda Operatives in US; Four Training to Fly; CIA Is Not Interested
- Late July 2001: CIA Director Believes Warnings Could Not ‘Get Any Worse’
- August 2001: Russia Warns US of Suicide Pilots
- Early August 2001: Government Informant Warns Congressmen of Plan to Attack the WTC
- Early August 2001: Britain Warns US Again; Specifies Multiple Airplane Hijackings
- August 6, 2001: Bush Briefing Titled ‘Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US’
- August 8-15, 2001: Israel Reportedly Warns of Major Assault on the US
- August 15, 2001: CIA Counterterrorism Head: We Are Going to Be Struck Soon
- August 23-27, 2001: Minnesota FBI Agents ‘Absolutely Convinced’ Moussaoui Plans to Hijack Plane; They Are Undermined by FBI Headquarters
- August 23, 2001: Mossad Reportedly Gives CIA List of Terrorist Living in US; at Least Four 9/11 Hijackers Named
- August 30, 2001-September 4, 2001: Egypt Warns al-Qaeda Is in Advanced Stages of Planning Significant Attack on US
- September 4, 2001: Mossad Gives Another Warning of Major, Imminent Attack
- September 10, 2001: NSA Intercepts: ‘The Match Begins Tomorrow’ and ‘Tomorrow Is Zero Hour’
- September 10, 2001: US Intercepts: ‘Watch the News’ and ‘Tomorrow Will Be a Great Day for Us’
- September 10, 2001: US Generals Warned Not to Fly on Morning of 9/11


What is important here, is not just that there were so many specific warnings, but that in response, NOTHING was done. Absolutely nothing, absent 1 cabinet meeting on the 4th September. This is not surprising of course, given that a catastrophic terrorist attack on US soil had been stated to be propitious to US policy only months earlier. In fact, the wheels had started to turn pretty early. On 25th January, Dick Clarke, the counter terrorism czar (whose book “Against all Enemies” should be read by all who want to know more on the Bush admin’s apathy to the unprecedented threat of a catastrophic terror attack) sent a document to Condi Rice, entitled “Strategy for eliminating the threat of Al Qaeda”. The response? Demotion. A pretty effective way of turning the volume down on warnings of an AQ threat. Clarke was now dealing with deputy/junior cabinet members- slowing down any anti-terror measures ”by months”. Indeed Bush had been warned in November by both Clinton and Sandy Berger of the urgency of getting AQ. But nothing.

That bolded section is typical Truther. Those warnings are so general as to be useless.
Here's a warning:
Tomorrow, I'm going to go beat a Truther to a pulp with a clue bat.

That's as specific and useful as the warnings you've posted. Find a warning that could have been used to tell exactly what was going to happen on September 11, 2001. Then we can talk about "specific warnings."

[stateofgrace]

I´m not a 911 CTist, but look at Iran contra. No one belived that, at first.

Who knows how the minds of these demi gods/psychos work.

Well would you risk the long walk to the gallows for approving such a ridiculous plan?

Would you risk complete and utter destruction of your life, all your political beliefs and the very future of your nation on such a plan? Would you risk seeing the nation you were born in, educated in, live in having its political standing on the world stage being completely destroyed if you approved such a plan and it was discovered?

The reason we know about Iran Contra by the way is because it was exposed, secrets always get exposed they never remain secret, ask Nixon.

[DGM]

This too.
http://screwloosechange.xbehome.com/index.php?showtopic=1849

[MortFurd]

- Surely the anti-Bush press would be all over this if it was credible

As well as falling foul of the problems I listed above, as has been shown compelling by Chomsky and Herman, the mainstream media, certainly in the US, functions as a tool of government propaganda; there is little reason to believe the UK press functions otherwise. I may write another post on this later, I think it’s pretty important, but should you wish to find out more about it, please read “Manufacturing Consent” by the aforementioned authors; it is generally recognised as one of Chomsky’s most important works. 9/11 could not be a stronger instance of the self censoring function of the mass media at work- 2 startling examples have already been listed in the William Rodriguez testimony and the WTC 7 story.


So, the US and UK media are ignoring it. So why hasn't anyone else come forward with facts? Sure as shooting, the German media don't like Bush. you should have seen the reporting against him and in favor of ANYBODY else during hte last two US elections. Surely they'd be happy to report anything negative about Bush.

Oh, wait. I forgot. Germany is under the NWO's thumb as well.

[Slayhamlet]

Gore did win the 2000 election :)

He may have thought "*******, I´m not dealing with this. Bush can have it. I´m hungry."

That's not exactly what happened. The Gore campaign pushed very hard for recounts in certain Florida counties which might have tilted the results of the extremely close race in favor of Gore, but the Supreme Court ultimately shot that down. There really wasn't much they could do about it after that.

[nicepants]

Mjd also enlightened us (http://screwloosechange.xbehome.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=1775&view=findpost&p=23156) at SLC that the opinions of Controlled Demolition (CD) experts of a foreign country are "truly independent" and therefore more valid than opinions of CD experts in the US, including CD experts who were on the scene and witnessed the collapses firsthand.

[Liszt]

I'm only going to address one part of that monster. Note the section I bolded .

That bolded section is typical Truther. Those warnings are so general as to be useless.
Here's a warning:
Tomorrow, I'm going to go beat a Truther to a pulp with a clue bat.

That's as specific and useful as the warnings you've posted. Find a warning that could have been used to tell exactly what was going to happen on September 11, 2001. Then we can talk about "specific warnings."

While you are correct here, there is one possibility (not on the OP), which lies in Sibel Edmonds´testimony. she is under a gag order right now. (It was removed from the 911 commision report)
Relevence? When C Rice said that there were no warnings, Edmonds said it was, based on here FBI work, an "outrageous lie"

Source

http://www.rys2sense.com/anti-neocons/viewtopic.php?t=7156

Also note, Sibel is beautiful. This alone is reason to watch this documentary.



Here´s an analogy. Remember the Potters Bar train crash? I lived in Potters Bar at the time. Lots of people were killed. Did the train co. do it on purpose? Did they "let it happen"?
Of course not. But because they were cutting costs, so they could hit financial, governmet imposed targets (and also their bonuses), there could have been some people charged with corporate manslaughter (for example, deciding not to upgrade damaged track because it was expensive). The report on this, as usual, blamed no one. This is similar to 911, in my opinion. Who (if anyone) cut survailence, in order to reach DOD budgets? Why was some testimony (Edmunds, for example) left out?

It is not MIHOP or even LIHOP, it is about weeding out the incompetants

[MortFurd]

Some questions for mdj1982:
How many people were involved in the conspiracy? How many learned of it coincidentally? How many realized after the fact that they had worked on some part of the conspiracy without knowing it at the time? How many of those were "silenced?" How many were paid off?

How many people would have had to work together to carry off the conspiracy you envision?


How much would it take for YOU to remain silent if you knew something about the conspiracy?

[Slayhamlet]

Mjd also enlightened us (http://screwloosechange.xbehome.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=1775&view=findpost&p=23156) at SLC that the opinions of Controlled Demolition (CD) experts of a foreign country are "truly independent" and therefore more valid than opinions of CD experts in the US, including CD experts who were on the scene and witnessed the collapses firsthand.

Yep. But by "foreign experts" they really only mean Danny Jowenko, who happens to disagree with troofers about WTC1 and 2, and who now refuses to talk about WTC7 since making his careless and imprudent claim that it was a CD before he knew all the facts.

[T.A.M.]

Yes well then get a group of european CD experts to come to america, go over the details of the investigation, go over all the data and variables, and see what they come up with...because the counselled/heavy handed/forced opinion from one european CD expert that the fall of WTC7 "looked like" CD, does not cut it by a mile, against the NIST report.

In the end, this guy will clearly call "shill" on NIST/FEMA/ASCE anyway, so what is the sense in arguing with him.

TAM:)

[MortFurd]

While you are correct here, there is one possibility (not on the OP), which lies in Sibel Edmonds´testimony. she is under a gag order right now. (It was removed from the 911 commision report)
Relevence? When C Rice said that there were no warnings, Edmonds said it was, based on here FBI work, an "outrageous lie"

Source

http://www.rys2sense.com/anti-neocons/viewtopic.php?t=7156

Also note, Sibel is beautiful. This alone is reason to watch this documentary.



Here´s an analogy. Remember the Potters Bar train crash? I lived in Potters Bar at the time. Lots of people were killed. Did the train co. do it on purpose? Did they "let it happen"?
Of course not. But because they were cutting costs, so they could hit financial, governmet imposed targets (and also their bonuses), there could have been some people charged with corporate manslaughter (for example, deciding not to upgrade damaged track because it was expensive). The report on this, as usual, blamed no one. This is similar to 911, in my opinion. Who (if anyone) cut survailence, in order to reach DOD budgets? Why was some testimony (Edmunds, for example) left out?

It is not MIHOP or even LIHOP, it is about weeding out the incompetants
Which is all a far and away different thing from a conspiracy to cause the event. I don't think you'll find many people here who will argue that there were clues before hand that something was up. You'll probably find plenty of people who agree that there was some degree of CYA after the fact to hide places where officials could have done better.

That's still not a conspiracy to cause the events. mjd1982 is pushing a US government conspiracy to cause the 9/11 attacks. He's going to get a lot of arguments here, and a lot of demands for facts rather than speculation.

[ConspiRaider]

Mjd also enlightened us (http://screwloosechange.xbehome.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=1775&view=findpost&p=23156) at SLC that the opinions of Controlled Demolition (CD) experts of a foreign country are "truly independent" and therefore more valid than opinions of CD experts in the US, including CD experts who were on the scene and witnessed the collapses firsthand.
To be fair, if a foreign country CD expert also managed to have a British accent then that would greatly enhance, even magnify, his and/or her importance and credibility. You know how we Yanks make absolute fools of ourselves when we hear the lilting tonal musicality and majesty of a clipped British accent:

A. Men cry.
B. Women curse.
C. Kiddies bark.
D. Dogs giggle.

So let's hope those foreign CD experts were French or something like that.

[T.A.M.]

the 9/11 commission report, that dastardly collection of big bad brother lies, makes MULTIPLE References to the warnings given both to on the ground investigators, and the higher ups...

TAM:)

[Dr Adequate]

Now, what a number of people maintain against the TM, is that the scale for government complicity to be feasible is impossible. It is surely too great a task. Of course, nothing could be further from the truth. All that is required for the CT to be correct, is that the government brings a few heads of food chains into line, gets a whole load of warnings, ignores them all, and bam! The attacks happen.

Listen, you can't believe LIHOP and MIHOP. Either there were credible warnings of al Qaeda planning 9/11, or al Qaeda didn't plan 9/11. The two are mutually exclusive.

Hello?

[nicepants]

Yes well then get a group of european CD experts to come to america, go over the details of the investigation, go over all the data and variables, and see what they come up with...because the counselled/heavy handed/forced opinion from one european CD expert that the fall of WTC7 "looked like" CD, does not cut it by a mile, against the NIST report.
TAM:)

Jowenko is, of course, the only one mentioned who is (or was) "certain" it was a CD. The mere fact that the other experts admit the possibility that it may NOT have been cd, indicates that the type of collapse we saw with WTC7 would have, in the opinion of those CD experts, been possible without the aid of explosives.

[DGM]

Yes well then get a group of european CD experts to come to america, go over the details of the investigation, go over all the data and variables, and see what they come up with...because the counselled/heavy handed/forced opinion from one european CD expert that the fall of WTC7 "looked like" CD, does not cut it by a mile, against the NIST report.

In the end, this guy will clearly call "shill" on NIST/FEMA/ASCE anyway, so what is the sense in arguing with him.

TAM:)
This would be impossible because Jowenko doesn't speak english.:D

[Belz...]

The fact is that although debunking TT CD theories, and no plane hitting the Pentagon is quite easy, when it comes to addressing the real hard facts, there is only one conclusion that a rational mind will come to, and it is that of the “Truth Movement”

<giggle>. That is the one conclusion that a rational mind CANNOT come to.

Just before we get into things, I will state that I do believe that those who are not “Truthers” fall into 2 categories- ill informed (~90%) and deluded (the rest).

Interesting. I'm sure people like Mackey and Gravy can't be called either.

Of course, since the truther side is known for their crazy ideas, denial of scientific process and rational thinking, this is a moot point.

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.

OH, MY GOD!! My irony meter has just exploded.

This has been illustrated time and again on the SLC, but I hope will not be the case here. Let’s be honest, and open minded.

Open minded does not mean that all ideas are given equal footing. Open minded means that when the evidence leads, you follow.

[T.A.M.]

Jowenko, IMO, made a statement based on a video he watched, when asked to do so, without knowing the context of the video. He had no background at the time, in terms of the circumstances (ie a 20 storey hole on the opposite side of the building, 7 hours of uncontrolled fires, firemen testifying it was leaning to the side) at the time of his opinion.

Then, also just my opinion, his pride took over, and he has since refused to not only retract his statement, but refuses to discuss the issue.

Funny though, this is the one guy the truthers should be going gangbusters to get for an interview to "prove their case" yet they have not gotten any more out of him...I suspect it is because either (A) he knows he has stepped in it, and figures if he lets it slide it will go away, or (B) none of the truthers actually want to get a full interview with him, because he may take back their little kernal of gold, that little nugget they have been beating to death.

TAM:)

[Pardalis]

Hello all!

Hi.

Let’s be honest, and open minded.OK with me.

PS- I have just noticed that I cannot post URLs here (?)Yes, you have to have a minimum of 15 posts under your belt.

The 9/11 Inside JobFalse start.

Remember this?:
Let’s be honest, and open minded.

“The individual is handicapped by coming face to face with a conspiracy so monstrous, he cannot believe it exists”

- J. Edgar Hoover, FBI Director 1935-1972He was also a cross-dresser.

On evidence that we have to hand, the case begins in September 2000, with the publication of a very important document. “Rebuilding America’s Defenses”

snip

It could be seen, therefore, not only as a blueprint for neo-conservative policy, but also of the policy of the administration that was to take office in January 2001.Sure, didn't quite work out as they planned though.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0613-05.htm

What is so extraordinary about this document, is that what it lays out in black and white, is, to a startling degree, what we now call the “War on Terror”.Could you quote the passage where they talk about that? I always thought the PNAC was about transforming the military, to introduce more technology and increase spending.

This is the only sentence in the doc that covers how, soon. Given that such crucial transformations happening in months/years, rather than decades is favourable to PNAC/the neo conservative ideologues who formed the heart of the Bush administration, then we can conclude that a new Pearl Harbour is deemed propitious to policy for the Bush administration as of September 2000. "Transformation" meant implementing more technologies in the military.

Now, although this doesn’t prove anything, it does do one thing. It gives us a very useful frame of reference for assessing the possibility of government complicity in the “new Pearl Harbour”.No.

Think. The chances of a new PH happening, absent gov complicity are remote.False assumption. Pearl Harbor, the real one, happened without government complicity.

- May- July 2001: Over a two-month period, the NSA reports that “at least 33 communications indicating a possible, imminent terrorist attack.”
- May 16-17, 2001: US Warned Bin Laden Supporters inside US and Planning an Attack
- May 29, 2001: Clarke (ex US Head of Counter Terrorism) Asks for More to Be Done to Stop Expected Al-Qaeda Attacks
- May 30, 2001: FBI Is Warned of Major Al-Qaeda Operation in the US Involving Hijackings, Explosives, and/or New York City
- June 2001: Germans Warn of Plan to Use Aircraft as Missiles on US and Israeli Symbols
- June 2001: US Intelligence Warns of Spectacular Attacks by al-Qaeda Associates
- June-July 2001: Terrorist Threat Reports Surge, Frustration with White House Grows
- Summer 2001: Threat Alerts Increase to Record High
- Summer 2001: Israel Warns US of ‘Big Attack’
- Summer 2001: Al-Qaeda Plot Described as Upcoming ‘Hiroshima’ on US Soil
- June 21, 2001: Senior Al-Qaeda Officials Say Important Surprises Coming Soon
- June 22, 2001: CIA Warns of Imminent Al-Qaeda Suicide Attack
- June 23, 2001: White House Warned ‘Bin Laden Attacks May Be Imminent’
- June 25, 2001: Clarke Tells Rice That Pattern of Warnings Indicates an Upcoming Attack
- June 28, 2001: Tenet (ex CIA Director) Warns of Imminent Al-Qaeda Attack
- June 28, 2001: Clarke Warns Rice That Threat Level Has Reached a Peak
- Late Summer 2001: Jordan Warns US That Aircraft Will Be Used in Major Attack Inside the US
- July 2001: India Warns US of Possible Terror Attacks
- July 1, 2001: Senators Warn of Al-Qaeda Attack Within Three Months
- July 5, 2001: Ashcroft (ex US Attorney General) Is Warned of Imminent, Multiple Attacks from Al-Qaeda
- July 6, 2001: CIA Warns Upcoming Al-Qaeda Attack Will Be ‘Spectacular’ and Different
- July 6, 2001: Clarke Tells Rice to Warn Agencies to Prepare for 3 to 5 Simultaneous Attacks; No Apparent Response
- July 10, 2001: FBI Agent Sends Memo Warning That Inordinate Number of Muslim Extremists Are Learning to Fly in Arizona
- July 10, 2001: CIA Director Gives Urgent Warning to White House of Imminent, Multiple, Simultaneous Al-Qaeda Attacks, Possibly Within US
- July 16, 2001: British Spy Agencies Warn Al-Qaeda Is in The Final Stages of Attack in the West
- Late July 2001: Taliban Foreign Minister Tries to Warn US and UN of Huge Attack Inside the US
- Late July 2001: Argentina Relays Warning to the US
- Late July 2001: Egypt Warns CIA of 20 Al-Qaeda Operatives in US; Four Training to Fly; CIA Is Not Interested
- Late July 2001: CIA Director Believes Warnings Could Not ‘Get Any Worse’
- August 2001: Russia Warns US of Suicide Pilots
- Early August 2001: Government Informant Warns Congressmen of Plan to Attack the WTC
- Early August 2001: Britain Warns US Again; Specifies Multiple Airplane Hijackings
- August 6, 2001: Bush Briefing Titled ‘Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US’
- August 8-15, 2001: Israel Reportedly Warns of Major Assault on the US
- August 15, 2001: CIA Counterterrorism Head: We Are Going to Be Struck Soon
- August 23-27, 2001: Minnesota FBI Agents ‘Absolutely Convinced’ Moussaoui Plans to Hijack Plane; They Are Undermined by FBI Headquarters
- August 23, 2001: Mossad Reportedly Gives CIA List of Terrorist Living in US; at Least Four 9/11 Hijackers Named
- August 30, 2001-September 4, 2001: Egypt Warns al-Qaeda Is in Advanced Stages of Planning Significant Attack on US
- September 4, 2001: Mossad Gives Another Warning of Major, Imminent Attack
- September 10, 2001: NSA Intercepts: ‘The Match Begins Tomorrow’ and ‘Tomorrow Is Zero Hour’
- September 10, 2001: US Intercepts: ‘Watch the News’ and ‘Tomorrow Will Be a Great Day for Us’
- September 10, 2001: US Generals Warned Not to Fly on Morning of 9/11
All this proves that al Qaeda was indeed intent in carrying out their attack, and that intelligence services were aware of them.


The official government story is that the tower was damaged by falling debris, and so fell in a manner that just looked like an implosion, but it was actually structural failure. Any doubts as to this can be put to bed by...... reading the full NIST report on the collapse, which is due out soon.

Another fact that has not seen a speck of daylight in the mainstream media, is the multiple, identical reports, of a bomb going off in the basement of the North Tower seconds before the 1st plane had hit.There's absolutely no evidence of explosives or bombs in either WTC 1, 2 or 7

[Garb]

Jowenko, IMO, made a statement based on a video he watched, when asked to do so, without knowing the context of the video. He had no background at the time, in terms of the circumstances (ie a 20 storey hole on the opposite side of the building, 7 hours of uncontrolled fires, firemen testifying it was leaning to the side) at the time of his opinion.

His logic is that because he is from another country, and is independant, his opinion must be true.

[T.A.M.]

it is sad, but funny. About 7 months ago, on the smasher blog I posed a question to a truther, it went like this...

"If there were warnings, which we are in agreement there were, what specifically should the govt had done, in order to PREVENT 9/11, given that the legitimate threats that led to legitimate warnings were in amongst a plethora of false ones?

You know what his insane reply was...

SHUT DOWN THE AIRLINES/AIRPORTS!!

I asked, for how long?

He said, FOR AS LONG AS IT TAKES!

Well I almost wrote out my laughter at the insanity of this reply.

TAM:)

[T.A.M.]

His logic is that because he is from another country, and is independant, his opinion must be true.

and in so doing he is calling into question the integrity and honesty of NIST/FEMA/ASCE, which in total has members numbering in the thousands...but as they are american and govt affiliated, they are all accomplices in the murder of 3000 people, according to the truthers...right?

TAM:)

[apathoid]

Hi mjd1982, welcome to the forum.

I'm with Dr Adequate, it seems like you're arguing both MIHOP and LIHOP theories. You talk about the ignored warnings(Lihop) and then jump into controlled demolition of WTC7 and the BBC being "in on it"(Mihop). That's a fairly unique stance..

So, is it safe to say that your stance is the 4 flights were hijacked, with 3 of them hitting their targets, 2 of which were the Twin Towers, which collapsed because of damage/fire ....?

If that's the case, what possible motive is there to destroy WTC7 ? For the fun of it? Hubris?

[juryjone]

I certainly wouldn't want to take on trying to refute all the points in the OP, because:

1) I'm not qualified;
2) They have all been answered a number of times on this forum.

This follows the pattern of troofers who join.

1) They come in and don't bother reading threads or doing basic research as to whether their points have been refuted.
2) In their opening posts they vomit out EVERYTHING that they find even remotely relevant to the conclusion they've come to.
3) They call everyone who doesn't come to the same conclusion stupid or deluded.

mjd1982, please, in the interests of clarity and furthering the discussion, pick one of the points you made in your OP and let us discuss that. Please state clearly and succinctly what that point is, and detail the evidence for that point. If you need to use urls, post them with spaces in place of the periods and someone will repost them correctly.

What you have done is the equivalent of coming in here, throwing a Bible on the table and saying "Refute that, you imbeciles." Your OP was counterproductive in the extreme.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

. . .
mjd1982, please, in the interests of clarity and furthering the discussion, pick one of the points you made in your OP and let us discuss that. Please state clearly and succinctly what that point is, and detail the evidence for that point. If you need to use urls, post them with spaces in place of the periods and someone will repost them correctly.
. . .
QFE

[beachnut]

Woooah!!! replies here come thick and fast! This is good.

I do have to go out, but let me just say that for everyone stating "This has been debunked ad nauseam", well, its funny since a) this is exactly what was said on the SLC, with zero to back it up, and b), I referred to this exact point in the 4th line of the OP. You could have at least read that far.

thanks

MBig posters always have to go out! Bye

Because it is true. on the debunk stuff, so true.

[Garb]

If that's the case, what possible motive is there to destroy WTC7 ? For the fun of it? Hubris?

To get rid of evidence pinning the blame on them.

I personally would prefer a paper shredder

[apathoid]

To get rid of evidence pinning the blame on them.

I personally would prefer a paper shredder


I agree, demolishing the evidence itself would be exponentially safer, cheaper, and easier than destroying the entire building. But, in any case, how does demolishing a building make the evidence disappear? If anything the evidence would rain down onto the streets below.....

ETA: But, what evidence are we talking about? The evidence of all the warnings, which were ignored(they must not have done a very good job).....or the evidence of WTC7s demolition to get rid of the evidence of WTC7s demolition..:boggled:

[Myriad]

Namely, that there is sufficient evidence of US government complicity in 9/11 for an independent investigation to be held.

I'm all for it, as long as "independent" means "paid for from sources of revenue other than my (U.S.) taxes." (Because, if its funding comes from the U.S. government, it's not independent.) Do you agree?

Let's cut to the chase. Please answer the following questions about the investigation you're calling for.

1. Under what jurisdiction should the investigation derive the legal powers (such as subpoenaing witnesses and obtaining access to highly classified information) it would need for conducting an effective investigation? A Federal special prosecutor? A Federal Grand Jury? The Office of the U.S. Attorney General? U.S. Military police? An international war crimes tribunal?

2. Who should lead the investigation? A Federal judge? A Special Prosecutor? The U.N. Secretary General? You?

3. Who should participate in, and provide manpower and technical consultation for, the investigation? The FBI? The CIA? Universities? Local police forces? Private investigators? Investigative news reporters?

4. If the investigation reveals evidence of crimes, who should have responsibility for charging and prosecuting the accused? Under what court system?

5. If the evidence against an accused person derives from classified sources as it likely would, or is itself classified, how do you guarantee the accused the right to a fair trial without compromising national security?

6. Who should decide the answers to the above questions, under what authority?

Unless you can answer all of these questions, or at least 1, 2, 3, and 6, I put it to you that your calls for an investigation are useless and irrelevant, and would be so even if you were right about your accusations.

All of the organizations in the U.S. with the authority and capability to carry out an investigation have already done so, the largest one in history. For that very reason, they're the ones you now think must be in on the conspiracy.

The idea of a foreign or international investigation -- of the detailed inner workings of the U.S. intelligence services, is absurd. Exposing a LIHOP conspiracy of the type you're accusing would require establishing exactly who knew exactly what, when, and from what sources. Revealing that information to international investigators would be essentially dismantling the entire U.S. intelligence network at a time when it's needed more than ever.

You have two other options. One is to rely on partisanship within U.S. government offices, to have another party (perhaps a new "third" party, if you can get one voted into office) supervise the investigation of the previous officeholders. The question is, would that satisfy you? If such an investigation resulted in no criminal charges (or only the usual secondary ones, obstruction of justice and so forth resulting from issues arising from the process of the investigation itself) would that satisfy you? Or would you then claim that the latest investigators have been co-opted or deceived by the same nefarious forces that the original investigation failed to expose?

The other is to violently overthrow the U.S. Government, either by conquest or internal revolution, and set up your own guillotine and your own Revolutionary Court to feed it. That way you can guarantee that someone will be found guilty, whether anyone is actually guilty or not. Do you think you've provided sufficient cause for such an action? I don't think so, not even anywhere remotely close. Consequently, if you tried it, I (among many many others) would take up arms to defend my country against you.

Respectfully,
Myriad

[T.A.M.]

awesome, and relevent, as usual Myriad...well done.

TAM:)

[nicepants]

I'm all for it, as long as "independent" means "paid for from sources of revenue other than my (U.S.) taxes." (Because, if its funding comes from the U.S. government, it's not independent.) Do you agree?

Let's cut to the chase. Please answer the following questions about the investigation you're calling for.

1. Under what jurisdiction should the investigation derive the legal powers (such as subpoenaing witnesses and obtaining access to highly classified information) it would need for conducting an effective investigation? A Federal special prosecutor? A Federal Grand Jury? The Office of the U.S. Attorney General? U.S. Military police? An international war crimes tribunal?

2. Who should lead the investigation? A Federal judge? A Special Prosecutor? The U.N. Secretary General? You?

3. Who should participate in, and provide manpower and technical consultation for, the investigation? The FBI? The CIA? Universities? Local police forces? Private investigators? Investigative news reporters?

4. If the investigation reveals evidence of crimes, who should have responsibility for charging and prosecuting the accused? Under what court system?

5. If the evidence against an accused person derives from classified sources as it likely would, or is itself classified, how do you guarantee the accused the right to a fair trial without compromising national security?

6. Who should decide the answers to the above questions, under what authority?

Unless you can answer all of these questions, or at least 1, 2, 3, and 6, I put it to you that your calls for an investigation are useless and irrelevant, and would be so even if you were right about your accusations.

All of the organizations in the U.S. with the authority and capability to carry out an investigation have already done so, the largest one in history. For that very reason, they're the ones you now think must be in on the conspiracy.

The idea of a foreign or international investigation -- of the detailed inner workings of the U.S. intelligence services, is absurd. Exposing a LIHOP conspiracy of the type you're accusing would require establishing exactly who knew exactly what, when, and from what sources. Revealing that information to international investigators would be essentially dismantling the entire U.S. intelligence network at a time when it's needed more than ever.

You have two other options. One is to rely on partisanship within U.S. government offices, to have another party (perhaps a new "third" party, if you can get one voted into office) supervise the investigation of the previous officeholders. The question is, would that satisfy you? If such an investigation resulted in no criminal charges (or only the usual secondary ones, obstruction of justice and so forth resulting from issues arising from the process of the investigation itself) would that satisfy you? Or would you then claim that the latest investigators have been co-opted or deceived by the same nefarious forces that the original investigation failed to expose?

The other is to violently overthrow the U.S. Government, either by conquest or internal revolution, and set up your own guillotine and your own Revolutionary Court to feed it. That way you can guarantee that someone will be found guilty, whether anyone is actually guilty or not. Do you think you've provided sufficient cause for such an action? I don't think so, not even anywhere remotely close. Consequently, if you tried it, I (among many many others) would take up arms to defend my country against you.

Respectfully,
Myriad

Excellent points, Myriad. I've not met a single truther yet who can tell me who should be paying for or conducting this new investigation that they all seem to want so badly.

[Stankeye]

:socks:

[CurtC]

Actually, the post is organised into 4 very distinct parts (as shown by the use of headings), which give it a pretty clear shape.
It's too broad for one thread. You're not going to get a satisfactory dive into the evidence on four topics like that in one thread. Trust us, it just doesn't work.

How about this - we'll forget about your clumsy first entrance to the forum, and you can just start a new thread for each topic. That way, we can stay focused. Would you like me to start those threads and simply invite you in? I'd be happy to.

[CHF]

Let’s not forget our aim- is this sufficient evidence to warrant a new independent investigation?

To be conducted by...who?

[T.A.M.]

Alex Jones - Director
Stephen Jones and Judy Wood Chief Investigators.
Dylan Avery - PR

TAM:)

[aggle-rithm]

The fact is that although debunking TT CD theories, and no plane hitting the Pentagon is quite easy, when it comes to addressing the real hard facts, there is only one conclusion that a rational mind will come to, and it is that of the “Truth Movement”.

When did the "Truth Movement" come to a conclusion? How did I miss that?

Last I heard they were just asking questions.

[CurtC]

He [J. Edgar Hoover] was also a cross-dresser.
Got any evidence, besides "common knowledge"? I dislike the man's legacy intensely, but I've looked and have seen nothing reliable about cross-dressing. The fact that Oliver Stone put it in JFK also makes me think it isn't true.

[ConspiRaider]

Got any evidence, besides "common knowledge"? I dislike the man's legacy intensely, but I've looked and have seen nothing reliable about cross-dressing. The fact that Oliver Stone put it in JFK also makes me think it isn't true.
Yes but it was also in the movie The Naked Gun. That iced it for me...

[JonnyFive]

- May- July 2001: Over a two-month period, the NSA reports that “at least 33 communications indicating a possible, imminent terrorist attack.”
- May 16-17, 2001: US Warned Bin Laden Supporters inside US and Planning an Attack
- May 29, 2001: Clarke (ex US Head of Counter Terrorism) Asks for More to Be Done to Stop Expected Al-Qaeda Attacks
- May 30, 2001: FBI Is Warned of Major Al-Qaeda Operation in the US Involving Hijackings, Explosives, and/or New York City
- June 2001: Germans Warn of Plan to Use Aircraft as Missiles on US and Israeli Symbols
- June 2001: US Intelligence Warns of Spectacular Attacks by al-Qaeda Associates
- June-July 2001: Terrorist Threat Reports Surge, Frustration with White House Grows
- Summer 2001: Threat Alerts Increase to Record High
- Summer 2001: Israel Warns US of ‘Big Attack’
- Summer 2001: Al-Qaeda Plot Described as Upcoming ‘Hiroshima’ on US Soil
- June 21, 2001: Senior Al-Qaeda Officials Say Important Surprises Coming Soon
- June 22, 2001: CIA Warns of Imminent Al-Qaeda Suicide Attack
- June 23, 2001: White House Warned ‘Bin Laden Attacks May Be Imminent’
- June 25, 2001: Clarke Tells Rice That Pattern of Warnings Indicates an Upcoming Attack
- June 28, 2001: Tenet (ex CIA Director) Warns of Imminent Al-Qaeda Attack
- June 28, 2001: Clarke Warns Rice That Threat Level Has Reached a Peak
- Late Summer 2001: Jordan Warns US That Aircraft Will Be Used in Major Attack Inside the US
- July 2001: India Warns US of Possible Terror Attacks
- July 1, 2001: Senators Warn of Al-Qaeda Attack Within Three Months
- July 5, 2001: Ashcroft (ex US Attorney General) Is Warned of Imminent, Multiple Attacks from Al-Qaeda
- July 6, 2001: CIA Warns Upcoming Al-Qaeda Attack Will Be ‘Spectacular’ and Different
- July 6, 2001: Clarke Tells Rice to Warn Agencies to Prepare for 3 to 5 Simultaneous Attacks; No Apparent Response
- July 10, 2001: FBI Agent Sends Memo Warning That Inordinate Number of Muslim Extremists Are Learning to Fly in Arizona
- July 10, 2001: CIA Director Gives Urgent Warning to White House of Imminent, Multiple, Simultaneous Al-Qaeda Attacks, Possibly Within US
- July 16, 2001: British Spy Agencies Warn Al-Qaeda Is in The Final Stages of Attack in the West
- Late July 2001: Taliban Foreign Minister Tries to Warn US and UN of Huge Attack Inside the US
- Late July 2001: Argentina Relays Warning to the US
- Late July 2001: Egypt Warns CIA of 20 Al-Qaeda Operatives in US; Four Training to Fly; CIA Is Not Interested
- Late July 2001: CIA Director Believes Warnings Could Not ‘Get Any Worse’
- August 2001: Russia Warns US of Suicide Pilots
- Early August 2001: Government Informant Warns Congressmen of Plan to Attack the WTC
- Early August 2001: Britain Warns US Again; Specifies Multiple Airplane Hijackings
- August 6, 2001: Bush Briefing Titled ‘Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US’
- August 8-15, 2001: Israel Reportedly Warns of Major Assault on the US
- August 15, 2001: CIA Counterterrorism Head: We Are Going to Be Struck Soon
- August 23-27, 2001: Minnesota FBI Agents ‘Absolutely Convinced’ Moussaoui Plans to Hijack Plane; They Are Undermined by FBI Headquarters
- August 23, 2001: Mossad Reportedly Gives CIA List of Terrorist Living in US; at Least Four 9/11 Hijackers Named
- August 30, 2001-September 4, 2001: Egypt Warns al-Qaeda Is in Advanced Stages of Planning Significant Attack on US
- September 4, 2001: Mossad Gives Another Warning of Major, Imminent Attack
- September 10, 2001: NSA Intercepts: ‘The Match Begins Tomorrow’ and ‘Tomorrow Is Zero Hour’
- September 10, 2001: US Intercepts: ‘Watch the News’ and ‘Tomorrow Will Be a Great Day for Us’
- September 10, 2001: US Generals Warned Not to Fly on Morning of 9/11


These aren't really very specific "warnings." In fact, if you consider the level of noise in intelligence analysis, it isn't very surprising that such information was not put together into predicting the 9/11 attacks.

It is tempting to attribute a nearly magical level of ability to US intelligence services because one does not understand their precise workings, but that doesn't reflect reality very well. There's some very bright men and women working for the US intelligence agencies, but they are not super humans. The analysts there are limited by their ability to interpret vague information, and they cannot conjure good intel up out of nothing.

There's a big difference between "Al Qaeda is still threatening to kill us all sometime somewhere somehow" and "Al Qaeda operatives named (names) are going to (plan) on (date) at (time) in (locations)."

You're also applying a lot of post hoc analysis. Just because a series of events look significant once an event has already happened does not mean they conveyed the same meaning at the time.

[Stellafane]

On second thought, I think I will participate in this thread, because this forum is such a wealth of incredibly valuable information, that even the likes of me can use it to refute every 9/11 CT theory to date. For example, in response to the comment about we OCT supporters being either misinformed or deluded, I direct your attention to this (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=84464). These are your 9/11 CT shining lights, the people who made the movement what it is today. Look at that list -- kind of reads like a stroll though Who's Who in the Land of the Misinformed and Deluded, doesn't it? With these people as your leaders, just where do you think you're going to end up?

But hey, let's play along and suppose that I'm one of the misinformed ones. Please pick from that list the one person whose body of work is most likely to lift me from my misinformed state, and finally allow me to see the truth concerning 9/11. Please point out the one who has brought forward the most irrefutable facts, that can only be answered by willful ignorance or delusion. Seriously, direct me to your most cogent, informed, and persuasive source of information, and allow me to be enlightened.

[HeyLeroy]

(snip) If this is typical of your postings there, the resource most exhausted may have been patience, rather than intellectual firepower.

BINGO!

(snip)

Since it is clear you already have your mind made up, I will not waste your time with links to reliable evidence, as I am sure you consider the 9/11 commission report, NIST, FEMA, Moussaoui Trial all "Govt Shill" type material.

Nope, he just insinuates that you're too stupid to comprehend at his level. His favourite pejorative is to call people NASA chimps. Oh, Mr. Mackey...

You may remember his Stundie nomination:
[Oxford] Arts and humanities, yes. Hence why i dont argue on science, but on simple and rational analysis.
http://screwloosechange.xbehome.com/index.php?act=findpost&hl=humanities&pid=19945
I am in fact an Oxford grad.
http://screwloosechange.xbehome.com/index.php?act=findpost&hl=oxford&pid=19810

Don't expect any arguments on the, y'know, sciencey stuff.

Good luck. I am sure if we all tell you we are tired of addressing the issues, you will claim victory...good for you.
TAM:)

On that you're very correct, that's his MO.

Yep. But by "foreign experts" they really only mean Danny Jowenko, who happens to disagree with troofers about WTC1 and 2, and who now refuses to talk about WTC7 since making his careless and imprudent claim that it was a CD before he knew all the facts.

Just to get everyone further up to speed, he also uses Hugo Bachmann and Jörg Schneider as 'foreign experts', who've said this (bolding and highlighting mine):

"In my opinion the building WTC 7 [610 feet tall, 47 stories, and not hit by an airplane]was, with great probability, professionally demolished," says Hugo Bachmann, Emeritus ETH [Swiss Federal Institute of Technology] - Professor of Structural Analysis and Construction. And also Jörg Schneider, likewise emeritus ETH - Professor of Structural Analysis and Construction, interprets the few available video recordings as evidence that "the building WTC 7 was with great probability demolished."
linky (http://patriotsquestion911.com/professors.html)

As nicepants said, without saying "with certainty" requires them to leave the door open for the collapse to have happened absent explosives.

mjd doesn't seem to care:

This is true, if one accepts "with great probability" as being (more or less) synonymous with "certainly"
http://screwloosechange.xbehome.com/index.php?act=findpost&pid=19150

(snip)
So let's hope those foreign CD experts were French or something like that.

They're Swiss; does that count?:D

:socks:
Nope. He could be here for the long haul.

He's big on 'bending' facts to fit his theories:

No, it is bending, although this can be misleading. You take the established truth, and you fit whatever other facts are necessary into the parameters it provides.
http://screwloosechange.xbehome.com/index.php?act=findpost&hl=schneider&pid=19139

Indeed, just do a search at the SLCF for 'bend' in posts by mjd1982 to see what I mean:

http://screwloosechange.xbehome.com/index.php?act=Search&CODE=show&searchid=fc80a2da27beec0d0ff88e8ff99689a4&search_in=posts&result_type=posts&highlite=bend

[stateofgrace]

On second thought, I think I will participate in this thread, because this forum is such a wealth of incredibly valuable information, that even the likes of me can use it to refute every 9/11 CT theory to date. For example, in response to the comment about we OCT supporters being either misinformed or deluded, I direct your attention to this (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=84464). These are your 9/11 CT shining lights, the people who made the movement what it is today. Look at that list -- kind of reads like a stroll though Who's Who in the Land of the Misinformed and Deluded, doesn't it? With these people as your leaders, just where do you think you're going to end up?

But hey, let's play along and suppose that I'm one of the misinformed ones. Please pick from that list the one person whose body of work is most likely to lift me from my misinformed state, and finally allow me to see the truth concerning 9/11. Please point out the one who has brought forward the most irrefutable facts, that can only be answered by willful ignorance or delusion. Seriously, direct me to your most cogent, informed, and persuasive source of information, and allow me to be enlightened.

Wow now that is a tough call but once you have figured out the answer mjd1982 maybe you could look at this list (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2525424&postcount=3) and tell me why these guys don't agree with you or the super sleuths who run the truth movement.

[JonnyFive]

Wow now that is a tough call but once you have figured out the answer mjd1982 maybe you could look at this list (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2525424&postcount=3) and tell me why these guys don't agree with you or the super sleuths who run the truth movement.

Uh... tl;dr. ;)

(That's a lot of payout money)

[beachnut]

Hello all!
Alright… Let’s go! Starting from the top would be best. I await your responses.M
You posted the largest pile of dung I have seen in a long time. Not one new thing. Why are 9/11 truth researchers so bad. You post stuff that does not support a single conclusion you have made. You are like DRG, with some hearsay here, some hearsay there, you connect the dots with no logical critical thinking involved, you ignore evidence and other ideas, and just declare there should be another investigation. Fine, I vote you and the truth movement raise money and do it yourself. Good old Yankee ingenuity and take the millions Dylan rakes off of dupes and apply that money to find some real experts to do your bidding. BTW, the experts in the truth movement now maintain ideas that are nuttier than your ideas.

I hate to estimate the money already being swindled out of willing dolts on 9/11 truth. That money alone could be used to get you guys some education or mental health help.

The only truth from 9/11 truth has been the same old junk. Over and over again. Not a rational thought or evidence of critical thinking from anyone. Find some better material.

[DGM]

Wow now that is a tough call but once you have figured out the answer mjd1982 maybe you could look at this list (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2525424&postcount=3) and tell me why these guys don't agree with you or the super sleuths who run the truth movement.
The list contains more people that the whole truth movement.

[HeyLeroy]

Hey, DGM, you kindly posted links to some of the threads mjd1982 started on the SLC forum; here's a round-up of them all:

The 911 conspiracy facts (http://screwloosechange.xbehome.com/index.php?showtopic=1686) (eerily familiar)
The 911 OT "facts" (http://screwloosechange.xbehome.com/index.php?showtopic=1775)
9/11 and the Propaganda Model (http://screwloosechange.xbehome.com/index.php?showtopic=1854)
WRAPPING UP THE CT FACTS (http://screwloosechange.xbehome.com/index.php?showtopic=1849)
LAST CALL FOR CF THREAD (http://screwloosechange.xbehome.com/index.php?showtopic=1782)
Responses to the CF thread please... (http://screwloosechange.xbehome.com/index.php?showtopic=1757)
The importane[sic] of deductive reasoning (http://screwloosechange.xbehome.com/index.php?showtopic=1738)
(again)The importane[sic] of deductive reasoning (http://screwloosechange.xbehome.com/index.php?showtopic=1737)

Enjoy!

[Brainster]

WTC7

Another indication of how little the public knows about 9/11 can be gauged from the fact that the vast majority of people in this country are not even aware how many buildings fell on 9/11. And those that are will most likely never have seen the 3rd and final building to fall that day, World Trade Centre 7, collapse.

Indeed, it is striking how little folks know about how many buildings fell on 9/11. The answer is NOT three.

The official government story is that the tower was damaged by falling debris, and so fell in a manner that just looked like an implosion, but it was actually structural failure. Any doubts as to this can be put to bed by the testimony of 1st responders both at the time, and subsequently, who state they were told to get away from the building, because it was about to be imploded:
(Google video- WTC7- The smoking gun of 9/11)

When you present references here, it is generally a good idea if they not turn out to be "Google Video" and "YouTube".

In line with this notion of foreknowledge as to the collapse of WTC7, is the astonishing recent revelation that the BBC and CNN both reported the collapse of the building while it was still standing, and in the case of the BBC, while the reporter was standing in front of it:

And this proves what? That the BBC and CNN rushed a story that had been anticipated for hours?

[Pardalis]

Got any evidence, besides "common knowledge"? I dislike the man's legacy intensely, but I've looked and have seen nothing reliable about cross-dressing. The fact that Oliver Stone put it in JFK also makes me think it isn't true.

I wasn't really being serious. I was playing with mjd1982 about him quoting JEH out of context.

[Unsecured Coins]

Plot Warning Follows -

Anything you notice that mjd posts that has ass-all to do with his argument will cause him to invoke the "NASA chimp" insult on you with great vengeance and furious anger.

And yes, this is the same mjd1982 who looked a picture of the collapsed WTC 3 and said it was still standing.

The same mjd1982 who announced he had done exhaustive research on 9/11, and then claimed that William Rodriguez was awarded the Congressional Medal Of Honor for his actions.

The same mjd1982 who argued that implode means the same thing as explode.

And this is, in fact, the very same mjd1982 who went on for days on how noisy NYC was when WTC7 collapsed, and posted videos that went so far against his stance that he then argued that noise was simply not an issue.

Have fun, folks

[rwguinn]

Plot Warning Follows -

Anything you notice that mjd posts that has ass-all to do with his argument will cause him to invoke the "NASA chimp" insult on you with great vengeance and furious anger.
Ook!

And yes, this is the same mjd1982 who looked a picture of the collapsed WTC 3 and said it was still standing.
.
oook?


The same mjd1982 who announced he had done exhaustive research on 9/11, and then claimed that William Rodriguez was awarded the Congressional Medal Of Honor for his actions.

OOk. Oook! Oook?



The same mjd1982 who argued that implode means the same thing as explode.

And this is, in fact, the very same mjd1982 who went on for days on how noisy NYC was when WTC7 collapsed, and posted videos that went so far against his stance that he then argued that noise was simply not an issue.

Have fun, folks
Ook Ook Ook! ook?

[Unsecured Coins]

Ook!
oook?
OOk. Oook! Oook?
Ook Ook Ook! ook?

Mongo only pawn in game of life.

[Stellafane]

Ook!


oook?

OOk. Oook! Oook?




Ook Ook Ook! ook?

Damn, I wish I could nominate this -- but how do you explain why anyone should vote for "Ook Ook Ook"?

Easily the laugh of the day. My eight year old son keeps demanding "what's so funny?" If only I could explain...

[Gravy]

Hello all!
Hi!

Nothing new then? Nothing that hasn't been addressed here and elsewhere a thousand times?

May I ask why you posted this, if you have nothing new to discuss? Please use the forum search function to find the relevant threads. You'll also find answers to all your questions in the documents linked in my signature. Good luck in your search for enlightenment.

ETA: Ook!

[Unsecured Coins]

Ook!!

[nicepants]

Anything you notice that mjd posts that has ass-all to do with his argument will cause him to invoke the "NASA chimp" insult on you with great vengeance and furious anger.

How ironic that mjd refers to us as chimps, yet he is the one hurling the intellectual feces.

[WildCat]

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

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

[WildCat]

Hi mjd1982, welcome to the forum.

I'm with Dr Adequate, it seems like you're arguing both MIHOP and LIHOP theories. You talk about the ignored warnings(Lihop) and then jump into controlled demolition of WTC7 and the BBC being "in on it"(Mihop). That's a fairly unique stance..
Oh, that's been pointed out to him before. He doesn't seem to see the inherent contradictions.

[Quad4_72]

Just for the record, this thread topic has been debunked at length over at SLC.

http://screwloosechange.xbehome.com/index.php?showtopic=1686

[WildCat]

2. Who should lead the investigation? A Federal judge? A Special Prosecutor? The U.N. Secretary General? You?
At SLC he suggested David Ray Griffin, I kid you not!

[Quad4_72]

Just for the record, this thread topic has been debunked at length over at SLC.

http://screwloosechange.xbehome.com/index.php?showtopic=1686

[DGM]

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

1. Post the extremely long "blizzard of BS" post.
2. Challenge anyone to debunk it.
3. Point 1 is debunked.
4. mjd1982 calls you a chimp and drops a 100 links that may or may not have anything to do with the points raised.
5. You go through the first 5 links, and are unable to see where any of them support his points.
6. mjd1982 calls you a chimp.
7. repeat ad nauseam.
Don't forget the about the always colorful opening lines to all his replies.

[Unsecured Coins]

lest we neglect the ever popular "based on this ONE TEENY TINY taken waaaaaaaaay out of context quote WE can ALL CONCLUDE that (blah blah blah)"

[Dumb All Over]

Nobody better be callin' me a chimp.

Ook, ook.

[WildCat]

Nobody better be callin' me a chimp.

Ook, ook.
Clearly, you're a bonobo...

[jhunter1163]

[pedantic British voice (think The Book in "HHGTTG")]

Oook!

[/pedantic British voice]

[tacodaemon]

Indeed, it is striking how little folks know about how many buildings fell on 9/11. The answer is NOT three.


Off the top of my head I can think of four that were destroyed (1, 2, and 7 WTC and St. Nicholas), five that partially collapsed (3, 4, 5, and 6 WTC and the Pentagon) and two that were declared damaged beyond repair (Bankers Trust and Fiterman Hall), plus quite a few others that suffered at least some damage... what's your count, out of curiosity?

[ConspiRaider]

At SLC he suggested David Ray Griffin, I kid you not!
A theology focus automatically imbues one with immediate understanding in disciplines such as stressed metal and concrete, physics, international espionage and intrigue and the correct temperature at which to serve Japanese sake. All critical skills for heading up a 9/11 new investigation.

On second thought I think this OP'er should be locked up in your spiffy new bathroom for a fortnight, as penance for suggesting such idiocy.

Oook!

(Did I say that right? Darned kids, new words every day!)

[Hokulele]

Hello all!

It’s nice to finally be here. Having all too quickly exhausted the rational capacities of the SLC forum, I come here in search of… well, opposition, challenge, truth, enlightenment, many different things I guess.


I'm tired and cranky. I'll play.

The 9/11 Inside Job

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1736010#post1736010
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2336123#post2336123
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2205056#post2205056
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1970280#post1970280
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2162006#post2162006
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2618947#post2618947

Volition

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=239353#post239353
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1644226#post1644226
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1946408#post1946408
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2258459#post2258459

Foreknowledge

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2245836#post2245836
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2657600#post2657600
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1925483#post1925483

WTC7

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2225055#post2225055
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2290535#post2290535
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2493287#post2493287
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2554761#post2554761
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2525634#post2525634
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2484922#post2484922
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2467041#post2467041
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2452348#post2452348
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2449879#post2449879
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2378837#post2378837
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2396957#post2396957
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2158694#post2158694

William Rodriguez et al

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2028127#post2028127
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2146813#post2146813
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2188439#post2188439
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2324048#post2324048
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2355559#post2355559
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2369990#post2369990
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2385171#post2385171
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2471461#post2471461
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2534142#post2534142
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2547528#post2547528
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2576383#post2576383
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2561371#post2561371
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2618933#post2618933

The Play’s the Thing

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1997854#post1997854
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1363997#post1363997
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=355221#post355221
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=139672#post139672

Alright… Let’s go! Starting from the top would be best. I await your responses.

M


Here you go, all of your points addressed. Next.

[Unsecured Coins]

That has to be some kind of record. I am in AWE over here

[Hokulele]

Multiple tabs are your friends. I was especially proud of the Shakespeare links. :)

[WildCat]

On second thought I think this OP'er should be locked up in your spiffy new bathroom for a fortnight, as penance for suggesting such idiocy.
Not in my only bathroom you chimp!

:mdance::monkeyr:
oook!

[Foolmewunz]

Something's not right, here.

Aren't all the batcrap crazy conspiracists supposed to attend Cambridge, not Oxford? How else are they going to get a job as a sooper secret mole working for the KGB?

[JimBenArm]

Multiple tabs are your friends. I was especially proud of the Shakespeare links. :)
>grovels at Hokuele's feet<

I'm not worthy! I'm not worthy!

ETA: oook!

[mjd1982]

1stly, I'm pretty certain i didnt ask for DRG to lead the investigation; nor did I state that WTC3 did not collapse, to my recollection. Irrelevant. Anyway...

Ok, that is a hell of a lot of replies.

Unfortunately, very few of them touch on the point at hand, which is, for the moment, PNAC. So let's look into that. Now, since some have pointed out that this has been "debunked ad nauseam", I'm going to take the PNAC section of Gravy's Loose Change Guide, and go through it. I am aware that you have discussed it at points, but with little clarity, it would seem. So.


I have yet to come across a 9/11 conspiracy theorist who DID NOT use this quote as "evidence" that the terrorist attacks were an "inside job" by the neo-cons in the U.S. government. However, the PNAC quote is about the typically slow growth of military technology, abetted by budget cuts in defense R&D.


Problems already. Firstly, the quote is not about slow growth in technology. The transformation addressed is quite clear to ascertain- that of technology and operational concepts. This is evident from:


The United
States cannot
simply declare a
“strategic pause”
while
experimenting
with new
technologies and
operational
concepts


and an instance of potential transformation cited:


A transformation strategy that solely
pursued capabilities for projecting force
from the United States, for example, and
sacrificed forward basing and presence,
would be at odds with larger American
policy goals and would trouble American
allies.


A clear example of a transformational strategy that is not merely technological in nature. Thus, the term "transformation" refers not only to technologies, but also to operational concepts- global posture, transformation of the DoD, using cyberspace as a defense tool- which have been the subject of much of the document.


It is in no way a plan or suggestion for a "new Pearl Harbor."


It states that for such a transformation, crucial, to occur within a timeframe shorter than decades, a new Pearl Harbour would need to happen. Given that for such to happen within years/months, rather than decades is propitious, especially bearing in mind the aims of the "Projects for the new american century", then we can equally conclude that they deem a new PH propitious to policy.


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


This is pretty silly. The idea that "they wouldnt say it, so they didnt say it". is pretty worthless in discussion- it is there in black and white. If you can discredit its purported import, then go ahead. To state that it ipso facto could not happen, is pretty myopic in my opinion.


According to CT logic, these "conspirators" are the smartest, most devious, most capable connivers the world has ever seen - but are incredbly stupid. This PNAC quote issue is a lot like the CTist emphasis on Larry Silverstein's "Pull it" quote. Right: whenever I commit a billion-dollar crime, I always tell the media I did it.


Wrong. These conspirators are the dumbest, most bungling bunch that could ever be imagined. 9/11 is pretty much as evident an inside job as can be reasonably expected. The calling card of the Bush admin is all over it. The PNAC doc is a prime example of such stupidity. People's dismissal of it is a prime example of why such stupidity can persist.


What is the main thrust of the PNAC plan for military transformation? A nationwide missile defense shield, and dominance of outer-space for offensive and defensive purposes. That's right: "Star Wars."


I'm sorry, but this is only true with pretty slack reading of the document. The main thrust if their plan is outlines clearly in the "Key Finding" section at the start. I do not take too much stock in the total execution of these strategies, since they are reflective of execution rather than design, but I do want to go through them, since they do reflect quite accurately, the current "War on Terror"


ESTABLISH FOUR CORE MISSIONS for U.S. military forces:
• defend the American homeland;
• fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theater wars;
• perform the “constabulary” duties associated with shaping the security environment in
critical regions;
• transform U.S. forces to exploit the “revolution in military affairs;”
To carry out these core missions, we need to provide sufficient force and budgetary
allocations.


So, let's look at these budgetary allocations. From 2001 to 2003, the defense budget increased by 33%- an unprecedented amount. This increase was pursued almost exclusively under the aegis of the War on Terror, which of course, is pursued under the aegis of the new PH.


In particular, the United States must:
MAINTAIN NUCLEAR STRATEGIC SUPERIORITY, basing the U.S. nuclear deterrent upon a
global, nuclear net assessment that weighs the full range of current and emerging threats,
not merely the U.S.-Russia balance.


This was again, pursued via the 2001 Nuclear Posture Review, which states explicity the need for pursuing this in the new uncertain, post 9/11 world in which we live. Indeed:


The second leg of the New Triad requires development and deployment of both active and passive defenses--a recognition that offensive capabilities alone may not deter aggression in the new security environment of the 21st century. The events of September 11, 2001 underscore this reality.


Next:


RESTORE THE PERSONNEL STRENGTH of today’s force to roughly the levels anticipated in
the “Base Force” outlined by the Bush Administration, an increase in active-duty strength
from 1.4 million to 1.6 million.


This number is increasing, from 1.41million to 1.43. This is a small change, but to add even 10,000 troops costs $1.2 bn, according to Richard Myers (would love to be posting URLs here btw)


REPOSITION U.S. FORCES to respond to 21st century strategic realities by shifting
permanently-based forces to Southeast Europe and Southeast Asia, and by changing naval
deployment patterns to reflect growing U.S. strategic concerns in East Asia.


Again done via the 2002 Global Posture Review


MODERNIZE CURRENT U.S. FORCES SELECTIVELY, proceeding with the F-22 program while
increasing purchases of lift, electronic support and other aircraft; expanding submarine
and surface combatant fleets; purchasing Comanche helicopters and medium-weight
ground vehicles for the Army, and the V-22 Osprey “tilt-rotor” aircraft for the Marine
Corps.


All done, I believe, save the Comanches


CANCEL “ROADBLOCK” PROGRAMS such as the Joint Strike Fighter, CVX aircraft carrier,
and Crusader howitzer system that would absorb exorbitant amounts of Pentagon funding
while providing limited improvements to current capabilities. Savings from these canceled
programs should be used to spur the process of military transformation.


Not sure about the JSF, but done for the Crusader.


DEVELOP AND DEPLOY GLOBAL MISSILE DEFENSES to defend the American homeland and
American allies, and to provide a secure basis for U.S. power projection around the world.


This was relaunched in 2002, and the Star Wars type systems are indeed being pursued, with the UK mooted as a possible base.


CONTROL THE NEW “INTERNATIONAL COMMONS” OF SPACE AND “CYBERSPACE,” and pave
the way for the creation of a new military service – U.S. Space Forces – with the mission of
space control.


This has been done- check the “National Space Policy”, and the “National Strategy for Securing Cyberspace”.

Note that these sorts of policies would have been very hard to justify without the WOT as theor pretext.


EXPLOIT THE “REVOLUTION IN MILITARY AFFAIRS” to insure the long-term superiority of
U.S. conventional forces. Establish a two-stage transformation process which
maximizes the value of current weapons systems through the application of advanced
technologies, and,
produces more profound improvements in military capabilities, encourages competition
between single services and joint-service experimentation efforts.


I think this has been dealt with above


INCREASE DEFENSE SPENDING gradually to a minimum level of 3.5 to 3.8 percent of gross
domestic product, adding $15 billion to $20 billion to total defense spending annually.


Done, as intimated above, to the tune of ~$130bn from 01-03.


Back to the guide:


That type of technology would not have stopped the attacks of 9/11. So what about those low-tech terrorists that we're at war with now? "Rebuilding America's Defenses"


Sorry, who are we at war with again?

In case you hadn’t realized, the War on Terror is not in fact a war on terror. Not even the Bush admin would be so stupid as to try and vanquish an abstract noun. Nor is it a War on Terrorism. A quick look at the massive terrorists being granted asylum by the US- Luis Posada Carriles, Orlando Bosch, Gonzalo Sanchez de Lozada, Carlos Sanchez Berzain to name a few- debunks this idea. I don’t think that such a notion is intended to be taken seriously by serious people.

The WOT is, as illustrated above, what was once called the “Rebuilding (of) America’s Defenses”, i.e. a serious of radical military measures aimed at furthering US hegemony.


Now, if you wanted to increase defense spending in the areas that the PNAC recommends, what is the LAST thing you'd want to do? Answer: get involved in a ground war and subsequent occupation of a country where many citizens are fighting a guerilla-style campaign against you and against each other with AK-47s, RPGs, and IEDs made from cell phones and 10,000 tons of old artillery shells.

As I am writing this, on May 6, 2006, the news has come on: 3 car bombs have gone off in Baghdad and one in Karbala, killing at least 30 Iraqis, including 10 soldiers, and several Italian and Romanian troops. In Basra, a British helicopter was shot down, killing its five crew members, and rescuers were bombarded with fire bombs and rocks. They opened fire on the rioting crowd, killing 4 Iraqis, including a child, and wounding 30. Yesterday, Porter Goss, the incompetent CIA chief, was forced to resign.


The fact that such spending and policies are indeed being justified by 9/11 simply makes the case all the more stark that 9/11 is being used as a pretext for military radicalisation, as outlined in RAD, no matter how incongruously. Such spending and programs have been launched, with the WOT as its aegis. The fact that these programs aren’t not being pursued, with more anti-terror policies in their stead- border control, more police, perhaps, again makes clear that the new PH was to be used as the catalyst for the rebuilding of america’s defenses, no matter what the disconnect.


The disaster in Iraq is the opposite of what the PNAC would want to happen to help effect the military transformation they desired in 2000. So why did those same people lie to us and use fear of terrorism as a pretext to invade Iraq? Because they thought replacing Saddam Hussein would be easy. They didn't listen to the generals, they ignored the intelligence reports, and they expected to be greeted with open arms by the Iraqi people after ousting Hussein. These are the people the CTists think are so clever that they can hide a massive conspiracy. They're the same neo-cons who are under investigation for their petty revenge against Valerie Plame and Joe Wilson. They couldn't even handle THAT without screwing up.


PNAC wanted, with regards to Iraq 2 things- a permanent military base there (done), and Saddam overthrown with US control over oil (done). The rest isn’t so important. It is essential to realise that the war in Iraq is merely one in a lattice of policies forming the WOT. Almost everything laid out in the key findings has been pursued with 911 as the catalyst.


There we have several very confident, matter-of-fact statements about what how the U.S. should impose its military presence on the Mid East. So we established bases in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait to protect our oil interests. But we failed to defend New York and Washington, D.C. against terrorists who were furious at the fact that we had bases in their back yard, and who declared a Jihad against the U.S. because of it.


Again, I’m sorry, but this just betrays a gross misunderstanding of the document. It is stating that we need a new PH- a mass terror attack on US soil, ingrained on the public’s consciousness- in order to catalyse hegemonic aims. Not that we need to prevent a new PH ever happening- this is in fact the opposite of what is said.

Just to deal with a couple of omissions:

1. The doc states that the myriad of transformations needs to happen within one framework, i.e. under one banner. This is, clearly, the WOT. You think this is just a big coincidence not worth investigating?

2. The doc also states that the defense policies it outlines need to be crystalised in the president’s mind by October 2001; the time of the QDR, thus implying that a new PH might have to happen by this date. Again, coincidence? I hope you would not think not.

Sorry about the length, but I hope you can appreciate the focus.

[WildCat]

So, let's look at these budgetary allocations. From 2001 to 2003, the defense budget increased by 33%- an unprecedented amount. This increase was pursued almost exclusively under the aegis of the War on Terror, which of course, is pursued under the aegis of the new PH.
So you're claiming that an increase from fighting 2 wars on the other side of the world is what the PNAC was hoping for? That's just silly.

[WildCat]

PNAC wanted, with regards to Iraq 2 things- a permanent military base there (done),
On which page of the document is this stated?

and Saddam overthrown with US control over oil (done).
Explain how the US "controls" Iraqi oil.

Again, I’m sorry, but this just betrays a gross misunderstanding of the document. It is stating that we need a new PH- a mass terror attack on US soil, ingrained on the public’s consciousness- in order to catalyse hegemonic aims. Not that we need to prevent a new PH ever happening- this is in fact the opposite of what is said.
No, it doesn't say that. Not anywhere, not in any way, shape, or form.

I'll let the other chimps play with you for a while.

:monkeyr: :monkey: :mdance:

[ConspiRaider]

>grovels at Hokuele's feet<

I'm not worthy! I'm not worthy!

ETA: oook!
Ahoy on that, Cap'n. H kicked some major league butt. I think you ought to give her an Honorary Dolphins pin.

Oook!

[Gravy]

This is pretty silly. The idea that "they wouldnt say it, so they didnt say it". is pretty worthless in discussion- it is there in black and white. By gosh, you're absolutely right: in 2000 prominent neocons published their plan to kill thousands of Americans in a Pearl Harbor-like attack! I don't know how I could have missed it!

:dl:

('zat you, Malcolm Kirkman?)

[Stellafane]

By gosh, you're absolutely right: in 2000 prominent neocons published their plan to kill thousands of Americans in a Pearl Harbor-like attack! I don't know how I could have missed it!

:dl:

('zat you, Malcolm Kirkman?)

Geez, dude, I don't know how you could have missed it either --- especially when the perps were driving around your own hometown in a van with a picture of their nefarious plans painted on the side. Of course, don't feel too bad -- 8 million fellow New Yorkers apparently missed it too!

[Undesired Walrus]

“The individual is handicapped by coming face to face with a conspiracy so monstrous, he cannot believe it exists”

- J. Edgar Hoover, FBI Director 1935-1972

Congratulations! You came up with one thing that was right!

That quote is exactly why truthers cannot accept 19 lunatics conspired into hijacking 4 planes.

[JimBenArm]

Ahoy on that, Cap'n. H kicked some major league butt. I think you ought to give her an Honorary Dolphins pin.

Oook!
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/12793466e0a79bf2b8.gif (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=6322)
Just for her! When do I get to pin them on?

[WildCat]

1stly, I'm pretty certain i didnt ask for DRG to lead the investigation

But you did state he should be asking the questions (http://screwloosechange.xbehome.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=1686&view=findpost&p=19032):
I would suggest getting a team of people who are evidently and irreconciliably independent from US gov/corporate influence. This would mean a largely international panel.

It may be a good idea to have a set of questions agreed upon by Griffin, Rodriguez, Jersey Girls et al, and ensure that all of them are answered.
Yeah, have a theologian, a proven liar janitor, and grieving widows who won't accept answers provide the questions for a new investigation.

[WildCat]

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/12793466e0a79bf2b8.gif (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=6322)
Just for her! When do I get to pin them on?
Just be careful where those hands go when you pin it on slick. :p

[The Doc]

Having not read the thread, I am responding to the OP.

Welcome to the forum, try posting some of your own thoughts next time though. Copy + Pasting propaganda is one of my pet hates.

[rwguinn]

Not in my only bathroom you chimp!

:mdance::monkeyr:
oook!

Just don't use the "M" word. There is no type of Monkey here...
oops--no-no I didn't mean... aws%$#@!!

[Corsair 115]

PNAC wanted, with regards to Iraq 2 things- a permanent military base there (done), and Saddam overthrown with US control over oil (done). Uh, if the U.S. controls Iraqi oil, then why isn't it being sent to the U.S.? The U.S. imported 30% less oil from Iraq in 2006 than it did in 2001. That wouldn't seem to be very good control, at least in terms of it making the oil available for American consumption.

Last year, Canada was the #1 supplier of petroleum to the U.S. accounting for 17.66% (that's over one-sixth) of the total. Mexico was #2. Combined, Mexico and Canada supplied one-third of all U.S. petroleum imports.

So why is the U.S. focused on Iraqi oil when there are more friendly and secure sources much closer to home?

[Mobyseven]

mjd1982:

One question, two parts - Who should be on the investigative panel of this new investigation, and how would the investigation be financed?

Hokulele:

Oook! :D

[Unsecured Coins]

then we can equally conclude that they deem a new PH propitious to policy.

Not that we need to prevent a new PH ever happening- this is in fact the opposite of what is said.

2 more uses of the royal we.

[Unsecured Coins]

mjd1982:

One question, two parts - Who should be on the investigative panel of this new investigation, and how would the investigation be financed?

Hokulele:

Oook! :D

We already asked him that over at SLC. His answer was "anyone independant of the investigation" and "privately funded"

[AZCat]

We already asked him that over at SLC. His answer was "anyone independant of the investigation" and "privately funded"

Oh? So if a certain individual (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Cheney) or a particular company (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halliburton) contributed the necessary funds for this "independent investigation" then mjd1982 would be okay with that? Because that's what "privately funded" generally means - not lots of small donations but a small number (like one) of very large donations, often from corporations.

[SpitfireIX]

. . . Anything you notice that mjd posts that has [expletive deleted]-all to do with his argument will cause him to invoke the "NASA chimp" insult on you with great vengeance and furious anger. . . .

http://www.californiasciencecenter.org/Exhibits/AirAndSpace/HumansInSpace/MercuryRedstone2/HamGalleryPhotoPages/GalleryImages/HamSuitedUp.jpg

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

[gumboot]

Oh? So if a certain individual (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Cheney) or a particular company (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halliburton) contributed the necessary funds for this "independent investigation" then mjd1982 would be okay with that? Because that's what "privately funded" generally means - not lots of small donations but a small number (like one) of very large donations, often from corporations.



Funny, but I had exactly the same thought when he said this. Who does he think would privately fund such an investigation? The Federated 7-11 Association of America?

-Gumboot

[Gravy]

Just noticed this. Classic twoofer deliberate ignorance.


So, let's look at these budgetary allocations...

Not sure about the JSF, but done [canceled] for the Crusader.

Ahem. You verified that the "roadblock to PNAC" Crusader program was canceled, but you're "Not sure about the JSF," another PNAC "roadblock?"

The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter is the most expensive aircraft program – and one of the most expensive military acquisition programs of any kind – in history. It is very much in full swing and very much over budget.

2006:
The total price tag for the tri-service Joint Strike Fighter program shot up by nearly $19 billion during a four-month period in 2005, according to a Pentagon selected acquisition report (SAR) released April 7 after it was sent to Congress.

Prior to that significant increase, overall JSF cost growth set against the program’s 2002 baseline estimates came in at $75 billion over a three-year span. “Base year” cost estimates for the JSF totaled just over $202 billion in 2002, states the April 7 report.

With that trend of cost spikes, the F-35’s $276 billion price tag has made it one of the most expensive defense acquisition efforts in Pentagon history, according to defense officials and analysts.

The increase also placed the JSF program among the 15 platforms listed in the April SAR that DOD says breached the Nunn-McCurdy statute during the September through December 2005 time frame. The Nunn-McCurdy Act places caps on single-unit cost growth for all major DOD acquisition programs, notes the April 7 report. Source (http://www.military.com/features/0,15240,112886,00.html)

2007:
Overall, program costs rose 8.5% from $276.46 billion to $299.82 billion. The biggest culprit was the Pentagon's decision to decrese the annual buys and stretch the production schedule end from FY 2027 - FY 2034 (+$11.2 billion); accompanying that is a support increase due to aircraft configuration update, revised procurement profile, and methodology changes (+$6.42 billion). Commodity price increases for key structural materials like titanium was also an issue (+$5.47 billion). Source (http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/2007/04/f35-joint-strike-fighter-events-contracts-2007-updated/index.php)


As you noted, PNAC said that if the JSF went forward, it would be a "roadblock" to their desired military plans.

So why the all-powerful PNAC let this incredibly expensive roadblock be put in its way?

And why did you ignore this teeny little issue, O seeker of "truth"? Incompetence? Intellectual cowardice? Both?

:con2:

[Hokulele]

The Play’s the Thing


OK, I've had a little sleep and found a funny in the multi-link beast I posted earlier.

There old theory was that if you put an infinite number of monkey next to an infinite number of keyboards, eventually one of them will write Shakespeare's plays.

The internet had proven that that's not true.


Ook!

[gumboot]

PNAC also called for the CVX Supercarrier plans to be dropped - in fact they called for Carrier Battle Groups to be entirely phased out.

Yet the first of the new class of carriers - the USS Gerald R Ford (CVN-78) is scheduled to be laid down in 2009.

Sadly the ship is to replace the USS Enterprise; raising the question of what will be the next Enterprise?

-Gumboot

[Foolmewunz]

OK, I've had a little sleep and found a funny in the multi-link beast I posted earlier.




Ook!

I've been saving that for one of my later sig changes.



Robert Willensky, UC Berkley....
We've heard that a million monkeys at a million keyboards could produce the complete works of Shakespeare; now, thanks to the Internet, we know that is not true.
Robert Wilensky, speech at a 1996 conference

[Brainache]

They're replacing The Enterprise with a Ford? That should really annoy Kirk man.

[Hokulele]

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/12793466e0a79bf2b8.gif (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=6322)
Just for her! When do I get to pin them on?


Thanks guys! Um, are you sure they are supposed to go there?

Funny but true side note, I spent a recruitment week at Annapolis back in high school over 20 years ago. If a couple of the instructors hadn't been such twits about people with different gender and ethnic backgrounds, who knows what might have happened. Oh, and the horror stories about plebe summer, those didn't help either.

[mjd1982]

Just for the record, this thread topic has been debunked at length over at SLC.

http://screwloosechange.xbehome.com/index.php?showtopic=1686
Nice gag btw!

[mjd1982]

But you did state he should be asking the questions (http://screwloosechange.xbehome.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=1686&view=findpost&p=19032):

Yeah, have a theologian, a proven liar janitor, and grieving widows who won't accept answers provide the questions for a new investigation.
Right, so you have just lied through your teeth. No surprise there. Why do you waste your time here?

[mjd1982]

Just noticed this. Classic twoofer deliberate ignorance.



Ahem. You verified that the "roadblock to PNAC" Crusader program was canceled, but you're "Not sure about the JSF," another PNAC "roadblock?"

The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter is the most expensive aircraft program – and one of the most expensive military acquisition programs of any kind – in history. It is very much in full swing and very much over budget.

As you noted, PNAC said that if the JSF went forward, it would be a "roadblock" to their desired military plans.

So why the all-powerful PNAC let this incredibly expensive roadblock be put in its way?

And why did you ignore this teeny little issue, O seeker of "truth"? Incompetence? Intellectual cowardice? Both?

:con2:

I said "I wasnt sure", because I couldnt find any information on it either way.

It may be a roadblock, but clearly doesnt stop the overwhelming preponderance of their desired military plans. This has been outlined to you in pretty plain english, and in great detail. Why have you ignored these issues? Pray tell.

ETA: And since you, apparently, don't read very well:


I do not take too much stock in the total execution of these strategies, since they are reflective of execution rather than design, but I do want to go through them, since they do reflect quite accurately, the current "War on Terror"


This shouldnt have been too hard, to read, or to understand.

[mjd1982]

By gosh, you're absolutely right: in 2000 prominent neocons published their plan to kill thousands of Americans in a Pearl Harbor-like attack! I don't know how I could have missed it!

:dl:

('zat you, Malcolm Kirkman?)
Oh, sorry, hahaha, yep there it is. That's some grade A debunking. Well done!

For anyone who has a serious point to make in response to my points on Gravy's "critique", I look forward to reading it.

[mjd1982]

I'm tired and cranky. I'll play.



http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1736010#post1736010
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2336123#post2336123
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2205056#post2205056
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1970280#post1970280
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2162006#post2162006
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2618947#post2618947



http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=239353#post239353
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1644226#post1644226
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1946408#post1946408
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2258459#post2258459



http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2245836#post2245836
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2657600#post2657600
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1925483#post1925483



http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2225055#post2225055
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2290535#post2290535
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2493287#post2493287
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2554761#post2554761
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2525634#post2525634
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2484922#post2484922
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2467041#post2467041
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2452348#post2452348
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2449879#post2449879
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2378837#post2378837
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2396957#post2396957
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2158694#post2158694



http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2028127#post2028127
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2146813#post2146813
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2188439#post2188439
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2324048#post2324048
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2355559#post2355559
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2369990#post2369990
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2385171#post2385171
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2471461#post2471461
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2534142#post2534142
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2547528#post2547528
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2576383#post2576383
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2561371#post2561371
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2618933#post2618933



http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1997854#post1997854
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1363997#post1363997
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=355221#post355221
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=139672#post139672




Here you go, all of your points addressed. Next.
Incidentally, thank you for that. I'm sure you would agree, it is best that we just settle on a representative piece of work, such as I have chosen. I hope this is okay with you.

[peteweaver]

I guess you don't like Gravy then mdj1982...

[DGM]

Right, so you have just lied through your teeth. No surprise there. Why do you waste your time here?
I would suggest getting a team of people who are evidently and irreconciliably independent from US gov/corporate influence. This would mean a largely international panel.

It may be a good idea to have a set of questions agreed upon by Griffin, Rodriguez, Jersey Girls et al, and ensure that all of them are answered.

Finally open interviews, fully transcribed.

I missed the lie. DRG is not a key player in your investigation?

[mjd1982]

I missed the lie. DRG is not a key player in your investigation?
Well, if you go back and read the post to which you are referring, you will not miss anything.

This is pretty simple, no?

Oh, and there is a point at hand that I am still awaiting a response on. I believe ~30 replies now have evaded it.

[mjd1982]

I guess you don't like Gravy then mdj1982...
Its not about liking/not liking anyone. He has provided the most representative synthesis of "debunker" views, and so this is now being challenged on the topic I have mentioned. He should be able to mount a coherent defense, as should others.

[Hokulele]

Incidentally, thank you for that. I'm sure you would agree, it is best that we just settle on a representative piece of work, such as I have chosen. I hope this is okay with you.


You are welcome. The information you are looking for is available on this forum if you are willing to search and read. If you are most interested in PNAC, the second group of links (there are 4 of them in the list) address this topic. Go ahead and read through those threads, and then you can come back here to discuss. You can link posts from that thread here if you need to.

If you decide to tackle a few of the other topics, that would be OK with me too. :)

[DGM]

Well, if you go back and read the post to which you are referring, you will not miss anything.

This is pretty simple, no?

Oh, and there is a point at hand that I am still awaiting a response on. I believe ~30 replies now have evaded it.
I did! Approving the questions would not be a lead role?

Would you like to touch on Wildcat's response.

[WildCat]

Right, so you have just lied through your teeth. No surprise there. Why do you waste your time here?
Since the link I gave establishes that you think DRG should play a major role in determining which questions should be answered, I can only conclude that you think the lie is either that DRG is a theologian, Rodriquez is a proven liar, or that the Jersey Girls are unwilling to accept answers and/or grieving widows. So which is it?

And BTW:
PNAC wanted, with regards to Iraq 2 things- a permanent military base there (done),
On which page of the document is this stated?

and Saddam overthrown with US control over oil (done).
Explain how the US "controls" Iraqi oil.

[Belz...]

Unfortunately, very few of them touch on the point at hand, which is, for the moment, PNAC. So let's look into that. Now, since some have pointed out that this has been "debunked ad nauseam", I'm going to take the PNAC section of Gravy's Loose Change Guide, and go through it. I am aware that you have discussed it at points, but with little clarity, it would seem. So.

Uh-oh. Mjd thinks that old debunked points, in his hands, will do wonders.

A clear example of a transformational strategy that is not merely technological in nature. Thus, the term "transformation" refers not only to technologies, but also to operational concepts- global posture, transformation of the DoD, using cyberspace as a defense tool- which have been the subject of much of the document.

How does that say they're going to murder their own people ?

It states that for such a transformation, crucial, to occur within a timeframe shorter than decades, a new Pearl Harbour would need to happen.

And they print it for the public to see ? Oh, wait, when did they say they would MAKE it happen ?

This is pretty silly. The idea that "they wouldnt say it, so they didnt say it". is pretty worthless in discussion- it is there in black and white. If you can discredit its purported import, then go ahead.

No, it isn't. You're making it say more than it does.

Wrong. These conspirators are the dumbest, most bungling bunch that could ever be imagined. 9/11 is pretty much as evident an inside job as can be reasonably expected.

Only to the untrained one. Only someone with the most rudimentary knowledge of physics, politics, sociology, psychology and statistics could think that 9/11 was an inside job.

Don't worry. You're not the first to think you're smarter than all these other people who didn't spot it, and you won't be the last.

The calling card of the Bush admin is all over it.

Yeah. International terrorists ram jets into buildings. That is SO Bush!

So, let's look at these budgetary allocations. From 2001 to 2003, the defense budget increased by 33%- an unprecedented amount. This increase was pursued almost exclusively under the aegis of the War on Terror, which of course, is pursued under the aegis of the new PH.

And how is this, a result of the 9/11 attacks, show foreknowledge or an inside job ?

Sorry, who are we at war with again?

Iraq, at present. No relation with 9/11. Why ?

The WOT is, as illustrated above, what was once called the “Rebuilding (of) America’s Defenses”, i.e. a serious of radical military measures aimed at furthering US hegemony.

That doesn't follow. Defense <> attack.

Again, I’m sorry, but this just betrays a gross misunderstanding of the document.

Pot... kettle...

It is stating that we need a new PH- a mass terror attack on US soil,

Nope, that's not what it says. Read it again, please.

Sorry about the length, but I hope you can appreciate the focus.

What I appreciate is that you can't read.

[Belz...]

Its not about liking/not liking anyone. He has provided the most representative synthesis of "debunker" views, and so this is now being challenged on the topic I have mentioned. He should be able to mount a coherent defense, as should others.

He did. It makes no sense to orchestrate something that is so incredibly complex yet leaves no trace whatsoever, and then tell everyone.

[mjd1982]

You are welcome. The information you are looking for is available on this forum if you are willing to search and read. If you are most interested in PNAC, the second group of links (there are 4 of them in the list) address this topic. Go ahead and read through those threads, and then you can come back here to discuss. You can link posts from that thread here if you need to.

If you decide to tackle a few of the other topics, that would be OK with me too. :)
Sure, ok, in addition to Gravy's critique, I wil run by these 4 threads (I am reading them as I post this)

1. This is a thread about the validity US hegemony, in light of PNAC, so irrelevant to my point.
2. Again, a thread about the validity of their goals, a decade on
3. This is a thread about a tornado
4. Ok, good, here we have some relevance to the document. The points raised are as follows:
a) The transformation hinted at is purely technoogical (I have dealt with this)
b) PNAC are not stating the usefulness of a new PH (I have dealt with this)
c) The transformations advocated have not been carried out (i have also with this)

So, well done on your diligence, but the majority of the links you have provided are utterly irrelevant, and the one that is has had all its points, brainless though they are, addressed by me. Thus, we can proceed with the debate based on the points I have made.

[mjd1982]

I did! Approving the questions would not be a lead role?

Would you like to touch on Wildcat's response.
Ok, you did! Then, quite simply, you have some pretty severe comprehension problems. The question was:


Who should lead the investigation? A Federal judge? A Special Prosecutor? The U.N. Secretary General? You?


WC said:


At SLC he suggested David Ray Griffin, I kid you not!


You might wanna sit the next few out my friend.

[Hokulele]

...
3. This is a thread about a tornado
...


I was afraid you would miss the relevance of that thread. In essence, it is an analogy, perhaps even a parody, on the dangers of over-applying a single source to fit facts to a theory. It is an example of the larger problem with the information you provided in your OP rather than a tedious point by point dissection. If the original theory is flawed, analysis is unecessary.

[mjd1982]

Since the link I gave establishes that you think DRG should play a major role in determining which questions should be answered, I can only conclude that you think the lie is either that DRG is a theologian, Rodriquez is a proven liar, or that the Jersey Girls are unwilling to accept answers and/or grieving widows. So which is it?


The exact quote:


It may be a good idea to have a set of questions agreed upon by Griffin, Rodriguez, Jersey Girls et al, and ensure that all of them are answered.



End.

And BTW:

On which page of the document is this stated?


(I.e. that the US would need a permanent presence in the Persian Gulf)


the Clinton Administration has
continued the fiction that the operations of
American forces in the Persian Gulf are
merely temporary duties.



Although the no-fly-zone air
operations over northern and southern Iraq
have continued without pause for almost a
decade, they remain an essential element in
U.S. strategy and force posture in the
Persian Gulf region. Ending these operations
would hand Saddam Hussein an important
victory, something any American leader
would be loath to do.



Further, these constabulary missions are
far more complex and likely to generate
violence than traditional “peacekeeping”
missions...the preponderance of
American power is so great and its global
interests so wide that it cannot pretend to be
indifferent to the political outcome in the
...the Persian Gulf



Whether
established in permanent bases or on
rotational deployments, the operations of
U.S. and allied forces abroad provide the
first line of defense of what may be
described as the “American security
perimeter."...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.


And that is just the 1st 4 references to "Persian Gulf" in the doc. Please dont post to me again until you start doing some research.

Explain how the US "controls" Iraqi oil.

Oh yes, one more. To find out this, you should read a link I am going to post after I get to 15....

[mjd1982]

and to find out about US control of oil read...

[mjd1982]

...this!

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

[JimBenArm]

and to find out about US control of oil read...
...what?

[WildCat]

and to find out about US control of oil read...

...this!

http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/RRiraqWar.html
Excuse me? Do you have anything that actually reflects reality today instead of speculation from 3-4 years ago?

[Foolmewunz]

...this!

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

Well, I'm not real smart like you, so rather than having me strain my already overburdened brain, why don't you summarize the bits you want to point out. It's a gazillion word opinion piece with some references in the footnotes, frankly. We're really not hear to do your homework assignments. If you have something to say.... Say it!

[WildCat]

And that is just the 1st 4 references to "Persian Gulf" in the doc.
But your claim was that the PNAC document specifically called for permanent bases in Iraq, not "permanent bases or on
rotational deployments" somewhere in the Persian Gulf region.

eta: and the US already had bases in the Gulf region prior to 9/11.

So your claim is false.

[DGM]

OK, you did! Then, quite simply, you have some pretty severe comprehension problems. The question was:



WC said:



You might wanna sit the next few out my friend.

I get it! Approving what questions are asked in an investigation is NOT a lead role.;)

[WildCat]

I get it! Approving what questions are asked in an investigation is NOT a lead role.;)
It's understanding just such complex minutia that separates Oxford Humanities grads from the rest of us ignorant unwashed masses.

[NobbyNobbs]

Incidentally, another interesting fact about 9/11 is that the owner of the WTC complex, Larry Silverstein, had his offices on the 88th floor of the North Tower. But by a surprising coincidence, on this day, Larry didn’t make it in, as he had a doctor’s appointment, and his 2 kids, Lisa and Roger, who worked with him, didn’t make it either- they were running late.

Luck of the devil I guess.

My uncle had a meeting at WTC2 that morning. It was postponed the night before. I guess my uncle's a shill. Funny, I never realized that about him.

As well as falling foul of the problems I listed above, as has been shown compelling by Chomsky and Herman, the mainstream media, certainly in the US, functions as a tool of government propaganda; there is little reason to believe the UK press functions otherwise. I may write another post on this later, I think it’s pretty important, but should you wish to find out more about it, please read “Manufacturing Consent” by the aforementioned authors; it is generally recognised as one of Chomsky’s most important works. 9/11 could not be a stronger instance of the self censoring function of the mass media at work- 2 startling examples have already been listed in the William Rodriguez testimony and the WTC 7 story.


Yes, the mainstream media is a tool of government propaganda. That's why you never see articles critical of the government in the newspapers or on TV. That's why the talking heads always back whoever's in power. That's why Jay Leno never makes political jokes. That's why Woodward and Bernstein were silenced and blackballed. That's why not a single paper in the country has an ed-op page....

Oh, wait.

[Foolmewunz]

<snip>



Yes, the mainstream media is a tool of government propaganda. That's why you never see articles critical of the government in the newspapers or on TV. That's why the talking heads always back whoever's in power. That's why Jay Leno never makes political jokes. That's why Woodward and Bernstein were silenced and blackballed. That's why not a single paper in the country has an ed-op page....

Oh, wait.

That's why Alex Jones was bagged and murdered four years ago. That's why Dylan Avery is no longer with us. That's why Killtown is an anoymous idiot... (Oh wait, that one's not a caricature).

[Vincent Vega]

We already asked him that over at SLC. His answer was "anyone independant of the investigation" and "privately funded"
So why doesn't he/they bug Gore Vidal and George Soros for some cashola and stop whining already!

I mean they dumped howmany millions into the last two Democratic Presidential campaigns whats a few hundred more?

[aggle-rithm]

...this!

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

That article was written in 2003 and largely speculative. It did get one thing right, though:


It is plausible that the aftermath of the Iraq war and a U.S. occupation of Iraq could increase Al-Qaeda sponsored terrorism against U.S. targets, or more likely create guerilla warfare in a post-war Iraq.


So THAT's how they're controlling the oil in Iraq!

Don't you see it? You'll never be a conspiracy theorist at this rate! You see, with all this increased terrorism, we now have an excuse to get into MORE wars, which will create more terrorism, which in turn will create MORE wars, all of which lead to control of oil. Somehow.

BWA-HA-HA-HA! Soon we'll all be rich, rich, RICH!!!!

[Myriad]

Ok, that is a hell of a lot of replies.

Unfortunately, very few of them touch on the point at hand, which is, for the moment, PNAC.

Sorry, no. The point at hand, for this moment and all moments for the foreseeable future, is "so what?"

You want an entirely independent investigation whose questions are agreed upon by Alex Jones? You've just done one. You think the results of that investigation, which you've presented here, warrant another investigation? Go right ahead, do another one. You can keep that up forever if you want to. No need to get our or anyone else's approval, or really, bother us about it at all.

Since you don't seem to be satisfied with that, it appears that you want more than just an independent investigation, which anyone (newspaper reporters, a technical study group, you, me) is free to do any time they want. You want your investigators to have some or all of the following, don't you?

- the power to subpoena witnesses
- the power to compel witnesses to appear, to take oaths to answer questions truthfully, and to answer questions they might not want to answer, by penalizing them for failing to do so, such as via the threat of contempt of court charges, perjury charges, or similar punitive action (just to be clear on what "the power to subpoena witnesses" really means)
- the security clearance necessary to permit witnesses to testify about national security secrets which they have sworn oaths not to reveal
- the power to force the U.S. military to make classified documents available for examination
- the power to press criminal charges
- the power to arrest and try individuals on those charges, and mete out punishment

If you don't want these things, then you've already got your independent investigations, as many of them as you feel like conducting, so I don't see what you're complaining about.

If you do want any of those things, then you've got a problem. Because in the U.S. the authority to do those things is vested, under the U.S. Constitution, in various branches of the U.S. Government. (State and local governments too, and police forces acting under their auspices, but their jurisdiction is limited, under the Federal Constitution, in ways that would make it difficult conduct an effective 9/11 investigation. However, that might be your best option available, to demand a new investigation by, for instance, the City or State of New York.) If anyone else -- Alex Jones or Judge Judy or Ban Ki-moon or Scooby-Doo -- sends me a subpoena, I can (and will) throw it in the trash, or show up at their "hearing" and recite the script from Monty Python and the Holy Grail, and there's nothing they can do about it.

Either the investigators' authority derives from the government, or they're a bunch of private individuals or gangsters or foreign agents who have no authority, and to whom revealing national security secrets would itself be a crime.

So again, I ask you to answer these questions about how you want this new "independent" investigation to be conducted. Others have posted things you've said on other forums about this question, but I'd rather have it from you first hand and fully in context than from hearsay.

1. Under what constitutional authority should the investigation derive the legal powers (such as subpoenaing witnesses and obtaining access to highly classified information) it would need for conducting an effective investigation?

2. Who should lead the investigation?

3. Who should participate in, and provide manpower and technical consultation for, the investigation?

4. If the investigation reveals evidence of crimes, who should have responsibility for charging and prosecuting the accused? Under what court system?

5. If the evidence against an accused person derives from classified sources as it likely would, or is itself classified, how do you guarantee the accused the right to a fair trial without compromising national security?

6. Who should decide the answers to the above questions, under what authority?

Unless you can answer all of these questions, or at least 1, 2, 3, and 6, I put it to you that your calls for an investigation are useless and irrelevant, and would be so even if you were right about your accusations.

Respectfully,
Myriad

[Belz...]

And that is just the 1st 4 references to "Persian Gulf" in the doc. Please dont post to me again until you start doing some research.

How does that help you ? So far you've not supported your assertion that this document shows anything about 9/11.

[Belz...]

If you do want any of those things, then you've got a problem. Because in the U.S. the authority to do those things is vested, under the U.S. Constitution, in various branches of the U.S. Government. (State and local governments too, and police forces acting under their auspices, but their jurisdiction is limited, under the Federal Constitution, in ways that would make it difficult conduct an effective 9/11 investigation. However, that might be your best option available, to demand a new investigation by, for instance, the City or State of New York.) If anyone else -- Alex Jones or Judge Judy or Ban Ki-moon or Scooby-Doo -- sends me a subpoena, I can (and will) throw it in the trash, or show up at their "hearing" and recite the script from Monty Python and the Holy Grail, and there's nothing they can do about it.

Either the investigators' authority derives from the government, or they're a bunch of private individuals or gangsters or foreign agents who have no authority, and to whom revealing national security secrets would itself be a crime.

Devastating, Myriad. Simply devastating.

[JonnyFive]

If you do want any of those things, then you've got a problem. Because in the U.S. the authority to do those things is vested, under the U.S. Constitution, in various branches of the U.S. Government. (State and local governments too, and police forces acting under their auspices, but their jurisdiction is limited, under the Federal Constitution, in ways that would make it difficult conduct an effective 9/11 investigation. However, that might be your best option available, to demand a new investigation by, for instance, the City or State of New York.) If anyone else -- Alex Jones or Judge Judy or Ban Ki-moon or Scooby-Doo -- sends me a subpoena, I can (and will) throw it in the trash, or show up at their "hearing" and recite the script from Monty Python and the Holy Grail, and there's nothing they can do about it.

Either the investigators' authority derives from the government, or they're a bunch of private individuals or gangsters or foreign agents who have no authority, and to whom revealing national security secrets would itself be a crime.

I's is gon' nomernate you fer that! :)

[Cuddles]

That article was written in 2003 and largely speculative. It did get one thing right, though:



So THAT's how they're controlling the oil in Iraq!

Don't you see it? You'll never be a conspiracy theorist at this rate! You see, with all this increased terrorism, we now have an excuse to get into MORE wars, which will create more terrorism, which in turn will create MORE wars, all of which lead to control of oil. Somehow.

BWA-HA-HA-HA! Soon we'll all be rich, rich, RICH!!!!

1) Start wars.
2)
3) Money!!!

It's foolproof.

[JonnyFive]

1) Start wars.
2)
3) Money!!!

It's foolproof.

Let's see...

1) Start wars.
2) Spend hundreds of billions on wars.
3) Obtain a few billion in oil.
4) Money!!!

I think I made a mistake somewhere.

[mjd1982]

Sorry, no. The point at hand, for this moment and all moments for the foreseeable future, is "so what?"

You want an entirely independent investigation whose questions are agreed upon by Alex Jones? You've just done one. You think the results of that investigation, which you've presented here, warrant another investigation? Go right ahead, do another one. You can keep that up forever if you want to. No need to get our or anyone else's approval, or really, bother us about it at all.

Since you don't seem to be satisfied with that, it appears that you want more than just an independent investigation, which anyone (newspaper reporters, a technical study group, you, me) is free to do any time they want. You want your investigators to have some or all of the following, don't you?

- the power to subpoena witnesses
- the power to compel witnesses to appear, to take oaths to answer questions truthfully, and to answer questions they might not want to answer, by penalizing them for failing to do so, such as via the threat of contempt of court charges, perjury charges, or similar punitive action (just to be clear on what "the power to subpoena witnesses" really means)
- the security clearance necessary to permit witnesses to testify about national security secrets which they have sworn oaths not to reveal
- the power to force the U.S. military to make classified documents available for examination
- the power to press criminal charges
- the power to arrest and try individuals on those charges, and mete out punishment

If you don't want these things, then you've already got your independent investigations, as many of them as you feel like conducting, so I don't see what you're complaining about.

If you do want any of those things, then you've got a problem. Because in the U.S. the authority to do those things is vested, under the U.S. Constitution, in various branches of the U.S. Government. (State and local governments too, and police forces acting under their auspices, but their jurisdiction is limited, under the Federal Constitution, in ways that would make it difficult conduct an effective 9/11 investigation. However, that might be your best option available, to demand a new investigation by, for instance, the City or State of New York.) If anyone else -- Alex Jones or Judge Judy or Ban Ki-moon or Scooby-Doo -- sends me a subpoena, I can (and will) throw it in the trash, or show up at their "hearing" and recite the script from Monty Python and the Holy Grail, and there's nothing they can do about it.

Either the investigators' authority derives from the government, or they're a bunch of private individuals or gangsters or foreign agents who have no authority, and to whom revealing national security secrets would itself be a crime.

So again, I ask you to answer these questions about how you want this new "independent" investigation to be conducted. Others have posted things you've said on other forums about this question, but I'd rather have it from you first hand and fully in context than from hearsay.


You do make some good points. However, the thrust of you post is neither here nor there. The performance of an independent investigation, shouldn't be hard to carry out. The main thing is to ensure a) transparency, b) its corrollary, accountability and c) Impartiality. This will discourage dependence, and ensure, to a great degree, that the right people are appointed to the right positions, that all the correct issues are addressed, and that there is follow through. If not, and the 3 characteristics I have pointed out are truly present, then there will be suitable uproar from a significant part of the populace. This will at least serve to get things out into the open.

The 911 Comm report, although many of the hearings were public, was vitiated due to lack of transparency in its selection of members. Appointing the likes of Zelikow and Kissinger to important posts is not something that will serve in the bes interests of either of the 3 points. How will the appointment process take place? Well, it could be done by vote. This would get round the problem of having the government choose who would be investigating the government.

Of course, absent all of this, you have provided your own answer, in that it could be performed by a state/local government.

I wil go through your points:


1. Under what constitutional authority should the investigation derive the legal powers (such as subpoenaing witnesses and obtaining access to highly classified information) it would need for conducting an effective investigation?


I think this is dealt with


2. Who should lead the investigation?


Transparency and accountability should ensure that the person who will lead it is not someone who is closely affiliated with the government; there should be no conflicts of interest.


3. Who should participate in, and provide manpower and technical consultation for, the investigation?


The committee (possibly a House Select Committee?) would decide this.


4. If the investigation reveals evidence of crimes, who should have responsibility for charging and prosecuting the accused? Under what court system?


Under the US court system


5. If the evidence against an accused person derives from classified sources as it likely would, or is itself classified, how do you guarantee the accused the right to a fair trial without compromising national security?


If you are saying that by producing incriminating evidence that would compromise national security, should such evidence be produced (?) well, the answer would depend on the issue at stake. Be careful; "national security" is an easy smokescreen to allow governments to protect themselves.


6. Who should decide the answers to the above questions, under what authority?


I think this is dealt with.


Unless you can answer all of these questions, or at least 1, 2, 3, and 6, I put it to you that your calls for an investigation are useless and irrelevant, and would be so even if you were right about your accusations.

Respectfully,
Myriad

Good. Now we can address the points perhaps. Anyone?

[Stellafane]

...This will discourage dependence, and ensure, to a great degree, that the right people are appointed to the right positions

I think herein lies the crux of the issue between us. I personally am satisfied that a thorough, credible investigation of 9/11 has already been carried out. You apparently are not. A cynic may attribute our difference of opinion to the fact that the 9/11 report did not reach the conclusions you wanted it to, but let's assume that you have a more valid reason, namely that you didn't like the membership of the group that conducted the investigation and believe their findings are therefore biased and invalid. The problem is, who instead should be part of the investigation team (or as you phrase it, "the right people...appointed to the right positions")? I suspect that a lot of 9/11 CTers would argue that any 9/11 research should include the likes of Jones and Griffin and Judy Wood and the rest of that crowd. I, on the other hand, consider these people for the most part to be lunatics and opportunists with a very shaky grasp of reality, who couldn't conduct a valid investigation of a 7/11 break in, never mind 9/11.

I think this issue is unsolvable. I don't believe CTers will ever be satisfied with any investigation not conducted by fellow CTers, and that does not endorse what they already want to believe happened on 9/11. I, on the other hand, am always going to be skeptical of research done by anyone who is already deeply invested in the 9/11 conspiracy community. And based on their previous track record, I think I'm emminently justified in doing so.

[rwguinn]

You do make some good points. However, the thrust of you post is neither here nor there. The performance of an independent investigation, shouldn't be hard to carry out. The main thing is to ensure a) transparency, b) its corrollary, accountability and c) Impartiality. This will discourage dependence, and ensure, to a great degree, that the right people are appointed to the right positions, that all the correct issues are addressed, and that there is follow through. If not, and the 3 characteristics I have pointed out are truly present, then there will be suitable uproar from a significant part of the populace. This will at least serve to get things out into the open.

The 911 Comm report, although many of the hearings were public, was vitiated due to lack of transparency in its selection of members. Appointing the likes of Zelikow and Kissinger to important posts is not something that will serve in the bes interests of either of the 3 points. How will the appointment process take place? Well, it could be done by vote. This would get round the problem of having the government choose who would be investigating the government.

Of course, absent all of this, you have provided your own answer, in that it could be performed by a state/local government.

I wil go through your points:



I think this is dealt with How?



Transparency and accountability should ensure that the person who will lead it is not someone who is closely affiliated with the government; there should be no conflicts of interest.
a person chosen by the government, appointed by the government is not affiliated with the government? How does this work?



The committee (possibly a House Select Committee?) would decide this.
Independennt of government?



Under the US court system
This is independent and not affiliated with the gubmint in what way?



If you are saying that by producing incriminating evidence that would compromise national security, should such evidence be produced (?) well, the answer would depend on the issue at stake. Be careful; "national security" is an easy smokescreen to allow governments to protect themselves.



I think this is dealt with. coherence and reality are not on speaking terms with you, are they? What did you do to p!$$ them off so much?




Good. Now we can address the points perhaps. Anyone?
When you make one, we can discuss it. So far all we have seen from you is assertion, disconnect from reality, and a lack of demonstrable education in science, economics, civics, and logic.

[pgwenthold]

This thread has drifted a bit, and I want to bring it back to "facts," as they are asserted in the OP. In particular, I find these three claims:


- September 10, 2001: NSA Intercepts: ‘The Match Begins Tomorrow’ and ‘Tomorrow Is Zero Hour’
- September 10, 2001: US Intercepts: ‘Watch the News’ and ‘Tomorrow Will Be a Great Day for Us’
- September 10, 2001: US Generals Warned Not to Fly on Morning of 9/11


Can anyone provide details on them? Was the information in the supposed "intercepts" actually available on Sept 10 (assuming it is real)? Because ISTR that the NSA is generally a couple days behind in translating things they intercept. These are only relevent if they were translated on before Sept 11. If not, then they were not available intel.

And were generals warned not to fly on the morning of 9/11, and if they were, WHY were they so warned?

[mjd1982]

Oh, sorry, i notice we do have 1 post in ~150 that tries to address the points. Well done to you sir for your courage! Shame about the content...

Uh-oh. Mjd thinks that old debunked points, in his hands, will do wonders.
How does that say they're going to murder their own people ?


It doesnt. It states that a new PH would be propitious for policy. If you dispute this, well, then read the post, think about it for a little while, and then post again.

And they print it for the public to see ? Oh, wait, when did they say they would MAKE it happen ?


Oh you're right, yep. The fact that they did say it, means that because they wouldnt, they didnt!

What an intrepid bunch you are!

No, it isn't. You're making it say more than it does.


What an excellent command of rhetoric you have. You would have noticed, wereyour reading comp skills above that of a 7 year old, that the doc says that the changes called for must be crystallised by October 2001. It also says that such transformations will not take place in a timely fashion, absent a new PH. Hence we (grown ups) conclude that they deem a new PH propitious to policy.

It really is quite simple.


Only to the untrained one. Only someone with the most rudimentary knowledge of physics, politics, sociology, psychology and statistics could think that 9/11 was an inside job.

Don't worry. You're not the first to think you're smarter than all these other people who didn't spot it, and you won't be the last.


Ahhh... how true. What a fine intellectual specimen you are proving yourslef to be! Keep it up!


Yeah. International terrorists ram jets into buildings. That is SO Bush!


No, "so Bush" is, among other things, excitedly stating the propitiousness of a new PH to the world, 12 mths before one happens.

Not realising the significance of this, is also pretty standard for you and your ilk.


And how is this, a result of the 9/11 attacks, show foreknowledge or an inside job ?


You are a charmingly empty headed one, no? It is not intended to show that, it shows how a new PH would be propitious to policy.

Once again, this should not be hard to understand, but don't worry.


Iraq, at present. No relation with 9/11. Why ?


Ask the governemnt. Even today, Joe Liebermann is out there stating that we need to fight "the people who attacked us on 911" in Iraq. The tenuousness/non existence of this link just makes the catalyst of the new PH all the more clear.


That doesn't follow. Defense <> attack.


Oh boy... please read what I have said next time, or I wont bother with you!

The wars in Iraq /Afghanistan are one fraction of the WOT. I have outlined the others, go do some research.


What I appreciate is that you can't read.

Ooohhh...that hurts.

So well done for "bravery", but you might wanna brush up on the content. Please don't waste your time here, with me at least, until your willing to do that.

[Belz...]

The performance of an independent investigation, shouldn't be hard to carry out.

- Where do you get the money to fund this investigation ?
- Where do you get the investigators ?
- Where do you get the experts ?
- Where do you get the evidence ?
- Where do you get the rest of what you need ?

If you answered "the government" to all these questions, then you are correct. In short, any investigation of such a scale will be carried out by the government.

Transparency and accountability should ensure that the person who will lead it is not someone who is closely affiliated with the government; there should be no conflicts of interest.

How do you ensure transparency and accountability if all you have is independent wannabes ?

If you are saying that by producing incriminating evidence that would compromise national security, should such evidence be produced (?) well, the answer would depend on the issue at stake. Be careful; "national security" is an easy smokescreen to allow governments to protect themselves.

It doesn't change the fact that matters of national security are not to be discussed. How do you go around that ?

[aggle-rithm]

You are a charmingly empty headed one, no?


Your patronizing arrogance is noted.


It is not intended to show that, it shows how a new PH would be propitious to policy.

Once again, this should not be hard to understand, but don't worry.


Try out this scenario in your head:

Say a woman named Mrs. Smith writes a letter to the editor of her local newspaper, complaining about a dangerous intersection near her home. In the letter, she states, "Someone will have to be killed there before the city will put up a stop sign!"

A couple of years later, someone dies in an accident. The city quickly puts up a stop sign.

Question: Was the accident "propituous" for Mrs. Smith's campaign to have a stop sign installed at the intersection? If so, do you think there is sufficient evidence to charge Mrs. Smith for murder?

Is there ANY reason at all to think that she had something to do with the accident?

You may think so, but most people aren't sufficiently suspicious and/or paranoid to accuse others of crimes without reason.

[Belz...]

It doesnt. It states that a new PH would be propitious for policy. If you dispute this, well, then read the post, think about it for a little while, and then post again.

Actually, it says that, short of such an event, it could take longer for those changes to occur.

And even if it DID say what you say it says, it still wouldn't be related to 9/11. I'm still waiting on that.

Oh you're right, yep. The fact that they did say it, means that because they wouldnt, they didnt!

Strawman. I never said such a thing. But if you're going to claim that something means anything, it would be good if you could support your statements.

What an excellent command of rhetoric you have.

You're making stuff up. How is that rhetoric ?

You would have noticed, wereyour reading comp skills above that of a 7 year old

Well at least my writing skills are on par with yours.

that the doc says that the changes called for must be crystallised by October 2001.

Citation please.

It also says that such transformations will not take place in a timely fashion, absent a new PH.

Yes, that is the meat of what it says.

Hence we (grown ups) conclude that they deem a new PH propitious to policy.

Non sequitur. You can read, but you can't understand the intent. You're adding words that aren't there.

"Absent a catastrophy, the required changes to policy will take decades to occur."

Does NOT equal:

"We've got to make that catastrophy happen."

Ahhh... how true. What a fine intellectual specimen you are proving yourslef to be! Keep it up!

Somehow that doesn't refute what I said.

No, "so Bush" is, among other things, excitedly stating the propitiousness of a new PH to the world, 12 mths before one happens.

Well, since you don't seem to want to chalk that one up as a coincidence, it's your burden of proof to show that it isn't one.

Not realising the significance of this, is also pretty standard for you and your ilk.

I don't play "connect the dots". Either present relevant evidence or withdraw your statements.

You are a charmingly empty headed one, no?

Reported.

Ask the governemnt.

I'm asking YOU. How is the war in Iraq related to 9/11 and why did you bring it up ?

Even today, Joe Liebermann is out there stating that we need to fight "the people who attacked us on 911" in Iraq. The tenuousness/non existence of this link just makes the catalyst of the new PH all the more clear.

All it shows is their ability to use political leverage.

Oh boy... please read what I have said next time, or I wont bother with you!

The wars in Iraq /Afghanistan are one fraction of the WOT. I have outlined the others, go do some research.

Defense <> Attack. Do you deny this ?

Please don't waste your time here, with me at least, until your willing to do that.

It seems obvious that you are incapable of adressing my points without empty phrases such as "you're stupid" or "you didn't read" or "but it DOES mean that, wahh! waah!" Either that, or you have no intention of actually understanding this issue.

[T.A.M.]

If it is Gravy you wish to discuss/debate the issues with, than that is great. He can hand you your arse as well or better than anyone here, should he choose to do so.

So far, i haven't really seen you focus in on a particular point or issue, which is about the only way you are going to get anyone here to discuss anything with you.

TAM:)

[aggle-rithm]

Under the US court system


Yes, that will do it! The US Court System is completely independent of the Executive Branch!

So here's how it will play out:

1. The Court System finds everyone in the Bush administration guilty of mass murder.
2. Bush pardons everyone and resigns.
3. Cheney, having been previously pardoned, pardons Bush, then selects Bush as his new Vice President.
4. Cheney resigns, Bush becomes President again.
5. Bush selects Cheney as his Vice President.

Whew! Glad that's over with. Aren't you glad we spent billions on a new investigation?

[ConspiRaider]

If it is Gravy you wish to discuss/debate the issues with, than that is great. He can hand you your arse as well or better than anyone here, should he choose to do so.

So far, i haven't really seen you focus in on a particular point or issue, which is about the only way you are going to get anyone here to discuss anything with you.

TAM:)
Roger that, Doc. Exactly what I said in the very beginning. Why is ANYONE wasting their time on this guy?

[pgwenthold]

Roger that, Doc. Exactly what I said in the very beginning. Why is ANYONE wasting their time on this guy?

Hey, I resemble that remark!

In fact, I did exactly what TAM suggested. Out of the original mess, I pulled out three assertions and have asked for them to be expanded upon.

I agree that these issues have to much more narrowly focused in order to have any reasonable discussion about them. We'll see how that goes.

[jab712]

Your patronizing arrogance is noted.



Try out this scenario in your head:

Say a woman named Mrs. Smith writes a letter to the editor of her local newspaper, complaining about a dangerous intersection near her home. In the letter, she states, "Someone will have to be killed there before the city will put up a stop sign!"

A couple of years later, someone dies in an accident. The city quickly puts up a stop sign.

Question: Was the accident "propituous" for Mrs. Smith's campaign to have a stop sign installed at the intersection? If so, do you think there is sufficient evidence to charge Mrs. Smith for murder?

Is there ANY reason at all to think that she had something to do with the accident?

You may think so, but most people aren't sufficiently suspicious and/or paranoid to accuse others of crimes without reason.



You mean one shouldn't assume that Mrs. Smith actually made it happen??? Of course she made it happen, she wanted that dang stop sign!!

Excellent analogy. :D

[SpitfireIX]

. . . Yet the first of the new class of carriers - the USS Gerald R Ford (CVN-78) is scheduled to be laid down in 2009.

Sadly the ship is to replace the USS Enterprise; raising the question of what will be the next Enterprise?

-Gumboot


Unfortunately, the naming of American warships, particularly aircraft carriers, has become highly politicized in the past generation. CVN-75 was originally to be name the USS United States; however, a political row developed over the naming of CVN-76. Democrats wanted the ship named in honor of Harry Truman; Republicans wanted her named for Ronald Reagan. Eventually the Navy decided to rename CVN-75 the USS Harry Truman, allowing both parties to have their way. At the time an admiral remarked, "The United States didn't have much of a constituency." :(

The situation has not been helped by the fact that six consecutive US Presidents are/were World War II Navy veterans, starting with John F. Kennedy (though Eisenhower, Teddy Roosevelt, Lincoln, Washington, Truman, and Reagan were all Army veterans). To date, three of these (Kennedy, Bush the Elder, and Ford) have had aircraft carriers named after them. A nuclear submarine has been named for Jimmy Carter, a former submariner. The naming of any new carriers for for Nixon or LBJ seems unlikely, due to their lack of combat or sea service, plus their associated political baggage. Naming of a new carrier for Bill Clinton (political baggage and alleged to have dodged the draft) or Bush the Younger (same problems, plus name is already taken) anytime soon is even more unlikely.

The USS America veterans association (see here (http://www.ussamerica.org/news.htm)) had been attempting to get CVN-78 named America, and I think that would be a fine name for the next carrier. So here's hoping that the politicians will give it a rest for a while, and CVN-79 will be named USS America, and CVN-80 will be named USS Enterprise.

[pgwenthold]

And were generals warned not to fly on the morning of 9/11, and if they were, WHY were they so warned?

I found this one on 911myths.com. As I expected, the reality of the situation is nothing even close to "Generals warned not to fly the morning of 9/11" as is asserted. The brief answer:

There was an report in Newsweek based on unnamed sources that claim that top Pentagon officials (possibly generals, but it is not specified) cancelled 9/11 flights the day before. No named sources contacted could confirm any warning, although it was known that there had been a warning that had gone out on Sept 7, and apparently came through channels on 9/10. However, these threats were based on suspicions of activity in east asia, and had nothing to do with domestic terror threats. Moreover, they did not say anything specific about Sept 11 (had the pentagon brass intended to fly on Sept 8, it would have equally applied (although they might not have received it in time)).

In short, this claim, "Generals warned not to fly the morning of 9/11" does not support the contention that the US government ignored intelligence saying it was going to happen.

[The Almond]

You do make some good points. However, the thrust of you post is neither here nor there.

Perhaps I could be so bold as to summarize Myriad's post for you. He is stating that the investigation you call for is poorly conceived, illegal, unconstitutional and impossible given your criteria. He made this point quite clearly.

The performance of an independent investigation, shouldn't be hard to carry out.

This is an opinion, and it has nothing to do with the veracity of your position.

The main thing is to ensure a) transparency, b) its corrollary, accountability and c) Impartiality. This will discourage dependence, and ensure, to a great degree, that the right people are appointed to the right positions, that all the correct issues are addressed, and that there is follow through.

Your enthymeme here is that the investigations carried out post 9/11 had none of these characteristics. That, however, is not a commonly accepted pretense on this forum or in this thread, no matter how much you want it to be.

If not, and the 3 characteristics I have pointed out are truly present, then there will be suitable uproar from a significant part of the populace. This will at least serve to get things out into the open.

This is odd. Your statement would seem to indicate that you believe public opinion to be an appropriate judge of said characteristics. Given that criteria, since the majority of the American populace believes that the terrorists on 9/11 acted alone, can I therefore assume that previous investigations were sufficiently impartial to render such an extra investigation useless?

The 911 Comm report, although many of the hearings were public, was vitiated due to lack of transparency in its selection of members. Appointing the likes of Zelikow and Kissinger to important posts is not something that will serve in the bes interests of either of the 3 points.

Why?

How will the appointment process take place? Well, it could be done by vote.

You mean the same vote/confirmation process that got us wonders like John Ashcroft and Antonin Scalia? Sorry my friend, just because a quorum of people agree on a candidate, that doesn't make them impartial.

This would get round the problem of having the government choose who would be investigating the government.

Ahh, so your intention is to have a group of...what exactly? Concerned voters? Political officers? The League of Women Voters? So some group of people with no power to subpoena, and no money to give towards investigation would choose some other group of people on the basis of their definition of impartiality?

Of course, absent all of this, you have provided your own answer, in that it could be performed by a state/local government.

Why should the state of Vermont choose such a commission? Or are you making the preposterous suggestion that each state selects a group of people for such a commission?

I wil go through your points:
I think this is dealt with
Transparency and accountability should ensure that the person who will lead it is not someone who is closely affiliated with the government; there should be no conflicts of interest.

Also, all politicians should be honest, and fathers should read to their children. You have outlined great intentions with no way of accomplishing them, thereby failing to address Myriad's comments.

The committee (possibly a House Select Committee?) would decide this.

That's great! How does the fact that the House selects the candidate ensure that he/she is impartial?

Under the US court system

Independent of the federal government?

If you are saying that by producing incriminating evidence that would compromise national security, should such evidence be produced (?) well, the answer would depend on the issue at stake.

That's a poorly disguised dodge.

Be careful; "national security" is an easy smokescreen to allow governments to protect themselves.

And a valid concern for all governments. Red herring.

I think this is dealt with.

However poorly.

[nicepants]

The 911 Comm report, although many of the hearings were public, was vitiated due to lack of transparency in its selection of members. Appointing the likes of Zelikow and Kissinger to important posts is not something that will serve in the bes interests of either of the 3 points. How will the appointment process take place? Well, it could be done by vote. This would get round the problem of having the government choose who would be investigating the government.

And who do you propose would oversee this voting process?

And considering the number of americans who are unhappy with Bush/Cheney, despite them winning the election, what makes you think that a winning vote for one candidate will shut up the opposing side?

[HeyLeroy]

(snip)PNAC wanted, with regards to Iraq 2 things- a permanent military base there (done),(snip)
On which page of the document is this stated?
(snip)


the Clinton Administration has continued the fiction that the operations of American forces in the Persian Gulf are merely temporary duties...
Although the no-fly-zone air operations over northern and southern Iraq have continued without pause for almost a decade, they remain an essential element in U.S. strategy and force posture in the Persian Gulf region. Ending these operations would hand Saddam Hussein an important victory, something any American leader would be loath to do...
Further, these constabulary missions are far more complex and likely to generate
violence than traditional “peacekeeping” missions...the preponderance of
American power is so great and its global interests so wide that it cannot pretend to be
indifferent to the political outcome in the...the Persian Gulf...
Whether established in permanent bases or on rotational deployments, the operations of
U.S. and allied forces abroad provide the first line of defense of what may be described as the “American security perimeter."...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.
(snip)

That doesn't support your contention that the PNAC paper calls specifically for a base in Iraq:
http://liveu-80.vo.llnwd.net/vidilife/image/2006/10/10/946639/1220780L.jpg

...but I'm guessing that cartography isn't covered in an Oxford Arts and Humanities curriculum.

The US has had a base in Saudi Arabia since Desert Storm; that's what pissed off bin Ladin in the first place!
My uncle had a meeting at WTC2 that morning. It was postponed the night before. I guess my uncle's a shill. Funny, I never realized that about him.
(snip)
Apparently Jackie Chan was due to start shooting a film atop one of the towers on 9/11/01 but decided to drop that project for another. Was Mr. Chan a part of the plot?

PS:
http://liveu-02.vo.llnwd.net/vidilife/image/2006/10/10/946639/1210402L.gif

Oook!

ETA: Resized for any NASA chimp who's lookin' for an avatar:

http://liveu-90.vo.llnwd.net/vidilife/image/2006/10/10/946639/1220790L.gif

[Myriad]

Thank you, mjd, for addressing the question of how your proposed new investigation would be legally constituted. To my knowledge you're the first 9/11 conspiracy theory proponent to have done so on this forum. You've gained some credibility in my estimation. If only your evidence were better, we might find some common ground in the LIHOI area.

To see if I understand your proposal correctly, let me rephrase it in my own words. Leaving aside for now the possibility of an investigation consitututed under city or state level authority (and the profound constitutional and jurisdictional difficulties inherent therein), you want the investigation conducted under Congressional authority, just as the original 9/11 Commission was, but with different personnel. Since the majority party in both houses has changed since the original Commission was formed, if a new Commission were formed today this would likely happen as a matter of course. However, by "by vote" I assume you mean some sort of public referendum on the makeup and/or leadership of the new Commission (correct me if I'm wrong). Since such a referendum would have to be legislated into existence by Congress, it would still be under Congressional authority in the end.

I would need two things before supporting such an investigation.

1. Evidence of LIHOP or MIHOP, OR some legal precedent that LIHOI misdeeds (such as, downplaying terrorist security threats for partisan political reasons such as not wanting to be seen as validating the previous administration's anti-terrorism efforts that the Republicans had earlier derided as "wag the dog") could be established as indictable offenses if they indeed occurred.

2. A reason to trust that the conclusions of the new investigations would be accepted, regardless of what they were, by the people now calling for it. I could see paying for one more investigation, it might even be worth the money if there were a reasonable chance it could shorten the war, but it would be the last one.

Transparency and accountability should ensure that the person who will lead it is not someone who is closely affiliated with the government; there should be no conflicts of interest.


The moment anyone on earth is selected to lead the investigation, he or she immediately becomes closely affiliated with the government. And negatives being difficult to prove, there is no way to satisfy people that the selection process was not rigged, and/or the person selected was a secret government agent all along. If there's a public referendum, that means a whole process of nominations, party support, campaign contributions, etc. Do you trust that process to result in members free of conflicts of interest?

Who would be accepted as having no conflicts of interest? A retired ex-general? ("Military loyalty!") A University president? ("Depends on the government for research grants!") An investigative journalist? ("In on it!" or "Doesn't want to make his profession look bad by going against the official story!") A complete unknown selected out of the blue? ("He must be connected somehow, or why would they choose him?") How about our own Mark Roberts (Gravy), who's not associated with government and has invaluable knowledge of witnesses, timelines, and other key issues for the investigation? Or perhaps Jeff Probst, the host of Survivor -- popular, non-partisan, intimately familiar with conspiracies and alliances, though since he has no government experience his knowledge of intelligence procedures might be lacking, what do you think?

If you are saying that by producing incriminating evidence that would compromise national security, should such evidence be produced (?) well, the answer would depend on the issue at stake. Be careful; "national security" is an easy smokescreen to allow governments to protect themselves.

Exactly, which is why to be able to conduct an effective investigation of these particular allegations, the investigators would have to have unprecedented clearance to examine every detail of U.S. security, military, and intelligence apparatus. They'd have to be highly trusted by the government, without being connected to the government -- somehow. And in any case it greatly narrows the range of whom I'd trust to be on that commission.

Good. Now we can address the points perhaps. Anyone?


You've established that the events of 9/11 might have furthered someone's stated political objectives, if those statements are interpreted in certain ways. Everything that happens, ever, furthers someone's political objectives (stated or otherwise). This is not proof, or even strong evidence, for active wrongdoing.

Respectfully,
Myriad

[Corsair 115]

Still waiting for an answer to this, mjd:

Uh, if the U.S. controls Iraqi oil, then why isn't it being sent to the U.S.? The U.S. imported 30% less oil from Iraq in 2006 than it did in 2001. That wouldn't seem to be very good control, at least in terms of it making the oil available for American consumption.

Last year, Canada was the #1 supplier of petroleum to the U.S. accounting for 17.66% (that's over one-sixth) of the total. Mexico was #2. Combined, Mexico and Canada supplied one-third of all U.S. petroleum imports.

So why is the U.S. focused on Iraqi oil when there are more friendly and secure sources much closer to home?




Sadly the ship is to replace the USS Enterprise; raising the question of what will be the next Enterprise?Uh, would it be NCC-1701-F? :D

Unfortunately, the naming of American warships, particularly aircraft carriers, has become highly politicized in the past generation.Was their ever any official change in naming procedures? From what I recall, in the years before and including WWII, naming ships was fairly straightforward: battleships were named after states, aircraft carriers named after battles, cruisers named after cities, and destroyers named after persons.

[mjd1982]

Ok good. Now we have 2 1/2 points that need addressing:
1 (preliminary). The investigation
2. PNAC
1/2. The validity/effectiveness of the 911 Commission

Just to frame where we are at.

To deal with a couple of other issues 1st that I dont wanna leave lying- there seem to be a couple of people here who post constantly, telling people not to post, e.g. Conspiraider and TAM. Why are you doing this? If you dont want to debate me, then don't. There are plenty of other threads. Go on them.

Secondly, the issue of civility/condescension etc. I would want nothing more than a civil debate of the facts. Hence my opening few posts. But this was not to be from certain members here. This was no surprise, since I have seen the discourtesy you display towards those who disagree with you. This is fine; we can have it either way. Just don't complain when it gets thrown back at you, a little harder.

Oh, and one other thing- HeyLeroy, though I am impressed at your use of a big word like cartography, please learn to read maps before typing it.

[MG1962]

If it is Gravy you wish to discuss/debate the issues with, than that is great. He can hand you your arse as well or better than anyone here, should he choose to do so.


I think it is a little akin to the Old West. Young punks comming into town, want to make an instant name for themselves by calling out the old gunslinger

[nicepants]

Ok good. Now we have 2 1/2 points that need addressing:.....

Enough dilly-dally...how about addressing our questions?

[mjd1982]

Thank you, mjd, for addressing the question of how your proposed new investigation would be legally constituted. To my knowledge you're the first 9/11 conspiracy theory proponent to have done so on this forum. You've gained some credibility in my estimation.



If only your evidence were better, we might find some common ground in the LIHOI area.


Well, this is what we are here to discuss


To see if I understand your proposal correctly, let me rephrase it in my own words. Leaving aside for now the possibility of an investigation consitututed under city or state level authority (and the profound constitutional and jurisdictional difficulties inherent therein),


But perhaps of telling use nonetheless...


you want the investigation conducted under Congressional authority, just as the original 9/11 Commission was, but with different personnel. Since the majority party in both houses has changed since the original Commission was formed, if a new Commission were formed today this would likely happen as a matter of course. However, by "by vote" I assume you mean some sort of public referendum on the makeup and/or leadership of the new Commission (correct me if I'm wrong).


That might be an option; or a congressional vote, equally. The family steering committee should have more of a role, i.e. get listened to more as well, i would say.


Since such a referendum would have to be legislated into existence by Congress, it would still be under Congressional authority in the end.


good


I would need two things before supporting such an investigation.

1. Evidence of LIHOP or MIHOP, OR some legal precedent that LIHOI misdeeds (such as, downplaying terrorist security threats for partisan political reasons such as not wanting to be seen as validating the previous administration's anti-terrorism efforts that the Republicans had earlier derided as "wag the dog") could be established as indictable offenses if they indeed occurred.


I dont know what LIHOI is, but again, this is what we can now, i hope discuss.


2. A reason to trust that the conclusions of the new investigations would be accepted, regardless of what they were, by the people now calling for it. I could see paying for one more investigation, it might even be worth the money if there were a reasonable chance it could shorten the war, but it would be the last one.


The ultimate litmus test is public opinion. Right now, it is firmly in my court, not yours

http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=855

This hasnt happened, I would venture, as result of some social obsesson with CTs, but because there are questions that need answering, re: gov complicity. If such questions get answered by the new investigation, either way, then the poll numbers will be reduced drastically, and people like yourself and myself will probably not need to be debating this issue in any case.


The moment anyone on earth is selected to lead the investigation, he or she immediately becomes closely affiliated with the government. And negatives being difficult to prove, there is no way to satisfy people that the selection process was not rigged, and/or the person selected was a secret government agent all along. If there's a public referendum, that means a whole process of nominations, party support, campaign contributions, etc. Do you trust that process to result in members free of conflicts of interest?


Hence the importance of transparency and accountability. Incidentally, if the Dems win in 08, links with the government will prove irrelevant. I believe Obama has stated that he feels the Bush admin were criminally negligent in failing to prevent 911, incidentally.


Who would be accepted as having no conflicts of interest? A retired ex-general? ("Military loyalty!") A University president? ("Depends on the government for research grants!") An investigative journalist? ("In on it!" or "Doesn't want to make his profession look bad by going against the official story!") A complete unknown selected out of the blue? ("He must be connected somehow, or why would they choose him?") How about our own Mark Roberts (Gravy), who's not associated with government and has invaluable knowledge of witnesses, timelines, and other key issues for the investigation? Or perhaps Jeff Probst, the host of Survivor -- popular, non-partisan, intimately familiar with conspiracies and alliances, though since he has no government experience his knowledge of intelligence procedures might be lacking, what do you think?


None of the people you have listed are de facto partisan. With transparency, and a strong role given to an oversight committee like the family steering committee, then any mishaps, conflicts of interest etc will be flagged. This was done, incidentally, when Kissinger was appointed as Chair. But it was ineffective when they tried to remove Zelikow due to the fact tht he had clear conflicts of interest. So they need to be given a greater role.

Incidentally, this is an more accurate rendition of the point i made on SLC.


Exactly, which is why to be able to conduct an effective investigation of these particular allegations, the investigators would have to have unprecedented clearance to examine every detail of U.S. security, military, and intelligence apparatus. They'd have to be highly trusted by the government, without being connected to the government -- somehow. And in any case it greatly narrows the range of whom I'd trust to be on that commission.


When addressing the issue of partisanship, we havea good example already in Max Cleland. He was deemed sufficient in every regard to be on the commission, yet he was independent enough to speak out against its "scandal". So it can happen, quite easily. Public groundswell is important, since this increases consciousness within private power, a steering committee is important, since it provides a go between between the public and private power, and transparency, accountability, and impartiality should underpin everything.



You've established that the events of 9/11 might have furthered someone's stated political objectives, if those statements are interpreted in certain ways. Everything that happens, ever, furthers someone's political objectives (stated or otherwise). This is not proof, or even strong evidence, for active wrongdoing.

Respectfully,
Myriad

The 2nd half is correct. But the import misses a long way.

I will address the poster re: the 911 commission, and then post on PNAC, if that's ok.

[Corsair 115]

I think it is a little akin to the Old West. Young punks comming into town, want to make an instant name for themselves by calling out the old gunslingerHmmm, in that analogy, I'd be the townsperson who shows up with his rifle after the gunslinger has already run the bad guys out of town but fires off a shot at the departing bad guys anyway...

Ah well, at least it's still a role in the story! :D

[Gravy]

I said "I wasnt sure", because I couldnt find any information on it either way.Yes, it sure is hard to Google "JSF." In fact, that last sentence took me three hours to type correctly.

It may be a roadblock, but clearly doesnt stop the overwhelming preponderance of their desired military plans. It's even harder to Google "roadblock." How is one to divine the meaning of such a word? Are we wizards?

[ConspiRaider]

I think it is a little akin to the Old West. Young punks comming into town, want to make an instant name for themselves by calling out the old gunslinger
BART
Man, why you do that to yourself?

WACO KID
Oh, you don't really want to know.

BART
I do, I do!

WACO KID
Well, if you must know...

BART
I must, I must!

WACO KID
Well, it got so that every two-bit gunslinger around would come into town just to shoot it out with The Waco Kid. I must have killed more people than Cecil B. DeMille. It got pretty gritty. And then one day I was just walking down the street when I heard from behind me: "Reach for it, mister!". So I turned around, and there I was, face to face: With a six-year-old kid! I just threw my guns down and walked away. Little bastard shot me in the ass! So, I opened up a whiskey bottle, crawled inside, and I've been there ever since. So what about you? What's a dazzling urbanite like you doing in a rustic setting like this?

[mjd1982]

I think herein lies the crux of the issue between us. I personally am satisfied that a thorough, credible investigation of 9/11 has already been carried out. You apparently are not. A cynic may attribute our difference of opinion to the fact that the 9/11 report did not reach the conclusions you wanted it to, but let's assume that you have a more valid reason, namely that you didn't like the membership of the group that conducted the investigation and believe their findings are therefore biased and invalid. The problem is, who instead should be part of the investigation team (or as you phrase it, "the right people...appointed to the right positions")? I suspect that a lot of 9/11 CTers would argue that any 9/11 research should include the likes of Jones and Griffin and Judy Wood and the rest of that crowd. I, on the other hand, consider these people for the most part to be lunatics and opportunists with a very shaky grasp of reality, who couldn't conduct a valid investigation of a 7/11 break in, never mind 9/11.

I think this issue is unsolvable. I don't believe CTers will ever be satisfied with any investigation not conducted by fellow CTers, and that does not endorse what they already want to believe happened on 9/11. I, on the other hand, am always going to be skeptical of research done by anyone who is already deeply invested in the 9/11 conspiracy community. And based on their previous track record, I think I'm emminently justified in doing so.

Thank you Stella.

I should say first, please don't impute any characteristic of a standard CTer, i.e. saying I will not be satisfied, that I want Jones investigating etc etc. If i havent said so, then no. Or you can always ask first.

Now, regarding the issue of the 9/11 Commission, to state that it did a good job, is a valid opinion, unless you are paying attention to the facts. There is a simple way to assess their work, in terms of completeness and efficacy- let's see what the Commission themself had to say.

Let's look at Lee Hamilton, vice chair (interviewed by Evan Solomon on CBC):


Solomon: You write.. the first chapter of the book is 'the Commission was set up to fail.' - my goodness, for the critics - who suggest that it was indeed set up to fail as some kind of obfuscation - you certainly dangled a juicy piece of bait out there in the river. Why do you think you were set up to fail?

Hamilton: Well, for a number of reasons: Tom Kean and I were substitutes - Henry Kissinger and George Mitchell were the first choices; we got started late; we had a very short time frame- indeed, we had to get it extended; we did not have enough money - 3 million dollars to conduct an extensive investigation. We needed more, we got more, but it took us a while to get it.

We had a lot of skeptics out there, who really did not want the Commission formed. Politicians don’t like somebody looking back to see if they made a mistake.
The Commission had to report right, just a few days before the Democratic National Convention met, in other words, right in the middle of a political campaign. We had a lot of people strongly opposed to what we did. We had a lot of trouble getting access to documents and to people. We knew the history of commissions; the history of commissions were they.. nobody paid much attention to 'em.

So there were all kinds of reasons we thought we were set up to fail. We decided that if we were going to have any success, we had to have a unanimous report, otherwise the Commission report would simply be filed.

Solomon: I guess the question is, you know, if forty odd million dollars were spent investigating President Bill Clinton’s sexual infidelities, why did the American people and the world have to wait 441 days for a commission that was originally budgeted for 3 million dollars and given barely a year, and as you write in the book and document so well, was... had to fight to get access to even use its subpoena power very judiciously, for fear that there'd be a backlash against the Commission. I mean, an event as cataclysmic as 9/11, it begs the question: why was the administration so unwilling to budget this thing, and then Congress so unwilling to give money and let you guys go whole hog to do more?

Hamilton: (Laughs) I think basically it’s because they were afraid we were going to hang somebody, that we would point the finger, right in the middle of a presidential campaign - 'Mr. Bush, this was your fault' - or even Mr. Clinton. President Clinton was wary about this report too.


http://www.cbc.ca/sunday/911hamilton.html

And there's more in that interview too.

Now, let's look at another Commissioner, Max Cleland. He, as you perhaps know, resigned from the Comm in protest at the way it was conducted, stating he could not look any american in the eye:


"If this decision stands, I, as a member of the commission, cannot look any American in the eye, especially family members of victims, and say the commission had full access. This investigation is now compromised."


http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/03/23/1546256

And more


That's not the staff director's fault, it is the White House's fault. It's president Bush's fault. President Bush personally has nixed the effort of the 9-11 Commission to get all the documents in the White House, especially the Presidential daily briefs, which basically tell the Commission and the American people what the President knew and when he knew it in regards to the potential attack on 9-11 and the attack itself and the follow-up. He has personally nixed that information coming to 9-11.



So therefore they didn't want the 9/11 commission to get going. What you have is the fear from the White House that the commission would uncover pretty quickly the fact that one of four legs that the war stood on was nonexistent. So they slow-walked it, and they continue to slow-walk it. They want to kick this can down past the elections. We should not be making any deals; we should stick to our original timetable of [completing the final report by] May. However, we're coming up on Thanksgiving here and we're still struggling over access issues. It should be a national scandal.


http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/112303A.shtml

I think this testimony gives us good reason to believe that the 911 Comm Report was ineffectual, incomprehensive, and insufficient.

But we can do more. We can also look at the opinions of those who were instrumental in having it set up- the Jersey Widows and the Family Steering Committee. As you know, they put 167 questions to the Commission , of which only 27 were answered. This further reinforces the point about gross incompleteness. Let's see what they have to say:


The 9/11 Commission was derelict in its duties. What we needed from them was a thorough investigation into the events of September 11th. Inexcusably, five years later, we still do.


In short, whatever your/my opinion, we have from a great deal of reliable and authoratative sources, including the commission itself, admission that the Commission was, in effect not good enough. This should be good enough to settle this point.

[mjd1982]

I think it is a little akin to the Old West. Young punks comming into town, want to make an instant name for themselves by calling out the old gunslinger
Sorry, where have i asked for that?

[HeyLeroy]

(snip)
Oh, and one other thing- HeyLeroy, though I am impressed at your use of a big word like cartography, please learn to read maps before typing it.

That's nice to know; however, I'm not at all impressed with the quality of your arguments, or your comprehension of the data you use in them.

I can read maps quite well, thanks. Iraq's access to the Persian Gulf proper is at best nominal:

Iraq's egress to the gulf is narrow and easily blockaded consisting of the marshy river delta of Shatt_al-Arab_(Arvandrud), which carries the waters of theEuphrates (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euphrates_River) and the Tigris Rivers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tigris_River), where the left (East) bank is held by Iran.
Persian_Gulf
although it is generally accepted as a Persian Gulf State:
The Persian Gulf States (also known as the Gulf States), are the countries in Southwest_Asia or the [wiki]Middle_East[wiki] which border the Persian_Gulf. These nations are Bahrain, Iraq, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi_Arabia, and the United_Arab_Emirates.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persian_Gulf_States#_note-0) Iran is sometimes included, however it is deliberately excluded from the GCC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooperation_Council_for_the_Arab_States_of_the_Gul f) for not being Arab.[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persian_Gulf_States#_note-1)

Iraq's tenuous connection to the Gulf was one of the main reasons it invaded Kuwait, hence my point: while Iraq may generally be considered a Persian Gulf State, you'd need to redraw a map to considere it connected to the Gulf in a physical sense.

You argued that the PNAC called for a military base in Iraq, yet your included documentation doesn't support your argument; it calls for a base in the "Persian Gulf". The US has maintained a base in Saudi Arabia since at least 1991 (again, one of the main reasons Usama bin Ladin has issued many fatwas calling for the killing of any Americans anywhere). The map I included was to show you the different Persian Gulf states, in case you weren't familiar with them.

http://liveu-83.vo.llnwd.net/vidilife/image/2006/10/10/946639/1217783L.jpg

[Quad4_72]

Hmmm. I see mjd is getting owned in here worse than over at SLC. Honestly, he bores me now *YAWN*. I am done playing with him.

[aggle-rithm]

This:
Secondly, the issue of civility/condescension etc. I would want nothing more than a civil debate of the facts.


Followed by this:

Oh, and one other thing- HeyLeroy, though I am impressed at your use of a big word like cartography, please learn to read maps before typing it.

Subtlety does not impart civility. In fact, I consider this type of sniping to be less civil than an outright insult, because it's underhanded and cowardly.

[Unsecured Coins]

aren't you supposed to be learning how to jump from an airplane while in flight right about now anyway?

[Quad4_72]

This:


Followed by this:


Subtlety does not impart civility. In fact, I consider this type of sniping to be less civil than an outright insult, because it's underhanded and cowardly.

Yeah thats just normal for him. When he knows he is losing a debate very badly he gets embarrassed. So he responds with insults.

[aggle-rithm]

Now, regarding the issue of the 9/11 Commission, to state that it did a good job, is a valid opinion, unless you are paying attention to the facts.

How could it possibly be a valid opinion? If you're correct, and the perpetrators of 9/11 were bumbling fools, how could any investigation fail to uncover the conspiracy, as was easily done with Watergate, the Iran-Contra Affair, Clinton's infidelity, etc, etc?

Unless you're...dare I say it...WRONG?

[Quad4_72]

aren't you supposed to be learning how to jump from an airplane while in flight right about now anyway?

I leave Thursday (:

[HeyLeroy]

This:
Secondly, the issue of civility/condescension etc. I would want nothing more than a civil debate of the facts.
Followed by this:
Oh, and one other thing- HeyLeroy, though I am impressed at your use of a big word like cartography, please learn to read maps before typing it.
Subtlety does not impart civility. In fact, I consider this type of sniping to be less civil than an outright insult, because it's underhanded and cowardly.

In the interest of full disclosure, mjd1982 and I have a history and we don't much like each other. Don't take his sniping at me as an insult toward the rest of you. To me his insults, however thinly veiled, are like water off a duck's back.

[Unsecured Coins]

I leave Thursday (:

Remember it's never the fall that kills you. It's the sudden deceleration upon contact with the ground that does it.

[mjd1982]

Actually, it says that, short of such an event, it could take longer for those changes to occur.

Correct. So the question is, did they want the changes to happen in a "longer" timeframe (specified later as "several decades"), or shorter, i.e., presumably, monthr or years?

So we can already make the qualification that given that such a crucial transformation taking mths/yrs, is preferable to it taking decades, then a new PH is propitious to policy. This should not be controversial, or hard to understand.

But let's look closer at the doc. For we are told that not only are such policies crucial, but we are warned repeatedly of the importance the the 2001QDR to the implementation of such policies:

[quote]
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.


The need for the necessity of such changes to be impressed on the new government before October 2001, is thus drastic. This is underline even further later on:


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. In a larger sense, the new
president will choose whether today’s
“unipolar moment,” to use columnist
Charles Krauthammer’s phrase for
America’s current geopolitical preeminence,
will be extended along with the peace and
prosperity that it provides.


So we can already see that the doc is stating quite clearly the need, urgent, for the necessity for the changes proposed in the doc to be crystalised in POTUS's mind, by October 2001. And concomitantly, the need for whatever other decision making bodies, Congress, Senate, the people, to be on board, by October 2001. Further fuel to the flame.


[QUOTE=Belz...;2684055]
And even if it DID say what you say it says, it still wouldn't be related to 9/11. I'm still waiting on that.
[quote]

Errr... other than PH was a terror attack on US soil by foreigners killing thousands of US, burned on the public;s mind, that catalysed the US into drastic military action. Remind you of something?

I think everything else is dealt with.

Reminder that the aim of my points re PNAC is to show that there was clearly stated intent for a new PH to happen on the part of the neo cons, with the implication that such should happen before October 2001.

Once we establish this, not too hard to understand fact, we can proceed with a useful framework.

[MG1962]

Hmmm, in that analogy, I'd be the townsperson who shows up with his rifle after the gunslinger has already run the bad guys out of town but fires off a shot at the departing bad guys anyway...

Ah well, at least it's still a role in the story! :biggrin:

Ohh you proactive type you....... I'd just be the town drunk wandering around in circles wondering what all the commotion was about

[Unsecured Coins]

more royal we's.

[nicepants]

Correct. So the question is, did they want the changes to happen in a "longer" timeframe (specified later as "several decades"), or shorter, i.e., presumably, monthr or years?

So we can already make the qualification that given that such a crucial transformation taking mths/yrs, is preferable to it taking decades, then a new PH is propitious to policy. This should not be controversial, or hard to understand.

Back to the quite-fitting analogy posted earlier in this thread.

If a stop sign would be installed in about 3-4 years, absent a multiple-fatality accident, and even if she would rather have the stop sign now, that doesn't mean she would deliberately cause a multiple-fatality accident in the sole interest of adding a stop sign to prevent those such types of accidents.

[HeyLeroy]

Remember it's never the fall that kills you. It's the sudden deceleration upon contact with the ground that does it.

Deceleration trauma?
(snip)
Correct. So the question is, did they want the changes to happen in a "longer" timeframe (specified later as "several decades"), or shorter, i.e., presumably, monthr or years?

Ofcourse they'd like it to happen sooner. That doesn't mean they necessarily wanted a 'Pearl Harbor' -type attack to occur.

(Snip)
The need for the necessity of such changes to be impressed on the new government before October 2001, is thus drastic. This is underline even further later on:

So we can already see that the doc is stating quite clearly the need, urgent, for the necessity for the changes proposed in the doc to be crystalised in POTUS's mind, by October 2001. And concomitantly, the need for whatever other decision making bodies, Congress, Senate, the people, to be on board, by October 2001. Further fuel to the flame.

(snip)

You've already been asked to cite the passage asserting this date.

[Unsecured Coins]

anyone notice the similarities between this and that other guy who expected to be met with praise and fanfare that that other director's forum?

[The Almond]

Actually, it says that, short of such an event, it could take longer for those changes to occur.

Correct. So the question is, did they want the changes to happen in a "longer" timeframe (specified later as "several decades"), or shorter, i.e., presumably, monthr or years?

False. The question is, "Did they make it happen." Their wants and desires have no bearing (other than being a fallacious appeal to motive) on their actual actions.

So we can already make the qualification that given that such a crucial transformation taking mths/yrs, is preferable to it taking decades, then a new PH is propitious to policy. This should not be controversial, or hard to understand. [...]

Straw man combined with a false premise. The premise your argument operates on is the idea that the PNAC would maliciously advocate their goals so as to choose the most expedient option. That, once again, is something you have yet to show, yet underscores all of your arguments.

[rwguinn]

Actually, it says that, short of such an event, it could take longer for those changes to occur.

Correct. So the question is, did they want the changes to happen in a "longer" timeframe (specified later as "several decades"), or shorter, i.e., presumably, monthr or years?

So we can already make the qualification that given that such a crucial transformation taking mths/yrs, is preferable to it taking decades, then a new PH is propitious to policy. This should not be controversial, or hard to understand.

But let's look closer at the doc. For we are told that not only are such policies crucial, but we are warned repeatedly of the importance the the 2001QDR to the implementation of such policies:



The need for the necessity of such changes to be impressed on the new government before October 2001, is thus drastic. This is underline even further later on:



So we can already see that the doc is stating quite clearly the need, urgent, for the necessity for the changes proposed in the doc to be crystalised in POTUS's mind, by October 2001. And concomitantly, the need for whatever other decision making bodies, Congress, Senate, the people, to be on board, by October 2001. Further fuel to the flame.



And even if it DID say what you say it says, it still wouldn't be related to 9/11. I'm still waiting on that.


Errr... other than PH was a terror attack on US soil by foreigners killing thousands of US, burned on the public;s mind, that catalysed the US into drastic military action. Remind you of something?

I think everything else is dealt with.

Reminder that the aim of my points re PNAC is to show that there was clearly stated intent for a new PH to happen on the part of the neo cons, with the implication that such should happen before October 2001.

Once we establish this, not too hard to understand fact, we can proceed with a useful framework.
Home Depot , Lowe's and Wal-Mart buy the stuff you're spreading already composted and resell it for $1.29/ bag.
Your reading comprehension seems to suffer from "betwixtitis"--you are reading "might" as "Shall", "possibly" as "will"--in other words, you read more into stuff than is actually there.
There is no place where a "clearly stated intent for a new PH to happen" is clearly stated, or even hinted at.
Technology expands by leaps and bounds under pressure--because Congress is forced to spend money on R&D when the heat is on, and because there are more votes in welfare and entitlements during times of peaceful existence, so limited R&D $$$ are spent. Anyone rational can see that this is the intent of the wording--not "Lets run airplanes into some buildings and kill lots of people just to kick things into high gear".
That is a really, really stupid idea.

[JonnyFive]

Deceleration trauma?

I like to think of it as a hands-on study in the terminal ballistics of the human body.

Think happy thoughts!

[mjd1982]

Try out this scenario in your head:

Say a woman named Mrs. Smith writes a letter to the editor of her local newspaper, complaining about a dangerous intersection near her home. In the letter, she states, "Someone will have to be killed there before the city will put up a stop sign!"

A couple of years later, someone dies in an accident. The city quickly puts up a stop sign.

Question: Was the accident "propituous" for Mrs. Smith's campaign to have a stop sign installed at the intersection? If so, do you think there is sufficient evidence to charge Mrs. Smith for murder?

Is there ANY reason at all to think that she had something to do with the accident?

You may think so, but most people aren't sufficiently suspicious and/or paranoid to accuse others of crimes without reason.

Okay, I was gonna leave for a sec, but I did want to address this first.

It's a pretty horrific analogy, but one that is all too frequently used. 2 catastrophic problems:

Problem #1- Mrs Smith does not have the ability to cause a car crash.
Problem #2- Car crashed happen quite regularly, and it would appear that they are all the more likely at this intersection.

Mrs Smith is stating the propitiousness of a stop sign for safety, but there is no reason to suspect her involvment in the crash, since she has no means of influencing it, and it is not that unlikely an occurence. Both of which points are diametrically opposed to the reality which we are debating.

[The Almond]

Okay, I was gonna leave for a sec, but I did want to address this first.

It's a pretty horrific analogy, but one that is all too frequently used. 2 catastrophic problems:

Problem #1- Mrs Smith does not have the ability to cause a car crash.

Hogwash. Anyone has the capacity to cause a car crash. Throw a bucket of mud on a car windshield as it comes into an intersection and watch the blinded driver hit something.

Problem #2- Car crashed happen quite regularly, and it would appear that they are all the more likely at this intersection.

Oh? Perhaps you might crank out the probability of a black 2001 Ford Taurus with Wyoming license plate ABC-123 crashing into a pink 2005 VW Bug with Wyoming license plate CBA-321 at exactly 22.21 miles per hour.

Mrs Smith is stating the propitiousness of a stop sign for safety, but there is no reason to suspect her involvment in the crash, since she has no means of influencing it, and it is not that unlikely an occurence. Both of which points are diametrically opposed to the reality which we are debating.
Except that it is unlikely, she has a vested interest in the matter and she has the theoretical capacity to do so.

[Myriad]

I dont know what LIHOI is, but again, this is what we can now, i hope discuss.

My apologies; I didn't intend to use obscure slang to confuse the issue. I thought the term was widely understood.

LIHOI means "Let It Happen Out of Ignorance/Incompetence." It's the hypothesis that 9/11 was not an inside job perpetrated by the U.S. governent (or some "rogue faction" within it) on its own citizens and economy, nor was it deliberately allowed to happen by government agents with foreknowledge, but that not as much was done as should and could have been done to prevent it. In other words, people who perhaps should have and could have had that foreknowledge didn't have it.

My own tentative conclusion from the available evidence, for instance, is that the Bush administration gave short shrift to pre-existing anti-terrorism intelligence efforts, particularly with regard to Al Qaeda and OBL, in part or in full because they didn't want to appear to be validating the previous administration's efforts in pursuing those threats which they had earlier publically derided as "wag the dog." In short, partisan politics and not-invented-here-ism over good national security decision-making. I share this opinion with such known radical provocateurs as President William Jefferson Clinton.

I also acknowledge, though, that: (1) Showing that more could have been done is not proof that the 9/11 attacks themselves could have been prevented. (2) Showing that more could have been done is not proof that anyone's actions or omissions were criminal offenses. (3) It has not yet been shown that more could have been done.

LIHOI does not posit a conspiracy. It's not uncommon to find LIHOI plausible at the same time as being a CT debunker. Many people who believe in or are undecided about LIHOI are in fact very annoyed at LIHOP and MIHOP conspiracy theories, because they make wanting to "investigate 9/11" a less respectable political position and therefore make an investigation less likely to happen. The CT's also have a habit of misrepresenting public opinion on LIHOI such as is exhibitied in the Zogby poll you linked to, as supporting "9/11 was an inside job" beliefs. You've done it yourself here, in a small way:

This hasnt happened, I would venture, as result of some social obsesson with CTs, but because there are questions that need answering, re: gov complicity. If such questions get answered by the new investigation, either way, then the poll numbers will be reduced drastically, and people like yourself and myself will probably not need to be debating this issue in any case.


By choosing the word "complicity" instead of, say, "complacency," you sneak unknown numbers, millions, of Americans from LIHOI (for whom the "unanswered questions" are about who was asleep at the switch and who might be covering their behinds) into the CT camp (for whom the unanswered questions are about who was really responsible for and/or "complicit" in the attacks themselves).

Your position on how the new investigation should be constituted and carried out appears to me quite reasonable. I'll have to look into the specific names you put forward, but in general your ideas on re-investigation seem more realistic than most.

You must understand that when you come here on the "CT side" of the issue and hold that up as the only rational conclusion, you're associating yourself (deliberately or accidentally, fairly or unfairly) with people holding much less reasonable positions, calling for revolution, calling for the execution of skeptics for pointing out things like "the laws of physics don't work that way." The patience of some skeptics for rational discussion, especially where it appears that deceptive arguments such as interpreting suspicions of LIHOI as evidence of conspiracy, has unfortunately been exhausted.

Respectfully,
Myriad

[DGM]

Problem #1- Mrs Smith does not have the ability to cause a car crash.
She is a mechanic specializing in brakes.

Problem #2- Car crashed happen quite regularly, and it would appear that they are all the more likely at this intersection.

Her house is near the intersection. Where no accident has ever happened (hence no sign) but she needs to wait on traffic to get out of her driveway.

Vested interest and ability

[NobbyNobbs]

Okay, I was gonna leave for a sec, but I did want to address this first.

It's a pretty horrific analogy, but one that is all too frequently used. 2 catastrophic problems:

Problem #1- Mrs Smith does not have the ability to cause a car crash.
Problem #2- Car crashed happen quite regularly, and it would appear that they are all the more likely at this intersection.

Mrs Smith is stating the propitiousness of a stop sign for safety, but there is no reason to suspect her involvment in the crash, since she has no means of influencing it, and it is not that unlikely an occurence. Both of which points are diametrically opposed to the reality which we are debating.

To address Problem 1, anyone can go online and learn how to cut a brake line. Don't like that? Fine, suppose instead that Mrs Smith is a mechanic.

To address Problem 2, planes crash all the time, and it would appear that they are all the more likely to in a busy airspace such as over New York City.

Mr. Bush is stating the propitiousness of going to war in Iraq for safety (whether you believe that or not is a separate matter), but there is no reason to suspect his involvement in the crash.

[aggle-rithm]

Okay, I was gonna leave for a sec, but I did want to address this first.

It's a pretty horrific analogy, but one that is all too frequently used. 2 catastrophic problems:

Problem #1- Mrs Smith does not have the ability to cause a car crash.


Why? Is she bed-ridden?

This was my analogy. How are you privy to inside information of which I am unaware?

Never mind. Let's move on.

I would agree with you if you said she did not have the ability to cause a car crash in such a way that it would not be possible to trace it back to her. The same can be said of any hypothetical perpetrator within the US government who would fake a terrorist attack.

So, the analogy remains apt.


Problem #2- Car crashed happen quite regularly, and it would appear that they are all the more likely at this intersection.


...and it would appear that a terrorist attack on US soil was all the more likely, given that the FBI and CIA had been worried about it for some time.

Using the same sort of logic you have demonstrated here, I could argue that the 9/11 attacks constitute a "horrific" analogy for Pearl Harbor. The PH attacks took place on an American territory, not the continental US or even one of the states, they were military attacks against a military target, they had been predicted for almost twenty years prior to the attack by military planners, and they served a specific strategic purpose for the attackers. None of this was true for the 9/11 attacks.

Of course, you will counter that these differences are not relevant. By the same logic, I could say the the differences that you brought up in my analogy are not relevant.

Prove me wrong.

[aggle-rithm]

In the interest of full disclosure, mjd1982 and I have a history and we don't much like each other. Don't take his sniping at me as an insult toward the rest of you. To me his insults, however thinly veiled, are like water off a duck's back.

...it wasn't the insult so much as the hypocrisy that bothered me.

Really, he seems like an intelligent fellow. Why can't he use his powers for good instead of evil? ;)

[nicepants]

...it wasn't the insult so much as the hypocrisy that bothered me.

Really, he seems like an intelligent fellow. Why can't he use his powers for good instead of evil? ;)

Mjd uses a lot of big words, but his capacities in the areas of logical thinking and the scientific method appear to be lacking.

[DGM]

Now Mrs. Smith had motive and ability. An investigation has found no factual evidence to connect her to the crash. Is she still guilty?

[uk_dave]

She is a mechanic specializing in brakes.



Her house is near the intersection. Where no accident has ever happened (hence no sign) but she needs to wait on traffic to get out of her driveway.

Vested interest and ability

I say put that bitch on ice!

[jab712]

Now Mrs. Smith had motive and ability. An investigation has found no factual evidence to connect her to the crash. Is she still guilty?


Add to that...there is significant evidence that someone else was the perp.

No evidence pointing to Mrs. Smith and significant evidence pointing to someone else = Mrs. Smith not guilty. Heck, I think even the OJ jury could get that one right.

[HeyLeroy]

Add to that...there is significant evidence that someone else was the perp.

No evidence pointing to Mrs. Smith and significant evidence pointing to someone else = Mrs. Smith not guilty. Heck, I think even the OJ jury could get that one right.

You mean like, all the evidence points to a guy who was thrown out of another town and is hiding in a third town where the citizens hate the town, citizens and town council in which Mrs. Smith lives; and the evidence shows that this guy recruited a fanatacist to deliberately cause the crash in a suicide/homicide attack?

Yeah, this analogy tends to fit.

[jab712]

You mean like, all the evidence points to a guy who was thrown out of another town and is hiding in a third town where the citizens hate the town, citizens and town council in which Mrs. Smith lives; and the evidence shows that this guy recruited a fanatacist to deliberately cause the crash in a suicide/homicide attack?

Yeah, this analogy tends to fit.



Yeah yeah, that's the perp!

And now my friends, we have the "perfect" analogy. :p

[DGM]

Yeah yeah, that's the perp!

And now my friends, we have the "perfect" analogy. :p
Not quite. Her neighbor hates her because her dog poops in his petunias. Now he has a DVD, Web site and t-shirts saying she did it.

[uk_dave]

Sooooo, what was the, like, public document which preceeded the OK bombing?

Was there a public document prior to the unabombers exploits?

Was there a public document prior to the great pennsylvania dam disaster of 1889?

Was there a public document prior to the great tennessee rail disaster of 1918?

Was there a public document prior to the exxon valdez in 1989?

Was there a public document prior to the wisconsin fires of 1871?

Sure there wasn't someone, somewhere who just knew all that real estate had to be cleared?

[SpitfireIX]

. . . From 2001 to 2003, the defense budget increased by 33%- an unprecedented amount. . .


US military spending, 1916: $0.48 billion

US military spending, 1917: $3.14 billion (+654%)

US military spending, 1918: $6.79 billion (+216%)

(1916 dollars)

Source (http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/Rockoff.WWI): EconomicHistory.net



US military spending, 1940: $1.66 billion

US military spending, 1941: $6.13 billion (+269%)

US military spending, 1942: $22.05 billion (+260%)

US military spending, 1943: $43.98 billion (+99%)

US military spending, 1944: $62.95 billion (+43%)

(1940 dollars)

Source (http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/tassava.WWII): EconomicHistory.net



US military spending, 1950: $133.0 billion

US military spending, 1951: $225.7 billion (+70%)

US military spending, 1952: $408.5 billion (+81%)

(1996 dollars)

Source (http://www.cdi.org/issues/milspend.html): Center for Defense Information



US military spending, 1965: $266.5 Billion

US military spending, 1966: $296.8 Billion (+11%)

US military spending, 1967: $349.6 Billion (+18%; 2-year + 31%)

US military spending, 1968: $380.2 Billion (+9%; 2-year + 28%)

(1996 dollars)

Source (http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy04/hist.html): US Government Printing Office


Now, mjd1982, please explain again how a 33% increase in US military spending in two years is "unprecedented."

Ook! Ook! Eee! Eee!

[mjd1982]

That's nice to know; however, I'm not at all impressed with the quality of your arguments, or your comprehension of the data you use in them.

I can read maps quite well, thanks. Iraq's access to the Persian Gulf proper is at best nominal:

although it is generally accepted as a Persian Gulf State:


Iraq's tenuous connection to the Gulf was one of the main reasons it invaded Kuwait, hence my point: while Iraq may generally be considered a Persian Gulf State, you'd need to redraw a map to considere it connected to the Gulf in a physical sense.

You argued that the PNAC called for a military base in Iraq, yet your included documentation doesn't support your argument; it calls for a base in the "Persian Gulf". The US has maintained a base in Saudi Arabia since at least 1991 (again, one of the main reasons Usama bin Ladin has issued many fatwas calling for the killing of any Americans anywhere). The map I included was to show you the different Persian Gulf states, in case you weren't familiar with them.

http://liveu-83.vo.llnwd.net/vidilife/image/2006/10/10/946639/1217783L.jpg
Errr... I suggest you go home and dont come back


And I suggest you keep things civil. Address the argument; don't attack the arguer.

[mjd1982]

This:


Followed by this:


Subtlety does not impart civility. In fact, I consider this type of sniping to be less civil than an outright insult, because it's underhanded and cowardly.
You might wanna learn about the use of the conditional tense, since you clearly missed out in 4th grade.

[HyJinX]

Errr... I suggest you go home and dont come back

Now that's a strong retort. :rolleyes:

You're doing about as well here as you do at the SLC forum.

[mjd1982]

How could it possibly be a valid opinion? If you're correct, and the perpetrators of 9/11 were bumbling fools, how could any investigation fail to uncover the conspiracy, as was easily done with Watergate, the Iran-Contra Affair, Clinton's infidelity, etc, etc?

Unless you're...dare I say it...WRONG?
Read my post on the 911 Comm and u will be enlightened.

[mjd1982]

False. The question is, "Did they make it happen." Their wants and desires have no bearing (other than being a fallacious appeal to motive) on their actual actions.


No, you're getting ahead of yourself. Calm down. If you read my OP, which you should have had the time to do, you would know that the relevant question for the moment, is was a new PH propitiou to policy.


Straw man combined with a false premise. The premise your argument operates on is the idea that the PNAC would maliciously advocate their goals so as to choose the most expedient option. That, once again, is something you have yet to show, yet underscores all of your arguments.

Errr... sorry, how does advocating ones goals aid the choosing of the most expedient option?

Again you are getting ahead of yourself- it is irrelevant whether they were maliciously advocating death and destruction- concentrate on the detail. Did they state that a new PH was propitious to policy. It's a very simple point, it has a yes or no answer, and the argument I have made is very clear.

[mjd1982]

Home Depot , Lowe's and Wal-Mart buy the stuff you're spreading already composted and resell it for $1.29/ bag.
Your reading comprehension seems to suffer from "betwixtitis"--you are reading "might" as "Shall", "possibly" as "will"--in other words, you read more into stuff than is actually there.
There is no place where a "clearly stated intent for a new PH to happen" is clearly stated, or even hinted at.
Technology expands by leaps and bounds under pressure--because Congress is forced to spend money on R&D when the heat is on, and because there are more votes in welfare and entitlements during times of peaceful existence, so limited R&D $$$ are spent. Anyone rational can see that this is the intent of the wording--not "Lets run airplanes into some buildings and kill lots of people just to kick things into high gear".
That is a really, really stupid idea.

I'm sorry, but this is so little substance and so much hot air. To glean what meat there is on your skeletal refutation, to state that "There is no place where a clearly stated intent for a new PH to happen", and then to follow it by stating that all they meant was a new PH had to happen (to create pressure/ increase spending etc), well...


That is a really, really stupid idea.

[Unsecured Coins]

wow, mjd... you're getting smoked here too

[mjd1982]

Hogwash. Anyone has the capacity to cause a car crash. Throw a bucket of mud on a car windshield as it comes into an intersection and watch the blinded driver hit something.


Excuse me. I thought it was evident that what was meant was overtly causing the crash. Sure she has the means to overtly cause the crash, but then if she did that, say by the means you state, she would most likely be hauled in within 48 hours.

The point, which you miss, is about covertly causing, it to happen, which is the thrust of all the points I have made on this forum. This is not something that Mrs Smith could do. The gov however could- all it has to do, remember, is get a few heads of foodchains in line, get a load of warnings, and do nothing. This cannot be applied to your ana;ogy. Hence y it is horrific.


Oh? Perhaps you might crank out the probability of a black 2001 Ford Taurus with Wyoming license plate ABC-123 crashing into a pink 2005 VW Bug with Wyoming license plate CBA-321 at exactly 22.21 miles per hour.


Yes, but if she had said that "this road is so dangerous that a black 2001 Ford Taurus with Wyoming license plate ABC-123 is going to crash into a pink 2005 VW Bug with Wyoming license plate CBA-321 at exactly 22.21 miles per hour.", then your analogy would be more accurate, though still way off for the reasons mentioned, as well as others.


Except that it is unlikely, she has a vested interest in the matter and she has the theoretical capacity to do so.

As above.

[Redtail]

<snip> Did they state that a new PH was propitious to policy. It's a very simple point, it has a yes or no answer, and the argument I have made is very clear.

Oh, ok then. No.

[Gravy]

Now, mjd1982, please explain again how a 33% increase in US military spending in two years is "unprecedented."You call yourself a debunker? You failed to show a 33% increase in any of those years.

[HeyLeroy]

That's nice to know; however, I'm not at all impressed with the quality of your arguments, or your comprehension of the data you use in them.

I can read maps quite well, thanks. Iraq's access to the Persian Gulf proper is at best nominal:

although it is generally accepted as a Persian Gulf State:


Iraq's tenuous connection to the Gulf was one of the main reasons it invaded Kuwait, hence my point: while Iraq may generally be considered a Persian Gulf State, you'd need to redraw a map to considere it connected to the Gulf in a physical sense.

You argued that the PNAC called for a military base in Iraq, yet your included documentation doesn't support your argument; it calls for a base in the "Persian Gulf". The US has maintained a base in Saudi Arabia since at least 1991 (again, one of the main reasons Usama bin Ladin has issued many fatwas calling for the killing of any Americans anywhere). The map I included was to show you the different Persian Gulf states, in case you weren't familiar with them.
Errr... I suggest you go home and dont come back

We'll take that as your way of admitting that you've argued outside of your league; you didn't quite think about what you wanted to say.

http://liveu-54.vo.llnwd.net/vidilife/image/2006/10/10/946639/1220854L.gif

[Foolmewunz]

This is like arguing with PDOH after he discovered a thesaurus on his mom's bookshelf! A soupcon of bogus material, mix in a few well-mined quotes, wrap it in a pretentious vocabulary, and when in doubt, sling pooh!


ook ook ook

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_11085466f25b5a031b.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=6339)

ook ook ook

[mjd1982]

My apologies; I didn't intend to use obscure slang to confuse the issue. I thought the term was widely understood.

LIHOI means "Let It Happen Out of Ignorance/Incompetence." It's the hypothesis that 9/11 was not an inside job perpetrated by the U.S. governent (or some "rogue faction" within it) on its own citizens and economy, nor was it deliberately allowed to happen by government agents with foreknowledge, but that not as much was done as should and could have been done to prevent it. In other words, people who perhaps should have and could have had that foreknowledge didn't have it.


ahah, thank you

My own tentative conclusion from the available evidence, for instance, is that the Bush administration gave short shrift to pre-existing anti-terrorism intelligence efforts, particularly with regard to Al Qaeda and OBL, in part or in full because they didn't want to appear to be validating the previous administration's efforts in pursuing those threats which they had earlier publically derided as "wag the dog." In short, partisan politics and not-invented-here-ism over good national security decision-making. I share this opinion with such known radical provocateurs as President William Jefferson Clinton.


Ok, well, we're debating PNAC now to illustrate that a mass terror attack on US soil was deemed useful to policy, in order, parenthetically, to catalyse a series of military radicalisations now known as the WOT, known back then as RAD.


I also acknowledge, though, that: (1) Showing that more could have been done is not proof that the 9/11 attacks themselves could have been prevented.


True


(2) Showing that more could have been done is not proof that anyone's actions or omissions were criminal offenses.


Not de facto, no


(3) It has not yet been shown that more could have been done.


But this is not true. We are going to get onto foreknowledge, as per my OP, after PNAC, but just for the moment, you might wanna ask yourself, what was done? and hold that thought.


LIHOI does not posit a conspiracy. It's not uncommon to find LIHOI plausible at the same time as being a CT debunker. Many people who believe in or are undecided about LIHOI are in fact very annoyed at LIHOP and MIHOP conspiracy theories, because they make wanting to "investigate 9/11" a less respectable political position and therefore make an investigation less likely to happen. The CT's also have a habit of misrepresenting public opinion on LIHOI such as is exhibitied in the Zogby poll you linked to, as supporting "9/11 was an inside job" beliefs. You've done it yourself here, in a small way:

By choosing the word "complicity" instead of, say, "complacency," you sneak unknown numbers, millions, of Americans from LIHOI (for whom the "unanswered questions" are about who was asleep at the switch and who might be covering their behinds) into the CT camp (for whom the unanswered questions are about who was really responsible for and/or "complicit" in the attacks themselves).


No, that's not quite right. That 66% is so large, principally because there is such a large contingent within it that does believe in gov complicity, which relates to my point.


Your position on how the new investigation should be constituted and carried out appears to me quite reasonable. I'll have to look into the specific names you put forward, but in general your ideas on re-investigation seem more realistic than most.


thank you

You must understand that when you come here on the "CT side" of the issue and hold that up as the only rational conclusion, you're associating yourself (deliberately or accidentally, fairly or unfairly) with people holding much less reasonable positions, calling for revolution, calling for the execution of skeptics for pointing out things like "the laws of physics don't work that way." The patience of some skeptics for rational discussion, especially where it appears that deceptive arguments such as interpreting suspicions of LIHOI as evidence of conspiracy, has unfortunately been exhausted.

Respectfully,
Myriad

But this is true precisely the other way around. Danny Bonaduce, Fox News, Troy Sexton and others have been guilty of precisely the same inflammatory garbage as the CTers. Very little difference. Even I have been told "I hope you burn in hell" and other such comments by members of this forum, some of whom are on this thread. And in terms of rational discussion, well, as you can see from the corresponding thread on the SLC, the OTers I have run into, have zero regard for facts, and zero regard for logic and common sense, and zero regard for evident conclusions when they get reached. So my patience is pretty thin too with the OTers, don't forget the principal of universality here my friend.

And in general terms, the OT is completely irrational and illogical in any case, but that's what we're gonna be illusrtating, right?

M

[mjd1982]

This is like arguing with PDOH after he discovered a thesaurus on his mom's bookshelf! A soupcon of bogus material, mix in a few well-mined quotes, wrap it in a pretentious vocabulary, and when in doubt, sling pooh!


ook ook ook

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_11085466f25b5a031b.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=6339)

ook ook ook
A soupcon??? Could there be a more ironic post??!

[beachnut]

Read my post on the 911 Comm and u will be enlightened.
If you would read the posts you would be enlightened to your wrongness many times over. Over.

Got anything about pilots and flying stuff, or energy things? Or what about something new? Got some new stuff? Original new stuff, looking for input, got some?

[Foolmewunz]

A soupcon??? Could there be a more ironic post??!

Wink wink nudge nudge. Er her! Ya got it, did ya?

(Is the "I" page missing from said thesaurus or does Oxford teach a different meaning for ironic nowadays?)

[T.A.M.]

The other posters here are correct, almost all of your points have been discussed repeatedly here. If I have the time later today, and if noone else has done so, I might have a few comments, but it is basically the same old tire tripe we hear here all the time.

Since it is clear you already have your mind made up, I will not waste your time with links to reliable evidence, as I am sure you consider the 9/11 commission report, NIST, FEMA, Moussaoui Trial all "Govt Shill" type material.

Good luck. I am sure if we all tell you we are tired of addressing the issues, you will claim victory...good for you.

TAM:)

Yes well then get a group of european CD experts to come to america, go over the details of the investigation, go over all the data and variables, and see what they come up with...because the counselled/heavy handed/forced opinion from one european CD expert that the fall of WTC7 "looked like" CD, does not cut it by a mile, against the NIST report.

In the end, this guy will clearly call "shill" on NIST/FEMA/ASCE anyway, so what is the sense in arguing with him.

TAM:)

the 9/11 commission report, that dastardly collection of big bad brother lies, makes MULTIPLE References to the warnings given both to on the ground investigators, and the higher ups...

TAM:)

Jowenko, IMO, made a statement based on a video he watched, when asked to do so, without knowing the context of the video. He had no background at the time, in terms of the circumstances (ie a 20 storey hole on the opposite side of the building, 7 hours of uncontrolled fires, firemen testifying it was leaning to the side) at the time of his opinion.

Then, also just my opinion, his pride took over, and he has since refused to not only retract his statement, but refuses to discuss the issue.

Funny though, this is the one guy the truthers should be going gangbusters to get for an interview to "prove their case" yet they have not gotten any more out of him...I suspect it is because either (A) he knows he has stepped in it, and figures if he lets it slide it will go away, or (B) none of the truthers actually want to get a full interview with him, because he may take back their little kernal of gold, that little nugget they have been beating to death.

TAM:)

it is sad, but funny. About 7 months ago, on the smasher blog I posed a question to a truther, it went like this...

"If there were warnings, which we are in agreement there were, what specifically should the govt had done, in order to PREVENT 9/11, given that the legitimate threats that led to legitimate warnings were in amongst a plethora of false ones?

You know what his insane reply was...

SHUT DOWN THE AIRLINES/AIRPORTS!!

I asked, for how long?

He said, FOR AS LONG AS IT TAKES!

Well I almost wrote out my laughter at the insanity of this reply.

TAM:)

and in so doing he is calling into question the integrity and honesty of NIST/FEMA/ASCE, which in total has members numbering in the thousands...but as they are american and govt affiliated, they are all accomplices in the murder of 3000 people, according to the truthers...right?

TAM:)

awesome, and relevent, as usual Myriad...well done.

TAM:)

Alex Jones - Director
Stephen Jones and Judy Wood Chief Investigators.
Dylan Avery - PR

TAM:)

If it is Gravy you wish to discuss/debate the issues with, than that is great. He can hand you your arse as well or better than anyone here, should he choose to do so.

So far, i haven't really seen you focus in on a particular point or issue, which is about the only way you are going to get anyone here to discuss anything with you.

TAM:)


Above is a quote of all my posts on this thread. Please show me where I told someone not to respond to you?

I have said that most unlikely will respond to you, and that there is just cause for them not to, but I have told noone NOT TO POST TO YOU.

You are behaving like an elitist, pompous A**hole. I could care less if you are an Oxford/Harvard/MIT grad, it only changes the location of where you likely developed your arrogance. As far as I am concerned you can take your old, long ago debunked, silly, ridiculous claims and post them elsewhere, but it is not my board, so do as you like twirp.

TAM:)

TAM:)

[mjd1982]

Why? Is she bed-ridden?
I would agree with you if you said she did not have the ability to cause a car crash in such a way that it would not be possible to trace it back to her. The same can be said of any hypothetical perpetrator within the US government who would fake a terrorist attack.

So, the analogy remains apt.


This has been dealt with, but I'll do it again. She has no capacity to cause the crash covertly. Whereas the gov does. Ive illustarted how twice now.


...and it would appear that a terrorist attack on US soil was all the more likely, given that the FBI and CIA had been worried about it for some time.
[/quote

Terror threats have been worrying FBI and CIA for many many years.

[QUOTE=aggle-rithm;2684805]
Using the same sort of logic you have demonstrated here, I could argue that the 9/11 attacks constitute a "horrific" analogy for Pearl Harbor. The PH attacks took place on an American territory, not the continental US or even one of the states, they were military attacks against a military target, they had been predicted for almost twenty years prior to the attack by military planners, and they served a specific strategic purpose for the attackers. None of this was true for the 9/11 attacks.

Of course, you will counter that these differences are not relevant. By the same logic, I could say the the differences that you brought up in my analogy are not relevant.

Prove me wrong.

Very simple. Yu need to look for the import of the statement. So when it states "a new PH", wat is it saying? An attack on mainland US/US territory? Military/civilian? By Japanese people? No. We have to interpret obviously, but we're sensible, we can do this. The purported aim of the new PH is to catalyse a radical military transformation. In this light, the characteristics of a new PH become clear- it needs to be something engrained on the public consciousness, involving a foreign element, cause mass devastation. And there you have your answer.

[Unsecured Coins]

DUDE!!! We forgot about the FLYING HAMSTER OF DOOM. It rained coconuts on our pitiful city! See?
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v295/Jaye77/hamster.jpg

9/11 was an inside job!

[mjd1982]

Sooooo, what was the, like, public document which preceeded the OK bombing?

Was there a public document prior to the unabombers exploits?

Was there a public document prior to the great pennsylvania dam disaster of 1889?

Was there a public document prior to the great tennessee rail disaster of 1918?

Was there a public document prior to the exxon valdez in 1989?

Was there a public document prior to the wisconsin fires of 1871?

Sure there wasn't someone, somewhere who just knew all that real estate had to be cleared?
???

[T.A.M.]

Ok good. Now we have 2 1/2 points that need addressing:
1 (preliminary). The investigation
2. PNAC
1/2. The validity/effectiveness of the 911 Commission

Just to frame where we are at.

To deal with a couple of other issues 1st that I dont wanna leave lying- there seem to be a couple of people here who post constantly, telling people not to post, e.g. Conspiraider and TAM. Why are you doing this? If you dont want to debate me, then don't. There are plenty of other threads. Go on them.

Secondly, the issue of civility/condescension etc. I would want nothing more than a civil debate of the facts. Hence my opening few posts. But this was not to be from certain members here. This was no surprise, since I have seen the discourtesy you display towards those who disagree with you. This is fine; we can have it either way. Just don't complain when it gets thrown back at you, a little harder.

Oh, and one other thing- HeyLeroy, though I am impressed at your use of a big word like cartography, please learn to read maps before typing it.

In case you forgot where you made the accusation.

TAM:)

[mjd1982]

US military spending, 1916: $0.48 billion

US military spending, 1917: $3.14 billion (+654%)

US military spending, 1918: $6.79 billion (+216%)

(1916 dollars)

Source (http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/Rockoff.WWI): EconomicHistory.net



US military spending, 1940: $1.66 billion

US military spending, 1941: $6.13 billion (+269%)

US military spending, 1942: $22.05 billion (+260%)

US military spending, 1943: $43.98 billion (+99%)

US military spending, 1944: $62.95 billion (+43%)

(1940 dollars)

Source (http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/tassava.WWII): EconomicHistory.net



US military spending, 1950: $133.0 billion

US military spending, 1951: $225.7 billion (+70%)

US military spending, 1952: $408.5 billion (+81%)

(1996 dollars)

Source (http://www.cdi.org/issues/milspend.html): Center for Defense Information



US military spending, 1965: $266.5 Billion

US military spending, 1966: $296.8 Billion (+11%)

US military spending, 1967: $349.6 Billion (+18%; 2-year + 31%)

US military spending, 1968: $380.2 Billion (+9%; 2-year + 28%)

(1996 dollars)

Source (http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy04/hist.html): US Government Printing Office


Now, mjd1982, please explain again how a 33% increase in US military spending in two years is "unprecedented."

Ook! Ook! Eee! Eee!
Excuse me, that was an error on my part; careless. Not very relevant, but well done in any case!

ETA- My quote related to "the amount", not the proportion, which, according to your figures, has only been beaten once, though I'm sure there are more examples.

[mjd1982]

If you would read the posts you would be enlightened to your wrongness many times over. Over.

Got anything about pilots and flying stuff, or energy things? Or what about something new? Got some new stuff? Original new stuff, looking for input, got some?
Wow, that is a fantastic argument! What a bright soul you are. A credit to your movement, that much is true.

All my points are in the OP. If you dont want to argue them, then go away!

[Unsecured Coins]

How is it NOT VERY RELEVANT? It's odd that notthing that goes against your "view" of things is always "irrelevant". Either you're that shrouded in confusion or just plain ol' picky about what you wanna believe.

Also - This is now Number 2 on the LOSYDNR (List Of Stuff You Did Not Research) Top 10.

[T.A.M.]

It is a public thread, and he may post where he wishes, about what he wishes, as long as he breaks no rules...jsut as you are allowed to do the same...

TAM:)

[mjd1982]

Above is a quote of all my posts on this thread. Please show me where I told someone not to respond to you?

I have said that most unlikely will respond to you, and that there is just cause for them not to, but I have told noone NOT TO POST TO YOU.

You are behaving like an elitist, pompous A**hole. I could care less if you are an Oxford/Harvard/MIT grad, it only changes the location of where you likely developed your arrogance. As far as I am concerned you can take your old, long ago debunked, silly, ridiculous claims and post them elsewhere, but it is not my board, so do as you like twirp.

TAM:)

TAM:)
Well, there is at least this:


In the end, this guy will clearly call "shill" on NIST/FEMA/ASCE anyway, so what is the sense in arguing with him.


That's gotta be quite embarassing for you, no?

[Unsecured Coins]

Well, there is at least this:



That's gotta be quite embarassing for you, no?

Not as emabarassing as your unprecedented 33% "fact"

Is that egg on your face or are you really that bad a marksman?

[MIKILLINI]

mjd; People here have gone through these arguments over and over again so expect sarcasm, just look at how many times some have posted. You have to look at 9/11 with a critical eye, as you are, but keeping an open mind is critical.
I once was at the point of where you are now; believing the govt. was involved to further the Global Dominance Agenda. Except I argued that all that was needed to LIHOP was for the govt. to allow the future hijackers to roam free here in America until they had decided to execute their plan; hijack the airliners. After that, the events that unfolded on 9/11 would appear as a conspiracy, but why would you need to.....
Wire up buildings for demolition?
Know this was going to happen and plan scenarios/exercises of the very same thing?

[T.A.M.]

Well, there is at least this:



That's gotta be quite embarassing for you, no?

I did not tell someone to not respond, or not post, i said what is the sense.

Get your facts straight moron, or simply leave it.

TAM:)

[mjd1982]

Above is a quote of all my posts on this thread. Please show me where I told someone not to respond to you?

I have said that most unlikely will respond to you, and that there is just cause for them not to, but I have told noone NOT TO POST TO YOU.

You are behaving like an elitist, pompous A**hole. I could care less if you are an Oxford/Harvard/MIT grad, it only changes the location of where you likely developed your arrogance. As far as I am concerned you can take your old, long ago debunked, silly, ridiculous claims and post them elsewhere, but it is not my board, so do as you like twirp.

TAM:)

TAM:)
Loath though I am to do so, I will address you once more- why are you posting here?! All you've got is bile, there's nothing of substance. Is it some emotional tick you have with the year 1982 that makes you behave this way?

Incidentally, you are right that it matters little what uni I came from- intellectual qualifications count for little in this domain, we have all learnt that much I think. The statement was brought out when a chimp accused me of "not being Rhoads (sic) Scholar material", and I did find the irony too delicious to resist. Sorry.

[Foolmewunz]

Wow, that is a fantastic argument! What a bright soul you are. A credit to your movement, that much is true.

All my points are in the OP. If you dont want to argue them, then go away!

You see, MJD, that's not how a forum works; particularly not this forum. You've come into our living room, eaten all the after dinner mints meant for the rest of the guest, then put your feet up on the coffee table, belched a couple of times, and basically announced that you're running things.

Try it this way:

You post.
Someone responds.
You respond.
Someeone responds in turn.

If you want to have an MJD controlled debate, go start your own forum. There is no such thing as thread ownership. This is an open forum.

ETA: Ya snot-nosed kid, ya!

[mjd1982]

How is it NOT VERY RELEVANT? It's odd that notthing that goes against your "view" of things is always "irrelevant". Either you're that shrouded in confusion or just plain ol' picky about what you wanna believe.

Also - This is now Number 2 on the LOSYDNR (List Of Stuff You Did Not Research) Top 10.
Because it has nothing to do with the thrust of the argument. Look up "relevant", and you'll learn more.

Incidentally, is that #2, because there are only 2? It should be called a top 2 then, you know that?