To Anybody That Thinks 9/11 was a Conspiracy

^^I vote ban on the last 4 post above this. All garbage to boost a post count.

sixthcutuan said:
Watch the bbc documentary that came out a week ago that takes 5 conspiracy theorists and challenges their views. They present their best evidence and they do various scientific experiments to disprove facts. Most of what i've read on the first page of this thread can be disproven by what was on that video. I recommend it whatever side you are on.
Click to expand...


Where is the link, or at least give us a title to look for.. I can't figure out if its "The Conspiracy Files: 9/11 Ten Years On" or "Conspiracy Test" or "The Conspiracy Files" all of which are BBC programs that have covered 9/11.
 


Moxie said:
Read up on the goals of the Project for a New American Century. They publicly stated a "new pearl harbor" would help them to faster achieve what they wanted.

Maybe 9/11 was a coincidence, but the existence of PNAC and their stated objectives is not a conspiracy theory.

Companies do have much easier access to Iraqi oil now.


PNAC and the NEOCONs: wanted a new Pearl Harbor - YouTube
Click to expand...

lol so because some group allegedly said what you said they said, that means they did it?

No offense, but this kind of theorizing lacks critical thinking.
 
Ar Scion said:
lol so because some group allegedly said what you said they said, that means they did it?
Click to expand...

Did I say that?

No offense, but this kind of theorizing lacks critical thinking.
Click to expand...

It's a lack of critical thinking to say that nobody benefited besides the terrorists, which was sort of what I was responding to.

This kind of theorizing is part of how police investigators come up with suspects in a murder case. Looking at someone as a suspect doesn't mean they did it, as most suspects never get charged.
 
Moxie said:
Did I say that?



It's a lack of critical thinking to say that nobody benefited besides the terrorists, which was sort of what I was responding to.

This kind of theorizing is part of how police investigators come up with suspects in a murder case. Looking at someone as a suspect doesn't mean they did it, as most suspects never get charged.
Click to expand...

True. But if you're building a case you would need some concrete evidence. Provided you can find where they said what you claim they said, we have a possible motive.
 
Ar Scion said:
True. But if you're building a case you would need some concrete evidence. Provided you can find where they said what you claim they said, we have a possible motive.
Click to expand...

"New Pearl Harbor"

Section V of Rebuilding America's Defenses, entitled "Creating Tomorrow's Dominant Force", includes the sentence: "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" (51)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century#cite_note-RAD2000-12
 
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RtT3HS1UF6s]Maher on Neocons, Predictions - YouTube[/ame]




We've Been Neo-Conned by Rep. Ron Paul

Amazingly, Ledeen calls Pearl Harbor a “lucky” event. The Project for a New American Century, as recently as September 2000, likewise, foresaw the need for “a Pearl Harbor event” that would galvanize the American people to support their ambitious plans to ensure political and economic domination of the world, while strangling any potential “rival.”

Recognizing a “need” for a Pearl Harbor event, and referring to Pearl Harbor as being “lucky” are not identical to support and knowledge of such an event, but that this sympathy for a galvanizing event, as 9-11 turned out to be, was used to promote an agenda that strict constitutionalists and devotees of the Founders of this nation find appalling, is indeed disturbing. After 9-11, Rumsfeld and others argued for an immediate attack on Iraq, even though it was not implicated in the attacks.
 
Svengali said:
"New Pearl Harbor"

Section V of Rebuilding America's Defenses, entitled "Creating Tomorrow's Dominant Force", includes the sentence: "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" (51)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century#cite_note-RAD2000-12
Click to expand...

Here's the thing- and you need to read it carefully to realize this- the statement does not endorse a new Pearl Harbor. It merely says that rapid "transformation" (of what kind isn't specified) will need a Pearl Harbor type incident.

How are you gonna jump from an observation, accurate or not, to motive? If you think that either cannot comprehend English, or you pretend to be able to read minds.

For the record, if transformation means maintaining and upgrading military defenses, I absolutely agree with them. Unless there is some dramatic threat, there will be no demand to improve defenses. This is common sense and anybody with a rudimentary understanding of history agrees.

Do you disagree with that?
 
Ar Scion said:
Here's the thing- and you need to read it carefully to realize this- the statement does not endorse a new Pearl Harbor. It merely says that rapid "transformation" (of what kind isn't specified) will need a Pearl Harbor type incident.
Click to expand...

It sounds like you're taking the quote out of context. Have you read Rebuilding America's Defenses, from which the quote is taken? It's a policy position paper from the top neocon Wall Street military industrial circles of the time. The paper specifies what kind of national and geopolitical transformation they desire.

How are you gonna jump from an observation, accurate or not, to motive? If you think that either cannot comprehend English, or you pretend to be able to read minds.
Click to expand...
Reading minds is one thing, reading between the lines is another altogether. Especially if you don't try to understand the quote - and the document - in a vacuum and look at the authors' roles in real world affairs.

For the record, if transformation means maintaining and upgrading military defenses, I absolutely agree with them. Unless there is some dramatic threat, there will be no demand to improve defenses. This is common sense and anybody with a rudimentary understanding of history agrees.

Do you disagree with that?
Click to expand...
Of course that's common sense. It doesn't mean it's right. The military industrial/intelligence/finance oligarchy creating fake boogiemen to wave at people and scare them into accepting their tyranny is not acceptable.

And if you think this world needs to maintain and improve its military dude you need to eat some fruit and hug a tree or something because there is more firepower in the hands of lunatic mass murderers who populations elect and call leaders than is appropriate for even the biggest warmongers among us. Fuck military buildup. Fuck their bullshit wars. And fuck their fairy tales about terrorists under the bed ready to get you. It's all a bunch of Rand Corporation Tavistock bullshit.
 
Ar Scion said:
For the record, if transformation means maintaining and upgrading military defenses,
Click to expand...

Transformation does appear to refer to upgrading the military, but the document makes it clear that this isn't just for homeland defense, but also to "fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theater wars" and to "perform the 'constabulary' duties associated with shaping the security environment in critical regions."
 
MSTeacher said:
It sounds like you're taking the quote out of context. Have you read Rebuilding America's Defenses, from which the quote is taken? It's a policy position paper from the top neocon Wall Street military industrial circles of the time. The paper specifies what kind of national and geopolitical transformation they desire.

Reading minds is one thing, reading between the lines is another altogether. Especially if you don't try to understand the quote - and the document - in a vacuum and look at the authors' roles in real world affairs.

Of course that's common sense. It doesn't mean it's right. The military industrial/intelligence/finance oligarchy creating fake boogiemen to wave at people and scare them into accepting their tyranny is not acceptable.

And if you think this world needs to maintain and improve its military dude you need to eat some fruit and hug a tree or something because there is more firepower in the hands of lunatic mass murderers who populations elect and call leaders than is appropriate for even the biggest warmongers among us. Fuck military buildup. Fuck their bullshit wars. And fuck their fairy tales about terrorists under the bed ready to get you. It's all a bunch of Rand Corporation Tavistock bullshit.
Click to expand...

This sentence in their policy paper is some sort of holy grail evidence, but all of a sudden it's not, because it lacks context? Is that what you are saying?

Fair enough.

But here's the fallacy that I think you are making here. It's very nuanced:

John wants A. B begets A. Therefore John wants B.

In other words:

PNAC wants accelerated US defense spending. A Pearl Harbor type event leads to accelerated US defense spending. Therefore PNAC wants a Pearl Harbor type of event.

If this still isn't clear, consider this analogy:

John wants a child. Rape could result in children. Therefore John wants to rape.

It seems like a very plausible conclusion, but it's not rational.

I understand being sick of war, geopolitics and militarism. It's unpleasant, it robs people of peace of mind, taxpayer dollars, the moral high ground,

But everything that the United States is has been built on the backs of our military strength. Since 1776.

Our navies keep our trade routes open. Our political alliances are bolstered by military strength. Our technological innovations and economic reach are safeguarded by our diplomatic influence. If you don't like that, then you don't like the American life you live.

Frankly, we're looking at the end of it all. China's military rise is tied into their economic boom, and they are using both to squeeze the living fuck out of the US and you don't even realize it.

They are intentionally devaluing their currency. They are hacking into US corporate, private and government networks. They are threatening US friends and allies.

They know we're weak economically and militarily. We can't fuck with 'em, so they pull this shit.

They have single-handedly raped the manufacturing sector because of currency manipulation.

And they are robbing us blind of technological innovations to the tune of billions of dollars a month.

All because we're a bunch of pussies who want to shy away from the military.
 
Ar Scion said:
This sentence in their policy paper is some sort of holy grail evidence, but all of a sudden it's not, because it lacks context? Is that what you are saying?
Click to expand...

No it's not a holy grail at all. Cheney sitting in the presidential command bunker giving orders to the military while bush is flying around clueless and planes are being flown into buildings which then collapse in a matter of seconds into their own footprint is a holy grail. If anything the pnac quote is flimsy circumstantial evidence comparatively. But it's certainly worth pointing out. Especially considering other circumstantial evidence further supports it, like the authors of that document standing to gain for eight and nine figure profits.

John wants a child. Rape could result in children. Therefore John wants to rape.

It seems like a very plausible conclusion, but it's not rational.
Click to expand...
Blowing up buildings, killing thousands of people, blaming false enemies, invading sovereign nations, scattering radioactive uranium munitions all over the place, and then befriending your supposed enemies in a different theater a decade later while you still fight them elsewhere around the world is not rational. But it's happened. These people don't think about things the same way we do. Rational to them just means doing whatever they want and spinning the big lie until enough people believe them that they can continue their lunacy.

And honestly, your analogy sounds like it would appeal greatly to the logic of these people.


But everything that the United States is has been built on the backs of our military strength. Since 1776.
Click to expand...
That's ridiculous. America has always been violent yes but our position in the world is not so simply explained. In many ways our productive and innovative capacity was what put us where we are, and our military might has kept us there after having been destroyed from within by agents of finance capital who have been against a unified and peaceful america since its inception and are now using the united states to destroy the idea of a successful national state around the world.

Frankly, we're looking at the end of it all. China's military rise is tied into their economic boom, and they are using both to squeeze the living fuck out of the US and you don't even realize it.

They are intentionally devaluing their currency. They are hacking into US corporate, private and government networks. They are threatening US friends and allies.

They know we're weak economically and militarily. We can't fuck with 'em, so they pull this shit.

They have single-handedly raped the manufacturing sector because of currency manipulation.

And they are robbing us blind of technological innovations to the tune of billions of dollars a month.

All because we're a bunch of pussies who want to shy away from the military.
Click to expand...
I don't dispute your points but I disagree with your conclusion. If either the dollar or the euro blows up then the renminbi will blow up too. No eye will remain dry around the world if the banking system of either major industrial currency has a systemic panic run.

Rather than focusing on military might, why not have an economic arms race? Why not outpace the Chinese in energy production, transportation, public works, precision manufacturing, medical research, lunar mining, etc? Pointing a gun in their face and telling them to stop their industrial growth so asset stripping zombie bankers can keep destroying our economy is not really sound economic strategy.
 
MSTeacher said:
No it's not a holy grail at all. Cheney sitting in the presidential command bunker giving orders to the military while bush is flying around clueless and planes are being flown into buildings which then collapse in a matter of seconds into their own footprint is a holy grail. If anything the pnac quote is flimsy circumstantial evidence comparatively. But it's certainly worth pointing out. Especially considering other circumstantial evidence further supports it, like the authors of that document standing to gain for eight and nine figure profits.

Blowing up buildings, killing thousands of people, blaming false enemies, invading sovereign nations, scattering radioactive uranium munitions all over the place, and then befriending your supposed enemies in a different theater a decade later while you still fight them elsewhere around the world is not rational. But it's happened. These people don't think about things the same way we do. Rational to them just means doing whatever they want and spinning the big lie until enough people believe them that they can continue their lunacy.

And honestly, your analogy sounds like it would appeal greatly to the logic of these people.


That's ridiculous. America has always been violent yes but our position in the world is not so simply explained. In many ways our productive and innovative capacity was what put us where we are, and our military might has kept us there after having been destroyed from within by agents of finance capital who have been against a unified and peaceful america since its inception and are now using the united states to destroy the idea of a successful national state around the world.

I don't dispute your points but I disagree with your conclusion. If either the dollar or the euro blows up then the renminbi will blow up too. No eye will remain dry around the world if the banking system of either major industrial currency has a systemic panic run.

Rather than focusing on military might, why not have an economic arms race? Why not outpace the Chinese in energy production, transportation, public works, precision manufacturing, medical research, lunar mining, etc? Pointing a gun in their face and telling them to stop their industrial growth so asset stripping zombie bankers can keep destroying our economy is not really sound economic strategy.
Click to expand...

You seem to falsely equate the military with just violence. Yes, doing violence is a large part of what military capability is all about.

But more than that, it's about being able to put your money where your mouth is and backing up your agenda with potential action. If you can't do that, you get dominated. Look at what China is doing to Taiwan.

A solely economic arms race will end up with America getting raped. It won't occur in a vacuum void of geopolitical influence. Think about it. Is Iraq, with its instability and inability to defend itself against terrorists experiencing as much innovation as, say Singapore which is relatively secure and free of threats?

Thriving economies don't happen in a vacuum. They happen when you reduce threats, and you reduce threats with a strong military.

Do you foresee perpetual growth and success for the US with a weak military? We won't see other countries try and bully the US into a geopolitical straitjacket for their own benefit?

You think the world is full of hippies who will peacefully coexist with the low-hanging fruit of the US economy and not try to rape it for all it's worth?

Nigga, countries like France and Sweden look cute with their apolitical positions. But the only reason they are safe is because any threats against them will call the US in via Nato or the UN, and nobody wants to fuck with the US.

Once the US goes down, everything else goes down with it. If people can be as savage as they are with the US as a superpower to put them in their place, imagine if we weren't a superpower.
 
Ar Scion said:
John wants a child. Rape could result in children. Therefore John wants to rape.
Click to expand...

Did John and his friends form a group saying that having children is important, but also that getting raped was the only way for it to happen? Did they say we were "lucky" to have a past rape?

Nigga, countries like France and Sweden look cute with their apolitical positions. But the only reason they are safe is because any threats against them will call the US in via Nato or the UN, and nobody wants to fuck with the US.
Click to expand...

Uh, France has the 3rd biggest military in the world and led the charge into Libya.
 
Ar Scion said:
Do you foresee perpetual growth and success for the US with a weak military? We won't see other countries try and bully the US into a geopolitical straitjacket for their own benefit?
Click to expand...

No I don't forsee that and you point is well taken. My point was that what assets and successes we have and could potentially bring to bear will be just fine for the foreseeable future with our current military status quo. Right now the US doesn't need to focus on a strong military nearly as much as we need to focus on a strong economy.

You think the world is full of hippies who will peacefully coexist with the low-hanging fruit of the US economy and not try to rape it for all it's worth?
Click to expand...
No I don't, and again you are right, industrial espionage, sabotage, geopolitical positioning etc is serious business. But I don't think simply signing checks to the military solves that problem. That and for every dollar lost to these problems I'm sure another is lost to in-house asset stripping, a problem much more easily solved with immediate nonagressive action.

Once the US goes down, everything else goes down with it. If people can be as savage as they are with the US as a superpower to put them in their place, imagine if we weren't a superpower.
Click to expand...
No objection to the US as a lynchpin. The dollar is the primary engine of world trade and for better or worse its destruction means the most gruesome world depression in history is likely inevitable.

As to world savagery, to my knowledge no one has been more savage and supported more savages than the United States in the last several decades. One might make a good case for the world being a more peaceful place if the US brought its troops home and told the CIA to stop running around fomenting civil unrest, destabilizing countries and supporting tin pot dictators.
 
everybody knows that they it a conspiracy. they crashed the planes, and it was just because they wanted an excuse to attack Iraq and Afghanistan to take the Oil and litium. Fuck you, government of the USA!

Respect to those that died in the plane crashes! :(
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom