9/11: PNAC Motive and Opportunity as evidence of an inside job

Status
Not open for further replies.

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
How would the Air Force have prevented 9/11? They would have had to shoot down passenger planes over the populated NE.

Please explain how you explain doing that to the American people, on the CHANCE that they might have been going to flown into buildings, because that part of a failed plot that was over 5 years old.

Are you saying it would have been politically and morally wrong to shoot the highjacked planes down at that time?
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Are you saying it would have been politically and morally wrong to shoot the highjacked planes down at that time?

definitely a calculated risk . . . if jets had been scrambled on the first notice of skulduggery and after the first impact . . . I think a shoot down was possible and ethical . . . and possibly over sparsely populated territory or even water. . .
 

Jazzy

Closed Account
manoeuvres
I'm not about to teach my American Apple spellcheck English.

Did he confide in you
No. Occam did.

But so many people would have known - thousands would need to be involved in such a plot - someone would have talked - there would be leaked documents - no-one could cover up such a huge conspiracy!
No. Only OBL would know the whole story. Four people would necessarily have received instructions, which were immediately destroyed, in the hours immediately preceding the action. The rest of the teams only needed to know they were going to follow orders then die - sometime.

The whole point of the action was that by the time the on-shift surveillance team noticed a difference in the suspects' routine the plan was being carried out, the hijackers were aloft, and couldn't easily be stopped. Originality, simplicity and speed were essential and almost completely effective. Sun Tzu.
 

lee h oswald

Banned
Banned
You can tell yourself that all you want. It does not make it true.

You have offered no evidence that they were lying or colluding, only your opinion and your opinion is highly prejudiced.

I've seen plenty of your Islamophobe posts. It's because of the attitude of people like you that illegal wars of aggression are enabled.

I'm highly prejudiced against mass murdering liars - just as you defend them with prejudice - and their apologists. And I always will be.
 

SR1419

Senior Member.
I've seen plenty of your Islamophobe posts. It's because of the attitude of people like you that illegal wars of aggression are enabled.

I'm highly prejudiced against mass murdering liars - just as you defend them with prejudice - and their apologists. And I always will be.

You can pretend you think you know my beliefs.

You can pretend that I defend "mass murdering liars"

You can use inflammatory rhetoric to insult me.

You are still wrong.

You tried to pass off as a "fact" that which is only an assumption.

Good luck with that.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I see a lot of anti American posts from Lee, does that mean he hates Americans? I don't know what he thinks, I do know that he is rude and often insulting and that he refuses to accept facts. I am more likely to consider him what gamers call, a troll.

I am voicing MY OPINION on that, not calling him one.

Pretty much the same thing though isn't it?

Getting into name calling is not productive. I know some people tend to elicit it more than others, but from a debunking perspective it's still best to ignore insults, and demonstrate errors with facts, rather than flat assertions. If you want to engage people, you have to spend most of your time trying to understand them. If you don't know what he thinks, and you don't want to ignore it, then maybe try to find out what it is?
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
I see a lot of anti American posts from Lee, does that mean he hates Americans? I don't know what he thinks, I do know that he is rude and often insulting and that he refuses to accept facts. I am more likely to consider him what gamers call, a troll.

I am voicing MY OPINION on that, not calling him one.
Not putting words in Lee's mouth but I think he is anti-corporatism . . . he knows the evil that the West in general has perpetrated was basically British a couple of centuries ago and has since been transfered to the US . . . the people of both countries are basically pawns or puppets . . . the question is if the US falls . . . who is next in the barrel . . . ???????
 

MikeC

Closed Account
definitely a calculated risk . . . if jets had been scrambled on the first notice of skulduggery and after the first impact . . . I think a shoot down was possible and ethical . . . and possibly over sparsely populated territory or even water. . .


or even if the scenario had been properly anticipated and some comtrols and decision making authority put in place before hand so it did not have to be a knee jerk reaction or an unsupported decision by "the man on het spot" who has no actual idea whether s/he is doign the right thing or not but has to maek that fateful decision anyway!

but if such policy and procedures had been in place, or even discussed, CT's would have screamed that the ebil Gubmint is planning on killing us all.........cf reaction to the Fed's planning in advance for any natural disasters that migth happen!
 

Cairenn

Senior Member.
Mick, you are right and I deleted it. Sorry. I should have written it, and then not posted it for an hour.

It was not a good post on my behalf.
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
or even if the scenario had been properly anticipated and some comtrols and decision making authority put in place before hand so it did not have to be a knee jerk reaction or an unsupported decision by "the man on het spot" who has no actual idea whether s/he is doign the right thing or not but has to maek that fateful decision anyway!

but if such policy and procedures had been in place, or even discussed, CT's would have screamed that the ebil Gubmint is planning on killing us all.........cf reaction to the Fed's planning in advance for any natural disasters that migth happen!
I don't buy the excuse . . . That is why there is a person in the hot seat (and if not, there is no excuse there was not) . . . he/she is paid for those decisions . . . and that person needs to be held accountable . . .
 

lee h oswald

Banned
Banned
Not putting words in Lee's mouth but I think he is anti-corporatism . . . he knows the evil that the West in general has perpetrated was basically British a couple of centuries ago and has since been transfered to the US . . . the people of both countries are basically pawns or puppets . . . the question is if the US falls . . . who is next in the barrel . . . ???????


If I might quote an American I admire (from memory)

The 'real enemy' is the totality of physical and mental constraint by which capital, or class society, or Statism, or the society of the spectacle expropriates everyday life, the time of our lives. The real enemy is not a thing apart from life; it is the organization of life by powers detached from it and turned against it. The apparatus, not its personnel, is the real enemy. But it is by and through the apparatchiks - and everybody else - participating in the system that domination and deception are made manifest.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
If I might quote an American I admire (from memory)

The 'real enemy' is the totality of physical and mental constraint by which capital, or class society, or Statism, or the society of the spectacle expropriates everyday life, the time of our lives. The real enemy is not a thing apart from life; it is the organization of life by powers detached from it and turned against it. The apparatus, not its personnel, is the real enemy. But it is by and through the apparatchiks - and everybody else - participating in the system that domination and deception are made manifest.

You might extend the quote:


http://www.spunk.org/texts/writers/black/sp001644.html

“The real enemy" is the totality of physical and mental constraints by which capital, or class society, or statism, or the society of the spectacle expropriates everyday life, the time of our lives. The real enemy is not an object apart from life. It is the organization of life by powers detached from it and turned against it. The apparatus, not its personnel, is the real enemy. But it is by and through the apparatchiks and everyone else participating in the system that domination and deception are made manifest. The totality is the organization of all against each and each against all. It includes all the policemen, all the social workers, all the office workers, all the nuns, all the op-ed columnists, all the drug kingpins from Medellin to Upjohn, all the syndicalists and all the situationists.”

This isn't rhetoric to me; it informs my choices. It implies that I can expect to find authoritarian actions, opinions and personalities among anarchists as elsewhere. "Comrades" are not my comrades -- nor am I, at my worst, my own comrade -- insofar as they or I behave like "the real enemy." There is no real enemy apart from human agency.



Content from External Source
He does sound a bit like you lee :)
 

lee h oswald

Banned
Banned
You might extend the quote:


http://www.spunk.org/texts/writers/black/sp001644.html

“The real enemy" is the totality of physical and mental constraints by which capital, or class society, or statism, or the society of the spectacle expropriates everyday life, the time of our lives. The real enemy is not an object apart from life. It is the organization of life by powers detached from it and turned against it. The apparatus, not its personnel, is the real enemy. But it is by and through the apparatchiks and everyone else participating in the system that domination and deception are made manifest. The totality is the organization of all against each and each against all. It includes all the policemen, all the social workers, all the office workers, all the nuns, all the op-ed columnists, all the drug kingpins from Medellin to Upjohn, all the syndicalists and all the situationists.”

This isn't rhetoric to me; it informs my choices. It implies that I can expect to find authoritarian actions, opinions and personalities among anarchists as elsewhere. "Comrades" are not my comrades -- nor am I, at my worst, my own comrade -- insofar as they or I behave like "the real enemy." There is no real enemy apart from human agency.



Content from External Source
He does sound a bit like you lee :)


What? Right?
 

lee h oswald

Banned
Banned
Good solid article on PNAC - criminality writ large, in plain view.

The United States of Aftermath


[FONT=verdana, arial][FONT=verdana, arial]
As the ten-year anniversary of the invasion approaches, all the news networks will carve out some time to report on the decade of war endured by the people of Iraq and the people of America. Rachel Maddow recently broadcast an hour-long documentary on the selling of the war by the Bush administration. Maddow's program began with the attacks of September 11 as the reason for the Iraq invasion, a starting point that in all probability will be repeated by the other networks, but that starting point is not factually correct. The roots of the Iraq war trace back to the founding in 1997 of a Washington DC think-tank called The Project for a New American Century (PNAC).

The core mission of PNAC was to establish what they called "Pax Americana" across the globe. Essentially, their goal was to transform America, the sole remaining superpower, into a planetary empire by force of arms. A report released by PNAC in September of 2000 entitled "Rebuilding America's Defenses" codified this plan. Author Norman Podhoretz, a PNAC signatory, quantified the other aspect of the PNAC plan in the September 2002 issue of his journal, "Commentary." In it, Podhoretz noted that the Mideast regimes "that richly deserve to be overthrown and replaced, are not confined to the three singled-out members of the axis of evil. At a minimum, the axis should extend to Syria and Lebanon and Libya, as well as 'friends' of America like the Saudi royal family and Egypt's Hosni Mubarak, along with the Palestinian Authority, whether headed by Arafat or one of his henchmen." At bottom, according to Podhoretz, war against Iraq was about "the long-overdue internal reform and modernization of Islam."

......................


The profit motive behind why the war happened is not limited to the corporations that directly cashed in on the conflict. The "mainstream" media went along for the Bush administration ride with a bull-throated roar, pitching everything the administration was selling with graphics and music, gleefully aware of the money they were making thanks to increased viewership, and be damned to contrarian voices.

..............................


The war against Iraq, in the end, was nothing more or less than a massive money-laundering operation that took American taxpayer dollars, soaked them in blood, and redirected them to Certain Friends In High Places. It was, as I said years ago, a smash-and-grab robbery writ large, aided and abetted by an American "news" media which had its own profit motive, and which made a nifty sum off the whole deal. Even better for them, today they get to enjoy the ratings and advertising dollars to come when they broadcast their somber "documentaries" about how terrible it all was, how many lies were told, how many mistakes were made, and all without ever looking inward at their own enormous complicity.

They say the war is over now, but Halliburton is still getting paid to "rebuild" Iraq, the military contractors are still there, bombs are still going off all over the country, the hundreds of thousands of civilians who were killed are still dead, the hundreds of thousands of civilians who were wounded and maimed are still scarred, and many of the millions who were displaced are still not home. Almost 5,000 American soldiers are still dead, nearly 40,000 more are still scarred, and the VA is utterly incapable of dealing with the aftermath.

Three trillion dollars of taxpayer money was laundered away, and today we have squadrons of politicians who voted for the war and made sure it happened now talking about cutting Medicare, about cutting Social Security, about how we can't afford decent health care or the United States Post Office, without even a blink of acknowledgement toward their own overwhelming share of blame for what has happened to the nation.

Ten years ago, they used 9/11 against us, with the happy help of the "news" media, to unleash butchery for a payday, and broke the country in the process.
[/FONT]
[/FONT]
Content from External Source
From http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/14688-the-united-states-of-aftermath
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Few people would disagree with the idea that 9/11 was exploited for a variety of reasons, or with the idea that the Iraq war had spurious justification, or that the military industrial complex benefits from war. They might disagree on precise details or scope.

But the conspiracy theory that started this thread was that the events of 9/11 were a deliberate act initiated by PNAC. Was it "glad it happened", "let it happen", or "made it happen"?
 

lee h oswald

Banned
Banned
Quotes from some of the criminals:

For bureaucratic reasons, we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction (as justification for invading Iraq) because it was the one reason everyone could agree on.
- Paul Wolfowitz, Deputy Secretary of Defense
Vanity Fair Interview
5/28/2003

Content from External Source
Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction.
- Dick Cheney, Vice President
Speech to VFW National Convention
8/26/2002
Content from External Source
We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud.
- Condoleezza Rice, US National Security Adviser
CNN Late Edition
9/8/2002
Content from External Source
And surveillance photos reveal that the regime is rebuilding facilities that it had used to produce chemical and biological weapons.
- George W. Bush, President
Cincinnati, Ohio, Speech
10/7/2002
Content from External Source
I think the burden is on those people who think he didn't have weapons of mass destruction to tell the world where they are.
- Ari Fleischer, Press Secretary
Content from External Source
A mind-bogglingly ridiculous statement, by any standard.

Iraq, despite UN sanctions, maintains an aggressive program to rebuild the infrastructure for its nuclear, chemical, biological, and missile programs. In each instance, Iraq's procurement agents are actively working to obtain both weapons-specific and dual-use materials and technologies critical to their rebuilding and expansion efforts, using front companies and whatever illicit means are at hand."
- John Bolton, Undersecretary of State for Arms Control
Speech to the Hudson Institute
11/1/2002
Content from External Source
Bolton is a consummate liar.

The president of the United States and the secretary of defense would not assert as plainly and bluntly as they have that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction if it was not true, and if they did not have a solid basis for saying it.
- Ari Fleischer, Press Secretary
Response to Question From the Press
12/4/2002
Content from External Source
Really, Ari? You know when he's lying - his lips move.

There can be no doubt that Saddam Hussein has biological weapons and the capability to rapidly produce more, many more.
- Colin Powell, Secretary of State
Address to the UN Security Council
2/5/2003
Content from External Source
Ah yes, Powell, the 'dove'.

I would put before you Exhibit A, the mobile biological labs that we have found. People are saying, 'Well, are they truly mobile biological labs?' Yes, they are. And the DCI, George Tenet, Director of Central Intelligence, stands behind that assessment.
- Colin Powell, Secretary of State
Fox News Interview
6/8/2003
Content from External Source
Another beauty from Powell. George Tenet (CIA director) famously said that when what every person in the US believes to be true is false, then the CIA will have completed its disinformation work. Some reference, that. We know we can rely on George to uphold the lie then....

And the media led the merry dance all the way...and continue to this day....
 

lee h oswald

Banned
Banned
Few people would disagree with the idea that 9/11 was exploited for a variety of reasons, or with the idea that the Iraq war had spurious justification, or that the military industrial complex benefits from war. They might disagree on precise details or scope.

But the conspiracy theory that started this thread was that the events of 9/11 were a deliberate act initiated by PNAC. Was it "glad it happened", "let it happen", or "made it happen"?

I think it should be clear to anyone what has occurred here. Very simple things like means, motive and opportunity....the tried and tested methods of the good old-fashioned plod. A never-ending stream of lies, buried by the media's Permanent Bullshit Blizzard (PBB). The criminals have outed themselves - one only needs to look at the recent history; the quotes (lies); and the outcomes....it's not that hard to see....unless you don't want to
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I think it should be clear to anyone what has occurred here. Very simple things like means, motive and opportunity....the tried and tested methods of the good old-fashioned plod. A never-ending stream of lies, buried by the media's Permanent Bullshit Blizzard (PBB). The criminals have outed themselves - one only needs to look at the recent history; the quotes (lies); and the outcomes....it's not that hard to see....unless you don't want to

If it's clear, can you say what it is? Do you think that 9/11 was made to happen by the PNAC?
 

SR1419

Senior Member.
I fully agree that the war in Iraq was wrongfully railroaded down the World's throat and that some media was to some degree complicit in that.

That still doesn't mean the media were knowingly lying when they said OBL had a fancy cave.


The Pitt piece is obviously highly skewed bordering on lying.

PNAC's mission was NOT to "establish" PAX AMERICANA but to - in their view- preserve it.

The American peace has proven itself peaceful, stable and durable. It has, over the past decade, provided the geopolitical framework for widespread economic growth and the spread of American principles of
liberty and democracy.Yet no moment in international politics can be frozen in time; even a global Pax Americana will not preserve itself.
Content from External Source
Its a bit of a stretch to say the least to suggest that Norman Podhoretz's personal opinion is somehow to be accepted as one of PNAC's core beliefs.

Moreover, PNAC may have been promoted an extreme agenda- but it was genuine in its beliefs. To suggest the war in Iraq was merely for profit is too easy an explanation. Its fodder for the left.

read the very words of the beast itself- note "profit" is never mentioned.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf

I will now wait patiently for Harvey to commence with insults and bitter ranting about "defending murderers"...when, in fact, I have done no such thing.

Pointing out errors of fact and logic is not defending the actions PNAC.
 

Grieves

Senior Member
People, being generally good-natured (in my experience), find it difficult to comprehend that those in positions of high power would engage in something so obviously evil and wrong as allowing, encouraging, or even supporting a brutal act of senseless civilian-targeted violence. Thus to suggest that a rather insidious plan for the future of American warfare, a plan that's clearly being carried out at an efficient pace, could have inspired key figures/factions to facilitate the 9/11 attacks is viewed as unthinkable by many. In the wake of such occurrences people often leap to the defense of their power-structures and the people involved, as they refuse to believe they're associated with/under the sway of a force for injustice.
That Truman is treated as a hero and not a villain in American history is a pretty clear example of this. The myth that dropping the bomb ended the war early and 'saved millions of lives', though taught as History in the states, is an extreme warping of the reality of those events. The dropping of two atom bombs on Japan was an atrocity, intentionally targeting civilians on a massive scale, but the destruction wrought isn't what bought Japan's surrender. Japan, prior to the atomic bombings, had already had many of its major cities absolutely leveled by conventional American bombing runs, and remained defiant. What finally drove them to surrender was the invading Soviet army, who were seizing large amounts of Japanese territory at a terribly rapid pace, and were crushing the Japanese forces which remained. It was the Soviet push, which would have put an end to any Japanese sovereignty and likely have seen the Japanese Emperor captured and executed, that lead to their surrender, as is documented in the transcripts of their war-councils, in which the Atomic Bombings hardly came up. Truman dropped the bomb as a show of force to the world, to demonstrate, before the war was over, where the power really was. That he himself, on at least three occasions, spoke of how the use of the atomic bomb could lead to the extinction of the Human race, makes his and his administrations crime all the more unforgivable so far as I'm concerned. That a man would willingly initiate a series of events he himself believed could end human-kind reeks of the psychotic and truly fiendish. And yet Truman is frequently espoused as 'one of the greats' in American history, and I'm sure someone's going to leap forward to adamantly defend his decision to vaporize hundreds of thousands of people.

There's never been a shortage of fiends in positions of high power willing to commit horrors in order to expand/demonstrate that power. Is it bold, perhaps overly so, to assume that because some think-tank proposed a scenario for prolonged war in the middle-east inspired by tragedy that now happens to be playing out quite tidily, that the tragedy itself was contrived by fiends in positions of high power who took that think-tank's advice? Certainly. It's also terribly naive to assume such a thing couldn't happen in America.
 

lee h oswald

Banned
Banned
If it's clear, can you say what it is? Do you think that 9/11 was made to happen by the PNAC?

Why don't you state what you think happened?

Are any of those quoted above guilty of anything?

If not 'guilty', is there a case of any kind against any of them?

How does it appear to you?

Who had the means, the motive and the opportunity?

Who was better placed to launch an attack?

Was it a small group of ultra-rich, power-wealding extremists in Washington, with stated and published imperialist intent and the promise of the full power of the imperial US establishment behind it - or a small group of 'former' CIA 'assets', now renegade extremists operating from one of the poorest countries on earth, on the other side of the world?

What would old Occam say? Who cares. What do you say?
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Why don't you state what you think happened?

Are any of those quoted above guilty of anything?

If not 'guilty', is there a case of any kind against any of them?

How does it appear to you?

Who had the means, the motive and the opportunity?

Who was better placed to launch an attack?

Was it a small group of ultra-rich, power-wealding extremists in Washington, with stated and published imperialist intent and the promise of the full power of the imperial US establishment behind it - or a small group of 'former' CIA 'assets', now renegade extremists operating from one of the poorest countries on earth, on the other side of the world?

What would old Occam say? Who cares. What do you say?

I think that terrorists, with quite a bit of planning, hijacked planes, flew them into buildings, which then collapsed because of the impact and fires.

I think this was exploited by the Bush administration, but I do not think they (or anyone directly associated with them) planned it. Possibly they did not address threats seriously enough because they felt an attack of some nature might be useful propaganda, but I don't think they expected 9/11.

What do you think happened?
 

Jazzy

Closed Account
The 'real enemy' is the totality of physical and mental constraint by which capital, or class society, or Statism, or the society of the spectacle expropriates everyday life, the time of our lives. The real enemy is not a thing apart from life; it is the organization of life by powers detached from it and turned against it. The apparatus, not its personnel, is the real enemy. But it is by and through the apparatchiks - and everybody else - participating in the system that domination and deception are made manifest.
I totally agree with that. Until you quoted it, I would never have thought you could, seeing as you are so aggressive and rude. You must realize that the way that you project yourself isn't going to achieve what you wish. May I quote: "The apparatus, not its personnel, is the real enemy." So why be the way you are?
 

lee h oswald

Banned
Banned
That still doesn't mean the media were knowingly lying when they said OBL had a fancy cave.


Its a bit of a stretch to say the least to suggest that Norman Podhoretz's personal opinion is somehow to be accepted as one of PNAC's core beliefs.

Moreover, PNAC may have been promoted an extreme agenda- but it was genuine in its beliefs. To suggest the war in Iraq was merely for profit is too easy an explanation. Its fodder for the left.

read the very words of the beast itself- note "profit" is never mentioned.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf

I will now wait patiently for Harvey to commence with insults and bitter ranting about "defending murderers"...when, in fact, I have done no such thing.

Pointing out errors of fact and logic is not defending the actions PNAC.

That still doesn't mean the media were knowingly lying when they said OBL had a fancy cave.

It's supposed to be their job to check facts - not create false memes. The story was repeated all over - no facts checked. It is a dereliction of duty. Lies of silence.

Its a bit of a stretch to say the least to suggest that Norman Podhoretz's personal opinion is somehow to be accepted as one of PNAC's core beliefs.

Why was he chosen to be the author then? He was a core member.

Moreover, PNAC may have been promoted an extreme agenda- but it was genuine in its beliefs.

So were the Nazis.

To suggest the war in Iraq was merely for profit is too easy an explanation.

Not 'only' profit. Domination.

read the very words of the beast itself- note "profit" is never mentioned.

As if they would! Something like that might even make someone like you think twice.

I will now wait patiently for Harvey to commence with insults and bitter ranting about "defending murderers"...when, in fact, I have done no such thing.

Pointing out errors of fact and logic is not defending the actions PNAC

Not long to wait. No rant required.

QED
 

lee h oswald

Banned
Banned
I totally agree with that. Until you quoted it, I would never have thought you could, seeing as you are so aggressive and rude. You must realize that the way that you project yourself isn't going to achieve what you wish. May I quote: "The apparatus, not its personnel, is the real enemy." So why be the way you are?

You're very juvenile, considering your age. Funny how we see ourselves....
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
It's also terribly naive to assume such a thing couldn't happen in America.

That's a variation of a charge often leveled against debunkers: "you trust the government", "you seriously think the government would never do anything like that", "you actually believe the government would never experiment on it's own people", "you really think that the government would never consider a false flag operation" .... etc,.

I find that type of statement very irritating. Firstly because I absolutely do not trust the government, and I do not trust people in power. I don't even fully discount the more unusual suggestions for what they might be doing out of hand - although I'm more skeptical of some than others.

But what irritates me most about such an argument is that it sidesteps the actual issue - one of a lack of evidence for that thing happening - and glosses over it with the accusation that I naively trust the government, and hence the lack of evidence is irrelevant.

It's a nonsense argument. I don't absolutely trust the government. I certainly did not trust the Bush Administration, or the PNAC, but I do not see any evidence that they actually planned 9/11. Nor do I see evidence that it was anything other than the terrorist attack it appeared to be.

If someone is not to be trusted, and even if they benefited from some nefarious act, then it does not automatically mean that they are behind that act. You need evidence.
 

Jazzy

Closed Account
It's terribly naive to assume such a thing couldn't happen in America.
If they had thought it up it would have blown up in their face. The planes would have missed, yet charges would have gone off in the towers. That would have looked just peachy. No?

It is terribly naive not to understand that the way it was done was the only way it could possibly have been done.
 

lee h oswald

Banned
Banned
That's more the you I understand. Don't listen, spout abuse.

No, it's a failure to understand, which is almost the same. People only change their own minds - others should refrain from trying to push views onto people in order to make them think 'like you do'.

Being lectured on rudeness by you? Good one!

I love you really, brother; you just can't understand, but it doesn't matter - that's the most important bit to remember.
 

lee h oswald

Banned
Banned
I think that terrorists, with quite a bit of planning, hijacked planes, flew them into buildings, which then collapsed because of the impact and fires.

I think this was exploited by the Bush administration, but I do not think they (or anyone directly associated with them) planned it. Possibly they did not address threats seriously enough because they felt an attack of some nature might be useful propaganda, but I don't think they expected 9/11.

What do you think happened?

Thanks, but I kind of knew all that already. How about the specific questions? They're all answerable in very brief terms.
 

SR1419

Senior Member.
Is it bold, perhaps overly so, to assume that because some think-tank proposed a scenario for prolonged war in the middle-east inspired by tragedy that now happens to be playing out quite tidily, that the tragedy itself was contrived by fiends in positions of high power who took that think-tank's advice? Certainly. It's also terribly naive to assume such a thing couldn't happen in America.

Except that the report came out before 9/11, the report didn't "propose a scenario for prolonged war in the middle-east"- the report was a review of US defense plans and resource requirements and suggestions for future military transformation.

Did you read it?
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Why don't you state what you think happened?

Are any of those quoted above guilty of anything?

If not 'guilty', is there a case of any kind against any of them?

How does it appear to you?

I'd say they are guilty of exploiting 9/11, and misleading the country about the reasons for invading Iraq.

Who had the means, the motive and the opportunity?

Who was better placed to launch an attack?

Was it a small group of ultra-rich, power-wealding extremists in Washington, with stated and published imperialist intent and the promise of the full power of the imperial US establishment behind it - or a small group of 'former' CIA 'assets', now renegade extremists operating from one of the poorest countries on earth, on the other side of the world?

What would old Occam say? Who cares. What do you say?

I'd say it was the people who did it, and they appear to be Al Qaeda terrorists.

It was really not that incredibly difficult. They had a surplus of suicidal Jihadists, so they get them to take flying lessons (not incredibly difficult), and then simply coordinated the attacks. I think it's far easier for actual terrorists to do that than it is for a bunch of rich people to fake it so that's exactly what it looks like.

I know you have big problems with this version of events because you don't agree with the physics. But if the physics were fine, and the collapse was just caused by the planes and fires, then would you still believe it was an event created by the elite?
 

SR1419

Senior Member.
It's supposed to be their job to check facts - not create false memes. The story was repeated all over - no facts checked. It is a dereliction of duty. Lies of silence.

I agree- as I initially stated it was shoddy journalism. They didn't go knock on the door at Tora Bora asking to see the place. That is not the same as purposefully lying and colluding. "lies of silence" oh please- a bit sappy even for Harvey.


Why was he chosen to be the author then? He was a core member.

he wasn't the author of the report in question- get your facts straight, Harvey. He was one of the 50 original signatories to PNACs Statement of Principles.

WR Pitt then used Podhoretz's personal opinion from his personal website and claimed it was a PNAC core belief. Fail.


Pointing out that you were wrong is not defending PNAC or the war in Iraq.
 

SR1419

Senior Member.
I totally agree with that. Until you quoted it, I would never have thought you could, seeing as you are so aggressive and rude. You must realize that the way that you project yourself isn't going to achieve what you wish. May I quote: "The apparatus, not its personnel, is the real enemy." So why be the way you are?

I agree...anarchy explains a lot. I wonder if Harvey knows he is part of the problem?
 

lee h oswald

Banned
Banned
I'd say they are guilty of exploiting 9/11, and misleading the country about the reasons for invading Iraq.



I'd say it was the people who did it, and they appear to be Al Qaeda terrorists.

It was really not that incredibly difficult. They had a surplus of suicidal Jihadists, so they get them to take flying lessons (not incredibly difficult), and then simply coordinated the attacks. I think it's far easier for actual terrorists to do that than it is for a bunch of rich people to fake it so that's exactly what it looks like.

I'd say they are guilty of exploiting 9/11, and misleading the country about the reasons for invading Iraq.

Yes, but should they be investigated and questioned and if necessary charged with any crime? You've mentoned there's no evidence of these people being responsible (or possibly so) for carrying out 911, but what about the masses of evidence for all their other actions? It's everywhere. You can read the quotes above. They are lies, every one of them. Lies which led to a lot of death and misery, and no small profit for some involved in the lying. That is manifest.

It was really not that incredibly difficult. They had a surplus of suicidal Jihadists, so they get them to take flying lessons (not incredibly difficult), and then simply coordinated the attacks. I think it's far easier for actual terrorists to do that than it is for a bunch of rich people to fake it so that's exactly what it looks like.

I was a patsy once - I'll tell y'all all about it one day - when the heat's off.

I know you have big problems with this version of events because you don't agree with the physics. But if the physics were fine, and the collapse was just caused by the planes and fires, then would you still believe it was an event created by the elite?

Full and proper and fully transparent investigation required - for every last aspect of the crime. It's never happened. It needs to. I think it will happen one day. If homsap hasn't had his sorry arse kicked back to the mesolithic by Mam Gaia before then.
 

lee h oswald

Banned
Banned
I agree- as I initially stated it was shoddy journalism. They didn't go knock on the door at Tora Bora asking to see the place. That is not the same as purposefully lying and colluding. "lies of silence" oh please- a bit sappy even for Harvey.

Lying is when you present something as a fact when you don't know for sure that it is a fact. When it turns out that what you presented as fact is in fact untrue, that confirms that the presentation of fact was a lie. That's how it works in my language. You seem to be fluent in apologia.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Yes, but should they be investigated and questioned and if necessary charged with any crime? You've mentoned there's no evidence of these people being responsible (or possibly so) for carrying out 911, but what about the masses of evidence for all their other actions? It's everywhere. You can read the quotes above. They are lies, every one of them. Lies which led to a lot of death and misery, and no small profit for some involved in the lying. That is manifest.

Plausibly deniable lies, unfortunately. I'd love to see Cheney et al in court, but I don't think it's very likely.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top