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

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

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


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:

A mind-bogglingly ridiculous statement, by any standard.

Bolton is a consummate liar.

Really, Ari? You know when he's lying - his lips move.

Ah yes, Powell, the 'dove'.

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.

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