Talking Turkey

July 18, 2012

Sorry to let this drop to the second page LG. I've been working out of town on a job.

No problem W, I've been busy too so post at whatever pace is convenient for you, it's good by me.

Okay, for the most part we are in agreement (I'm sure to an extent) on the way the argument can be formed with governments "good" intentions in the name of the U.S.

Let's get into the buildings. According to the PNAC document, America needed a "New Pearl Harbor" for a fast overhaul of new foreign policy and expenditures in military spending. Do you think it was pure coincedence it happened in the first year of a cabenit laced with some of the brainstormers of that document?

I don't know if they counted on getting footage of the first crash into the towers, but it was a safe bet they knew they'd get all kinds of video on the second collision. I also don't think just the images of planes exploding into the towers was enough to sway the American public to support the kind of overseas actions and military expenditures they had layed out. I believe they needed the buildings to fall...on live T.V. for the full impact...with the world watching. You don't have to agree with me that this is what they "wanted", but it'd be hard to deny that they were handed one of the most atrocious acts against America, in their first year in power, to kickstart the actions laid out in PNAC.

Having time between posts has also helped me get up to speed on this document, and the only way I think I can respond to the whole 'Pearl Harbor' subject is to split out my points. I've read some other criticisms on the web of this argument and I didn't buy all of them but I do think some are relevant, and I have a few more higher level issues with it of my own. I'll apologize in advance for the verbosity; I try to lay out my thinking in some detail so that specific points of contention or flaws can be pointed out.

The most common criticism I've found which I do think has some merit, depending on what exactly the 'Pearl Harbor' argument being made entails, is that this section of the paper is discussing upgrading the military technologically, not justifying the use of force against one of our 'enemies'. The quote talks specifically about a 'transformation', but not in foreign policy; it refers to missle systems, information technology, and the general upgrading of obsolete areas of the military. This is further clarified by another mention later in the document of 'Pearl Harbor' in a section discussing the Navy, where they discuss replacing aircraft carriers as they are becoming more and more obsolete in the 21st Century. Yes, the real Pearl Harbor was the crucial factor in turning public sentiment around to support the entry into WWII and the use of military force, but the use of military force and attacking our perceived enemies is not at all what the Pearl Harbor reference in this document is talking about. It makes even more sense that this is the meaning as that is more in line with what the 1941 PH meant from a military standpoint, namely, that it showed that the US Navy was not up-to-date and that the focus of our strength at sea, battleships, were vulnerable to aircraft carriers and the way that the Japanese military was conducting the war. Same thing with this document, it seems to me that most everything in the PH section discusses not falling behind technologically.
Your line, "America needed a "New Pearl Harbor" for a fast overhaul of new foreign policy and expenditures in military spending", is an incomplete statement as far as summarizing the gist of this section and this document IMO. Yes, if they wanted to get a 'fast' overhaul of military spending, at least as far as modernization if not more, then they do essentially state that something like PH would be necessary. However, the very same paragraph ends with, "Thus, this report advocates a two-stage process of change – transition and transformation – over the coming decades.". It importantly does not say that the US acting 'fast' is critical, it actually advocates the opposite. If the argument against this is point is that they were really indicating the truth in the beginning of the paragraph and then lying at the end, that's a pretty inconsistent argument.
The attribution of this PH quote to 9/11 is very post-hoc. "Pearl Harbor" is a useful and not all that uncommon of a metaphor in the US that has a lot of applications for almost anything that brings about a momentous change. There are any number of events that could have occurred that were of lesser severity than 9/11 that could also be connected to this 'PH' comment even if the govt had nothing to do with it. We could have had a slightly more damaging USS Cole-like attack on our ships, a terrorist attack on one of our allies, any number of things. If this hypothetical event was then followed by the govt ramping up spending and invading some whatever country-du-jour is to blame for the hypothesized incident, would we also be looking back and saying for instance, 'Aha, when Kenya attacked our English allies (yes, I'm making stuff up here, plug in the scenario of your choice) and Bush and Cheney followed it up with a military invasion of Kenya, I discovered this document that talked about a new 'Pearl Harbor' so yea, that's a pretty good indication that they may have orchestrated the original attack'? It's critical to keep in mind when looking at 9/11's connection to this quote the fact that US politicians try to exploit nearly everything that occurs to their advantage, and have been doing so for almost 250 years. Even things that have nothing to do with human causation like natural disasters.
This document is dated Sept 2000. Why on earth would they so blatantly state what they want to happen for all to see if what I think may be your interpretation is correct? I don't want to go too far in assuming your arguments, but you're leaning towards the govt being involved in the collapse of the WTC I think. If that's the case, there's a pretty glaring inconsistency in that the covert proficiency, intelligence, expertise, and power needed to pull off some kind of organized demolition is totally at odds with the buffoonery of publishing your nefarious plans a year beforehand and making it available on the internet.
Why select just the 'Pearl Harbor' statement out of this ~60 page document and grant it some deeper significance as far as the truth? Elsewhere in the document the authors lament that, "The “savings” from withdrawing from the Balkans, for example, will not free up anywhere near the magnitude of funds needed for military modernization or transformation." So the solution to that is to get us involved in Afghanistan and Iraq which will remove many orders of magnitude more funds from the equation than the Balkans? Is there some reason not to take this comment concerning how expenditures on military engagements are logically taking away from the modernization that they are seeking as just as indicative of what PNAC wanted as the PH quote?

See, this is what happens when you don't reply fast enough and I let this stuff rattle around my brainpan. :su You absolutely do not need to rebut any of the above, I'm mainly trying to get across that I have good reason to question the significance of the PH quote. Yes, absolutely, 9/11 was exploited by the govt to do what they somewhat wanted to do anyway as, to be fair, the report also talks a lot about increasing military spending overall and maintaining more of a presence abroad in addition to the modernization of our current military technologies. (Actually, was that focus of the report, the modernization of the military, really accomplished by the Afghan and Iraq War? Seems like most of the money has gone to the running of those two wars and given some of the problems we had with not enough armor on vehicles and other shortages, it didn't seem like the modernization discussed in the document was actually realized. I'm not that up-to-date on that question though.). The fact it was exploited is nothing new and to be expected.

You're getting to the good stuff with the WTC, so looking forward to what you have to say about that. To wrap up the PH quote discussion, I don't think your overall argument will rely critically on anything like, 'well, I've already shown that the govt wanted 9/11 to happen by the PNAC report', so I'm not too worried about us potentially seeing it differently. Depending on if or how 'the govt is full of liars' argument will fit into your overall theory, I'll just note that the PNAC report is about as tainted by the govt as you can get. It's one thing to assert that the govt lies, you have no argument from me there, but it's a whole other animal to say 'and I can tell when they are lying and when they are telling the truth', that'll require a lot of evidence.

July 18, 2012

I know LG and WT are having a discussion but I hope neither mind me putting my two cents in...

1. The most common criticism I've found which I do think has some merit, depending on what exactly the 'Pearl Harbor' argument being made entails, is that this section of the paper is discussing upgrading the military technologically, not justifying the use of force against one of our 'enemies'. The quote talks specifically about a 'transformation', but not in foreign policy; it refers to missle systems, information technology, and the general upgrading of obsolete areas of the military. This is further clarified by another mention later in the document of 'Pearl Harbor' in a section discussing the Navy, where they discuss replacing aircraft carriers as they are becoming more and more obsolete in the 21st Century. Yes, the real Pearl Harbor was the crucial factor in turning public sentiment around to support the entry into WWII and the use of military force, but the use of military force and attacking our perceived enemies is not at all what the Pearl Harbor reference in this document is talking about. It makes even more sense that this is the meaning as that is more in line with what the 1941 PH meant from a military standpoint, namely, that it showed that the US Navy was not up-to-date and that the focus of our strength at sea, battleships, were vulnerable to aircraft carriers and the way that the Japanese military was conducting the war. Same thing with this document, it seems to me that most everything in the PH section discusses not falling behind technologically.

Put it in context...

Why did the authors require the armed forces to modernize technologically? To what end?

The title of the chapter is a giveaway: "Creating Tomorrow's Dominant Force".

There are some who would talk down contents of this section - oh it's only about information technologies - though the authors did not take it lightly: "Information technologies are having the same kind of transforming effects on the military as they are having in the larger world. The effects of this military transformation will have profound implications for how wars are fought, what kinds of weapons will dominate the battlefield and, inevitably, which nations enjoy military preeminence."

This one factor is essential support to wider aims of the document: -

To raise the military budget.
To increase presence in the Gulf region.
To ensure America's continued global pre-eminence.

9/11, the new Pearl Harbor, achieved all of this.

2. Your line, "America needed a "New Pearl Harbor" for a fast overhaul of new foreign policy and expenditures in military spending", is an incomplete statement as far as summarizing the gist of this section and this document IMO. Yes, if they wanted to get a 'fast' overhaul of military spending, at least as far as modernization if not more, then they do essentially state that something like PH would be necessary. However, the very same paragraph ends with, "Thus, this report advocates a two-stage process of change – transition and transformation – over the coming decades.". It importantly does not say that the US acting 'fast' is critical, it actually advocates the opposite. If the argument against this is point is that they were really indicating the truth in the beginning of the paragraph and then lying at the end, that's a pretty inconsistent argument.

The document was not a blueprint for 9/11; it shows only the motive that existed.

3. The attribution of this PH quote to 9/11 is very post-hoc. "Pearl Harbor" is a useful and not all that uncommon of a metaphor in the US that has a lot of applications for almost anything that brings about a momentous change. There are any number of events that could have occurred that were of lesser severity than 9/11 that could also be connected to this 'PH' comment even if the govt had nothing to do with it. We could have had a slightly more damaging USS Cole-like attack on our ships, a terrorist attack on one of our allies, any number of things. If this hypothetical event was then followed by the govt ramping up spending and invading some whatever country-du-jour is to blame for the hypothesized incident, would we also be looking back and saying for instance, 'Aha, when Kenya attacked our English allies (yes, I'm making stuff up here, plug in the scenario of your choice) and Bush and Cheney followed it up with a military invasion of Kenya, I discovered this document that talked about a new 'Pearl Harbor' so yea, that's a pretty good indication that they may have orchestrated the original attack'? It's critical to keep in mind when looking at 9/11's connection to this quote the fact that US politicians try to exploit nearly everything that occurs to their advantage, and have been doing so for almost 250 years. Even things that have nothing to do with human causation like natural disasters.

Equally if not more critical to keep in mind that certain U.S. politicians, particularly the PNAC document authors who came to power in 2001, have a history of fabricating situations and promoting lies which work to their advantage, both before and after 9/11 - reference Team B and the Iraq WMD affair.

I don't understand relevance of the hypotheticals you mention - it didn't happen any other way than a Pearl Harbor scale attack, on America, at the beginning of the Neocon term in power.

4. This document is dated Sept 2000. Why on earth would they so blatantly state what they want to happen for all to see if what I think may be your interpretation is correct? I don't want to go too far in assuming your arguments, but you're leaning towards the govt being involved in the collapse of the WTC I think. If that's the case, there's a pretty glaring inconsistency in that the covert proficiency, intelligence, expertise, and power needed to pull off some kind of organized demolition is totally at odds with the buffoonery of publishing your nefarious plans a year beforehand and making it available on the internet.

The document was not a blueprint for 9/11; it shows only the motive that existed.

The individual who wrote of a "new Pearl Harbor" requirement was not necessarily aware of the upcoming 9/11 operation... though working in the same circles and to similar policy as those actually responsible for the plot, would be aware of the benefit an attack would bring.

5. Why select just the 'Pearl Harbor' statement out of this ~60 page document and grant it some deeper significance as far as the truth? Elsewhere in the document the authors lament that, "The "savings" from withdrawing from the Balkans, for example, will not free up anywhere near the magnitude of funds needed for military modernization or transformation." So the solution to that is to get us involved in Afghanistan and Iraq which will remove many orders of magnitude more funds from the equation than the Balkans? Is there some reason not to take this comment concerning how expenditures on military engagements are logically taking away from the modernization that they are seeking as just as indicative of what PNAC wanted as the PH quote?

All indicated is that withdrawal from theatre will not free up the funds for the required modernisation. I'm not sure if you are aware but the large majority of funding for operations comes from a separate pot of money (bank loans) to the annual military budget (taxpayers). Therefore when we pull out of theatre the immediate "savings", so far as funding for modernisation programs go, are low. What was vital in their eyes was a boost to the annual budget, and just look at that rise immediately following 9/11...

The attack was a catalyst for the majority of the aims which were of the highest stakes in the authors' views - America's continued global pre-eminence. There is no denying the motive that existed within certain U.S. ideologies for a 9/11 false flag, and further that it outweighed any potential benefit that could be derived by 'Al Qaeda'.

July 19, 2012

I know LG and WT are having a discussion but I hope neither mind me putting my two cents in...

I certainly don't mind Q, I'm interested in what you have to say also. I won't be able to respond to two different theories simultaneously, but your posts so far have been providing additional detail to what WT and I are already discussing so anything you or anyone have to add is great.

I'll get into some specifics below, but overall I think some of the points/rebuttals you are providing are a little different than what I'm criticizing, and that may be because of my misconstruing the arguments. I was essentially just doing a brain dump of my thoughts on the Pearl Harbor comment in the document, as I see CTs singling this out as especially indicative of something, some apparently going so far to say this is some kind of 'smoking gun' that 9/11 was orchestrated by the govt. A lot of your points have to do with motive, but I guess I don't see then why that has anything to do specifically with the 'PH' comment; it's not that comment, it's the whole document that provides the motive. And it's not like any of this was secretive or anything, the Bush Administration was chock full of hawks and everyone knew it. This PH comment and this document is entirely superfluous since all the motive that should be needed was common knowledge, namely that the Bush Admin wanted increased defense spending, and they got it partially because they exploited 9/11. Maybe I should try it this way and ask that you and WT complete the following sentence if appropriate: "The 'Pearl Harbor' reference in the PNAC document bears mentioning because it specifically shows/suggests _____".

Put it in context...

Why did the authors require the armed forces to modernize technologically? To what end?

The title of the chapter is a giveaway: "Creating Tomorrow's Dominant Force".

There are some who would talk down contents of this section - oh it's only about information technologies - though the authors did not take it lightly: "Information technologies are having the same kind of transforming effects on the military as they are having in the larger world. The effects of this military transformation will have profound implications for how wars are fought, what kinds of weapons will dominate the battlefield and, inevitably, which nations enjoy military preeminence."

This one factor is essential support to wider aims of the document: -

To raise the military budget.

To increase presence in the Gulf region.

To ensure America's continued global pre-eminence.

9/11, the new Pearl Harbor, achieved all of this.

Agreed, but this is using a different sense of 'Pearl Harbor' than how it is used in the document. The document does not say, "in order to quickly raise the military budget, increase our presence in the Gulf, and to ensure global pre-eminence, a new "Pearl Harbor" will be required"; it says to transform the military technologically quickly a new PH would be required, which is made even clearer by the later mention of PH with respect to the Navy. I think we're blending two overlapping PH translations: 1- PH as in motivating the population to be behind essentially anything the govt wants to do militarily, and 2 - PH in the sense of how the 1941 PH demonstrated the obsolescense of our Navy. I think the document uses 'PH' definitely in the #2 sense, but not specifically in the #1 sense, while recognizing again the overlap. The 1941 PH showed we weren't prepared for carrier-based naval engagement and we very quickly upgraded our navy in response; it's difficult to analogize that to the 9/11 'PH' where we are outmatched by some dudes with boxcutters. I think I'm flailing away here perhaps at points no one is specifically making, so I think having a specific statement per my fill-in-the-blanks above would help.

The document was not a blueprint for 9/11; it shows only the motive that existed.

I understand that it's just providing 'motive' but it seems rather arbitrary to not take it any further. For instance, I haven't seen anything in the document saying that any of this transformation needs to be completed quickly (I may well have missed something there's only so much of that PNAC paranoid sales pitch I can stand to read at once), especially since it talks about a decades-long implementation, and WTs statement mentioned a 'fast overhaul' as being part of the point of the PH statement. I think it's entirely fair to say then, 'motive to do what exactly' and that is provided by the document that is providing that motive. Isn't the motive, as laid out in the document, to transform and upgrade our military, increase our presence over the world, increase defense spending over a period of decades? Wouldn't this be the preferable way to do this from a 'Republican' point of view to transition the other govt spending that they don't like, such as social programs, into defense, which will take time? Republicans are all about the deficit supposedly, they really wanted to rack up a bunch more debt to fight a couple wars? I think there's an assumption perhaps being made that since they said they wanted defense spending to increase that they wanted it to happen quickly and massively no matter what the downsides, and I'm not sure if the evidence for that assumption is found in this document that is providing this motive.

I don't understand relevance of the hypotheticals you mention - it didn't happen any other way than a Pearl Harbor scale attack, on America, at the beginning of the Neocon term in power.

Sorry about that, that was definitely unclear. I was just trying to point out that, again depending on what exactly the significance of PH is that is being argued, any number of lesser catastrophic events could have resulted in the Bush Adm ramping up defense spending in response. Some of these events may have nothing to do with anything the US govt had influence over and 'just happened', but some people could still pull out this PNAC document and look at the PH quote and say, "see, this is evidence that they were behind the 'insert alternate momentous event'. This to me is a danger inherent with making these types of connections, I'm not saying it's always invalid or anything, on the contrary it's usually necessary. But it's also the process by which the prophecies of Nostradamus are deemed valid by some: take a somewhat vague statement and attribute some far more specific event and meaning to it just because there is a connection to be made, and that connection is therefore used invalidly as evidence that the original statement is what the author 'really meant'.

The individual who wrote of a "new Pearl Harbor" requirement was not necessarily aware of the upcoming 9/11 operation... though working in the same circles and to similar policy as those actually responsible for the plot, would be aware of the benefit an attack would bring.

The whole point of this document is all the important people who signed on to it, but maybe they didn't read it? Seems like it would be a pretty important section to have rewritten if you were plotting the new 'PH'. Even if I grant for a second that they were actually plotting 9/11, isn't it possible they were aware of the PH statement but didn't felt they needed to take it out because they meant it in the way I've been arguing they meant it, strictly referring to upgrading the military? I'm definitely losing even more sight of why the 'PH' statement deserves any specific mention.

All indicated is that withdrawal from theatre will not free up the funds for the required modernisation. I'm not sure if you are aware but the large majority of funding for operations comes from a separate pot of money (bank loans) to the annual military budget (taxpayers). Therefore when we pull out of theatre the immediate "savings", so far as funding for modernisation programs go, are low. What was vital in their eyes was a boost to the annual budget, and just look at that rise immediately following 9/11...

Thanks for the graph and info, and good point Q. You are correct, it doesn't look like the wars themselves have taken away from the increased spending on the things they laid out in the document that they desired.

There is no denying the motive that existed within certain U.S. ideologies for a 9/11 false flag, and further that it outweighed any potential benefit that could be derived by 'Al Qaeda'.

I'm with you up to the comma, but 'benefit' is a fairly subjective term and I think can only be compared across the same units of measure. The potential benefits to the govt was more money and power, and the benefits to AQ was fame/notoriety and more recruits, to just select a few; you can't really compare one of those being a greater 'benefit' than the other, it depends on what the benefitee is seeking.

July 20, 2012

I'll let you two discuss the PNAC document if you want. From my understanding this was a document brainstormed by a think tank planning for Americas defenses (And offenses) in the coming century. The term "A New Pearl Harbor" I used to think was their lament, because without it would take forever to sway the public without such an act.

But I've come to the conclusion over the years that government "never" wastes a good crisis.

Nowdays I look at that term as their express elevator.

But that's just me. :yes:

July 21, 2012

I'll let you two discuss the PNAC document if you want. From my understanding this was a document brainstormed by a think tank planning for Americas defenses (And offenses) in the coming century. The term "A New Pearl Harbor" I used to think was their lament, because without it would take forever to sway the public without such an act.

But I've come to the conclusion over the years that government "never" wastes a good crisis.

Nowdays I look at that term as their express elevator.

But that's just me.

That is what Rahm Emanuel said, to "never wastes a good crisis".

July 23, 2012

A lot of your points have to do with motive, but I guess I don't see then why that has anything to do specifically with the 'PH' comment; it's not that comment, it's the whole document that provides the motive. And it's not like any of this was secretive or anything, the Bush Administration was chock full of hawks and everyone knew it. This PH comment and this document is entirely superfluous since all the motive that should be needed was common knowledge, namely that the Bush Admin wanted increased defense spending, and they got it partially because they exploited 9/11. Maybe I should try it this way and ask that you and WT complete the following sentence if appropriate: "The 'Pearl Harbor' reference in the PNAC document bears mentioning because it specifically shows/suggests _____".

"The 'Pearl Harbor' reference in the PNAC document bears mentioning because it specifically shows/suggests motive for 9/11; the Neocon mindset that such an event would benefit their wider aims".

Perhaps the above is common knowledge to some, perhaps not to others. Though when those Neocons spell it out so boldly, it is only sensible to use as prime and easily demonstrated evidence of motive. The document even makes the link to 9/11 for us in holding up example of a direct attack on America, involving approximately 3,000 casualties, which served as catalyst to a long war.

I understand that it's just providing 'motive' but it seems rather arbitrary to not take it any further. For instance, I haven't seen anything in the document saying that any of this transformation needs to be completed quickly (I may well have missed something there's only so much of that PNAC paranoid sales pitch I can stand to read at once), especially since it talks about a decades-long implementation, and WTs statement mentioned a 'fast overhaul' as being part of the point of the PH statement. I think it's entirely fair to say then, 'motive to do what exactly' and that is provided by the document that is providing that motive. Isn't the motive, as laid out in the document, to transform and upgrade our military, increase our presence over the world, increase defense spending over a period of decades? Wouldn't this be the preferable way to do this from a 'Republican' point of view to transition the other govt spending that they don't like, such as social programs, into defense, which will take time? Republicans are all about the deficit supposedly, they really wanted to rack up a bunch more debt to fight a couple wars? I think there's an assumption perhaps being made that since they said they wanted defense spending to increase that they wanted it to happen quickly and massively no matter what the downsides, and I'm not sure if the evidence for that assumption is found in this document that is providing this motive.

The suggested timelines of "decades" in the document are based on a premise that conditions following collapse of the Soviet Union would continue, i.e. "precluding the rise of a great power rival" and/or "absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event". Lacking those occurrences, I agree with the authors that the aims would have taken decades to be realised, if at all.

The urgency and concern of the authors at a potential American slide is inherent throughout the whole document though, don't you think?

A couple of examples from many: -

"In sum, the 1990s have been a "decade of defense neglect." 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."

"For the United States to retain the technological and tactical advantages it now enjoys, the transformation effort must be considered as pressing a military mission as preparing for today’s theater wars."

If you understand the Neocon policy then you will know that a "pull back" was not an option. Also the onus is placed on the next president to take action, not the administration a decade or two down the line. It is a process that had to begin immediately, for the turnaround and increase in the defense budget could not occur overnight, not to mention the increased force presence in the Gulf. Could it occur at all over multiple administrations without the transforming event as a driver?

9/11 was all too convenient, providing both reason and the renewed urgency sought - rendering the next president's (and future president's) decision(s) to endorse and enact the roadmap a no-brainer, with a high level of U.S. public support to boot.

This is enormous incentive for a false flag. Those leading career Neocons involved - Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz - were not getting any younger and knew this would be their last chance in power, a 4-8 year window of opportunity to kickstart their agenda and change the course of history in their vision. Were they ruthless enough to generate the pretext? Or would they allow the opportunity to slip?

Sorry about that, that was definitely unclear. I was just trying to point out that, again depending on what exactly the significance of PH is that is being argued, any number of lesser catastrophic events could have resulted in the Bush Adm ramping up defense spending in response.

If that were the reality then people would not draw the "new Pearl Harbor" comparison. The link is made because 9/11 does have a number of significant parallels to Pearl Harbor. And it was a "new Pearl Harbor" that the PNAC referenced; not any lesser event.

The whole point of this document is all the important people who signed on to it, but maybe they didn't read it? Seems like it would be a pretty important section to have rewritten if you were plotting the new 'PH'. Even if I grant for a second that they were actually plotting 9/11, isn't it possible they were aware of the PH statement but didn't felt they needed to take it out because they meant it in the way I've been arguing they meant it, strictly referring to upgrading the military? I'm definitely losing even more sight of why the 'PH' statement deserves any specific mention.

I'm sure that all of the project contributors read the document.

Perhaps they did not want to raise unecessary suspicion in demanding the line be removed?

I'm with you up to the comma, but 'benefit' is a fairly subjective term and I think can only be compared across the same units of measure. The potential benefits to the govt was more money and power, and the benefits to AQ was fame/notoriety and more recruits, to just select a few; you can't really compare one of those being a greater 'benefit' than the other, it depends on what the benefitee is seeking.

Were those hypothesised aims of 'Al Qaeda' realistic? Did they succeed? Have they been a benefit to 'Al Qaeda'?

No all round.

Were the aims set out by the PNAC realistic? Did they succeed? Have they benefitted the PNAC roadmap?

Yes all round.

So we see that the 'Al Qaeda' plot achieved nothing but to drive the PNAC agenda... how curious.

Anyhow, I think we agree the motive that existed for a false flag attack, and that is the whole point which the "new Pearl Harbor" quote is used to demonstrate. It's certainly no 'smoking gun' but one important snippet in building a backdrop to further evidence.

Edited July 23, 2012 by Q24

July 24, 2012

"The 'Pearl Harbor' reference in the PNAC document bears mentioning because it specifically shows/suggests motive for 9/11; the Neocon mindset that such an event would benefit their wider aims".

Thanks for stating that, that does clarify it a bit. I think overall we're in agreement that they wanted to increase defense spending pre-9/11, but just a few responses.

The suggested timelines of "decades" in the document are based on a premise that conditions following collapse of the Soviet Union would continue, i.e. "precluding the rise of a great power rival" and/or "absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event". Lacking those occurrences, I agree with the authors that the aims would have taken decades to be realised, if at all.

The urgency and concern of the authors at a potential American slide is inherent throughout the whole document though, don't you think?

Yes, the urgency and concern is there throughout, as it is with almost every sales pitch, but there is a big difference between a 'slide' and our response to 9/11; we could stop the slide with much more modest increases in defense and foreign policy over a longer period of time. I can definitely grant it's unclear, and thanks for providing the other quotes implying the urgency. Again, no argument that they took advantage of 9/11.

This is enormous incentive for a false flag. Those leading career Neocons involved - Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz - were not getting any younger and knew this would be their last chance in power, a 4-8 year window of opportunity to kickstart their agenda and change the course of history in their vision. Were they ruthless enough to generate the pretext? Or would they allow the opportunity to slip?

Fair enough questions. I think there are fair questions on the other side as long as we're doing armchair psychology. Was it an enormous incentive enough for treason? They really didn't think they could kickstart their agenda in any other way? They came to a decision less than half-way through their term to take this incredible risk (seriously, this would be a certain death penalty I believe, let alone the impact on their families, legacy, etc)? Because they couldn't get enough benefit by playing the usual sleazy political way? Aren't there much easier ways to play shenanigans with congressional members to get the kickstart in defense spending they wanted, that doesn't involve mass murder? It's not 'ruthless', it's pathologically evil. Just points for balance, not a rebuttal, especially since we haven't gotten into what exactly these conspirators allegedly did.

I'm sure that all of the project contributors read the document.

Perhaps they did not want to raise unecessary suspicion in demanding the line be removed?

By raising unnecessary suspicion by leaving it in. If they can't even handle getting a line removed from a document that their own group authored, for consistency's sake I will be watching with a steely eye then for any proposed parts of your theory that require an inordinate ability of these conspirators to be covert or to get people to cooperate.

Were those hypothesised aims of 'Al Qaeda' realistic? Did they succeed? Have they been a benefit to 'Al Qaeda'?

No all round.

Were the aims set out by the PNAC realistic? Did they succeed? Have they benefitted the PNAC roadmap?

Yes all round.

So we see that the 'Al Qaeda' plot achieved nothing but to drive the PNAC agenda... how curious.

And the Manson family murders achieved nothing towards Charlie's hoped-for race war and effectively destroyed those pesky hippies, which was exactly what the government wanted, there are plenty of govt documents supporting that desire. We can ask was Manson's plan realistic, did they succeed, did the govt benefit from that event, equally curious? To make an argument out of this we need to add an assumption in there: that Al Qaeda knew what was going to happen as a result of the attacks and can accurately predict their bleak future. Their prediction of the future was incorrect, happens a lot, it doesn't make the original goals and potential benefits 'unrealistic'. And I don't tend to think there's much overlap between Al Qaeda's religious beliefs and reality anyway. I'm careful about putting too much credence in 'look who benefited' arguments; they lead to a very long list of possible ultimate assassins for JFK. I know you're just providing motive though, so it's good by me as long as that's as far as we're taking it.

Anyhow, I think we agree the motive that existed for a false flag attack, and that is the whole point which the "new Pearl Harbor" quote is used to demonstrate. It's certainly no 'smoking gun' but one important snippet in building a backdrop to further evidence.

I agree there was motive, not sure how much yet, but we're on the same page. Like I said, I'm always a little skeptical of points that rely on, 'but look who benefited from x event', but we agree that it really comes down to the evidence. Again, a refreshing change...

July 24, 2012

Thanks for stating that, that does clarify it a bit. I think overall we're in agreement that they wanted to increase defense spending pre-9/11, but just a few responses.

Apart from defense spending, the other main aim described in the document (which I've not really seen you mention): -

"… to play a more permanent role in Gulf…"

"… a substantial American force presence in the Gulf…"

"… forward-based forces in the [Gulf] region…"

"… longstanding American interests in the [Gulf] region."

"… seek to augment the forces already in the [Gulf] region…"

Also supported by earlier quotes from the Wolfowitz Doctrine which Rebuilding America's Defenses built upon: -

"In the Middle East and Southwest Asia, our overall objective is to remain the predominant outside power in the region and preserve U.S. and Western access to the region's oil."

~Paul Wolfowitz, 1992

And so it happens that the 9/11 attack, the most significant since Pearl Harbor, involved operatives directed not from Russia or China or Korea or African or internal, but how fortunately... the Gulf... which is where the PNAC had wanted to direct U.S. forces all along, even notwithstanding any improved relations with 'enemies' of the region as the PNAC document describes: -

"Indeed, the United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein."

"And even should U.S.-Iranian relations improve, retaining forward-based forces in the region would still be an essential element in U.S. security strategy given the longstanding American interests in the region."

For sure, fate could not have dealt a better hand to the PNAC within the year they came to power. Except, it's nonsense - there was no fate about it - these politicians are exactly the type to manufacture their own 'luck', as they did before and after 9/11. It was all too simple, the loose structure of 'Al Qaeda' allowing, and circumstances indicating, that bin Laden, their chosen bogeyman, be caught in the trap.

Yes, the urgency and concern is there throughout, as it is with almost every sales pitch, but there is a big difference between a 'slide' and our response to 9/11; we could stop the slide with much more modest increases in defense and foreign policy over a longer period of time. I can definitely grant it's unclear, and thanks for providing the other quotes implying the urgency. Again, no argument that they took advantage of 9/11.

How could the Neocon faction ensure 1) the popularity of their aggressive foreign/military policy 2001-2009 without a new great enemy and 2) that over the coming two decades another administration would not gain power and continue the slide of the post-Cold War Clinton years?

The "new Pearl Harbor" pulls the solution out of the hat yet again.

Fair enough questions. I think there are fair questions on the other side as long as we're doing armchair psychology. Was it an enormous incentive enough for treason? They really didn't think they could kickstart their agenda in any other way? They came to a decision less than half-way through their term to take this incredible risk (seriously, this would be a certain death penalty I believe, let alone the impact on their families, legacy, etc)? Because they couldn't get enough benefit by playing the usual sleazy political way? Aren't there much easier ways to play shenanigans with congressional members to get the kickstart in defense spending they wanted, that doesn't involve mass murder? It's not 'ruthless', it's pathologically evil. Just points for balance, not a rebuttal, especially since we haven't gotten into what exactly these conspirators allegedly did.

We could speculate about "any other way" but they are the ones who set the scale at a "new Pearl Harbor"... remember, it's a long War on Terror that was required to drive their agenda for decades, a new threat to replace the Cold War... it really needed to be a momentus event... or a "transforming event" as another of their documents imagined it.

Also it was much further back than halfway through the first year of their term when the plot was decided - a lot came together from 1999, not least fifteen of the hijackers with no previous 'Al Qaeda' affiliation all at once presenting themselves at bin Laden's doorstep as suicidal volunteers, interestingly, just the same year a largescale CIA operation to infiltrate 'Al Qaeda' happened to take place - you see, the 9/11 operation was already underway.

What risk? Do you see any investigations or trials competent to expose the details? What we have in the most vital areas is a whitewash, and I can give examples.

Anyhow, I call it ruthless, you call it evil, but either way, it was putting the nation first, before the people. It's the same philosophy Hitler had... and remember there is a link found between the Nazi era and Neocon policy through Leo Strauss. And in the grand scheme of shaping the globe, which is the level these politicians work at, it does make sense - 3,000 people are nothing next to the future global pre-eminence of America itself. Too many cannot handle that fact.

To make an argument out of this we need to add an assumption in there: that Al Qaeda knew what was going to happen as a result of the attacks and can accurately predict their bleak future. Their prediction of the future was incorrect, happens a lot, it doesn't make the original goals and potential benefits 'unrealistic'.

The outcome was not difficult to conclude even beforehand, and bin Laden knew it: -

"The fact is that Afghanistan, having raised the banner of Islam, has become a target for the crusader-Jewish alliance. We expect Afghanistan to be bombarded, even though the non-believers will say that they do so because of the presence of Usama."

~Osama bin Laden, 1999

I think it obvious that no conceivable benefit could come to 'Al Qaeda'. We would have to assume 'Al Qaeda' were fools who did not consider the consequences. I know, for every potential benefit you attribute to 'Al Qaeda', I'll describe two potential greater benefits to America, and both of which were actually realised. But as you said, you don't put too much stock in motive. Though isn't there a saying "motive is half the crime"?

Osama bin Laden was not a fool and had in the past been careful about just how implicated he became in any attack. It was the same with 9/11, bin Laden was not the commander, only this time the Western operation and propaganda had him setup brilliantly, as planned.

I agree there was motive, not sure how much yet, but we're on the same page. Like I said, I'm always a little skeptical of points that rely on, 'but look who benefited from x event', but we agree that it really comes down to the evidence. Again, a refreshing change...

Was W Tell going to move onto other evidence?

I'm conscious of inadvertently detouring the thread here.

July 25, 2012

Was W Tell going to move onto other evidence?

I'm conscious of inadvertently detouring the thread here.

I've been watching the thread. I'm kinda afraid I won't be able to give this discussion the kind of attention and well written posts that you two have so far provided... but I'm not too afraid of that.

As soon as LG is ready to go forward is cool with me.

July 26, 2012

I've been watching the thread. I'm kinda afraid I won't be able to give this discussion the kind of attention and well written posts that you two have so far provided... but I'm not too afraid of that.

As soon as LG is ready to go forward is cool with me.

Thanks W, and likewise to you and Q on the well-written posts. It's been my turn to be way too busy with work lately, but I'll try to keep up. I'm interested in what both you and Q have to say actually; I think there will be some overlap but based on the progress so far I think I'm getting what I was looking for, which is the best case that can be made for theories other than the official one. I think we're at the point where we are in agreement that the govt had clearly established motive by wanting to increase defense spending and expand the US's military power and presence. If there's something in a previous post above that you think it's important I respond to or that I've left hanging, just let me know, otherwise I think I'm ready for the next step. I'd recommend we continue as we have been, with W and I having the central conversation and Q and anyone else providing any commentary they'd like to the points we're discussing, but anyway you'd like to proceed is good by me.

July 26, 2012

I look forward to seeing this thread move forward to the next point, but I did want to at least comment on one thing; apologies if this takes the thread any further off track.

For sure, fate could not have dealt a better hand to the PNAC within the year they came to power. Except, it's nonsense - there was no fate about it - these politicians are exactly the type to manufacture their own 'luck', as they did before and after 9/11. It was all too simple, the loose structure of 'Al Qaeda' allowing, and circumstances indicating, that bin Laden, their chosen bogeyman, be caught in the trap.

Bogeyman? Yeah, right. He was such a model global citizen, wasn't he? That's why he would say things like this:

The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies -- civilians and military -- is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it...
We -- with God's help -- call on every Muslim who believes in God and wishes to be rewarded to comply with God's order to kill the Americans and plunder their money wherever and whenever they find it. We also call on Muslim ulema, leaders, youths, and soldiers to launch the raid on Satan's U.S. troops and the devil's supporters allying with them, and to displace those who are behind them so that they may learn a lesson.

1998 Fatwa.

Yeah, model global citizen he was. He couldn't possibly have had motive to attack, in any way possible, the United States. Mr. Innocence.

The PNAC neocons just fabricated and orchestrated the whole thing I suppose? Poor misused and misunderstood Usama bin Laden. Nothing but a bogeyman.

Sorry Q, but I just don't agree with you here. Usama bin Laden made his intentions very clear; and they were to terrorize, injure, and murder the United States devils in any way possible and on any front available. He wasn't a fabricated PNAC neocon bogeyman.

July 26, 2012

I look forward to seeing this thread move forward to the next point, but I did want to at least comment on one thing; apologies if this takes the thread any further off track.

Bogeyman? Yeah, right. He was such a model global citizen, wasn't he? That's why he would say things like this:

The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies -- civilians and military -- is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it...

We -- with God's help -- call on every Muslim who believes in God and wishes to be rewarded to comply with God's order to kill the Americans and plunder their money wherever and whenever they find it. We also call on Muslim ulema, leaders, youths, and soldiers to launch the raid on Satan's U.S. troops and the devil's supporters allying with them, and to displace those who are behind them so that they may learn a lesson.

1998 Fatwa.

Yeah, model global citizen he was. He couldn't possibly have had motive to attack, in any way possible, the United States. Mr. Innocence.

The PNAC neocons just fabricated and orchestrated the whole thing I suppose? Poor misused and misunderstood Usama bin Laden. Nothing but a bogeyman.

Sorry Q, but I just don't agree with you here. Usama bin Laden made his intentions very clear; and they were to terrorize, injure, and murder the United States devils in any way possible and on any front available. He wasn't a fabricated PNAC neocon bogeyman.

Yes, bogeyman - bin Laden was made into something greater, worse and more dangerous than he was ever proven to be, in order to scare the masses into supporting the preordained PNAC foreign military agenda. Though do not mistake the context of that comment...

Even though it is apparent that bin Laden was the Neocon chosen bogeyman, does not mean he was a "model global citizen" or "Mr. Innocence". If you read some of my previous posts on the subject you'd know that is not the case: -

It is not a secret that bin Laden did not like American policies in the Middle East and Africa and would support actions against them. You only need listen to the mentioned interviews or read the 1998 fatwa he put his name to. I really cannot imagine he would discourage anyone from a 9/11 style attack, in fact his motive was the opposite. That is, unless bin Laden was just an unbelievably accomplished actor and kept the show up for over a decade.

http://www.unexplain...50#entry4124304

Now I know you like to reference that 1998 fatwa and ignore any wider comments and explanation from bin Laden on the topic - regrettably, that blind eye allows you to make him out as the bloodthirsty psycopath you want. The point necessary to realise is that bin Laden never specifically targetted civilians, he did not see it as an appreciable act, just an acceptable consequence of war; reciprocation to the United States’ own stategy. We have discussed this before in context of his wider comments, to which you did not respond: -

http://www.unexplain...05#entry4095627

In fact we have discussed much further the involvement of bin Laden in regard to 9/11; his influence and certainly foreknowledge of the attack. I am fully aware he was no 'good guy', nevermind a "model global citizen" or "Mr. Innocence". It was this fact which made it so simple to lure, setup and use bin Laden.

Anyhow, please refer to our previous discussions if you have anything further to add.

July 28, 2012

I'm not real sure where the conversation should go from here, since we've been talking motive. But I do want to talk about the buildings.

I suppose I'll start by asking a question. To LG directly, but anyone else that's interested.

Would our military response, that we justified by the actions of that day, have been the same if the buildings had stayed standing?

We would still of had the aftermath of jetliners hijacked and crashed. But if the buildings had stayed standing I don't think it would have had anywhere near the psychologil impact, and directly our military response would've been limited to Bin Laden and Al Quida. I doubt there would have been support for invading nations, replacing leaders, rebuilding them, the extreme loss of liberty at home, etc. I think those buildings had to fall. With people in them. Live on T.V. Seen around the world, to truly get the support needed.

I'm curious of what others think.

July 28, 2012

I'm not real sure where the conversation should go from here, since we've been talking motive. But I do want to talk about the buildings.

I suppose I'll start by asking a question. To LG directly, but anyone else that's interested.

Would our military response, that we justified by the actions of that day, have been the same if the buildings had stayed standing?

We would still of had the aftermath of jetliners hijacked and crashed. But if the buildings had stayed standing I don't think it would have had anywhere near the psychologil impact, and directly our military response would've been limited to Bin Laden and Al Quida. I doubt there would have been support for invading nations, replacing leaders, rebuilding them, the extreme loss of liberty at home, etc. I think those buildings had to fall. With people in them. Live on T.V. Seen around the world, to truly get the support needed.

I'm curious of what others think.

The initial military response, the invasion of Afghanistan, could have been identical. I'm certain that the scale and shock of the 9/11 attack, even without the tower collapses, would have been sufficient to garner the public and international support necessary.

What this theoretical lesser scale attack, with greatly reduced loss of life and the lack of a permanent reminder on the New York skyline, could not achieve so assuredly in comparison to the actual event, is the same continued high level of support that we now see as we move further away from the attack. And remember from the previous discussion - as documented, it was a decades long driving force required; a new Pearl Harbor; a replacement to the Cold War threat; a history transforming event. The collapse of the towers and permanent scar that left, guaranteed the outcome.

No, repaired buildings and hundreds of deaths does not meet the requirement... the towers had to fall.

There was even an additional benefit to be had, though less important than discussed above. The asbestos used in the tower construction was a longstanding problem that needed to be remedied, and which was estimated to cost in the double-digit billion $s (more than the buildings were worth! - in insurance terms, that is called a 'write off'). The Port Authority had been considering having the towers taken down since 1991 due to this asbestos regulation problem but the insurers refused to cover the costs. The Port Authority took the insurers to court but lost the case, leaving them lumbered with that double-digit billion $ bill to come in future... far more costly than the current rebuild project.

Thus followed the Zionist collaboration of Lewis Eisenberg, Ronald Lauder and Larry Silverstein, instrumental in the first ever transfer in the history of the buildings which increased the existing insurance coverage from $1.5 billion to $3.55 billion only six weeks prior to the attack. The insurers, despite their earlier court victory, are now forced to pay out - as they say, there is more than one way to skin a cat. Another benefit now being a compliant building owner to smooth the aftermath. Oh they just got lucky with the timing, I'm sure.

Indeed the towers had to fall and there are money men who will have breathed a concealed sigh of relief when they did - there could be no financial saving through repaired towers. Lewis Eisenberg, one such individual mentioned above, even had this quote to add the day after 9/11: "I just saw my two towers fall. I'm devastated beyond belief. In many respects this is significantly worse than Pearl Harbor, and we don't know who the enemy is." I'm sure his Neocon associates were most grateful for the reference.

There is a huge amount more to add and I could go on, this is only scratching the surface, but I'll wait for W Tell to lead the way...

July 29, 2012

I'm not real sure where the conversation should go from here, since we've been talking motive. But I do want to talk about the buildings.

I suppose I'll start by asking a question. To LG directly, but anyone else that's interested.

Would our military response, that we justified by the actions of that day, have been the same if the buildings had stayed standing?

We would still of had the aftermath of jetliners hijacked and crashed. But if the buildings had stayed standing I don't think it would have had anywhere near the psychologil impact, and directly our military response would've been limited to Bin Laden and Al Quida. I doubt there would have been support for invading nations, replacing leaders, rebuilding them, the extreme loss of liberty at home, etc. I think those buildings had to fall. With people in them. Live on T.V. Seen around the world, to truly get the support needed.

I'm curious of what others think.

Interesting question, but I'll throw out the caveat that this is a point that is far too complex to likely result in any direct evidence for any position. It requires lots of guessing about the mental states of many people, like hundreds of congressmen and hundreds of millions Americans, and their decision making processes all coming together in a very chaotic and I'd argue unpredictable way.

I'm with Q that Afghanistan was pretty much a given. Personally, I don't really think the actual towers falling added that much necessarily to it, it may even be worse and more infuriating to be able to see a severely damaged, wounded WTC left standing, the site of the murder of I'd guess still around a thousand people. The towers collapsing was indeed a dramatic site, but I don't think it matched the shock, spectacle, and raw violence of the South Tower attack. I think the message was largely established at that point: American civilians, you are vulnerable at home.

I don't see how the buildings falling being televised worldwide was necessary for Iraq. It's not like 'the coalition' wasn't composed of anyone who wouldn't support nearly anything the US does.

Again, intriguing question. But again, I'm not sure how much hay we can make out of it. If I understand where you are going, maybe it will be enough if you can show that the conspirators thought that the towers falling was necessary, even if we can't know if it actually was. But I'm not sure what evidence there might be of that either. Alternate histories are fun, but it's not the soundest of evidences IMO. If you feel fairly certain concerning what the incremental components of 9/11 provided in the way of support, then it's fair to ask what more we would have done if 93 would have reached it's target? Would we have invaded yet another country? If 93's attack succeeded but the towers didn't fall, would that be enough to support Iraq? Since it didn't happen that way, that doesn't leave much evidence to base any of our guesses on this.

July 29, 2012

Thus followed the Zionist collaboration of Lewis Eisenberg, Ronald Lauder and Larry Silverstein, instrumental in the first ever transfer in the history of the buildings which increased the existing insurance coverage from $1.5 billion to $3.55 billion only six weeks prior to the attack. The insurers, despite their earlier court victory, are now forced to pay out - as they say, there is more than one way to skin a cat. Another benefit now being a compliant building owner to smooth the aftermath. Oh they just got lucky with the timing, I'm sure.

Okay, I may lack enough knowledge about this to really dispute it, but I'll try. This seems a bit misleading; what you are leaving out is that the insurance coverage increased as part of Silverstein buying a lease on all of WTC. He also asked for $1.5 billion originally and his lenders demanded he increased it, pretty logical since WTC had already been a target. I'm going to crib something directly from screw loose change because I can't rephrase it better:

"As you can see, the article even mentions the fact that this new policy may not even cover the costs of rebuilding. This apparently is a new type of insurance scam, evidently he submitted a public bid on a lease for the complex, all for the opportunity to have his investment destroyed, so he could have the chance to spend years in court, all for the possibility of breaking even! What a scam."

Seriously, I don't know that much about this: how did these Zionists benefit financially from this transaction? Keep in mind also something that was also mentioned on the site I got the quote above, that if the demolition is so obvious, you'll have to explain why that fact eluded the insurers, who are not exactly known for not checking those kind of things out. I might be missing what you think the significance of the asbestos is though.

July 29, 2012

Personally, I don't really think the actual towers falling added that much necessarily to it, it may even be worse and more infuriating to be able to see a severely damaged, wounded WTC left standing, the site of the murder of I'd guess still around a thousand people.

That is if for some reason you wanted to personally believe that hundreds of deaths and repaired buildings (they would not be left in their severely wounded state) are the same as thousands of deaths of a Pearl Harbor equivalent and the permanent removal of landmarks; a constant visible reminder.

I don't see how the buildings falling being televised worldwide was necessary for Iraq. It's not like 'the coalition' wasn't composed of anyone who wouldn't support nearly anything the US does.

Because in that moment 2,000+ lives and landmark buildings were lost in a single catatrophic explosion. The use of this in regard to Iraq is revealed in its comparison to a WMD attack, which the Bush administration constantly talked up prior the 2003 invasion: "We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud." And more. The scale of destruction on 9/11 was more comparable to a WMD attack than simply repaired buildings.

Seriously, I don't know that much about this: how did these Zionists benefit financially from this transaction?

The aim was not to personally benefit financially - I have said this before, sorry for not making clear this time around. As you mention, prior to settling on the insurance, Silverstein made enquiries into taking out between $1.5 billion and $5 billion in coverage. I think it more important to view the $3.55 billion which was eventually decided upon and note this is a significant increase from the existing $1.5 billion policy. Also we should not let it pass that the WTC transfer was a notable first time ever event in the existance of the towers, only six weeks prior to 9/11.

The main benefit I see is this - a compliant building owner in the aftermath. Had this not been the case then we could have seen all sorts of uncomfortable lawsuits arise as the WTC owner attempted to sue the airlines and U.S. goverment for dereliction of duty in allowing the attacks to occur and the builders for stating the towers were resistant to collapse from airliner crashes. This could further have led to an increased investigation of the operation and building collapses (perhaps even a full aircrash investigation with physical recovery of the aircraft wreckage) which was not desired by the perpetrators.

So the installment of Silverstein was a control measure and the increased insurance coverage served to ease the burden of billion $ loans that would need to be taken out by the Port Authority (for notice this is where much of the rebuild funding is coming from; not from Silverstein's pocket despite his holding of the insurance policy).

Just a couple further notes of interest to add: -

As well as having the obvious Neocon and Zionist connections, Silverstein was a close friend of Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu who has stated, "It’s very good [9/11]… well, not very good, but it will generate immediate sympathy [for Israel]." and, "We are benefiting from one thing, and that is the attack on the Twin Towers and Pentagon, and the American struggle in Iraq." This shows further motive for the above.

On the morning of 9/11 it is known that Silverstein was on the phone to his insurers attempting to negotiate the demolition of WTC7, before the building went down like this...

... a demolition immitating collapse.

I mean, come on. That should be enough to have Silverstein investigated/questioned at the very least, nevermind the further body of evidence, yet no one asked him a question about his demolition enquiry phone call. What is going on? An uncomfortable truth that official parties do not want made public, that's what.

It's ok, let's all just assume that fire beat Silverstein to the punch, and that a failed truss on an Eastern floor (the precise floor/collapse initiation level that happened to be occupied by the U.S. Secret Service no less) now leads to the rapid, complete, freefall, virtually symmetrical collapse of skyscrapers.

Edited July 29, 2012 by Q24

July 29, 2012

Q - one small point I would like to raise is how did they know WTC 7 was going to get hit by a chunk of concrete , or are there many co-conspirators . (otherwise it would be obvious it was a mock up ) sorry to butt in.

July 29, 2012

That is if for some reason you wanted to personally believe that hundreds of deaths and repaired buildings (they would not be left in their severely wounded state) are the same as thousands of deaths of a Pearl Harbor equivalent and the permanent removal of landmarks; a constant visible reminder.

Let's not lose lose sight of what we are talking about here. We are not talking about the equivalence between the two scenarios and if they are the same, we are talking about whether the military response would have been significantly different. I don't see any reason that Bush and Cheney couldn't have railroaded us into Iraq just based on the death of over a thousand civilians along with the destruction. If the WTC was left standing, it would also be a constant visible reminder, and the question raised by W pretty clearly refers to the WTC collapsing that day. Heck, us Americans supposedly can't handle pictures of the flag-draped coffins of our fallen servicemen; how do you think a burnt gouged WTC standing like a giant grave marker is going to affect the national mindset. Given how much damage was done I would not be surprised if they would have been demolished anyway even if they hadn't collapsed, and I'm not sure how many businesses would really like to relocate into rebuilt towers after 9/11.

And again, this whole analysis is based on us being able to break apart the different casualties of 9/11, measure them, and explain what the govt response will be over a period of months and years if they can garner support for it. This is nearly pure guesswork, almost entirely opinion-based. If you don't think it is and do think that we can tease apart the damage done and determine the threshold for support for various military responses, then again explain to me how the response would have been different if 93 had succeeded in hitting the White House/Capitol and the reasons and evidence for it. If you have confidence that the towers had to fall to get public support for Iraq for instance, then you are stating that you do have some ability to assess what the response will be to the various destructive components of the disaster; if you do, then you should then be able to tell me what would be the response to 93 reaching it's target. Assume it hit and destroyed the White House for instance but didn't kill any of our top officials. I think the proper response to that question is that it is pretty much pure conjecture, who don't know how specifically they would have responded. Likewise, to me, the effort in trying to determine the threshold of damage required to buttress support for an Iraq invasion is also largely conjecture.

Because in that moment 2,000+ lives and landmark buildings were lost in a single catatrophic explosion. The use of this in regard to Iraq is revealed in its comparison to a WMD attack, which the Bush administration constantly talked up prior the 2003 invasion: "We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud." And more. The scale of destruction on 9/11 was more comparable to a WMD attack than simply repaired buildings.

I didn't technically hypothesize repaired buildings. The question as asked assumes that they are collapsing dramatically on live TV for the world to see; it loses some of that drama if they stood and we had to take few months and dismantle them. Again, I'm having trouble believing that there'd be many businesses seeking leases in a repaired WTC after a thousand+ people died there; it's kinda like putting up a YMCA at Auschwitz. Regardless, I'm not necessarily seeing the strength of the connection you are seeing to the WMD scare-mongering and the necessity that the towers fall. From a logical perspective, the towers falling don't seem to have much to do with the reasoning behind the threat of WMDs. It's not that the towers fell that indicates we are vulnerable to a WMD attack, it's that guys with boxcutters were able to pretty easily attack us and cause widespread damage; if we are vulnerable to that then of course we're logically vulnerable to a WMD attack, that would require potentially even fewer perpetrators to pull off.

The aim was not to personally benefit financially - I have said this before, sorry for not making clear this time around.

No apology necessary Q, I appreciate you taking the time to provide the detail to someone who is just looking into this angle.

As you mention, prior to settling on the insurance, Silverstein made enquiries into taking out between $1.5 billion and $5 billion in coverage. I think it more important to view the $3.55 billion which was eventually decided upon and note this is a significant increase from the existing $1.5 billion policy. Also we should not let it pass that the WTC transfer was a notable first time ever event in the existance of the towers, only six weeks prior to 9/11.

What I heard is that Silverstein wanted to take out 1.5 bill and was forced by lenders to take out the 3.5 billion; if Silverstein would have gotten what he originally wanted he'd be short insurance wise and possibly he and his lenders would take a significant loss. I'm not sure of the significance of the WTC transfer being a first time ever event. Likewise not sure how the fact that the closing of the deal was only 6 weeks before (it had actually been agreed to in April). Whatever the significance, how long would have needed to pass before it's not suspicious enough to merit mentioning? If the deal was closed 6 months before would we also be making sure to 'not let it pass'? A year?

The main benefit I see is this - a compliant building owner in the aftermath. Had this not been the case then we could have seen all sorts of uncomfortable lawsuits arise as the WTC owner attempted to sue the airlines and U.S. goverment for dereliction of duty in allowing the attacks to occur and the builders for stating the towers were resistant to collapse from airliner crashes. This could further have led to an increased investigation of the operation and building collapses (perhaps even a full aircrash investigation with physical recovery of the aircraft wreckage) which was not desired by the perpetrators.

So the installment of Silverstein was a control measure and the increased insurance coverage served to ease the burden of billion $ loans that would need to be taken out by the Port Authority (for notice this is where much of the rebuild funding is coming from; not from Silverstein's pocket despite his holding of the insurance policy).

What then is the benefit to Silverstein again? It's not actually financial? The Port Authority owned the building before Silverstein I believe, a govt agency. 'They' couldn't have quashed these hypothesized lawsuits right there? Why can't they obtain the compliance of another govt agency? Most importantly, how do they prevent the insurance companies from bringing these uncomfortable lawsuits, regardless of the actual ownership?

On the morning of 9/11 it is known that Silverstein was on the phone to his insurers attempting to negotiate the demolition of WTC7, before the building went down like this...

... a demolition immitating collapse.

Depends on which demolition expert you ask as far as how 'imitating it was', correct?

I mean, come on. That should be enough to have Silverstein investigated/questioned at the very least, nevermind the further body of evidence, yet no one asked him a question about his demolition enquiry phone call. What is going on? An uncomfortable truth that official parties do not want made public, that's what.

Huh, I'm not following you here. First, the source of the evidence for this phone call is a journalist relaying what police officers overheard, I'm sure the message and context and full meaning was communicated perfectly... And what is so unusual about this? WTC 7 is significantly damaged and on fire, sounds like there was some structural problems, you think it's unusual for the owner of the property to be discussing options with his insurer? I mean, come on, indeed.

It's ok, let's all just assume that fire beat Silverstein to the punch, and that a failed truss on an Eastern floor (the precise floor/collapse initiation level that happened to be occupied by the U.S. Secret Service no less) now leads to the rapid, complete, freefall, virtually symmetrical collapse of skyscrapers.

I hope you are just referring to WTC 7 with the reference to free fall; the twin towers collapse was clearly not free fall. And I have to ask the question I usually do to points of this nature: if you think the way WTC 7 collapsed does not make sense, then tell me what should have happened? How should it have collapsed, or should it have withstood extensive damage and fires burning for hours? Most importantly, how do you know this? You seem to pretty clearly have made a prediction of what should have happened since something about the WTC 7 appears to be unusual to you. What is that prediction and how did you calculate it? Needless to say, it is an extremely complex calculation with large chunks of missing data, I'm wondering how anyone can say 'it shouldn't have happened that way'. I believe this type of analysis usually requires computer modeling, not sure if that exists and supports your alternate prediction.

July 30, 2012

Sorry LG, I'm halfway through a response, having time issues at the moment, should be there tomorrow.

Q - one small point I would like to raise is how did they know WTC 7 was going to get hit by a chunk of concrete , or are there many co-conspirators . (otherwise it would be obvious it was a mock up ) sorry to butt in.

Why do you assume anyone knew WTC7 would be impacted by the tower debris?

July 30, 2012

Oh have the first half...

Let's not lose lose sight of what we are talking about here. We are not talking about the equivalence between the two scenarios and if they are the same, we are talking about whether the military response would have been significantly different.

I mentioned that the initial military response would be no different between W Tell's hypothetical and the actual events - so nothing to talk about there. I then extended the discussion to consider long term public support - that is the reason I believe the towers had to fall. The only difference between our opinion there, is that I accept from the horse's mouth that a new Pearl Harbor scale attack was deemed the requirement, whereas you try to impose your own requirement on their operation.

At the end of it all, what Neocon documents show is that a decades long driving force; a replacement to the Cold War threat; a history transforming event were required to maximise their policies. Whatever we personally think was 'enough' to secure this, what is for certain is that 9/11 achieved the end.

I'm going to use another excerpt from a document in a final attempt to convince you of the scale of attack on the Neocon mind, then believe what you will: -

CATASTROPHIC TERRORISM: ELEMENTS OF A NATIONAL POLICY

Imagining the Transforming Event

An act of catastrophic terrorism that killed thousands or tens of thousands of people and/or disrupted the necessities of life for hundreds of thousands, or even millions, would be a watershed event in America’s history. It could involve loss of life and property unprecedented for peacetime and undermine Americans’ fundamental sense of security within their own borders in a manner akin to the 1949 Soviet atomic bomb test, or perhaps even worse. Constitutional liberties would be challenged as the United States sought to protect itself from further attacks by pressing against allowable limits in surveillance of citizens, detention of suspects, and the use of deadly force. More violence would follow, either as other terrorists seek to imitate this great "success" or as the United States strikes out at those considered responsible. Like Pearl Harbor, such an event would divide our past and future into a "before" and "after."

http://www.hks.harva...n/terrorism.htm

I conclude again, the safe bet on their part, was that the towers should fall. And again, it doesn't matter what we think or would have planned given the task - it is only what the perpetrators thought that mattered.

What I heard is that Silverstein wanted to take out 1.5 bill and was forced by lenders to take out the 3.5 billion; if Silverstein would have gotten what he originally wanted he'd be short insurance wise and possibly he and his lenders would take a significant loss. I'm not sure of the significance of the WTC transfer being a first time ever event. Likewise not sure how the fact that the closing of the deal was only 6 weeks before (it had actually been agreed to in April). Whatever the significance, how long would have needed to pass before it's not suspicious enough to merit mentioning? If the deal was closed 6 months before would we also be making sure to 'not let it pass'? A year?

I'm not sure that Silverstein was forced to increase the insurance or that the 'ins and outs' of the process are in the public domain for us to consider. What is for certain is that the final agreed figure was a significant increase on the existing policy.

Did you know that Silverstein was not the highest bidder, yet at the closing stages there was some complication and so he was still presented the lease by his Zionist associate and Chairman of the Port Authority, Lewis Eisenberg? It was another Zionist connection, Ronald Lauder who recommended the towers be privatised in the first place. One could be forgiven for thinking that the whole transfer to Silverstein was pre-arranged.

Incidentally, even now the insurance does not cover the rebuild project (as mentioned, this was not the aim). A large part of the funding has been covered by taxpayer bonds through the Port Authority, and this assistance actually led to Silverstein making a profit on the WTC7 phase of the rebuild.

To your question - had the transfer occurred prior to 1999 (this is when the 9/11 operation appears to have got underway), I'd have let it go. Then again... not completely. All indication is that the towers were demolished, which places Silverstein, as the building owner, in the spotlight.

What then is the benefit to Silverstein again? It's not actually financial? The Port Authority owned the building before Silverstein I believe, a govt agency. 'They' couldn't have quashed these hypothesized lawsuits right there? Why can't they obtain the compliance of another govt agency? Most importantly, how do they prevent the insurance companies from bringing these uncomfortable lawsuits, regardless of the actual ownership?

The benefit to Silverstein is as the benefit to Israel. Do you understand how Neocon and Zionsit policies go hand in hand?

The control and compliance of a private individual is greater than a government agency board.

The insurance companies paid out on an act of terrorism - which it was anyway we look at it - I'm not sure there was anything for them to dispute on that matter. In my experience, it is decision of the policy holder to litigate responsibility leading to a claim, i.e. if Silverstein did not want to challenge who was at fault for the attack, there is nothing further the insurance companies could do.

Depends on which demolition expert you ask as far as how 'imitating it was', correct?

For sure there are some narrow minded demolition experts out there who cannot comprehend a necessarily non-conventional demolition. Mark Loizeaux of Controlled Demolitions Inc. comes to mind. He believes the WTC buildings were not demolished due to lack of a loud chain of explosions immediately prior collapse and/or lack of miles of detcord found in the debris. Yes, because that would make for a superb covert demolition, fantastic reasoning - what a moron.

It seems that experts are susceptible to bias and logic failures so much as anyone else. I use expert opinion in the most part to counter experts raised by official story adherents; to show there are experts on both sides. I'd rather keep discussion between us... than take turns to see who can quote most experts in their favour, which the official narrative would lose anyway.

I will get to the rest, the building/damage features and characteristics, tomorrow...

July 30, 2012

Outstanding topic.

I thought it was about Turkey the country. I should have checked sooner. :blush:

The topic reminds me of the implications of Ike's Farewell Address--BEWARE, lest the government be taken over by cruel and greedy and belligerent special interests.

July 30, 2012

I'm not real sure where the conversation should go from here, since we've been talking motive. But I do want to talk about the buildings.

I suppose I'll start by asking a question. To LG directly, but anyone else that's interested.

Would our military response, that we justified by the actions of that day, have been the same if the buildings had stayed standing?

We would still of had the aftermath of jetliners hijacked and crashed. But if the buildings had stayed standing I don't think it would have had anywhere near the psychologil impact, and directly our military response would've been limited to Bin Laden and Al Quida. I doubt there would have been support for invading nations, replacing leaders, rebuilding them, the extreme loss of liberty at home, etc. I think those buildings had to fall. With people in them. Live on T.V. Seen around the world, to truly get the support needed.

I'm curious of what others think.

You're right about that WT. Manipulating the public perception is explicit in the PNAC document. Experts at manipulating the public perception were employed, obviously.

The buildings being struck by airplanes generated large amounts of psychic trauma to those watching. Their collapse was icing on the cake. But that does not necessarily mean that there were not OTHER reasons to bring the towers down.

The collapse of WTC7, which I did not see that day, served other purposes.

Edited July 30, 2012 by Babe Ruth

July 31, 2012

I mentioned that the initial military response would be no different between W Tell's hypothetical and the actual events - so nothing to talk about there. I then extended the discussion to consider long term public support - that is the reason I believe the towers had to fall. The only difference between our opinion there, is that I accept from the horse's mouth that a new Pearl Harbor scale attack was deemed the requirement, whereas you try to impose your own requirement on their operation.

Oh there are a few more very relevant differences. First you are assuming that there is some concrete definition you can apply to the word 'Pearl Harbor scale attack' and declare what does and doesn't fit that description. Obviously the death counts are somewhat close, 9/11 is about 600 over (3000 vs 2400); my rough estimate is that we'd have roughly half the 9/11 casualties if the towers would have stayed standing. You're telling me that if only 1500 people were murdered and the towers stood and we went into Iraq, that you wouldn't be referring to that alternate 9/11 as a PH scale attack and tie it to that reference in the document? It also doesn't take into account that 9/11 was more terrifying to Americans than PH. There was already significant conflict going on when PH happened, and unlike PH, people in every major American city were scared that they could be a victim of terrorists immediately after 9/11; Chicagoans were not too worried that they were going to be bombed by the Japanese on 12/8/1941.

And again, you are taking a far more open approach to the PH quote than I am, which refers specifically to upgrading our technological capability; you see it as a reference to "a history transforming event" that was required "to maximise their policies". Let's take 2 possible events:

- a fleet of Chinese new stealth submarines attack and sink an aircraft carrier and a several other ships with PH level casualties

- 9/11

Now which one of those scenarios better fits the 2 references to PH in the document? I argue it's clearly the first, if you look at it in the context in which it is mentioned. We don't necessarily need to upgrade our aircraft carriers and missle systems to invade Iraq or Afghanistan, they are nowhere near us technologically; stealth subs require the fast development of the types of things mentioned in the sections that refer to PH, and is analogous to the 1941 PH. So you are then arguing that 9/11 is close enough to the PH reference if you agree that the sub scenario is a better fit. Since we've already allowed some latitude to allow the less-better fit of 9/11, we have thus opened it up to that many more feasible events that we could retroactively deem close enough to the PH reference, and many of these feasible events may have absolutely nothing with our govt planning anything. And that is my problem; there are all kinds of possible catastrophic events that fits within the latitude you are allowing this term to fit that our govt is not involved in, that would have the same connection to the PH quote. Let's say that when 9/11 happened you immediately after pulled out this doc and said, a-ha, the new PH, that's evidence the govt arranged it. But then after you investigate, you find some evidence that convinces you that the OCT is actually correct. Since you can connect 9/11 to PH and thereby suspect the govt just on that alone, isn't the fact that you can do this under the scenario that Al Q committed it all by their lonesome and under the scenario that Cheney remote-controlled the planes into their targets give us some indication that this really isn't that great of evidence then? (Dude, I'm sorry, I realize that the above is a ton of word salad; appreciate the challenging content here and I do have an objection to the post-hoc connect-the-dots close-enough method that I think is being employed here, but am not fooling myself that I'm doing a good job of explaining my objection. It may coalesce into something more concise as we proceed).

I do like how we are proceeding by starting at the top and drilling to the detail, but the idea that 'they' were telegraphing, for some foolish reason since it was hardly covert, that they needed 9/11 to happen, to the detail that the towers needed to fall, is something that is given credence by other evidence I think. To my knowledge, the document does not say that a PH attack is required for a years-long commitment; it says a PH attack is required for a quick upgrade of our military technologically. I don't have a problem with you saying that the document is motive, but if we are now going to claims something to the level of 'horse's mouth', then I think it's reasonable that we stick pretty closely to what the document actually says, and not go by the many things that it suggests.

I'm going to use another excerpt from a document in a final attempt to convince you of the scale of attack on the Neocon mind, then believe what you will: -

I'll need a little help with your summary of what this document shows. You're not actually surprised a document exists analyzing policy positions in response the threat of catastrophic terrorism, there are probably several, with different policy recommendations. This document talks about WMDs; aren't those typically of a greater destructive scale than even 9/11, as long as we're connecting dots and questioning how close is close enough in these references? One nuke pretty much anywhere in NY dwarfs 9/11.

I conclude again, the safe bet on their part, was that the towers should fall. And again, it doesn't matter what we think or would have planned given the task - it is only what the perpetrators thought that mattered.

Agreed. I'm not sure the method being used to determine what the perpetrators thought is that valid, but I agree with your point.

I'm not sure that Silverstein was forced to increase the insurance or that the 'ins and outs' of the process are in the public domain for us to consider. What is for certain is that the final agreed figure was a significant increase on the existing policy.

Did you know that Silverstein was not the highest bidder, yet at the closing stages there was some complication and so he was still presented the lease by his Zionist associate and Chairman of the Port Authority, Lewis Eisenberg? It was another Zionist connection, Ronald Lauder who recommended the towers be privatised in the first place. One could be forgiven for thinking that the whole transfer to Silverstein was pre-arranged.

The company that won the bid backed out apparently because of lease terms and tax liability. One might reasonably 'suspect' that something was pre-arranged, but I think that's because the label 'Zionist' is doing a lot more work for you than it does for me. There are lots of gradients of Zionist, and I don't know how many of those gradients are willing to get involved in the murder of a few thousand people.

All indication is that the towers were demolished, which places Silverstein, as the building owner, in the spotlight.

I'll be interested to see your 'all indication', as that would be what is required to make Silverstein compelling.

The benefit to Silverstein is as the benefit to Israel. Do you understand how Neocon and Zionsit policies go hand in hand?

'Muslim' does not equal 'someone willing to commit mass-murder in the name of Allah'; 'Zionist' does not equal 'someone willing to commit mass-murder for Israel'.

The control and compliance of a private individual is greater than a government agency board.

It's not a private individual, you've implicated at least 3 people. I don't agree with the truth of the above anyway, it depends entirely on the situation.

The insurance companies paid out on an act of terrorism - which it was anyway we look at it - I'm not sure there was anything for them to dispute on that matter. In my experience, it is decision of the policy holder to litigate responsibility leading to a claim, i.e. if Silverstein did not want to challenge who was at fault for the attack, there is nothing further the insurance companies could do.

Hmmm, you're not sure there was anything to dispute? How about that 'all indications is that the towers were demolished'? I'm not positive, but I'm pretty sure you're incorrect about the policy holder and litigation. It's not like if you own a business and it burns to the ground, you can tell your insurance company you'd rather they not look into it and see if it's arson or not. And that's what you are going to provide evidence of I believe, that Silverstein essentially participated in the desctruction of his own buildings; I don't think that's covered by the 'terrorism coverage' he bought.

It seems that experts are susceptible to bias and logic failures so much as anyone else. I use expert opinion in the most part to counter experts raised by official story adherents; to show there are experts on both sides. I'd rather keep discussion between us... than take turns to see who can quote most experts in their favour, which the official narrative would lose anyway.

I sincerely doubt that loss by sheer total of experts. Regardless the number of experts isn't really that relevant, unless possibly it's lopsided; the better evidenced and reasoned argument wins. We probably don't have the expertise to evaluate the statements of these experts, but there are other things we can argue concerning that. (A little foreshadowing: you know who has a lot of money, loads of political power that spans the relative transiency of presidential administrations, and can get the best most credentialed experts? Insurance companies). I agree that experts are susceptible to bias and logic failures as much as anyone else... in fields outside of their expertise. If they are that susceptible, then why are they experts?

I will get to the rest, the building/damage features and characteristics, tomorrow...

Great food for thought as always Q, definitely take your time, I'm going to have limited time during the work week and yours and W's points take a lot of getting up to speed on my part.

July 31, 2012

Obviously the death counts are somewhat close, 9/11 is about 600 over (3000 vs 2400); my rough estimate is that we'd have roughly half the 9/11 casualties if the towers would have stayed standing. You're telling me that if only 1500 people were murdered and the towers stood and we went into Iraq, that you wouldn't be referring to that alternate 9/11 as a PH scale attack and tie it to that reference in the document?

I have not specified a set number of casualties that were or were not required. What I have argued is that thousands of deaths and destroyed buildings meets the requirement more assuredly than hundreds of deaths and repaired buildings.

I think that your estimate, whilst quite possible, leans heavily toward the high side. There were an estimated 5,000 -7,000 people in each tower at time of the impact. If we divide that by 110 floors to assume a roughly equal spread throughout the towers, and multiply by approximately 6 floors in the impact zone... and add passengers of the four aircraft and those Pentagon victims... there is a potential for less than 1,000 casualties at the time of impact, i.e. in the hundreds.

This does not compare so favorably to the "Pearl Harbor" scale or "An act of catastrophic terrorism that killed thousands or tens of thousands" quoted in my previous post.

Your argument is this: the towers did not need to fall because the lesser number of casualties and damaged buildings would be enough. This is like claiming that Hitler did not need 21 border incidents during Operation Himmler... because I personally think that 10 would have been enough. It doesn't matter what you or I think - only what the perpetrators thought.

When it comes to 9/11, the most confident way to determine what the perpetrators thought and would aim for is through their own words: "An act of catastrophic terrorism that killed thousands or tens of thousands of people... loss of life and property unprecedented for peacetime... Like Pearl Harbor... "

The collapses guaranteed that outcome, and so the towers had to fall.

And again, you are taking a far more open approach to the PH quote than I am, which refers specifically to upgrading our technological capability; you see it as a reference to "a history transforming event" that was required "to maximise their policies".

Yes I am approaching requirement for a "new Pearl Harbor" in the Rebuilding America's Defenses document more openly by accepting the context in which the technological upgrades were required, i.e. the wider aims which it was to support.

I have further supplied another Pearl Harbor quote above from a different Neocon authored document which has nothing to do with technological upgrades, but in fact forming "a watershed event in America’s history... as the United States strikes out at those considered responsible."

I should add again that I don't believe this is direct evidence those connected to the authors actually effected the attack, only strong evidence of motive to do so (which can exist whether they actually did it or not) and requirement of the scale witnessed.

I'll need a little help with your summary of what this document shows. You're not actually surprised a document exists analyzing policy positions in response the threat of catastrophic terrorism, there are probably several, with different policy recommendations. This document talks about WMDs; aren't those typically of a greater destructive scale than even 9/11, as long as we're connecting dots and questioning how close is close enough in these references? One nuke pretty much anywhere in NY dwarfs 9/11.

The document once again shows the benefit that a large scale attack would provide to an aggressive foreign/military policy - an additional example of motive. Yes WMDs are referenced, as is "Pearl Harbor". Going back to what I said before, I just don't think that potentially hundreds of deaths and repaired buildings met the scale discussed in these documents.

One might reasonably 'suspect' that something was pre-arranged, but I think that's because the label 'Zionist' is doing a lot more work for you than it does for me. There are lots of gradients of Zionist, and I don't know how many of those gradients are willing to get involved in the murder of a few thousand people.

I absolutely agree with everything above.

How familiar are you with the creation of the state of Israel and the history since? Zionist policies have led to the deaths of more than a few thousand people in their time, as have Neocon policies. I don't know why anyone would think the 3,000 in the towers warranted special treatment from those groups next to their agendas.

Hmmm, you're not sure there was anything to dispute? How about that 'all indications is that the towers were demolished'? I'm not positive, but I'm pretty sure you're incorrect about the policy holder and litigation. It's not like if you own a business and it burns to the ground, you can tell your insurance company you'd rather they not look into it and see if it's arson or not. And that's what you are going to provide evidence of I believe, that Silverstein essentially participated in the desctruction of his own buildings; I don't think that's covered by the 'terrorism coverage' he bought.

When you crash a motor vehicle, you do not have to challenge that the other driver or a third party is at fault - just accept liability and make the claim. I still believe that if Silverstein did not want to challenge responsibility for the attack then the insurers had nowhere to go. And I'm not sure that Silverstein participated in the destruction of the buildings, rather facilitated the aftermath.

Huh, I'm not following you here. First, the source of the evidence for this phone call is a journalist relaying what police officers overheard, I'm sure the message and context and full meaning was communicated perfectly... And what is so unusual about this? WTC 7 is significantly damaged and on fire, sounds like there was some structural problems, you think it's unusual for the owner of the property to be discussing options with his insurer? I mean, come on, indeed.

Well we already have "motive" noted down for this group, there's no harm in adding "intent" - not only was there benefit to be had in the attack, there is also the building owner seeking to authorize the demolition.

And I have to ask the question I usually do to points of this nature: if you think the way WTC 7 collapsed does not make sense, then tell me what should have happened? How should it have collapsed, or should it have withstood extensive damage and fires burning for hours? Most importantly, how do you know this? You seem to pretty clearly have made a prediction of what should have happened since something about the WTC 7 appears to be unusual to you. What is that prediction and how did you calculate it? Needless to say, it is an extremely complex calculation with large chunks of missing data, I'm wondering how anyone can say 'it shouldn't have happened that way'. I believe this type of analysis usually requires computer modeling, not sure if that exists and supports your alternate prediction.

To understand what should have happened, you can look at any example of fire or truss failure in modern, high-rise, steel framed buildings that has occurred before. What you will find is that none have ever led to sudden and complete collapse of the entire building. WTC7 should never have suffered the collapse witnessed at all taking all precedent into account.

And what extensive damage? There was no extensive damage prior collapse initiation. The official report accepts that neither the debris damage or heated columns had a bearing on the WTC7 collapse. The initial damage was superficial and the collapse a freak occurence due to the building design, according to the official report (susceptible to progressive collapse they said).

Can I ask, do you understand the process of the NIST collapse theory, how one event led to the next?

Oh computer modelling - it's amazing how flexible that can be. Did you know that for the towers the best estimate computer model of the buildings, damage and fires showed no collapse should occur? Of course, that was simple to manipulate with manual inputs until the only politically acceptable result was achieved.

The official 'investigations' were nothing of the sort - the conclusions were preconceived.

Talking Turkey

Recommended Posts

+Liquid Gardens

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

W Tell

Liquid Gardens

OverSword

Posted Images

Q24

Link to comment

Share on other sites

+Liquid Gardens

Link to comment

Share on other sites

W Tell

Link to comment

Share on other sites

lliqerty

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Q24

Link to comment

Share on other sites

+Liquid Gardens

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Q24

Link to comment

Share on other sites

W Tell

Link to comment

Share on other sites

+Liquid Gardens

Link to comment

Share on other sites

booNyzarC

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Q24

Link to comment

Share on other sites

W Tell

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Q24

Link to comment

Share on other sites

+Liquid Gardens

Link to comment

Share on other sites

+Liquid Gardens

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Q24

Link to comment

Share on other sites

manworm

Link to comment

Share on other sites

+Liquid Gardens

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Q24

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Q24

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Babe Ruth

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Babe Ruth

Link to comment

Share on other sites