DailyStrength will be undergoing a scheduled site upgrade, starting Monday, June 27 beginning at 7am EDT (4am PDT). This should take approximately 28 hours to complete. During that time, you will not be able to register as a new member or make any new posts.

More DailyStrength
Health Event Calendar
See what's new on the site
Step-by-step Tutorials
How to use DailyStrength
We're on Facebook
Check out our page
Follow us on Twitter
Read our tweets
Get Cool DS Stuff!!!!!
Shirts, Hats, Baby Wear
911 Conspiracy Thread
Watch this 
View More Posts Ignore
Since this topic seems to come up over and over again, I figured maybe this would be good place to vent and discuss so as not to hijack (pardon the pun!) other threads...

Yes, I am aware of PNAC and the one 'Pearl Harbor' quote taken out of context. Unless one considers it in context it can be manipulated to mean something sinister.

First, the actual full quote is this:

"Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor".

The odd word here seems to be "transformation". What do they mean? Let's look back to the beginning of the same chapter:

"To preserve American military preeminence in the coming decades, the Department of Defense must move more aggressively to experiment with new technologies and operational concepts, and seek to exploit the emerging revolution in military affairs. Information technologies,in particular, are becoming more prevalent and significant components of modern military systems. These information technologies are having the same kind of transforming effects on military affairs 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".

So "transformation" refers to the process of introducing more information technologies into the military. What does 9/11 have to do with that? Nothing at all. In fact, the attacks demonstrated that one of the PNAC's pet schemes, a global missile shield, is entirely useless when planes can become bombs.

Now, it’s certainly true that Bush has continued to fund it, and with significant budget increases immediately post 9/11, but who says he wouldn’t have done so anyway? The reality is that the attacks themselves only give ammunition to hjs critics. And some of them had it immediately:

Some elected officials got the message. Sen. Carl Levin told Rumsfeld at a June 2001 hearing that we were lavishing money on missile defense and not "putting enough emphasis on countering the most likely threats to our national security ... like terrorist attacks."

So how did 9/11 make Levin look wrong, and the Bush administration right?

Back to the PNAC, where there's still the "Pearl Harbor" aspect. What did they mean by that? We can get an indication from the one other sentence in the document that uses the phrase.

"Absent a rigorous program of experimentation to investigate the nature of the revolution in military affairs as it applies to war at sea, the Navy might face a future Pearl Harbor – as unprepared for war in the post-carrier era as it was unprepared for war at the dawn of the carrier age".

The use of Pearl Harbour here means "a form of attack which we don't have the technology to counter", which now lets us make more sense of the first quote. All they're saying is that "the process of updating the US military will take a long time, unless the problems are made apparent by an attack that reveals our technical failings". 9/11 undoubtedly revealed failings in intelligence and response on the day, but nothing that matches the PNAC’s agenda. There’s no military technology fix that would have prevented it.

What about the other claims? 911Truth say the document wants Hussein to be "toppled immediately". Other sites also claim the PNAC wanted war with Iraq, but what do they say in the document?

"After eight years of no-fly-zone operations, there is little reason to anticipate that the U.S. air presence in the region should diminish significantly as long as Saddam Hussein remains in power. Although Saudi domestic sensibilities demand that the forces based in the Kingdom nominally remain rotational forces, it has become apparent that this is now a semi-permanent mission. From an American perspective, the value of such bases would endure even should Saddam pass from the scene."

Not much demand for his removal there. What about Syria, Iran, or other countries that aren’t so popular in the White House?:

"...according to the CIA, a number of regimes deeply hostile to America – North Korea, Iraq, Iran, Libya and Syria – “already have or are developing ballistic missiles” that could threaten U.S allies and forces abroad".

And did the neo-cons want these regimes to be destroyed? Wrong again, this sentence appeared in a chapter recommending that America develop a global missile shield. The shield is required because these countries exist.

Now, we’re not saying that the PNAC didn’t see 9/11 as presenting opportunities (in fact some of the members said publicly that it did). It did deliver increased military spending, of course, but that isn’t purely what the PNAC were after. They’re after targeted spending on new technologies, not simply more money. After the Pearl Harbor quote, for instance, the document reminds us it recommended a decision to “suspend or terminate aircraft carrier production”, and mentioned that the “Joint Strike Fighter... seems an unwise investment”. Yet as we write, 4 years on, neither issue is resolved:

"Different versions of the Joint Strike Fighter are being developed for the Air Force, the Navy and the Marines, and there have been discussions that one of the models could be eliminated. The Pentagon also could delay the development of the next generation aircraft carrier - the CVN 21 - which is scheduled to begin construction in 2007."
Posted on 05/04/13, 01:34 pm
47 Replies | Most Recent Add Your Reply
Reminder: This is a support group for War & Terrorism. We trust you will do your best to remain positive and helpful. For more information, see our rules of the road.

You may also create your own Member Groups where you can moderate the discussion.
Email me when others reply to this topic help
View More Posts Ignore
Reply #41 - 05/12/13  11:35am
" Sorry, been way too busy at work the past few days. Major project went in last week and I've been on call this past week. Plus the manager is on vacation and we also had a major SNAFU with greeting card discounts.

Heheh, insane week.

As far as the science, the vast, VAST majority of scientists, architects, engineers and demolition experts from the most prestigious unitversities, associations and companies in the world are absolutely convinced it is exactly as it seems to be. 19 terrorists hijacked 4 airliners and flew them into things, breaking them. For every member of Architects & Engineers for 911 Truth or Airline Pilots for 911 Truth there are literally thousands upon thousands of scientists, architects, engineers and airline pilots that do not think it was a conspiracy by our government and do not think implosion brought down the buildings.

Beyond that I can apply my own critical thinking and look at possible motives and actual outcomes and also weigh the added benefits vs the additional risks of making the 'conspiracy' way over complicated and involving way too many people.

I can then apply Occam's razor and come to the conclusion I have.

By the way, I did watch the video on eyewitness accounts. I did corroborate them, but what strikes me is out of 12,000 pages there aren't really that many accounts of explosions, and I believe he said there are 156 where the words 'bomb' or 'explosion' are used.

Now I have heard many, many people use those words (and I have myself) to describe many things that are not an actual bomb. Sounds like, felt like, etc...

If I take a paper bag, blow air into it, close one end and slam it between my hands it sounds like an expolision and in fact has most of the traits of an explosion. That's because an explosion is only the rapid expansion of air caused by an somoe form of an accelerant enlosed and then ignited.

If you have hundreds upon hundreds of thousands of tons of structure coming down on floors that for the most part are empty space (air) it compresses the air and when that compressed air ruptures whatever is containing it you have what sounds like an exposolsion. Furthermore if there is fire present that is pushed out with the expanding air and it looks like a fireball.

Extraordiany claims require extraordinary proof. I just don't see anything that even comes close to the evidence and proof that would hold up in a court of law. "
View More Posts Ignore
Reply #42 - 05/12/13  11:38am
" I meant I didn't corroborate the eyewitness accounts. I'd like to see them all in context and hear exactly what the eyewitnesses said. It's far too easy to take selected quotes out of context and twist them to fit a conclusion already arrived upon. As a matter of fact this is what far too many 911 Truther groups have done far too many times. "
View More Posts Ignore
Reply #43 - 05/12/13  3:13pm
" those 156 eyewitness accounts were from a group of 500+ accounts

and you may be right, but the researchers point was, people like you talk about conspiracy theories abounding after the incident, when those accounts were very soon after the incident, it was their spontaneous first impressions of people with feet on the ground

so you can dismiss them as meaningless, but given most of NYC residents dont believe the official narrative, along with this organized group of architects, engineers and scholars who have as much if not more training than you, it really is all about perspective isnt it?

did you watch the Toronto 911 Hearings? there was lab results of the dust that found nanothermite (or supeer thermite, or thermate)

which explains a number of things you use in your argument, the lack of too many explosions, the molten metal in video pouring out of the building, the colour of the smoke, the river of molten metal firefighters in the basement saw, the pyroclastic clouds when the buildings came down, the eyewitness descriptions of the those clouds that were SO hot people caught in them feared they might be burned alive, etc etc etc

Oczams razor is a great little rule, well its not really a rule, or a law of science or anything, its just a philosophy of sorts isnt it? it doesnt really fit if you use it against any of the many declassified false flags, or against the FBI's previous attempt to hjave the WTC towers blown up years earlier

you see, the US government, along with a number of other governments, HAVE killed their own civilians in false flag operations in order to shape public perception, shape policy, and have a convenient "excuse" to go to war

given thats the case, and given the enormous mountain of coincidences that had to all happen at once in order for 9/11 to happen (conspiracy or not), the apparent motives and the HUGE payoffs to SO many corporations, banks, and government officials, even the insider trading that happened right before 9/11 and shortly after it...wel, its not hard to see why the number of people not believing the official narrative is always growing

to me, it was one of the most important dates in history, and the day freedoms started being taken away in earnest in a country that until then bragged about being the freest country in the world

to you it might be the most important terrorist attack commited by 19 Saudi hijackers with boxcutters, some of whom are still alive and never been out of their country of origin, but oddly enough their passports were found in rubble, and are oddly enough still on the FBI's most wanted list, controlled by Bin Laden while hiding out in a cave somewhere -- who took down 3 steel structured skyscrapers in one day, even though none had ever come down before, and one of whom wasnt even hit by a plane

but hey if you want to believe that and all the scientific narrative that goes along with it, even thoughts its been rebutted (is that a word?) scientifically by the 9/11 truth movement's scientists,

that IS your perogative

but I'm not going to sit here and criticize, insult or make fun of you for thinking that

for some reason however, anyone who thinks differently, who dares question a government known for being liars in the past, is for some reason criticized, insulted and made fun of

in my way of thinkjing, distrust and questioning of official government narrartives, decisions and actions may healthy, necessary and patriotic

weird huh? that we can look at the skeptics pressing for another impartial investigation are seen as completely the opposite? someone to deride?

its like the state of Vermont wanting GMO labelling, being sued, because for some reason, the truth is not a good thing

:( "
View More Posts Ignore
Reply #44 - 05/12/13  3:19pm
" my apologies for all the typos, I'm rushing and careless right now

I forgot to ask you again, all these thousands of architects engineers and scholars, who so far outweigh the voices of the truth movement, do they belong to an organized group of believers of the official narrative?

I asked this before but I'll point out again, I am willing to bet money that for every brave professional who has added their name to those organizations, there are a thousand of others who are just as skeptical but arent bravce enough to risk their profession, their reputation or their lives

I'd be interested in seeing any evidence (because I dont think there is any) that what you say is true, oh I believe there are plenty of professionals who DO believe the official narrative, but I'd be doubtful that the skeptic professionals is the low low number you claim it is "
View More Posts Ignore
Reply #45 - 05/12/13  4:28pm
" http://channel.nationalgeographic.c...

Why don't the main players behind the truther movement conduct their own demonstrations showing how they believe it was done?

Maybe they can show how fire doesn't warp steel? Or how easy it is to rig a building for demolition without any visible evidence? Or how airliners impacting buildings at 500 MPH and the ensuing shock, fire and water damage wouldn't render all the explosives, detonators, etc useless? Or how a thin layer of super thermite painted onto steel beams can burn right through them?

If you search you can find endless experts convinced the official version is exactly how it happened. They don't feel the need for a movement to state the obvious. And the obvious answer is 19 radical Islamists hijacked airliners and flew them into buildings.

The 911 Truther claims are fantastical with zero supporting evidence. Just disbelief in the official version without proof or even demonstration of an alternative. It takes much more than that to prove a conspiracy.

By the way, they should be rather embarrassed to associate with the maker of Loose Change and the revised versions. "
View More Posts Ignore
Reply #46 - 05/12/13  5:00pm
" theres plenty of supporting evidence
scientific and otherwise

as much evidence as on your side of the argument

i respectfully submit if there is no organization to which architects, engineers and scholars belong, who DO believe the official narrative, then maybe we cant talk about which side has more

so lets agree to disagree and leave it at that

you and i have different perspectives on the matter

and lets stop insulting or putting down those people who believe either side, OK? "
View More Posts Ignore
Reply #47 - 05/13/13  3:13am
" Diesel truck fire has an interchange shut down in my area. The heat was so hot that the concrete roadway was exploding. I sat on the highway and watched it burn for 30 minutes.

The fire so damaged the overpass that it will have to be torn down and rebuilt.

And that was just a diesel fuel truck, burning in an open area, on a drizzly cool day, with EMS arrival within minutes. "

First | Previous | Page: 1 2 3 4 5 | Next | Most Recent Add Your Reply

More From Around the Web