Originally posted by Iwinder
Excellent thread with lots of evidence to back up your theory.
I struggled a bit with the videos due to being partially deaf but fear not I got the gist of your presentation.

No arguments from myself, only agreement.

S&F

Good job
Regards, Iwinder

Originally posted by Wonderer2012

Cheers, I guess the lack of replies in a way show that there isn't much argument here!

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by Wonderer2012

Cheers, I guess the lack of replies in a way show that there isn't much argument here!

You're right, there isn't. It's pretty hard to get into serious discussion over an argument comprised entirely on "isn't THAT interesting (wink wink)" innuendo dropping.

Are we supposed to critique the quality of innuendo the OP is dropping? In that case I'd say he overdid it, since he claimed the "coiincidences are chilling"- authors aren't supposed to tell the reader what emotions they should be feeling. The story they're spinning should be strong enough to invoke the emotion on its own without having to come out and say what the emotion is they should be having. In the movie Les Miserable did Jean Valjean turn to the camera and tell the audience "you should feel sad right now" when Fantine gave him her daughter just before dying?

If the OP had to specifically say "it's chilling" then it probably really isn't that chilling.

Originally posted by Wonderer2012

Why not stay on topic and address Paul Wolfowitz and how he is referencing Pearl Harbour 3 days after 9/11 when discussing America's military response?

Please keep in mind points 1) and 2) from the OP regarding the PNAC requiring a 'New Pearl Harbour' and Wolfowitz's speech about Pearl Harbour and how the world lives under a 'poverty of expectations' months before 9/11 occured.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by Wonderer2012

Why not stay on topic and address Paul Wolfowitz and how he is referencing Pearl Harbour 3 days after 9/11 when discussing America's military response?

Please keep in mind points 1) and 2) from the OP regarding the PNAC requiring a 'New Pearl Harbour' and Wolfowitz's speech about Pearl Harbour and how the world lives under a 'poverty of expectations' months before 9/11 occured.

Stating that the OP's entire argument is nothing but innuendo dropping IS on topic, but if you insist, fine by me.

I've come to learn that conspiracy theorists manipulate and distort everything to the point where we need to verify everything they tell us even if they say water is wet, so I read the specific PNAC article to find out more about this...and of course, I find out they're manipulating and distorting this too. The entire article was essentially an appeal to use US military power to establish a global Pax Americana, which you can't NOT know has already been official US policy since Truman. The "new Pearl Harbor" was in reference to the unlikelihood of the US being able to achieve that goal today, given the state of the dismantling of the US military, and guess what- 9/11 was NOT the Pearl Harbor the conspiracy theorists are claiming it was. There troops and weapons we sent into Iraq and Afghanistan were troops and weapons the US already had. There were no massive military buildups throughout the world, there were no drafts, there were no major industries converted over into producing weapons, and cutbacks from the military budget have made the military so broke that they've even stopped giving college tuitions to get people to enlist. The master plan you're claiming they're following hasn't even remotely materialized so what the flip difference does it make whether Wolfwittz said "Pearl Harbor" or not?

We both know the conspiracy theorists don't care about any of that. All you care about is your "new Pearl Harbor" buzzwords to promote your conspiracy theories because promoting conspiracy theories is all you care about.

Originally posted by -PLB-
I am puzzeled how you can think this is conincidence. I see a person making an analysis. The fact he makes a pretty accurate analysis is not coincidence, it just means he knows what he is talking about.

Originally posted by Wonderer2012

So America did not invade Afghanistan a month after 9/11 because of 9/11?

You mean to say the invasion was going to happen in 2001 without 9/11?

9/11 was THE catalyst that allowed American foreign policy to get under way in the 21st century, 3 countries have already fallen, only Syria, Iran and N Korea remain from those mentioned by the PNAC document.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by Wonderer2012

So America did not invade Afghanistan a month after 9/11 because of 9/11?

You mean to say the invasion was going to happen in 2001 without 9/11?

9/11 was THE catalyst that allowed American foreign policy to get under way in the 21st century, 3 countries have already fallen, only Syria, Iran and N Korea remain from those mentioned by the PNAC document.

You're being disingenuous. We both know the conspiracy theorists aren't referring to the invasion of Afghanistan in this secret PNAC plan to take over the world. Afghanistan is such a third world toilet of a country that not even the Soviets thought it was worth fighting over, and you're all but admitting yourself it served no purpose for the PNAC agenda when the conspiracy theorists skip right over the invasion of Afghanistan like it never occurred and go straight to the invasion of Iraq. Even then it doesn't serve your purposes, because US and coalition forces have left oil rich Iraq while they are still deployed in dirt poor Afghanistan. Nowhere in the PNAC report does it say the game plan is to give up crucual strategic resources to concentrate on camel herds...or whatever it is a bunch of camels are called. FYI we are never going to take on North Korea as long as China is propping them up. You can't NOT know that.

Let's face facts here. The end result of what you're claiming the 9/11 attack was staged to create isn't even remotely what we're actually accomplished. That necessarily means that regardless of what instigated the 9/11 attack, it wasn't to implement the PNAC agenda, so it's self evident you're simply taking Wolfwitz' comment out of context to suit your argument here.

Afghanistan has been the greatest illicit opium producer in the entire world, ahead of Burma (Myanmar), the "Golden Triangle", and Latin America since 1992, excluding the year 2001.[1] Afghanistan is the main producer of opium in the "Golden Crescent". Opium production in Afghanistan has been on the rise since U.S. occupation started in 2001. Based on UNODC data, there has been more opium poppy cultivation in each of the past four growing seasons (2004–2007) than in any one year during Taliban rule. Also, more land is now used for opium in Afghanistan than for coca cultivation in Latin America. In 2007, 92% of the non-pharmaceutical-grade opiates on the world market originated in Afghanistan.[2] This amounts to an export value of about $4 billion, with a quarter being earned by opium farmers and the rest going to district officials, insurgents, warlords, and drug traffickers.[3] In the seven years (1994–2000) prior to a Taliban opium ban, the Afghan farmers' share of gross income from opium was divided among 200,000 families.[4] In addition to opiates, Afghanistan is also the largest producer of cannabis (mostly as hashish) in the world

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by Wonderer2012

So America did not invade Afghanistan a month after 9/11 because of 9/11?

You mean to say the invasion was going to happen in 2001 without 9/11?

9/11 was THE catalyst that allowed American foreign policy to get under way in the 21st century, 3 countries have already fallen, only Syria, Iran and N Korea remain from those mentioned by the PNAC document.

You're being disingenuous. We both know the conspiracy theorists aren't referring to the invasion of Afghanistan in this secret PNAC plan to take over the world. Afghanistan is such a third world toilet of a country that not even the Soviets thought it was worth fighting over, and you're all but admitting yourself it served no purpose for the PNAC agenda when the conspiracy theorists skip right over the invasion of Afghanistan like it never occurred and go straight to the invasion of Iraq. Even then it doesn't serve your purposes, because US and coalition forces have left oil rich Iraq while they are still deployed in dirt poor Afghanistan. Nowhere in the PNAC report does it say the game plan is to give up crucual strategic resources to concentrate on camel herds...or whatever it is a bunch of camels are called. FYI we are never going to take on North Korea as long as China is propping them up. You can't NOT know that.

Let's face facts here. The end result of what you're claiming the 9/11 attack was staged to create isn't even remotely what we're actually accomplished. That necessarily means that regardless of what instigated the 9/11 attack, it wasn't to implement the PNAC agenda, so it's self evident you're simply taking Wolfwitz' comment out of context to suit your argument here.

Originally posted by Wonderer2012

Who 'skips' over Afghanistan as you wrongly claim, it was the first country invaded since 9/11. It has incredible geopolitical importance bordering Pakistan and Iran! Not only does it have massive geopolitical importance, it is the largest opimum producer in the world-

Amazing that the Taliban banned the opium production and since the US invasion production levels have risen!!

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by Wonderer2012

Who 'skips' over Afghanistan as you wrongly claim, it was the first country invaded since 9/11. It has incredible geopolitical importance bordering Pakistan and Iran! Not only does it have massive geopolitical importance, it is the largest opimum producer in the world-

What do you mean, who skips over Afghanistan? You conspiracy theorists do. If you're claiming the conspiracy theorists aren't claiming Iraq and their oil wasn't the main target of this 9/11 false flag operation then you're lying. I've seen that claim so many times that it's become an integral component to your conspiracy stories. In fact this whole heroin bit is only a recent invention, and I'll wager that's because the "war for Iraqi oil" conspiracy fizzled out once US forces left Iraq and there was no more material to induce paranoia over.

Amazing that the Taliban banned the opium production and since the US invasion production levels have risen!!

Ah yes, another attempt at "Isn't THAT interesting (wink wink)" innuendo dropping. Using innuendo to "prove" other innuendo is a poor argument; it's nothing but circular logic in that you're restating the original argument in different terms in order to prove itself. I think the fact that the US doesn't punish criminals by beheading them in public like the Taliban did goes further in explaining the rise in heroin production than any sinister secret plot to take over the world, don't you?

BUT, if you insist, what's good for the goose is good for the gander- where in the PNAC report does it say the heroin trade is a critical strategic resource for the US to implement Pax Americana? Point it out to me.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by Wonderer2012

Why not stay on topic and address Paul Wolfowitz and how he is referencing Pearl Harbour 3 days after 9/11 when discussing America's military response?

Please keep in mind points 1) and 2) from the OP regarding the PNAC requiring a 'New Pearl Harbour' and Wolfowitz's speech about Pearl Harbour and how the world lives under a 'poverty of expectations' months before 9/11 occured.

Stating that the OP's entire argument is nothing but innuendo dropping IS on topic, but if you insist, fine by me.

I've come to learn that conspiracy theorists manipulate and distort everything to the point where we need to verify everything they tell us even if they say water is wet, so I read the specific PNAC article to find out more about this...and of course, I find out they're manipulating and distorting this too. The entire article was essentially an appeal to use US military power to establish a global Pax Americana, which you can't NOT know has already been official US policy since Truman. The "new Pearl Harbor" was in reference to the unlikelihood of the US being able to achieve that goal today, given the state of the dismantling of the US military, and guess what- 9/11 was NOT the Pearl Harbor the conspiracy theorists are claiming it was. There troops and weapons we sent into Iraq and Afghanistan were troops and weapons the US already had. There were no massive military buildups throughout the world, there were no drafts, there were no major industries converted over into producing weapons, and cutbacks from the military budget have made the military so broke that they've even stopped giving college tuitions to get people to enlist. The master plan you're claiming they're following hasn't even remotely materialized so what the flip difference does it make whether Wolfwittz said "Pearl Harbor" or not?

We both know the conspiracy theorists don't care about any of that. All you care about is your "new Pearl Harbor" buzzwords to promote your conspiracy theories because promoting conspiracy theories is all you care about.