Paul 'Pearl Harbour' Wolfowitz- Evidence days after 9/11

I want to bring some new evidence regarding Paul Wolfowitz.

I will have to discuss two things that have already been discussed here many times, but these two components are essential in understanding the context and appreciating what we have before us.

1- Paul Wolfowitz, was of course, a member of the PNAC. In the 'Rebuilding America's Defenses', released by the PNAC in September 2000, we have the quote-

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.

'Transformation' being regime change in the middle east and surrounding region, namely Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria Iran.

We have to understand the context of 'a new Pearl Harbour' as in reference to a surprise attack that will require a military response.

2- In June 2001, Wolfowitz made a speech to students about 'surprise' and Pearl Harbour. It wasn't the day of the anniversary of Pearl Harbour, he just discussed it, months before the actual anniversary. Why would Wolfowitz discuss Pearl Harbour months before 9/11? Is it just coincidence, or do we take the quote from the PNAC document to have some meaning? I will get onto point 3 in a moment, but here is that speech-



Think about the PNAC document and its context and accuracy for what followed 9/11. Combine that with the June 2001 speech, here is a quote-

100 years later, we live, once again, in a time of great hopes and peace for world prosperity, our chances of realising those hopes will be greater if we use the benefit of hindsight to replace a 'poverty of expectations' with an anticipation of the unfamiliar and the unlikely...

Completely chilling, given he is talking about unexpected events beginning wars- the assasination of Archduke Ferdinand led to the start of the Great War even though economists of the time believed war would not happen. Catalysts (or false flags as some may argue) are what start wars- they need a spark. This is June 2001!

3- This really, should blow your mind when combined with the first two points.

3 days after 9/11, THREE days, here is an interview with Paul Wolfowitz-



I recommend watching the whole thing, because he is talking about America launching a sustained military campaign in response to 9/11. It's 3 days after, everyone else at this stage was in shock, yet Wolfowitz, a member of the PNAC, is talking about ongoing campaigns.

THREE days after 9/11, Wolfowitz references Pearl Harbour-

That's what a strategy has to look at, the objective has to be very ambitious and the President has stated it is an ambitious objective, as Winston Churchill commented a day after Pearl Harbour, that dictators underestimate American strength, when we commit ourselves to an ambitous goal we can achieve it...but that doesn't mean there is a single solution for each one of those pieces...

I wonder if 'each one of those pieces' is reference to the nations America has invaded since 9/11 or bombed since 9/11 or sent millions of dollars in military aid to rebels since 9/11?

To piece the 3 points together, we have one of the chief suspects for carrying out or at least being complicit in what happened on 9/11. To put into into perspective and sum up-

1- A year before 9/11, the PNAC, outlines America's military operations for the 21st century. This requires a 'catalyst', a new Pearl Harbour.

2- Paul Wolfowitz, member of PNAC and 2nd in charge at the Pentagon, discusses Pearl Harbour and how America misses warning signs of coming attacks- how the world ignores danger and likes to stick with the familiar and dismisses the 'unexpected'.

3- 3 Days after 9/11, Wolfowitz is referencing Pearl Harbour when discussing America's military response to 9/11?

HOW FAR CAN WE STRETCH THE ACCEPTANCE OF COINCIDENCE AS THE ANSWER??

yes well the coincedences are far to great in my humble opinion to be deemed as coincedence....i wrote about the suspects of 911 when i did this thread.....yuppers go ole boy paul.....911 the who done it


He was suspicious from the get go....wrote a lot on pnac in the above also and many of the key players...does it matter now so much...even now if there was irrefutable proof the people would not believe it to be true...and if...just if...it is found out i think the world is in such a mess now...anything will be triggered and divert attention away from the facts......Remember only the winners get to write history.

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 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

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

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 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.

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.

reply to post by GoodOlDave

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

yet wink wink, and inuendo is what you bring to the table in your post

PS
eta

Victory -- Wolfowitz Forced Out!
Paul Wolfowitz resigned. Two years ago, George W Bush was able to install Paul Wolfowitz as World Bank President despite the international outcry. But yesterday, Bush simply could not overpower world opinion. He could no longer ignore you – the many thousands who supported our campaign, and the many millions who felt the same around the world. His resignation is just the first step towards real change -- the World Bank and IMF should serve the world's poor, not the agendas of donor nations. It is time to end the convention that the US and Europe unilaterally choose their leadership. Thanks once again for making this happen, see you in our next campaign!

www.avaaz.org...

It is a simple proposition that Paul Wolfowitz should be fired from the World Bank, now, because:

1. He helped a girflriend in a way that lacked the integrity necessary to lead the World Bank.

2. He has created such alienation and anger among the World Bank senior management and staff that he has lost all crediblity and all capability of managing the institution.

3. At a time when the Bank should be rooting out corruption in the nations that receive its funds, Wolfowitz destroys
the credibility of the Bank itselt with respect to both donor and recipient nations.

At the Bank, Wolfowitz has demonstrated the kind of imperial arrogance that is a hallmark of where George W. Bush went tragically and catastrophically wrong in Iraq.

There is an imperial grandeur, a sense of being above the rules and above the law, a lack of respect for other people and the standards that the rest of us live by.

It is not a close call. Paul Wolfowitz must go. Now.

www.smirkingchimp.com...

defend away Dave

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 Danbones
reply to post by GoodOlDave

 

defend away Dave

Of course. Here's the end result of the master plan to take over the world that was kicked off by the "New Pearl Harbor" you're fond of hinting at- US soldiers being discharged due to budget cuts are being lured away for better paying military jobs in Australia-

Serving down under- Australia offers military jobs to US troops

So does that mean it was really Australia who was behind the 911 attack?

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.

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.

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 -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.

Would you be able to clarify your point please, I'm not sure if I follow.

Thanks.

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 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.

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-

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

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

But all this still ignores your ignorance in denying that the invasion of Afghanistan was not a result of the 9/11 attacks- everyone knows it was invaded as a result of the 'war on terror'.

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-

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

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.

How can someone type so much into a reply without actually saying anything relevant to the topic in hand? I'm being serious-

You cannot say conspiracy theorists overlook Afghanistan, IT WAS THE FIRST COUNTRY INVADED AFTER 9/11. It began the 'War on Terror.'

9/11= Invasion of Afghanistan.

Iraq and oil is just one of the many 'pieces' Wolfowitz refers to, the middle east and control of it consists a lot more than just Iraq, in fact, you seem to be making this up to undermine my VERY obvious point.

Who has ever said 9/11 was to solely invade Iraq, clearly as we have seen history play out over the last 11 years, many other regimes have been targeted and continue to be targeted as the region is 'transformed'.

Deathbed's confessions coming next....

Not all of them will keep their perfidies to the grave. Some will start seeing their ghosts of 911 past and their parts in a conspiracy that killed so many of their own will come haunt them and earn themselves a ticket to hell.

Wolfowitz is one of the architects of the PANC's plot for world domination.He knew what was coming.Cheney,Rumsfeld and him have been pushing for the US government to secure the remaining oil in the Caspian even before the PANC and W.

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.

Why would you be so bothered about conspiracy theories when you're on a conspiracy theory website?

Surely if you did not like people expressing theories then you'd just keep away from such places?
Are you here because you have an interest in 9/11, or because you have a dislike to conspiracy theorists, so are here to argue with them and troll them?

Debunkers or trolls masquerading as debunkers rarely have anything interesting to add to the discussion, just insults and stereotyping. What is your point behaving like this?

Conspiracy theorists are branded as such to apply stigma, but in reality they are just people that do not believe the official story, so then do their own research, to find that the actual facts do not match the supposed facts put forward by the official story.

Some theories are not correct, maybe introduced to make people that are searching for the real truth look crazy, but many theories are based on real facts, that contradict the OS, and once some of the OS is found to be a lie, then people keep searching deeper.

Maybe you have never done much research because you dismiss everything that does not match the official story? How do you know the official story is correct, because they told you so, in their corrupt little reports and on their corrupt media channels?

If you take what 'they' official present to you as fact every time, then your perception on reality will be limited to what they want to tell you.