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

Originally posted by Wonderer2012

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.'

Not only *can* I say conspiracy theorists overlook Afghanistan, I *do* say conspiracy theorists overlook Afghanistan. I've pointed out more times than I can count that if this 9/11 inside job was real they'd have framed Iraq rather than some dysfunctional slum of a country that not even the Soviet Union thought was worth fighting over.

Are you genuinely saying out of all the potential targets in the world it was Afghanistan that was so valuable to the PNAC agenda that they risked pulling the most conplex conspiracy in all of recorded human history? Really?

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'.

No, actually, the very obvious point is that this entire Wolfowitz and PNAC bit of yours is 100% taking quotes out of context to drop innuendo, and the entire reason why you need to resort to doing this is because you know you don't have even a microbe orf any tangible evidence that would stand in any court outside of crackpot land . Am I incorrect?

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
Am I incorrect?

Yes you are incorrect.

Conspiracy theorists DO NOT overlook Afghanistan because as I have pointed out, Afghanistan holds very important geopolitical status and it is the world's largest opium productier, which has increased dramatically since the invasion began.

YOU are the one undermining the importance of Afghanistan, they would not have invaded it and fought the Taliban just for the sake of it.

Each country in the region is a piece in the puzzle, any country not in line with 'American interests' is targeted, that is essentially what the PNAC document was all about.

You talk about the insignificance of Afghanistan yet the CIA created Al Qaeda to fight the Soviets and get them out of Afghanistan during the cold war, yet you keep repeating this lie that it holds no importance in the region!

Originally posted by Wonderer2012

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
Am I incorrect?

Yes you are incorrect.

Conspiracy theorists DO NOT overlook Afghanistan because as I have pointed out, Afghanistan holds very important geopolitical status and it is the world's largest opium productier, which has increased dramatically since the invasion began.

You must know I am immune to bait and switch. The discussion was about Wolfowitz and the connection between PNAC and this false flag attack you imagine is there, not the status of Afghanistan's opium production.

Besides, we both know the opium link is a relatively new excuse being used. Previously, the claim was that the goal of the invasion was to foster a pan-Afghanistan Unocal gas pipeline, which the conspiracy theorists were forced to abandon after almost ten years of not having any such pipeline emerge. Your own words are now coming back to not only haunt you, they're also throwing a pie in your face.

YOU are the one undermining the importance of Afghanistan, they would not have invaded it and fought the Taliban just for the sake of it.

Each country in the region is a piece in the puzzle, any country not in line with 'American interests' is targeted, that is essentially what the PNAC document was all about.

You are really, REALLY getting desperate in your misrepresentation tactics. Afghanistan being the host to a global criminal enteprise responsible for launching suicide attacks on US soil is a little more serious than "not being in line with US interests".

You talk about the insignificance of Afghanistan yet the CIA created Al Qaeda to fight the Soviets and get them out of Afghanistan during the cold war, yet you keep repeating this lie that it holds no importance in the region!

Nice try. When Bin Laden went to Afghanistan in the 80's he was just out of college and he wasn't anywhere near the international terrorist he was going to wind up becoming later. As much as I grumble about the failings of incompetence in government, there's no way I can take them to task for being unable to see twenty years into the future.

Seriously, is this what you need to resort to pulling to avoid addressing the point of the OP? You've been caught red handed trying to stir up false public unrest from dropping innuendo of some sinister plot between PNAC, Wolfowitz, and a staged mass murder completely entirely upon milking the three words "New Pearl Harbor" and now you're bringing in arguments over who created Al Qaida back in the 80's. After you're milked that for all the innuendo dropping you can get out of it you'll no doubt bring up yet another non sequitor.

If these bait and switch arguments, and never ending chains of sinister conspiracies within hidden coverups within secret plots, are all you have left to defend your case then please have the dignity of admitting you're wrong already.

reply to post by GoodOlDave


We will have to agree to disagree.

In my opinion, I do not overlook Afghanistan, I know it's history, all about Operation Cyclone and Al Qaeda's origins. Afghanistan, like many countries in the region, has been victim of countries fighting for control, both through outright military conflict and covert operations. Afghanistan is not some worthless piece of sand, it has incredible geopolitical importance.

The PNAC document in my opinion is a blueprint, an outline of American foreign policy to tackle countries that do not fall in line with 'American interests'. These countries have been targeted since 9/11, which served as a catalyst for 'American' foreign policy to take place in the 21st century.

Originally posted by Wonderer2012
reply to post by GoodOlDave

 

We will have to agree to disagree.

It's not a matter of agreeing or disagreeing. It's a matter of whether or not you're inciting false public unrest by spreading innuendo of state sponsored mass murder. I shouldn't have to point out this is literally the same thing as falsely yelling fire in a crowded theater.

In my opinion, I do not overlook Afghanistan, I know it's history, all about Operation Cyclone and Al Qaeda's origins. Afghanistan, like many countries in the region, has been victim of countries fighting for control, both through outright military conflict and covert operations. Afghanistan is not some worthless piece of sand, it has incredible geopolitical importance.

If you know the history of operation cyclone then you certainly know that pretty much the entire world sent weapons and funding to the Mujahadeen after the UN condemned the invasion (even Switzerland) and that support for the mujahadeen ended almost immediately once the Soviets left. Plus, you certainly know if Afghanistan had such "incredible geographic importance" then we wouldn't have abandoned it to the Taliban after the Soviets moved out.

The PNAC document in my opinion is a blueprint, an outline of American foreign policy to tackle countries that do not fall in line with 'American interests'. These countries have been targeted since 9/11, which served as a catalyst for 'American' foreign policy to take place in the 21st century.

Would you mind terribly pointing out what parts of the PNAC report is a blueprint as you say? Nowhere does it mention anything about creating massive false flag incidents to frame third world countries and absolutely nowhere does it mention anything about heroin being a strategic resource necessary to implement Pax Americana.

...or does this bluepirint bit begin and end entirely with that "New Pearl Harbor" snippet?

reply to post by GoodOlDave


From the OP Dave, the quote that says it all-

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.

One year later, 9/11 occured. A month after that, Afghanistan was invaded because according to the official story, Al Qaeda were laregly based there.

Yes, many countries funded the opposition fighters against the Soviets, and the point still stands, these countries would not have invested billions if Afghanistan was not important.

www.newamericancentury.org...

As the 20th century draws to a close, the United States stands as the
world’s most preeminent power. Having led the West to victory in
the Cold War, America faces an opportunity and a challenge: Does
the United States have the vision to build upon the achievement of
past decades? Does the United States have the resolve to shape a
new century favorable to American principles and interests?
“[What we require is] a military that is strong and ready to meet
both present and future challenges; a foreign policy that boldly and
purposefully promotes American principles abroad; and national
leadership that accepts the United States’ global responsibilities.

“Of course, the United States must be prudent in how it exercises its
power. But we cannot safely avoid the responsibilities of global
leadership of the costs that are associated with its exercise. America
has a vital role in maintaining peace and security in Europe, Asia,
and the Middle East. If we shirk our responsibilities, we invite
challenges to our fundamental interests. The history of the 20th
century should have taught us that it is important to shape
circumstances before crises emerge, and to meet threats before they
become dire. The history of the past century should have taught us
to embrace the cause of American leadership.”

Again, from the OP-

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.

You seriously want people to believe it is all coincidence and not related?

as far as the government is concerned, this is a closed case. it's called "THE BIG LIE".....historically used with great affectiveness

reply to post by Wonderer2012


Good OP

Later this was confirmed how 9/11 was used for things that had nothing to do with 9/11 itself, with this interview.
This is a well known General describing how the military command themselves was baffled by the strategic choices being made post 9/11, but then again they never knew about PNAC. This is a 2 minute must watch video.

General Wesley Clark reveals US war plan - 2007

reply to post by Wonderer2012


You still fail to come with a convinceing argument how its a coincidence when someone working for a think tank with the purpose of making such analysis, actually makes such an (rather obvious) analysis. Its his job.

Or is the coincidence the time between the date his analysis was make public and september 11? How did you come to the conclusion that 1 year falls under the catagory "coincidence"?

And is that really all you have going? Even if you consider it a coincidence (which I don't think it is), coincidences happen every microsecond.

Originally posted by Wonderer2012
reply to post by GoodOlDave

 

You seriously want people to believe it is all coincidence and not related?

The threat of international terrorism had been growing for decades and we were a victim of our own naivete to think terrorists wouldn't be able to adapt to the 21st century. Once upon a time we all thought islamic fundamentalists were all illiterate nomads wandering around the desert on camels while swinging curved swords and screaming Allah Akbar, when in the real world they're college educated, speak multiple languages, travel the globe, and are more familiar with technology than you are. The longer we ignored the problem of islamic fundamentalism...and let's face it, we did ignore the problem before 9/11,...the greater the chance this attack on US soil or one similar to it was destined to happen regardless of whether someone wrote "New Pearl Harbor" or not.

So no, it's not a coincidence. The reason why it's not a coincidence is that conspiracy proponents refuse to believe that something so dramatic as the 9/11 attack could have been caused by something so simple as Islamic fundamentalism. They want there to be some other sinister secret plot behind the 9/11 attack equally as dramatic as the attack itself, but because there isn't even a microbe of any tangible evidence they start imagining equally dramatic, sinister secret meanings hidden inside otherwise unrelated events like someone writing "new pearl harbor". It isn't any more of a coincidence than it's a coincidence that people look at a featureless blob of ink on a Rorshach test and see images that reflect their own personality.

You yourself have to admit this is what's happening, at least to some extent. Do you genuinely think these supposed conspirators are so retarded that they'd really waste their time hiding images of a smashed world trade center in folded up twenty dollar bills, as was presented here a few weeks ago?

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by Wonderer2012
reply to post by GoodOlDave

 

You seriously want people to believe it is all coincidence and not related?

The threat of international terrorism had been growing for decades and we were a victim of our own naivete to think terrorists wouldn't be able to adapt to the 21st century. Once upon a time we all thought islamic fundamentalists were all illiterate nomads wandering around the desert on camels while swinging curved swords and screaming Allah Akbar, when in the real world they're college educated, speak multiple languages, travel the globe, and are more familiar with technology than you are. The longer we ignored the problem of islamic fundamentalism...and let's face it, we did ignore the problem before 9/11,...the greater the chance this attack on US soil or one similar to it was destined to happen regardless of whether someone wrote "New Pearl Harbor" or not.

So no, it's not a coincidence. The reason why it's not a coincidence is that conspiracy proponents refuse to believe that something so dramatic as the 9/11 attack could have been caused by something so simple as Islamic fundamentalism. They want there to be some other sinister secret plot behind the 9/11 attack equally as dramatic as the attack itself, but because there isn't even a microbe of any tangible evidence they start imagining equally dramatic, sinister secret meanings hidden inside otherwise unrelated events like someone writing "new pearl harbor". It isn't any more of a coincidence than it's a coincidence that people look at a featureless blob of ink on a Rorshach test and see images that reflect their own personality.

You yourself have to admit this is what's happening, at least to some extent. Do you genuinely think these supposed conspirators are so retarded that they'd really waste their time hiding images of a smashed world trade center in folded up twenty dollar bills, as was presented here a few weeks ago?

The thread is about Paul Wolfowitz and his referencing of 9/11 as a 'Pearl Habour' event 3 days after the attacks. Given the PNAC had required a 'new pearl harbour', it at least raises some suscpicion, especially given Wolfowitz spoke about Pearl Harbour and America's 'poverty of expecations' in the summer of 2001.

When you also consider Rumsfeld and Zakheim were members of the same PNAC, it starts to take a giant leap of faith to believe these people were not at least complicit in what happened on 9/11.

Rumsfeld mentioned missing trillions in Pentagon spending one day before 9/11. It was fellow PNAC member Zakheim who was in control of Pentagon spending as Comptroller of the Pentagon! Just another coincidence? Dov Zakheim was also CEO of SPC International, a subsidiary of System Planning Corporation. This corporation had developed the Flight Termination System, seen here-

www.sysplan.com...

The Flight Termination System (FTS) is a fully redundant turn-key range safety and test system for remote control and flight termination of airborne test vehicles.

A system that can remotely take control of aircraft. When we consider the flight path of the plane that hit the Pentagon, supposedly carried out by inexperienced hijackers, then we just have more questions and coincidences.

Non of the questions are to be taken apart, when you start combining the coincidences it is hard to not think 9/11 was an 'inside job'.

Originally posted by Wonderer2012

The thread is about Paul Wolfowitz and his referencing of 9/11 as a 'Pearl Habour' event 3 days after the attacks. Given the PNAC had required a 'new pearl harbour', it at least raises some suscpicion, especially given Wolfowitz spoke about Pearl Harbour and America's 'poverty of expecations' in the summer of 2001.

"Raising suspicion" is just another way of dropping innuendo to make accusations of impropriety without coming out and saying them. You have to know that.

When you also consider Rumsfeld and Zakheim were members of the same PNAC, it starts to take a giant leap of faith to believe these people were not at least complicit in what happened on 9/11.

Not really, seeing how much enormous overhead would be necessary to stage the 9/11 attack in the way the conspiracy proponents describe...which reminds me; I don't think I heard you mention which of the dozens of "absolute truth behind the 9/11 attack" it is you yourself are pushing. Is it LIHOP or MIHOP?

Rumsfeld mentioned missing trillions in Pentagon spending one day before 9/11. It was fellow PNAC member Zakheim who was in control of Pentagon spending as Comptroller of the Pentagon! Just another coincidence?

Oh, good god, not this hoax again.

A system that can remotely take control of aircraft. When we consider the flight path of the plane that hit the Pentagon, supposedly carried out by inexperienced hijackers, then we just have more questions and coincidences.

Oh, good god, not this hoax again.

reply to post by GoodOlDave


Hoax??????????????????

I posted the actual link to the site that lists Flight Termination Systems as its development!!

You cannot just call something a hoax when they are facts.

Zakheim was the Comptroller to the Pentagon before and after 9/11. He was also CEO of the company that created FTS. These are facts. Zakheim was also a member of the PNAC.

Do not call facts 'hoaxes'.

Also, Rumsfeld, another member of the PNAC did announce 'missing' trillions in Pentagon spending one day before 9/11.

Do not cry hoax when the number of coincidences and number of suspicious facts make it impossible for you to deny at least some suspicion.

Originally posted by Wonderer2012
reply to post by GoodOlDave

 

Also, Rumsfeld, another member of the PNAC did announce 'missing' trillions in Pentagon spending one day before 9/11.

Do not cry hoax when the number of coincidences and number of suspicious facts make it impossible for you to deny at least some suspicion.

If you know anything about the so called missing $2.3 trillion you will know that this figure had been bandied about in the Clinton era long before GWB was elected.

And it is self-evident that the figure represents years of defence spending.

A read of Rumsfeld's speech of 10/9/01 will make it clear that he was complaining about the antiquated accounting systems at the Pentagon not being able to properly reconcile expenditure. Not that someone had swiped the money.

The fact that truthers are still clinging to this as being of some significance at 11 years plus just shows the poverty of their position.

Originally posted by Alfie1

Originally posted by Wonderer2012
reply to post by GoodOlDave

 

Also, Rumsfeld, another member of the PNAC did announce 'missing' trillions in Pentagon spending one day before 9/11.

Do not cry hoax when the number of coincidences and number of suspicious facts make it impossible for you to deny at least some suspicion.

If you know anything about the so called missing $2.3 trillion you will know that this figure had been bandied about in the Clinton era long before GWB was elected.

And it is self-evident that the figure represents years of defence spending.

A read of Rumsfeld's speech of 10/9/01 will make it clear that he was complaining about the antiquated accounting systems at the Pentagon not being able to properly reconcile expenditure. Not that someone had swiped the money.

The fact that truthers are still clinging to this as being of some significance at 11 years plus just shows the poverty of their position.

Which is fine except Rumsfeld was PNAC as was Wolfowitz (see OP).

Too many coincidences.

reply to post by Alfie1


I think Sen. Byrds exact words were "The D.O.D.'s own auditors cannot account for 2.3 trillion dollars in transactions in one year alone....."

Originally posted by Flatcoat
reply to post by Alfie1

 

I think Sen. Byrds exact words were "The D.O.D.'s own auditors cannot account for 2.3 trillion dollars in transactions in one year alone....."

Please tell me how that is possible. Wonderer 2012's chart above shows the defence budget for 2000 was less than $400 billion and was even less in years immediately previous.

$2.3 trillion is far greater than any years total federal income.

Originally posted by Wonderer2012

Which is fine except Rumsfeld was PNAC as was Wolfowitz (see OP).

As pointed out before...many times...PNAC was nothing more than a suggestion for the US to use it's military power to create a Pax Americana which was already official US policy since Truman. That makes EVERYONE in government PNAC supporters whether they signed this report or not.

You are manufacturing your own "coincidences" whether you want to admit it or not.

Originally posted by Alfie1

Originally posted by Flatcoat
reply to post by Alfie1

 

I think Sen. Byrds exact words were "The D.O.D.'s own auditors cannot account for 2.3 trillion dollars in transactions in one year alone....."

Please tell me how that is possible. Wonderer 2012's chart above shows the defence budget for 2000 was less than $400 billion and was even less in years immediately previous.

$2.3 trillion is far greater than any years total federal income.

Its possible due to black budgets.

Regards, Iwinder

Originally posted by Iwinder

Originally posted by Alfie1

Originally posted by Flatcoat
reply to post by Alfie1

 

I think Sen. Byrds exact words were "The D.O.D.'s own auditors cannot account for 2.3 trillion dollars in transactions in one year alone....."

Please tell me how that is possible. Wonderer 2012's chart above shows the defence budget for 2000 was less than $400 billion and was even less in years immediately previous.

$2.3 trillion is far greater than any years total federal income.

Its possible due to black budgets.

Regards, Iwinder

I don't even know what that means. Are you suggesting some sort of illicit slush funds ? But how could they exceed the total federal budget ?

www.yellowbullet.com...

Fact is that the $2.3 trillion was said to be not properly reconciled over several years of DoD expenditure and it all way preceded the GWB administration.

It was subsequently largely reconciled. Do "black budgets" need to be reconciled ?