LOL, you unleash hellfire on me for misreading your use of an obscure contraction... and misuse a very simple one in the same breath your basis for being a prick is........................... what again? absurd idiocy. off the charts retardation and dishonesty coming out of haroki i pity that. i bet you're not even capable of admitting your misuse of a contraction here in plain sight. surprise us
sure. could they have accomplished their objective any other way? in all honestly i can't imagine a more efficient way to justify a major military expansion and iraq invasion off the top of my head, not to say there wasn't one. as i'm sure you're familiar, the pnac from which bush recruited a large part of his cabinet said themselves, "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." my interpretation of 911, is one of convenience for the administration, perhaps more than conspiratorial planning. it was too predictable, and too easy to let happen. whatever lingers beneath the surface must not be too deep, given their resistance to investigating the crime, a very guilty posture given the precedent for investigating crimes of this nature i believe the people responsible for the 93 bombing are the 6 men who were captured for it i've never heard anything about ron paul in relation to the oklahoma city bombing, what's the connection?
Must be tough, fighting for space at the trough with all the other sheep that believe this line of reasoning as a primer for 9/11 being "an inside job". PNAC was talking about changing the military ONLY. They were of the opinion that in order for the US military to stay at the forefront, they needed to start incorporating improvements in information technology. That document was what, 90 pages? And to take 1 paragraph and say that this represents the message of the entire thing is absolutely beyond stupidity.
wow haroki, your googling skills are remarkable. PNAC goes far beyond that. as an organization they advocated re-establishing american hegemony accross the world by replacing problem regimes with american style democracy. rebuilding america's defenses was one part of that, but also a part that illustrated a certain degree of fervor for their goal, envisioning catastrophe as a catalyzing event it appears you're going to stick your head deep up your ass wrt your blatant hypocrisy this morning... that's fine. i don't expect better of you. everyone here has observed it, and i'm happy to let you reveal yourself ...as not just a judgmental douche, but also totally dishonorable in our small corner of the public record
is it also true that US forces were amassed on the afghan border just days before 911 and we were telling foreign governments in June 2001? i hadn't heard that one before, just stumbled on it. there is obviously much more detail to the 911 story than the officially propagated one...
You have no common sense, just a pre-determined outlook. Noone said Silverstein had to be a part of anything, in fact, he never gave the order. Nowhere in his interview did he say he gave the order, in fact, it was never his decision nor expertise, he simply conceded with what the fire chief told him should be done, why wouldn't he anyway. Hence his slip-up, he was never told anything short of what the fire department chief told him. Nor does he care, cause he gets to collect insurance money anyway, something he has been fighting about, cause all he really wants is his money. He does not give a sh*t about who did 9/11 or why. But thanks for showing exactly why your opinion & argument has no value. Here is a clue, if you want your argument to have a basis, you are better off arguing what "pull the building" and "pull it" mean. I'll concede this much, 9/11 is full of very unique events, spanning from physics to use of industry specific language. And it's just a coincidence that every other major world changing event, such as Gulf of Tonkin, Iran/Contra Wars, Pearl Harbor, Reichstag Fire & RMS Lusitania Sinking are full of unique ambiguities as well.
You're right about the group, but not the paper you cite. A new PH was not envisioned as a way to bring about a NWO, or American Imperialism, or whatever conspiracy theory you advocate. That sentence was in a different part, it was in the part that talked about the modernization of the US military. They were stating the need for another PH, since they deduced that that would be the impetus for a technologically stagnant military to improve itself. The same could be said about the US military prior to WW2. The Japanese and Germans both had superior hardware prior to the war, but by the end, we did. That's where the proper context would be made.
Talk about Googling !!! Yes, Dailykos has all sorts of wild , unsubstantiated stories to feed the sheep.
So the fire chief was in on it then, eh? Niiiice. He watched as 343 of his brothers were killed and has said nothing. Must have been a nice check. You're sick for even thinking that, what a douche.....
Can I quote you on that? Cause your fellow Conspiracy theorists built their entire case on one single fact that Larry Silverstein said in an interview that he had decided to "pull it" and that could only mean demolishing the building. Now you're stabbing your friends in the back by destroying their best and only argument and claiming that Silverstein was not even in the loop. Ratboy will be especially upset, he's been talking about Larry Silverstein's involvement in the demolition of TWC 7 for the last 5 years. Are you trying to destroy his life's work? Shame on you. Or is it the fire dept chief who is involved in the CIA/Mossad conspiracy to demolish WTC 7 but instead of doing what he was ordered he calls Silverstein and asks his opinion on whether the building should be "pulled". LOL, this is even better than your previous versions.