TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Do you believe there is a U.S. government cover-up surrounding 9/11?
Pages (162): « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 [93] 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 »

quote:

Conspiracy theorists, Loose Change among them, like to take a single quote out of a defense review produced by the group Project For a New American Century, as some sort of road map for why 9/11 was carried out. As Dylan puts it: September, 2000. The Project for a New American Century, a neo-conservative think-tank whose members include Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Jeb Bush, and Paul Wolfowitz, releases their report entitled "Rebuilding America's Defences." In it, they declare that " 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. " Yes, this is a quote from their report, but as I have shown repeatedly in the past, they like to take single quotes from sources, ignoring everything else they said, and use that to argue for a conspiracy. So let's look at the full report available here, it is 90 pages long, they only give us part of one sentence. First of all, was PNAC actually calling for a new Pearl Harbor, as being preferable to it not occurring? Aside from the idiocy of publicy announcing an attack on yourself ahead of time, the evidence says no. If you look at the rest of the paragraph, on page 51, it becomes apparent that all they are doing is laying out a timetable for technological transformation of the military. Domestic politics and industrial policy will shape the pace and content of transformation as much as the requirements of current missions. It continues: Thus, this report advocates a two-stage process of change - transition and transformation- over the coming decade. They are not saying taking a long time is a bad thing, just that this is the way it is going to be, and in fact the rest of the paper is based on this assumption. If this were somehow a call to action, that would completely invalidate the rest of the paper. So even if we make the wild logical leap that PNAC is calling for a new "Pearl Harbor" in the form of 9/11, then what type of "transformation" are they calling for that would be accelerated by 9/11? Are they calling for increased airport security? Increased use of special operations forces? The US invasion of Afghanistan? The invasion of Iraq? No, they are calling for something complete different. From the same page as the "new Pearl Harbor" quote, they point out 3 "new missions", none of which have anything to do with the response to 9/11: Global missile defenses Control of space and cyberspace Pursuing a two-stage strategy for of transforming conventional forces. Not only did their strategy not benefit from 9/11, it has been hurt by it. Once again, from page 50 in that same chapter (emphasis mine): Moreover, the Pentagon, constrained by limited budgets and pressing current missions, has seen funding for experimentation and transformation crowded out in recent years. Spending on military research and development has been reduced dramatically over the past decade. Indeed, during the mid 1980's, when the Defense Department was in the midst of the Reagan buildup which was primarily and effort to expand existing force and field traditional weapons systems, research spending consisted of only 20% of total Pentagon budgets. So even relatively minor operations in Bosnia and Kosovo were interfering with what they viewed as necessary funding for R & D, and the conspiracy theorists want us to believe that they thought the solution was to get the US involved in two vastly more expensive and manpower intensive wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, which have absolutely nothing to do with the technological transformation they are talking about. One could say that is a stretch.

http://screwloosechange.blogspot.co.../pnac-myth.html

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN Pearl harbour is only mentioned a couple of times in the entire document and it clearly refers to the evolution of military technology, and that the change of such will be a slow process, unless there's another event that forces the revolution of military affairs. Could you explain how the 911 attacks have spawned a new type of warfare similar to the dawn of the aircraft carrier age (which is mentioned alongside the pearl harbour reference)?

I agree with all of that. I even said that the change in our military would be too slow without a catalyzing event. It is fairly clear to see that the PNAC tried to use 9/11 to their own advantage. If not they why would they tell President Bush that he needs to remove Hussein from power even if no evidence of links to Al Qaeda are found?

I don't see where you're drawing conspiracies into this conversation when I'm not talking about conspiracies. We're discussing an idealogical document that anyone can go and read not a conspiracy.

It says in the document that we need more military presence in the middle east, that we need another aircraft carrier or two, etc...
Like we were saying that would take too long without a catalyzing event, and in my opinion they tried to exploit the attacks to the full extent.

And might I add that I knew about the PNAC and read the document in its entirety way before crap like Loose Change and the 'truth' movement popped up. So take your conspiracy theorist bullshit and shove it up your ass.

Unlike most other Americans the first thing I thought after the attacks was 'Why would they do this to us?' This lead me to read up on our government's foreign policy, which gave me a good understanding of why they dislike us so much. It isn't because we have 'freedom' or anything stupid like that. It is because we've been kicking the shit out of them for quite some time now and they really can't fight back.

quote:

Originally posted by Zild I don't see where you're drawing conspiracies into this conversation when I'm not talking about conspiracies. We're discussing an idealogical document that anyone can go and read not a conspiracy.

well, we ARE in the 911 thread. and you DID say

quote:

Originally posted by Zild When those in power specifically call for 'another pearl harbor'

which they certainly do not.

quote:

Originally posted by Zild It says in the document that we need more military presence in the middle east, that we need another aircraft carrier or two, etc... Like we were saying that would take too long without a catalyzing event,

it actually focuses more on SE asia than it does on the middle east. and no, i dont think the "catalyzing event" refers to Geo-political concerns at all, just military technology and research development.

quote:

Originally posted by Zild and in my opinion they tried to exploit the attacks to the full extent.

oh, absolutely agree.

Yes it does focus more on SE Asia. Like I said from what I read they want to be able to dominate China and Russia, so yes SE Asia is key for their strategy.

quote:

well, we ARE in the 911 thread. and you DID say

No one here is talking about nuclear weapons used in the attacks or aliens from another planet. You guys seem to use the tinfoil hat bullshit way to much to discredit people who have actually researched the facts surrounding 9/11 for years.

quote:

which they certainly do not.

I guess you did not really read the document(s) and are making shit up in your head then. This is another fact out there for everyone to read.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/R...casDefenses.pdf

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 bro, those links say that foreign governments warned the US that al qaeda was going to attack, not that the CIA was stagging an attack on the US. Please explain how that supports your argument that the US is behind the attack. It actually refutes your claim.

And it just so happens that war games carried out that day matched exactly what happened in reality. Planes where hijacked and crashed into US landmarks. Coincidence? give me a fukin break....

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/usaf_911.html

Black OPS are designed for mass confusion and made for washing the hands clean after the fact are more like it.

They absolutely knew what was going to happen, they absolutely needed it to happen as the pre-text for the bullshit war on terror and they let their own innocent people die because of it.

The government let it happen knowingly hence these same people that you put there to protect you did the opposite, they made it happen.

Wake the fuk up.

Sleep is comforting. I know I hate getting out of bed in the morning.

quote:

Originally posted by culorut The government let it happen knowingly hence these same people that you put there to protect you did the opposite, they made it happen.

Wait, so did they let it happen or make it happen? You said a few pages that they caused the attacks. Wait, that sentence says both?

Exactly, it is the same thing. Let it happen or made it happen. The consequences are equal for both in this case for these criminals.

Let it happen = Hang them by their balls

Made it happen = Hang them by their balls

See the similarities?

quote:

Originally posted by culorut Exactly, it is the same thing. Let it happen or made it happen. The consequences are equal for both in this case for these criminals. Let it happen = Hang them by their balls Made it happen = Hang them by their balls See the similarities?

no it isn't the same thing. one is passive negligence while the other is active negligence. ie: intentional tort vs unintentional tort


for passive negligence you would have to prove that the parties were A: aware or ought to been aware of the threat or the iminent attack and B: that the parties did not act on that awareness in an effort to prevent those attacks.

that is far easier to prove than active negligence. there you would have to prove A: intent to commit those acts and B: prove that they did infact commit those acts and the manner in which they accomplished them.

they cannot both happen, its one or the other.

its pretty safe to say you won't be able to prove active negligence, your best bet would be to focus on trying to prove passive negligence.

quote:

Originally posted by colonelcrisp no it isn't the same thing. one is passive negligence while the other is active negligence. ie: intentional tort vs unintentional tort for passive negligence you would have to prove that the parties were A: aware or ought to been aware of the threat or the iminent attack and B: that the parties did not act on that awareness in an effort to prevent those attacks. that is far easier to prove than active negligence. there you would have to prove A: intent to commit those acts and B: prove that they did infact commit those acts and the manner in which they accomplished them. they cannot both happen, its one or the other. its pretty safe to say you won't be able to prove active negligence, your best bet would be to focus on trying to prove passive negligence.

well technically speaking for passive negligence oyu wuold also have to prove that the party also owed the public a duty of care.... [hedley byrne]

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 are you a lawyer??? it's like first year torts class over again.

nope, engineer, professional liability is a bitch, and as such we have a pretty good understanding of tort law and contract law lol

in any event, not bad for an engineer. Technically though, its a little harder than that; to prove negligence, one would have to prove: (1) there was a duty owed by the government to the people, (2) that the government was supposed to act under a certain standard of care (reasonable person standard most likely), (3) by not acting in that standard the government breach the duty owed to the people, (4) the government's conduct was the actual cause of the injury, (5) the government should have foreseen that its conduct would cause the injury, and (6) there were damages.

It would be difficult to prove that the government's conduct was the actual cause of the injury.

btw...intent is not an element of negligence. If the government intended to destroy the buildings it is no longer negligence, it becomes an intentional tort.

quote:

Originally posted by culorut Exactly, it is the same thing. Let it happen or made it happen. The consequences are equal for both in this case for these criminals. Let it happen = Hang them by their balls Made it happen = Hang them by their balls See the similarities?

that doesn't make any sense. you don't see the difference between killing someone and not stopping someone else from killing someone? If you can't make that distinction then you are hopelessly unintelligent.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN fuck, not again. the main reason he looks different is the transition between NTSC and PAL formats. christ, the way you kids believe everything you read on the net pisses me off. search through this thread, i have already pasted an analysis on the videotapes of bin laden.

lol and the way you believe everything you're fed through the mass media pisses me off. who are you trying to convince here? and if arguing infuriates you so much why not go outside, play some video games or something, get away from the computer so much and just relax a little

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 ok buddy, i actually live in NYC (actually jersey city, but it's much closer than canada), i take the train into the world trade center 5 days a week, and those 3000 people that died were MY neighbors. I have much more at stake in this than you, and almost everyone on this board. The thing i don't care about is stupid conspiracy theories. Since you conspiracy theorists think it's a big Bush administration plot, your concerns about these sorts of lies are increasingly becoming moot because the Bush administration has only 9 months remaining in office.

As if your distance from the incident makes the event that much more meaningful to you than others who live further away from you. i dunno last time i checked we all live on this little rock floatin' around the galaxy called earth or something. what happened affects everyone on the planet not just people in america, or new jersey god forbid. Yes you may have been closer to the incident but the effects have been felt by many people living much greater distances than you. People have lost so much more than just neighbours

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 in any event, not bad for an engineer. Technically though, its a little harder than that; to prove negligence, one would have to prove: (1) there was a duty owed by the government to the people, (2) that the government was supposed to act under a certain standard of care (reasonable person standard most likely), (3) by not acting in that standard the government breach the duty owed to the people, (4) the government's conduct was the actual cause of the injury, (5) the government should have foreseen that its conduct would cause the injury, and (6) there were damages. It would be difficult to prove that the government's conduct was the actual cause of the injury. btw...intent is not an element of negligence. If the government intended to destroy the buildings it is no longer negligence, it becomes an intentional tort.

the biggest problem i would see is establishing a reasonable standard of care owed by the government as i dont think any government in history has set a great prescedent.....

quote:

Originally posted by colonelcrisp no it isn't the same thing. one is passive negligence while the other is active negligence. ie: intentional tort vs unintentional tort for passive negligence you would have to prove that the parties were A: aware or ought to been aware of the threat or the iminent attack and B: that the parties did not act on that awareness in an effort to prevent those attacks. that is far easier to prove than active negligence. there you would have to prove A: intent to commit those acts and B: prove that they did infact commit those acts and the manner in which they accomplished them. they cannot both happen, its one or the other. its pretty safe to say you won't be able to prove active negligence, your best bet would be to focus on trying to prove passive negligence.

You do realize the ethical implications of passive negligence aren't terribly different from making it happen?

quote:

Originally posted by Spike As if your distance from the incident makes the event that much more meaningful to you than others who live further away from you. i dunno last time i checked we all live on this little rock floatin' around the galaxy called earth or something. what happened affects everyone on the planet not just people in america, or new jersey god forbid. Yes you may have been closer to the incident but the effects have been felt by many people living much greater distances than you. People have lost so much more than just neighbours

tell me, how many people do you know who died? Did 30 people from your town die on 9/11? do you walk through the world trade center every day worrying about getting lung disease? do you know anyone who lost their job because their office was destroy on 9/11? now you tell me exactly how your experience was more meaningful than mine!

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z You do realize the ethical implications of passive negligence aren't terribly different from making it happen?

true, but the point being that if the gov was passively negligent in 9/11 it does not equate to them planning and carrying out the attacks ie: setting explosives or that ever so illustrious thermate....

aren't governments ethically flawed to begin with??

quote:

Originally posted by colonelcrisp true, but the point being that if the gov was passively negligent in 9/11 it does not equate to them planning and carrying out the attacks ie: setting explosives or that ever so illustrious thermate.... aren't governments ethically flawed to begin with??

Ethically flawed enough to cause the death of 3000+ of it's own citizens? That kind of incompitence should be beyond an acceptable level of tolerance, don't you think?

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z Ethically flawed enough to cause the death of 3000+ of it's own citizens? That kind of incompitence should be beyond an acceptable level of tolerance, don't you think?

i would agree, but it is still only akin to accesory, it still is not equal to commiting the act, therin lies the difference. but yes if they were passivly negligent in the 9/11 attacks, it would be far beyond the realm of acceptable incompetance.

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 tell me, how many people do you know who died? Did 30 people from your town die on 9/11? do you walk through the world trade center every day worrying about getting lung disease? do you know anyone who lost their job because their office was destroy on 9/11? now you tell me exactly how your experience was more meaningful than mine!

I didnt say ME did I, I said others...other people.

quote:

Originally posted by Spike I didnt say ME did I, I said others...other people.

so tell me how the experience of a russian, chinese, japanese, south african, or thai person was as meaningful. Since geography means nothing, they should all have an experience that is on some level as meaningful as mine, right?

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 tell me, how many people do you know who died? Did 30 people from your town die on 9/11? do you walk through the world trade center every day worrying about getting lung disease? do you know anyone who lost their job because their office was destroy on 9/11? now you tell me exactly how your experience was more meaningful than mine!

+1

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.