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.

___________________
I've never been able to eat a whole baby.
Kill the women. Eat the children.
It's just one of those days where you want to bend over everyone you know and kiss their ass goodbye with a big sideways boot.

Latest Mix

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?

___________________
http://thesoundofeco.com

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 pkcRAISTLIN I have 3 hobbies: gaming, DJing & correcting maladjusted fools on the internet.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN Yeah, I’d like to know what horrible, scarring incident in your childhood turned you into such an ignorant, intellectual-hating philistine?

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 pkcRAISTLIN I have 3 hobbies: gaming, DJing & correcting maladjusted fools on the internet.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN Yeah, I’d like to know what horrible, scarring incident in your childhood turned you into such an ignorant, intellectual-hating philistine?

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

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN I have 3 hobbies: gaming, DJing & correcting maladjusted fools on the internet.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN Yeah, I’d like to know what horrible, scarring incident in your childhood turned you into such an ignorant, intellectual-hating philistine?

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.

Last edited by jerZ07002 on Apr-25-2008 at 19:17

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

___________________
"The only monster here is the gambling monster that has enslaved your mother! I call him Gamblor, and it's time to snatch your mother from his neon claws!" - homer

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

___________________
"The only monster here is the gambling monster that has enslaved your mother! I call him Gamblor, and it's time to snatch your mother from his neon claws!" - homer