|
Do you believe there is a U.S. government cover-up surrounding 9/11? (pg. 192)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Zild |
What about a defender who is asleep and has his head up his ass because he knows when his team loses he will become rich off betting against himself?
When those in power specifically call for 'another pearl harbor' it makes you wonder did they really have their head up their ass because they are inept, or because they want you to think they are inept. |
|
|
| culorut |
| quote: | | Stop using the expression "millions". You have absolutely no way to verify that there are indeed millions of truthers. Indeed, all the evidence is to the contrary. |
There are more here and everywhere I seem to look. You must have comprehension problems or something of that matter. |
|
|
| culorut |
| quote: | Originally posted by Zild
What about a defender who is asleep and has his head up his ass because he knows when his team loses he will become rich off betting against himself?
When those in power specifically call for 'another pearl harbor' it makes you wonder did they really have their head up their ass because they are inept, or because they want you to think they are inept. |
Thank you. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by culorut
There are more here and everywhere I seem to look. |
you're either a liar or deluded. truthers are a minority, as evidenced by their lackluster turnout at protests, their low net traffic, and the fact that the "movement" hasn't actually achieved anything in 7 years. If there are THAT many people, why does nobody care about you outside a few internet sites? When is the second investigation coming? Where is your peer-reviewed paper that provides evidence for controlled demolition?
Its ok to think youre right while the rest of us are wrong, but its ridiculous for you to throw around terms like "millions" without providing any evidence in support. Ive already provided mine with that list of 911 CT page hits. Pretty obvious how small the movement really is. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by Zild
When those in power specifically call for 'another pearl harbor' it makes you wonder did they really have their head up their ass because they are inept, or because they want you to think they are inept. |
Im surprised someone as scientific and supposedly rational would be happy in repeating known fallacies and lies of the truth movement. Have you even read the PNAC document? |
|
|
| jerZ07002 |
| quote: | Originally posted by culorut
It astonishes me that everyone believes that the governemtn is not capable of pulling off 911/letting it happen (same difference really). They already lied about WMD's and over 1 MILLION Iraqi's are dead, yet they are still in power smiling and lying in your face.
|
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. |
|
|
| Zild |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
Im surprised someone as scientific and supposedly rational would be happy in repeating known fallacies and lies of the truth movement. Have you even read the PNAC document? |
Don't make me laugh. Of course I have. What I got from it was that they wanted to gear up to combat Russia and China which involved rebuilding and strengthening our military forces. It also said that doing this will take far too long unless a catalyzing event like another pearl harbor happens.
That makes me beg the question... Have YOU even read the document? |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by Zild
Don't make me laugh of course I have. What I got from it was that they wanted to gear up to combat Russia and China which involved rebuilding and strengthening our military forces. It also said that doing this will take far too long unless a catalyzing event like another pearl harbor happens.
That makes me beg the question... Have YOU even read the document? |
Yeah, well perhaps you should've spent less time with imaginary numbers and more time with "useless" subjects like history or women studies or political science if you want to argue about these things?
The catalysing event, or "new pearl harbour" refers to being unprepared for a style/technology of warfare, not that the US needs another sneak attack to get the populace behind wars in afghanistan and iraq (neither country is mentioned either).
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)?
Only a one-eyed conspiracy theorist would argue the pearl harbour quotes are applicable to 9/11.
Because, you know, top secret nefarious plans are always put out in public documents, just so everyone is prepared for them when they attempt to pull the wool over everyone's eyes. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| 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 |
|
|
| Zild |
| 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 bull 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 out of them for quite some time now and they really can't fight back. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| 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. |
|
|
| Zild |
| 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. |
|
|
|
|
