"Complicit or Criminal Negligence"

[The Doc]

There is a common phrase that is presented to people by the 9/11 "truth" movement. That phrase goes something like:

"The United States Government was complicit in the events of 9/11, or at the bare minimum criminally negligent".

First of all, the definitions for "negligent" and "complicit".
Complicit
–adjective Choosing to be involved in an illegal or questionable act, esp. with others; having complicity.

Negligence
–Noun A negligent act or a failure to act.

The two contradict each other. If the US government was complicit in 9/11, there is no possible way they could have been negligent to the event at the same time.

The way I see it, this phrase simply highlights the true agenda of the 9/11 truth movement. A simple hate of the government and a will to blame the government for absolutely everything. "If we're wrong... it's still their fault".

It's crunch time truthers. There cannot be evidence for both negligence and complicity. So you either admit that there is no evidence for one of the two theories, or continue contradicting yourselves.

:)

[JAStewart]

Its basically saying

"911 could be an inside job but we can't prove it"

"911 was an inside job, or, it wasn't"

[gumboot]

I also like how they use "negligence" without knowing what it means.

I worked in the traffic department of New Zealand's largest city council, and we got a lot of claims from people on things like insurances, damages, etc... if they injured themselves or damaged their car or what have you because of "problems" with our services (potholes, damaged footpaths, all sorts of things).

We very seldom conceeded to their demands. The reason? In order to be negligent, one must know of the problem, be able to address the problem before the incident occurs, and fail to do so.

In other words, in order to prove negligence in regards to 9/11 one would have to prove that the government knew about the 9/11 plot, that there was something that could have been done between learning of the plot and 9/11 that would have prevented it, and that this was not done.

In the context of 9/11 this essentially means one has to prove the government had actionable intelligence regarding the plots, and ignored this actionable intelligence.

Even were you able to prove criminal negligence, it is highly unlikely you could convict higher members of the government of this negligence. The systems are already in place for agencies of the government to act on such intelligence without approval from the executive (for example the FBI can arrest someone who is a terrorist operating in the USA). Thus, at best you'd see some lower-level officers of the government being charged and convicted.

One of the tricky things here is you're dealing with a very murky subject area. When someone wrote in about blowing a tyre going over a pothole, it was very simple. Had the council been notified about it? Did we place a work order? Did the incident occur after the maximum allowed time for a work order to be acted on? Did the work order get carried out.

It's all very black and white.

But when you're talking intelligence, international terrorism, national security, nothing is black and white. Everything is murky shades of grey. Proving criminal negligence in the realm of intelligence is just not going to happen.

And that, when it comes down to it, is why families of victims, like the Jersey Girls, are so pissed off at the 9/11 Commission Report. Because it basically concluded "we tried, but we failed. Better luck next time."

-Gumboot

[The Doc]

Good point Gumboot.

I'll use your example as an analogy while I think of it :D

What the truthers are saying, is that there is evidence that the council deliberately dug the pothole so the car could hit it - but that there is also evidence that the council knew about someone else digging the hole, but didn't fix it.

I hope that makes sense lol.

[gumboot]

Good point Gumboot.

I'll use your example as an analogy while I think of it :D

What the truthers are saying, is that there is evidence that the council deliberately dug the pothole so the car could hit it - but that there is also evidence that the council knew about someone else digging the hole, but didn't fix it.

I hope that makes sense lol.


It does. :) To carry it further, they argue they purposefully dug the pothole so they could reduce the speed limit, whereas the council argues they lowered the speed limit to make things safe until such time as the pothole-digging culprit is caught... ;)

-Gumboot

[T.A.M.]

The truthers basicly have dug up several "pieces" of what they perceive as a puzzle to solve the real truth of 9/11. Now looking at the pieces, without a context, they can see a number of possibilities, both intentional action of a criminal nature (Complicity) or a purposeful failure to act (negligence).

The trouble is, what they have are not pieces to a puzzle at all, but mere anomolies within the true picture, which is, for the most part, the official story.

TAM:)

[gumboot]

The truthers basicly have dug up several "pieces" of what they perceive as a puzzle to solve the real truth of 9/11. Now looking at the pieces, without a context, they can see a number of possibilities, both intentional action of a criminal nature (Complicity) or a purposeful failure to act (negligence).

The trouble is, what they have are not pieces to a puzzle at all, but mere anomolies within the true picture, which is, for the most part, the official story.

TAM:)



I think we should change the title from "official story". Frankly, I wouldn't be surprised if several people here (Gravy springs to mind) know more about 9/11 than any single person in the entire US Government.

-Gumboot

[T.A.M.]

I usually call it the "Real Truth" to dissociate it from the "truth" movement.

Any suggestions?

TAM:)

How about "evidence based truth"...I know too long, not catchy...lol

[ref]

I usually call it the "Real Truth" to dissociate it from the "truth" movement.

Any suggestions?

TAM:)

How about "evidence based truth"...I know too long, not catchy...lol

How about "Rational Truth" or "Sane Truth" :p

[gumboot]

Reality?

-Gumboot

[CptColumbo]

Why is incompetent (adj. lacking the necessary skill/ability) not an option?

That's what IMO happened, and then they tried to save their jobs.

[gumboot]

Why is incompetent (adj. lacking the necessary skill/ability) not an option?

That's what IMO happened, and then they tried to save their jobs.


It's not an option (for truthers) because it doesn't involve anyone getting put in prison. Or hopefully hung from a lamp post.

Personally I think the USA simply made the oldest mistake there is in war. They underestimated their opponent. That's all there is to it.

-Gumboot

[Rahne Everson]

I think Der Spegeil said it best.

"As diverse as these theories and their adherents may be, they share a basic thought pattern: great tragedies must have great reasons." -- Der Spegeil Magazine, "Panoply of the Absurd" (http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,265160,00.html)

Everybody in the truth movement, from the really wacky like Uncle Fetzer to the honest inquirers like the Jersey Girls, has this sort of thinking. With any large disaster, everybody has this sort of thinking. Great tragedies must have great reasons, but in reality, they often have very mundane causes. Somebody didn't tell their superiors everything or cost cutting measures forced an engineer to use and ill-suited part or somebody didn't get enough sleep the night before which impaired his judgement. These little things build up over a great many months or years before they all clash into one giant mess that people are gonna have to clean up.

What people don't seem to realize is that the government is just a large group of people. People that make mistakes, sometimes really stupid and horrible mistakes, that affects the function of the rest of the people. In the end, between bueacracy, confusion, and gridlock, the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing and vice versa, even though they may pretend to know what's going on. It's cause and effect, that's all it is, and it just builds and builds, so that even the tiniest flaw has the largest repercussions.

This is why grand conspiracies don't work. The government is not a well-oiled machine, even in the most general of aspects. It's made up of people that are falliable, incompotent, and prone to lie. Just like the rest of us.

[fuelair]

There is a common phrase that is presented to people by the 9/11 "truth" movement. That phrase goes something like:

"The United States Government was complicit in the events of 9/11, or at the bare minimum criminally negligent".

First of all, the definitions for "negligent" and "complicit".




The two contradict each other. If the US government was complicit in 9/11, there is no possible way they could have been negligent to the event at the same time.

The way I see it, this phrase simply highlights the true agenda of the 9/11 truth movement. A simple hate of the government and a will to blame the government for absolutely everything. "If we're wrong... it's still their fault".

It's crunch time truthers. There cannot be evidence for both negligence and complicity. So you either admit that there is no evidence for one of the two theories, or continue contradicting yourselves.

:)


And, as I have pointed out over and over - you would have great difficulty finding a person more loathing of Bush and his handlers in this hemisphere than me. If there was the slightest chance that he and his bBoys had a hand in 9/11 - or purposefully allowed it to happen - I would have been on it like stink on Bush. But the closest it comes is the abject incompetence they demonstrated in dealing with it and the aftermath. There is no functional evidence that they caused it - or, except through incompetence, allowed things to happen that let it reach fruition.:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

[Skibum]

What law do they say was broken to make it criminal negligence?

[gumboot]

What law do they say was broken to make it criminal negligence?


Some sort of negligence law?

Someone posted it somewhere...

I think it's also covered in common law.

I think 9/11 would be criminal negligent homocide.

-Gumboot

[Brainster]

Yes, this was the dodge that Dylan used on the BBC radio interview, the bit about how the government was, at a minimum criminally negligent. Of course given that his entire film is about how the government was behind 9-11, this represents a substantial fallback position; it's (arguably) not even LIHOP.

Not sure I'd classify the Jersey Girls as "honest inquirers" anymore; certainly their performances (excepting Breitweiser) in the Press for Truth movie and statements thereafter have convinced me that they are at least modest Deniers.

Keep in mind that this is not really a rational movement. To me it's a Hail Mary pass by people whom society has left on the sidelines, if I'm not mixing my (American) football metaphors too much. When you observe the Truthers trying to get more people into the movement, there are "facts" presented and a certain amount of cultivation based on desires.

For example, we all agree that many Deniers are not really talking about 9-11. It's not long into a discussion about 9-11 that people present other agendas. Many cite the Patriot Act, while others focus on the Iraq War, or the Federal Reserve, or Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib. It's not about the victims, it's some sort of catch basin for people who are po'ed at the government

[CHF]

Yes, this was the dodge that Dylan used on the BBC radio interview, the bit about how the government was, at a minimum criminally negligent. Of course given that his entire film is about how the government was behind 9-11, this represents a substantial fallback position; it's (arguably) not even LIHOP.

Listening to Dylan mumble his way through interviews I get the impression that he doesn't even buy most of what he says anymore.

He might have at some point, but no longer.

At this point he's only thinking of money and getting his name out there which is why he's now throwing this "they were negligent" stuff out there. He just wants to be able to still say he was right.

[PhantomWolf]

Personally I think the USA simply made the oldest mistake there is in war. They underestimated their opponent. That's all there is to it.

The saying goes, armies are always fighting the last war. You expect your opponent to attack in a similar fashion to previous times. If they suddenly chage tactics, it takes time to catch up.

This is what happened on 9/11. 9/11 couldn't happen again, we know that tactic now, but that doesn't mean a new attack couldn't happen. An attack using anti-aircraft missiles to symultaneously shoot down airliners taking off from airports in Denver, Houston, Chicago and Minniapolas/St Paul would probably work pretty well as a new attack. Sure it's been tried (Al Qaeda did it against an Al El aircraft) and getting the launchers might be a tad tricky (though I doubt impossible) but it is certainly feasible and would terrorise the States all over again. This is the thing. When the next attack comes, and it will sooner of later, it'll come out of left field and exploit new unthought of weaknesses.

[PhantomWolf]

Listening to Dylan mumble his way through interviews I get the impression that he doesn't even buy most of what he says anymore.

Actually I was meaning to ask this of Gravy I have certainly noticed that when he can he sits there quietly and lets Beavis, um, Bermas do all the talking, really only correcting him, or answering direct questions (and sometimes not even that.) Is it possible that he's trying to escape the lie?

[RAMS]

I usually call it the "Real Truth" to dissociate it from the "truth" movement.

Any suggestions?

TAM:)

How about "evidence based truth"...I know too long, not catchy...lol


You are correct.

Being totally new here in this realm, I was shocked to see the monikers for each group.

Isn't it a fact that the 'Truthies' are us, since we validate in high order, with certain amendments, the official tale in truthful fact?

While the 'Skeptics', believe nothing whatsoever, but strange utterings based on total conjecture and troubled feelings laced with unfounded supposition that on balance amounts to gibberish?

Odd, this.

RAMS

[RAMS]

And, as I have pointed out over and over - you would have great difficulty finding a person more loathing of Bush and his handlers in this hemisphere than me. If there was the slightest chance that he and his bBoys had a hand in 9/11 - or purposefully allowed it to happen - I would have been on it like stink on Bush. But the closest it comes is the abject incompetence they demonstrated in dealing with it and the aftermath. There is no functional evidence that they caused it - or, except through incompetence, allowed things to happen that let it reach fruition.:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

AMEN!!!

RAMS

[T.A.M.]

You are correct.

Being totally new here in this realm, I was shocked to see the monikers for each group.

Isn't it a fact that the 'Truthies' are us, since we validate in high order, with certain amendments, the official tale in truthful fact?

While the 'Skeptics', believe nothing whatsoever, but strange utterings based on total conjecture and troubled feelings laced with unfounded supposition that on balance amounts to gibberish?

Odd, this.

RAMS

While I agree we are the real "truth"ers, I also feel we are skeptics, as we are skeptical of all the "Woo" that the truthers bring here, and in that we require real facts and evidence to be proven something.

TAM:)

[Brainster]

You are correct.

Being totally new here in this realm, I was shocked to see the monikers for each group.

Isn't it a fact that the 'Truthies' are us, since we validate in high order, with certain amendments, the official tale in truthful fact?

I prefer to refer to them as Deniers rather than Truthers. Nizkor notes about the Holocaust Deniers that there are three major elements to Holocaust Denial:

1. They deny the number of Jews killed.
2. They deny the plan (by the Nazis to kill the Jews).
3. They deny the method of killing the Jews (many by gassing).

The 9-11 Deniers do the same:

1. They deny the number (many or even most claim that none of the passengers were killed when their planes crashed).
2. They deny the plan (by Islamic extremists to kill Americans).
3. They deny the method.

I prefer Debunkers to Skeptics for our side.

[RAMS]

I prefer to refer to them as Deniers rather than Truthers. Nizkor notes about the Holocaust Deniers that there are three major elements to Holocaust Denial:

1. They deny the number of Jews killed.
2. They deny the plan (by the Nazis to kill the Jews).
3. They deny the method of killing the Jews (many by gassing).

The 9-11 Deniers do the same:

1. They deny the number (many or even most claim that none of the passengers were killed when their planes crashed).
2. They deny the plan (by Islamic extremists to kill Americans).
3. They deny the method.

I prefer Debunkers to Skeptics for our side.


From a total newcomer like me point of view, 'Denier' is more fitting since the 'thruthies' are anything but. They are, however, enconsced in a pathological lie, in fact.

RAMS