I re-read all of my posts since number 37 and I don't see where I told you that, but I still apologize if anything I did made you feel bad. (Frankly, I had never heard of PANC until you mentioned it.)
The only thing I am trying to say to you is that you seem to be firmly invested in a "9/11 was staged by the U.S. government"-theory although there doesn't seem to be any reason to believe such an outrageous theory is true. And if you are inclined to accept such an idea without even a modest amount of skepticism, then what other mistakes might you be making? In areas less tangible?
So, like I said earlier, my faith in you is a little shaken.
Well, no, not exactly.
In Chapter V of Rebuilding America’s Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New Century, the author addresses the need to transform the American military by making maximum use of technology and research.
On page 52, Pearl Harbor is mentioned:
"...Further, the process of transformation [of the U.S. military], even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor. Domestic politics and industrial policy will shape the pace and content of transformation as much as the requirements of current missions."
Then, there are some examples of high-dollar military programs and how long such programs take. The author ends the paragraph with:
"...Thus, this report advocates a two-stage process of change – transition and transformation – over the coming decades."
Later in the chapter (page 67), there is a section on transforming the U.S. Navy.
"...Absent a rigorous program of experimentation to investigate the nature of the revolution in military affairs as it applies to war at sea, the Navy might face a future Pearl Harbor – as unprepared for war in the post-carrier era as it was unprepared for war at the dawn of the carrier age."
Like the previous mention of "Pearl Harbor", this reference seems to be innocent. I think the conspiracy theorists are just being misled by the word "transformation" in the first quote. The document is not talking about transforming the Middle East but transforming the U.S. military.
As a matter of fact, I would be surprised if *any* document addressing military preparedness didn't include some mention of Pearl Harbor.
There are also pragmatic reasons for discounting the idea that 9/11 was somehow "inspired" by requirements for a "Pearl Harbor" described in this report. Some of the hijackers were already in the U.S. when this report was written in August 2000. At least one of the hijackers had been in the U.S. since January of that same year.
There's nothing funny about this.
Keep in mind that if this theory is not true, then you are horrendously libeling many individuals.
If we have a good reason to believe that this theory is true, then we must invest every ounce of energy to see that justice is done. We are not talking about ghosts, or aliens, or UFOs or anything like that. We are talking about genocide and corruption committed by real human beings. If we believe this theory is true, we must pursue justice by every avenue available to us.
If we don't have a good reason to believe the theory has any validity, then we should shut up.
So far, I haven't seen even a snippet of evidence to believe the theory has any validity.
