Thanksgiving... oh how I miss my grandmother's sweet potato pudding. It must have had billions of calories 'cause I can still taste it now, though it's been 25 years since I last had any (calories are directly proportional to taste in my book).
Yeah, that guy was a bit of a jerk; unfortunately now I have discovered there is a Brit here who is possibly worse. Been here for almost 20 years, has trouble ordering a beer in a restaurant in Japanese ("biru kudasai" will do the trick) and complains that the staff can't speak English. The teachers at the school he works at wish he would leave, but somehow he got tenure despite being unable (and unwilling) to participate in staff meetings.
Both these guys, however, show a bit of the rough edges of some of our English-speaking friends, which was my purpose in starting this thread. Of course I do not mean all (I grew up in the States and still have a US passport), but there is a fair number of not so greats out there, and they make life a living hell. I worked in law enforcement in the South for about five years before moving to Japan (that was fun, let me tell you). It is unbelievably peaceful here by comparison (for example: women can walk alone at night without any concern for personal safety). Official corruption is a different thing, though: it is rampant.
When I was younger I back packed from San Francisco to Cabo San Lucas. When you back pack, you end up meeting a lot of locals wherever you are, and a lot of people from very distant places in various hostels (you haven't lived until you've stayed in Mexican hostels ). I had a great time, and in my youthful folly really looked forward to finally getting to Cabo to party it up. Well, I was shocked to see the ugly American culture I was so used to leaving behind rearing it's ugly head there. a lot of fat Americans ordering indigenous people around like slaves. I promptly made my way back to La Paz where Americans were fewer and far between. Don't get me wrong, sometimes it's fun to meet up with a fellow American when abroad, and the only exception to that rule are the type of Americans you find in resort destination type cities.
What do you define "terrorism" as? If you want to see some real terrorism, look at any inner city in the US.... . .
Look at a history of hijacking and bombing of commercial planes and you will actually find that Muslims are not the only perpetrators. . . .
What, exactly, is a "heavy duty Muslim", and why would you, without personally knowing him...
The chances of dying as a result of "Muslim terrorism" in a western nation is about the same as being hit by a meteor from outer space. . .
Well, that comment is akin to the kind of racist trolling typical of yahoo "discussion" boards, Really. . .
Yeah, but I can stay out of the inner city fairly easily. I don't have much choice when it comes to the styles of the more recent terrorist attacks, since it's not terribly practical to avoid cities and air travel altogether.
. . .
Don't be stupid. Over the last ten years, the overwhelming majority of major terrorist acts have been carried out by islamic fundamentalists. This is pure statistics, not irrational bigotry. In fact, it's irrational to say that muslims aren't responsible for a large piece of the terrorism pie, by virtue of being simply incorrect. In addition to the front-page news, so much of the chaos in Africa and Southeast Asia is motivated by Islamic fundamentalists.
. . .
I think you can figure out the meaning of "heavy duty muslim." It's someone who conducts themselves in a way that is obviously Islamic, or at least a facsimile of Islamic behavior. Since western Muslims HAVE NOT made much of an effort (if one at all) to condemn the unforgivable actions of their brethren, I would have to weigh this heavily when making a quick decision. There's almost never the time to get to know each person individually and make a complete decision. Completely eschewing statistical stereotypes is pure lunacy: your value system fails in the common sense department.
. . .
Um, a lot of people have died in acts of Islamic terror. A lot of people have also died in plane crashes. Right now, I am not ready to die, and every time I get on a plane or a car, I realize that there's some chance of dying in a disaster. When Islam enters the equation, it's impossible not to think about the regular reports of terrorism attempts on airlines. It's absolute fact that Islamic terrorism has raised the statistical chance of dying on an airplace.
. . .
This is the pot calling the kettle black. You are known primarily for you persistence with crackpot conspiracy theories. I suppose it's only fitting for someone who's so detached from reality to also have shut down her own basic instincts. That is to say that when stimulated, naturally a response should follow. The west has been stimulated in a negative way by Islamic terrorism. If you don't agree with this, get pills. The United States is a country with western ideals, whether you like them or not, and it's really hard to look back and say that our ideals and well-being haven't been compromised by Islamic terrorism. The next question is what to do about it. In WWII, we detained Japanese Americans by the thousands. Currently, we have not done anything nearly this drastic to Islamic Americans, and I don't think we should, but the precedent is totally there. Islamic Americans should be walking on glass in fear that their brethren will do something dramatic enough to cause a major response from the American people and goverment, who widely disapprove of terrorism.
Because western muslims have not come out and denouced terrorism en masse, when a group of muslim clergymen decide to take an airline on a domestic route, to me this is as tasteless as a former skinhead, who hasn't yet removed his swastika tattoo, going to buy diamonds from a Jewish shop in New York. Maybe you'll just never understand.
Now, to Chucker
Quote:
A fear is an irrational human mental flaw, not something that could be legitimate. Instilling fear is a good old scare tactic, and the War on Terrorism is just one of the more recent examples.
Terrorism is a legitimate problem. For everyone to be worried about it, however, is not legitimate.
Fear isn't a flaw. Fear is a chemical response for the purpose of self-preservation. An irrational fear is a subset of the general category -- that is, a fear over something trivial.
Since you seem to realize that Terrorism is a legitimate problem, I can't see how a fear of terrorism isn't legitimate. I certainly fear terrorism. I don't necessarily think that the occupation of Iraq is the best way to abate the problem and thus abate the fear, but it's a lie to say that you don't fear terrorism.
I have to admit that I'd also be fearful over seeing a bunch of muslim imams praying before a plane fight. For the rationale here, see the common theme in my post. Now, I might react differently than the way it was handled, but given all the recent attempts at terrorism on airplanes, I think it's sensible for a muslim to be discreet when boarding an American airliner, just as it's sensible for the former skinhead to cover up his swastika tattoo.
Yeah, but I can stay out of the inner city fairly easily. I don't have much choice when it comes to the styles of the more recent terrorist attacks, since it's not terribly practical to avoid cities and air travel altogether.
. . .
Don't be stupid. Over the last ten years, the overwhelming majority of major terrorist acts have been carried out by islamic fundamentalists. This is pure statistics, not irrational bigotry. In fact, it's irrational to say that muslims aren't responsible for a large piece of the terrorism pie, by virtue of being simply incorrect. In addition to the front-page news, so much of the chaos in Africa and Southeast Asia is motivated by Islamic fundamentalists.
. . .
I think you can figure out the meaning of "heavy duty muslim." It's someone who conducts themselves in a way that is obviously Islamic, or at least a facsimile of Islamic behavior. Since western Muslims HAVE NOT made much of an effort (if one at all) to condemn the unforgivable actions of their brethren, I would have to weigh this heavily when making a quick decision. There's almost never the time to get to know each person individually and make a complete decision. Completely eschewing statistical stereotypes is pure lunacy: your value system fails in the common sense department.
. . .
Um, a lot of people have died in acts of Islamic terror. A lot of people have also died in plane crashes. Right now, I am not ready to die, and every time I get on a plane or a car, I realize that there's some chance of dying in a disaster. When Islam enters the equation, it's impossible not to think about the regular reports of terrorism attempts on airlines. It's absolute fact that Islamic terrorism has raised the statistical chance of dying on an airplace.
. . .
This is the pot calling the kettle black. You are known primarily for you persistence with crackpot conspiracy theories. I suppose it's only fitting for someone who's so detached from reality to also have shut down her own basic instincts. That is to say that when stimulated, naturally a response should follow. The west has been stimulated in a negative way by Islamic terrorism. If you don't agree with this, get pills. The United States is a country with western ideals, whether you like them or not, and it's really hard to look back and say that our ideals and well-being haven't been compromised by Islamic terrorism. The next question is what to do about it. In WWII, we detained Japanese Americans by the thousands. Currently, we have not done anything nearly this drastic to Islamic Americans, and I don't think we should, but the precedent is totally there. Islamic Americans should be walking on glass in fear that their brethren will do something dramatic enough to cause a major response from the American people and goverment, who widely disapprove of terrorism.
Because western muslims have not come out and denouced terrorism en masse, when a group of muslim clergymen decide to take an airline on a domestic route, to me this is as tasteless as a former skinhead, who hasn't yet removed his swastika tattoo, going to buy diamonds from a Jewish shop in New York. Maybe you'll just never understand.
You have so obviously bought into the program of fearmongering by the current Administration and DHS that it seems as if your life is, to a certain extent, being ruled by paranoia and irrationality.
Threats have to be taken in perspective. It is of value to look at things pragmatically. If, for example, I was standing at the corner of Hollywood and Vine waiting to cross the street, I am far more concerned about some idiot running a red light, than Ahmed or Mustafa setting off a bomb in the nearby wig store. Just translate that idea to any location in the US, and the perception and chance of dying in a "muslim inspired attack" doesn't even figure into the average person's reality frame.
From casual recall, I can count two attacks on the US mainland which have been popularly ascribed to "muslim terrorism" during the last several decades. (The World Trade Center bombs of 1993, and 9/11 (and those two events/stories are riddled in hearsay and non-evidence, and have some other monstrous problems, but thats another 100 threads, I am not gong there now). Then consider that the US covers 3.7 million square miles of territory, or almost half the entire North American continent, has a population of 300 million in several thousand of cities... and we have an open border with Mexico, where 3500 people cross into the US on a daily basis .. presumably providing cover for all those thousands of freedom-hating fundies soaked in Saudi oil money armed with C4 and AK47s blowing up all our soft targets, like any real or "bona fide" terrorist gang? Incidentally, there are some 4 million Muslims resident in the United States. Considering that you seem to believe the NeoCon hype that "all muslims are terrorists or potential terrorists".. then these 4 million folk must be the laziest bunch of ... whatever...
Get real. Trye not to buy into the hype, or the terrorists (whomever, and wherever , and whyever the heck they might actually be) have won.
So we should do away with all security and bar them from reasonably assigning risks due to behavior and acting in a preventive manner?
If his reality is skewed because he assumes the worst too much, yours is skewed in a way that is equally unrealistic in that it couldn't possibly occur due to odds- which really doesn't mean much. How do you assign these odds? These odds sure don't mean much to the people in the twin towers who died that day. Who would've thought that could have happened? I certainly had an O face when I watched them collapse. So your rationale is to assigning odds of it happening again based on it never happening before? But since 9/11 there was at least one viable attempt- the shoe bomber. He slipped through ground security and then it was up to passengers to fight that guy for their lives. There are no odds here man, just human will. You can't assign odds to that.
This situation is unfortunate for sure, but it's a necessary by-product. Like it was reported by the people involved- it was more than the fact that they were praying. You are addressing irrational fear- when in this particular case there seems to be enough to warrant security taking preventive action. It's not like muslims are taken off planes everyday despite the fact that muslims fly every single day on US airlines.
Wait. Is someone here honestly suggesting that Muslims cannot pray in nominally public spaces?
Hell we should just ban all outward signs of religion. No crosses, no head coverings. No prayer anywhere where someone else could possibly see you.
Would be cool. It's between them and god, why I should see or hear it? Restaurants should have another door, next to restroom called "prayroom". For anyone who is in emergency to pray.
So we should do away with all security and bar them from reasonably assigning risks due to behavior and acting in a preventive manner?
If his reality is skewed because he assumes the worst too much, yours is skewed in a way that is equally unrealistic in that it couldn't possibly occur due to odds- which really doesn't mean much. How do you assign these odds? These odds sure don't mean much to the people in the twin towers who died that day. Who would've thought that could have happened?
Lots of people. There was so much foreknowledge in official circles of the 9/11 attacks I can't even begin to list them all. For example: Senior officials in the FBI knew up to 6 weeks in advance, re. the locations, the method used, the date and the time of the attacks. Agents who tried to raise the alarm were threatened with prosecution under the National Security Act (!!) if they went public.
Oh, and watch this video also... even a conspiracy guy predicted it.. kinda pretty accurately too. I wonder if they questioned him about foreknowledge?
Quote:
I certainly had an O face when I watched them collapse. So your rationale is to assigning odds of it happening again based on it never happening before? But since 9/11 there was at least one viable attempt- the shoe bomber. He slipped through ground security and then it was up to passengers to fight that guy for their lives. There are no odds here man, just human will. You can't assign odds to that.
That shoebomber incident raises red flags all over. Airport explosives detection equipment in Paris should have detected the 10 ounces of explosives he apparently had in his hi- top basketball shoes. But no... Also, Reid was allowed to board a transatlantic flight with only a *backpack*, without challenge. (!!) Also, according to the FBI, the explosives in his shoe was a blend of almost One Pound of triacetone triperoxide (TATP) (aka The Mother of Satan because of its extreme sensitivity and instability), and pentaerythritol tetranitrate (PETN). Now this large, 6'3", 220lb bozo was apparently walking around the airport concourse with a bomb that was inherently so unstable that each time he planted his bomb-laden foot on the hard marble/tiled/concrete floor in the airport, there would be a big chance of blowing himself to kingdom come well before he got anywhere near a plane. So believable, that the guy was either a complete moron, or he and the planners of the operation didnt care if it succeeded ot not. Which seems to be pretty pointless going to the great effort of designin a bomb that most likely would detonate before the appointed time and place. In the terrorists' point of view... a lame-assed scheme, doomed to failure... unless.....
Well... we know the story... he was caught trying to set fire to something while on that flight, and since then we all have to take off our shoes when we enter an airport terminal.. which isn't really a great hardship or inconvenience, it merely served to ratchet the fear quotient a few notches tighter in the immediate wake of 9/11. There is much about that Richard Reid story that doesn't "ring true". Anyway, imagine if they found someone with a bomb hidden in a body cavity trying to board a plane? That would cause real chaos with air travel... so you can be pretty sure that ain't gonna happen.. for obvious reasons.
Quote:
This situation is unfortunate for sure, but it's a necessary by-product. Like it was reported by the people involved- it was more than the fact that they were praying. You are addressing irrational fear- when in this particular case there seems to be enough to warrant security taking preventive action. It's not like muslims are taken off planes everyday despite the fact that muslims fly every single day on US airlines.
As I said in my earlier post: A group of Imams would have set off every red flag with airport security. If they got on that plane, then those guys were clean.
Lots of people. There was so much foreknowledge in official circles of the 9/11 attacks I can't even begin to list them all. For example: Senior officials in the FBI knew up to 6 weeks in advance, re. the locations, the method used, the date and the time of the attacks. Agents who tried to raise the alarm were threatened with prosecution under the National Security Act (!!) if they went public.
Oh, and watch this video also... even a conspiracy guy predicted it.. kinda pretty accurately too. I wonder if they questioned him about foreknowledge?
So if no one mentioned their gut feeling and something happened...? If security didn't check these people out and the consequence was a crashed plane?
FYI- I honestly don't buy into the conspiracy stuff- and this guy... heh. You can say he predicted 9/11 in the same way those 900 numbers tell your future. Exact same methodology.
Quote:
That shoebomber incident raises red flags all over. Airport explosives detection equipment in Paris should have detected the 10 ounces of explosives he apparently had in his hi- top basketball shoes. But no... Also, Reid was allowed to board a transatlantic flight with only a *backpack*, without challenge. (!!) Also, according to the FBI, the explosives in his shoe was a blend of almost One Pound of triacetone triperoxide (TATP) (aka The Mother of Satan because of its extreme sensitivity and instability), and pentaerythritol tetranitrate (PETN). Now this large, 6'3", 220lb bozo was apparently walking around the airport concourse with a bomb that was inherently so unstable that each time he planted his bomb-laden foot on the hard marble/tiled/concrete floor in the airport, there would be a big chance of blowing himself to kingdom come well before he got anywhere near a plane. So believable, that the guy was either a complete moron, or he and the planners of the operation didn?t care if it succeeded to not. Which seems to be pretty pointless going to the great effort of designing a bomb that most likely would detonate before the appointed time and place. In the terrorists' point of view... a lame-assed scheme, doomed to failure... unless.....
Well... we know the story... he was caught trying to set fire to something while on that flight, and since then we all have to take off our shoes when we enter an airport terminal.. Which isn't really a great hardship or inconvenience, it merely served to ratchet the fear quotient a few notches tighter in the immediate wake of 9/11. There is much about that Richard Reid story that doesn't "ring true". Anyway, imagine if they found someone with a bomb hidden in a body cavity trying to board a plane? That would cause real chaos with air travel... so you can be pretty sure that isn?t going to happen.. for obvious reasons.
And now you EXACTLY reinforce my points by blasting Paris for their security failure on the ground before the plane took off. That is exactly why when enough is out of the ordinary you are obligated to check it out. Because if you don't that's how planes blow up.
And here you go on about conspiracy again- somehow something doesn't ring true to you. Are you saying that because something doesn't ring true.. We should what? Not check out threats? Or we should? The only thing that doesn't ring true is what you are talking about. Please explain.
Quote:
As I said in my earlier post: A group of Imams would have set off every red flag with airport security. If they got on that plane, then those guys were clean.
So US airport security is so fool proof that we all can rest on our laurels and depend on some mystical odds even a sketchy casino would blush at? If a terrorist makes it to the gate then he may as well consider himself home free?
Nothing of what you said makes any sense in the context of why these men should not have been checked out. Throwing conspiracy theories at the situation we are talking about does nothing for these men. It is not even relevant.
Honestly, the incidents of lapses in airport ground security go on and on and on....
And so does the incidents of people expressing outrage in the press- from the WW2 vet who got searched and his medal confiscated (Ret. Gen Joe Foss), to the girl who had to remove her prosthetic leg, to the group of Imams praying... and that keeps on going.
Nonetheless, security has a duty, as do we all, in helping each other to stay safe.
Oh yea- and check this link out when you get some time and let me know if your conspiracies can disprove anything here:
There are 16 ounces in a pound.... is that a typo?
Quote:
Originally Posted by sammi jo
That shoebomber incident raises red flags all over. Airport explosives detection equipment in Paris should have detected the 10 ounces of explosives he apparently had in his hi- top basketball shoes. But no... Also, Reid was allowed to board a transatlantic flight with only a *backpack*, without challenge. (!!) Also, according to the FBI, the explosives in his shoe was a blend of almost One Pound of triacetone triperoxide (TATP) (aka The Mother of Satan because of its extreme sensitivity and instability), and pentaerythritol tetranitrate (PETN).
So if no one mentioned their gut feeling and something happened...? If security didn't check these people out and the consequence was a crashed plane?
FYI- I honestly don't buy into the conspiracy stuff- and this guy... heh. You can say he predicted 9/11 in the same way those 900 numbers tell your future. Exact same methodology.
Mr. Jones did go on the record with this, and was proven correct. Perhaps the FBI (and numerous other 3 letter agencies) should have been watching the Alex Jones show on that day. How come he got it right with few resources. and the US government missed everything? Or did they? The overwhelming evidence is that many people knew beforehand. And why did the top brass in the FBI refuse to allow their agents to investigate the leads they had?
Re. you not buying into "conspiracy": Do you honestly believe that those attacks wee organized an executed by one person? From what we have been told, despite the hearsay or second hand nature of all the evidence against the alleged perps, does not the criminal plans pf 19 hijackers qualify as a conspiracy? Lets keep the middle-school stuff out of it, if possible. or the thread just gets trashed.
Quote:
And now you EXACTLY reinforce my points by blasting Paris for their security failure on the ground before the plane took off. That is exactly why when enough is out of the ordinary you are obligated to check it out. Because if you don't that's how planes blow up
And here you go on about conspiracy again- somehow something doesn't ring true to you. Are you saying that because something doesn't ring true.. We should what? Not check out threats? Or we should? The only thing that doesn't ring true is what you are talking about. Please explain.
One doesn't have to venture anywhere "out there" to suggest that something is messed up with the story. A 6'3 220lb meathead goes clomping round an airport with 2/3 of a pound of explosives embedded in his shoes.. shoes are the part of ones attire that comes into direct contact with hard ground and absorbs some pretty heavy duty impact, no matter how gingerly he was walking; the explosives allegedly in his shoes being so sensitive that the "slightest of vibrations" could initiate a detonation. I have no idea how long he was at the airport, or how far he had to walk... but logic dictates that he should have met his 76 virgins well before he boarded that plane. How come nobody questioned this really obvious anomaly? If he had carried his shoes in his backpack (which was the only luggage he had), then his backback would have gone through the detectors on the gate's security stations ..which are tuned specifically to respond to explosives. But we were told that he got through because "airport explosive detection equipment didn't scan as far down as the feet". So we are back to the original notion, that the guy was clomping round the concourse subjecting some of the most unstable explosives there are to repeated shocks and impacts, without detonating them. Richard Reid, we have been told, is a moron. And to try pulling a stunt like that with success is entirely dependent on an extraordinary amount of luck... unless there are some other details of the incident that have not been released to the public.
I am just looking for a sensible explanation here, without the glaring holes. Right now, the story has glaring holes and inconsistencies.
Quote:
So US airport security is so fool proof that we all can rest on our laurels and depend on some mystical odds even a sketchy casino would blush at? If a terrorist makes it to the gate then he may as well consider himself home free?
Since airport security is so bad, as you maintain, how come there are so few incidents all over the world where real planes are hijacked and real terrorists use real weapons and real bombs causing real people to die? Especially considering that there are some Two Billion Muslims on this planet, who, according to the opinions of the most influential figures within the Bush (and Israeli) administrations are all terrorists or potential terrorists?
Quote:
Nothing of what you said makes any sense in the context of why these men should not have been checked out. Throwing conspiracy theories at the situation we are talking about does nothing for these men. It is not even relevant.
You can bet that these guys were checked out pretty thoroughly. At a US airport these days, anyone checking in with a Muslim name raises a flag. You know that as well as I!
Honestly, the incidents of lapses in airport ground security go on and on and on....
Fair enough: see comment above. All this appalling security seems to be allowing a rash of hijackings, airplane bombings, etc etc. Like, really.
Quote:
And so does the incidents of people expressing outrage in the press- from the WW2 vet who got searched and his medal confiscated (Ret. Gen Joe Foss), to the girl who had to remove her prosthetic leg, to the group of Imams praying... and that keeps on going.
Nonetheless, security has a duty, as do we all, in helping each other to stay safe.
I have nothing against airport security. Like, d'oh. When I board a plane, which is one of the most potentially vulnerable places a human can be (6 miles up, doing >550 mph in a temperature of -55ºF and a few cm of Hg atmospheric pressure, protected by a thin aluminum frame)... I like to feel as safe as possible while up there. We all do. But to be honest, if I have any worries about flying, it is far more connected to whether the maintenance folks servicing the jet engines did their jobs properly, for example, than the chance of some Islamic bozo smuggled a bomb on board past what (in your estmation) is the default lousy airport security systems..... Mechanical failure (and pilot error, or unexpected severe weather) is a far more likely cause of a crash than the type of malicious human action that is getting attention.
Quote:
Oh yea- and check this link out when you get some time and let me know if your conspiracies can disprove anything here:
Yes, I have read that NIST stuff. If you honestly believe that a government agency like NIST could be capable of releasing a scientifically transparent, non-politicized report on an incident as charged as 9/11, that has all the facts regarding the collapse of the Twin Towers, then you are more naive than I thought. When NIST started their own investigation, they were hampered by the fact that they were barred from taking samples on the WTC steel, unless it was from specified areas. Most of the crime scene evidence was off limits. and was very rapidly shipped off to China and India for recycling. Their report, even under the best of circumstances, remains incomplete. And, in their own words, the cause of the collapse of #7 is "an unknown".
*
Since you brought up the 9/11 controversy, I should point out this anomaly to you: All it takes, to doubt the official story, is for one aspect of their story to be proved wrong, or an outright lie. Here is one:
Re. the attack on the Pentagon: there has been lots of controversy. The official story is that Hani Hanjour piloted Flight 77, brought it in horizontally a few feet above above the lawn of the Pentagon, clipping off as many as 5 light poles and a generator, before slamming into the recently reinforced western facade.
Now contrast the above, officially sanctioned version of the flight path of Flight 77, with the real Flight Data Recorder's data, and the NTSB's own reconstruction of the flight path of 77: Here is also the final maneuver of Flight 77, as culled from the NTSB's own data from the FDR:
Oh my. Big oooops. Someone's telling some bigassed lies: Flight 77 could not possibly have brought down those light poles, since according to the FDR's altimeter data from the NTSB, the altitude of Flight 77 as it passed over the lawn in the vicinity of those light poles was at least 400 feet above ground level (!!) , and it was coming in at a relatively steep dive, as opposed to a horizontal aproach above the lawn. In other words, according to the FDR's data, there is no chance that the Boeing 757 (of Flight 77) was the airplane that hit those 5 light poles. Not only that, but the flight path of 77, referenced to the surface, is offset some 25º to the "official" version of Flight 77's track.
So, if Flight 77 could not have possibly hit those lamp poles, then just what the hell did? Something did, that is plain. If they so obviously lied about the event(s) at the Pentagon.. then why should we believe anything else about their account of 9/11? This administration has a long track record of lying to accomplish their agenda....look at Iraq, for one of many examples.
Hey sammi jo, artman here to drop a link to you...
I've been intrigued by Purdu Civil Engineer's work on simulations of the 9|11 attacks. You might want to take a look. Their work is still ongoing, but the simulations of the Pentagon attack have concluded (after four years of research) and they have a lot of evidence to prove that an airliner did hit the Pentagon.
Their simulations of the World Trade Towers are ongoing but there is ample evidence that the planes impacts did help bring the structures down.
I'm not saying that the US government and the agencies (FBI, CIA, NSA, etc.) left the door open for these attacks. It's just that I myself have come to the conclusion that terrorists hijacked these planes and did the deeds.
I don't know how old you are, but I recall the countless hijackings and hostage taking of airliners from the previous three decades. So though the attacks on 9|11 were horrible, I wasn't surprised that they happened. Airport security has always been difficult for the commercial airlines to implement because of the expense and inconvenience to their passengers. Now after 9|11 you'd think they be more vigilant.
Airport security needs to be tighter and more efficient. Israel has done it and we should too. The good old days of commercial (fun) flying are over.
What are you guys wittering about, re. "no plane hitting the Pentagon?". Can't you read yet? Did I ever make that crazy claim? No, and you damned well know it. It's getting beyond tedious to have one's posts twisted and misrepresented. Go back and READ the NTSB (Pentagon) material I included in that post. This kind of material is like the unwelcome elephant that lays a pile in the middle of a cocktail party, but rather than clean it up, we pinch our noses and keep on small-talking.
I am not making any accusation. I have no theory, wacky conspiracy or whatever (unlike the US government). All I have done is ask a fundamental question about that part of the attacks that nobody has come anywhere near answering in a consistent and satisfactory manner.
However, because I point out the fact that parties within the US Government have been caught red-handed and lying regarding the nature of the Pentagon attack, by data released by their very own freakin' agency charged with investigating plane crashes, you prefer to launch into an ad hominem attack comment, the sort of "commentary" that infests yahoo "discussion" groups.
And Hassan, that last time I posted in a thread relating to 9/11, you responded with spamming the discussion with pages and pages and pages of material which is on at least 6 sites I am familiar with, where a simple one line link would have worked.
Hassan, if you could solve the discrepancy of the NTSB's data (from Flight77) with the government accounts of Flight 77's final trajectory, then America would love to hear from you. If you prefer to remain in the schoolyard and name-call, then thats your prerogative.
What are you guys wittering about, re. "no plane hitting the Pentagon?".
I'm sorry sammi jo. I didn't want my post to sound as an attack on your data (and I don't want to argue 9|11...I've done enough of that), only sharing the information I've found.
(and now that I've watched the NTSB clip you linked I'm afraid I might have to redo some more research...sigh...has anyone confirmed this animation is from the NTSB? Couldn't find anything on their site)
As far as airport security, we have to model all our airports to the same as El Al's procedures. It will be invasive and annoying but name one hijacking or attack that has come out of El Al's airport or within the airport itself since they beefed up security 30 years ago.
So, if Flight 77 could not have possibly hit those lamp poles, then just what the hell did? Something did, that is plain. If they so obviously lied about the event(s) at the Pentagon.. then why should we believe anything else about their account of 9/11? This administration has a long track record of lying to accomplish their agenda....look at Iraq, for one of many examples.
What is the point of your argument here then? It seems pretty clear to me that you believe it wasn't a plane, or am I missing something?
What is the point of your argument here then? It seems pretty clear to me that you believe it wasn't a plane, or am I missing something?
Hassan you are missing something, that is for sure. I already posted links to Catherder's explanation of the Pentagon attack, in which he/she conclusively debunks any of those IDIOTS who don't believe that a 757 (or at least a plane the size of a 757) did indeed, hit the Pentagon. (It is one of the beter analyses out there).
However. the discrepancy and conflict here is with the government's own explanation of what hit the Pentagon, and with what trajectory. Their own story, which they have maintained for 5 years, is that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon by means of flying horzontally just above the lawn, clipping 5 lamp poles and a generator on the lawn, before slamming into the side of the building. However, the NTSB's data, taken from Flight 77's flight data recorder itself, and animated by the NTSB, conclusively shows that there is no way that Flight 77 could have hit the building in the way the the government claimed. When it passed over the light poles, the altimeter readings showed that the plane was still 400 feet above the ground.
I have never claimed that Flight 77 did not hit the building. The NTSB's data suggests that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon in a dive, in direct contradiction to the Pentagon/Bush admin's story. Yes, numerous eyewitnesses also saw a large plane slam into the building... but a number of these eyewitnesses refer to a smaller plane as well (as in "corporate jet"/ "cruise missile"/ etc.
What might have happened, is that there were two events at the Pentagon that morning. This is borne out by the accounts of many clocks in the Pentagon stopping (and even falling off walls) at 9-31 or 9-32 am that morning as well as a huge blast and the "smell of cordite". 7 minutes later, around 9-38 am, is the officially recognized time that Flight 77 impacted.
What is bothersome, is the fact that the DoD refuses to release any of the 82 or so security camera tapes that could put this matter to rest once and for all. If there is niohing on the tapes, then releas the damn things. if Flight 77 is on the tapes, then release them and make the "conspiracy theorists" look like idiots. Their refusal to comply with FOIA requests, and general paranoia about the whole thing, reinforces the notion of malfeasance or conspiracy. The NTSB's data confirms that a partial truth is being told, at best.
I hope this clarifies the fact that I am merely asking a question re. a fundamental aspect of 9/11 that hasn't been resolved. It is disappointing that you insantly jumped to the conclusion that I am a 'no-plane' theorist, perhaps because I dare ask a question that has been rendered unaskable. or taboo.
What about the photos the government did release? They did not actually show anything, so nothing can be concluded from them. The photo that is more telling is that of the damaged building after the fact, showing the damage which, though severe, was missing certain elements that would likely have been present if the building had been struck by a large plane: damage from the engines and wings to the exterior of the building. It is simply not present.
Pennsylvania: How many airplane crashes have there been where the entire plane completely desintigrates? It is very, very rare. Even the space shuttle, which fell apart at altitude and speeads high enough to cause fricture ignition, left debris that could be easily identified and reconstructed.
---
That said, either the WH caused thhe event or allowed it to happen. Who knows, maybe the CIA contracted the terrorists; they have tried things like that before during the early years of dealing with CUba and other South American nations. GWB wanted a war; to get it, he needed provocation. That the events of 9/11 annd the subsequent wars have almost nothing in common is simply good spinning on the WH's part.
---
Now, has the fallout from 9/11 (whoever caused it) adversely effected American society so as to further the tensions we already had amongst ourselves? Racial, economic, religious, denial? I believe it has.
New article at CNN about the teaching of Thanksgiving; at least some people are looking at reality. As a teacher, though, I understand the difficulties in teaching history in a way that it is not a lie but so that children foster a sense of national pride. National pride, however, is pretty overblown in the USA anyway - how many songs are there about the country? How many hours do skool cids spend re-enacting historical scenes in a very favorable light? How often does the presidennt boast about America's greatness and ask for God's continued blessing (with the implied premis that he is already doing so)? How fine is the line between nationalism and nationalistic fervor?
The FBI identified the 19 terrorist suspects from DNA matches. How did they get the samples of their DNA after the attacks? How and when did they obtain the DNA samples from the hijackers before 9/11 in order to make the matches?
Comments
Yeah, that guy was a bit of a jerk; unfortunately now I have discovered there is a Brit here who is possibly worse. Been here for almost 20 years, has trouble ordering a beer in a restaurant in Japanese ("biru kudasai" will do the trick) and complains that the staff can't speak English. The teachers at the school he works at wish he would leave, but somehow he got tenure despite being unable (and unwilling) to participate in staff meetings.
Both these guys, however, show a bit of the rough edges of some of our English-speaking friends, which was my purpose in starting this thread. Of course I do not mean all (I grew up in the States and still have a US passport), but there is a fair number of not so greats out there, and they make life a living hell. I worked in law enforcement in the South for about five years before moving to Japan (that was fun, let me tell you). It is unbelievably peaceful here by comparison (for example: women can walk alone at night without any concern for personal safety). Official corruption is a different thing, though: it is rampant.
What do you define "terrorism" as? If you want to see some real terrorism, look at any inner city in the US.... . .
Look at a history of hijacking and bombing of commercial planes and you will actually find that Muslims are not the only perpetrators. . . .
What, exactly, is a "heavy duty Muslim", and why would you, without personally knowing him...
The chances of dying as a result of "Muslim terrorism" in a western nation is about the same as being hit by a meteor from outer space. . .
Well, that comment is akin to the kind of racist trolling typical of yahoo "discussion" boards, Really. . .
Yeah, but I can stay out of the inner city fairly easily. I don't have much choice when it comes to the styles of the more recent terrorist attacks, since it's not terribly practical to avoid cities and air travel altogether.
. . .
Don't be stupid. Over the last ten years, the overwhelming majority of major terrorist acts have been carried out by islamic fundamentalists. This is pure statistics, not irrational bigotry. In fact, it's irrational to say that muslims aren't responsible for a large piece of the terrorism pie, by virtue of being simply incorrect. In addition to the front-page news, so much of the chaos in Africa and Southeast Asia is motivated by Islamic fundamentalists.
. . .
I think you can figure out the meaning of "heavy duty muslim." It's someone who conducts themselves in a way that is obviously Islamic, or at least a facsimile of Islamic behavior. Since western Muslims HAVE NOT made much of an effort (if one at all) to condemn the unforgivable actions of their brethren, I would have to weigh this heavily when making a quick decision. There's almost never the time to get to know each person individually and make a complete decision. Completely eschewing statistical stereotypes is pure lunacy: your value system fails in the common sense department.
. . .
Um, a lot of people have died in acts of Islamic terror. A lot of people have also died in plane crashes. Right now, I am not ready to die, and every time I get on a plane or a car, I realize that there's some chance of dying in a disaster. When Islam enters the equation, it's impossible not to think about the regular reports of terrorism attempts on airlines. It's absolute fact that Islamic terrorism has raised the statistical chance of dying on an airplace.
. . .
This is the pot calling the kettle black. You are known primarily for you persistence with crackpot conspiracy theories. I suppose it's only fitting for someone who's so detached from reality to also have shut down her own basic instincts. That is to say that when stimulated, naturally a response should follow. The west has been stimulated in a negative way by Islamic terrorism. If you don't agree with this, get pills. The United States is a country with western ideals, whether you like them or not, and it's really hard to look back and say that our ideals and well-being haven't been compromised by Islamic terrorism. The next question is what to do about it. In WWII, we detained Japanese Americans by the thousands. Currently, we have not done anything nearly this drastic to Islamic Americans, and I don't think we should, but the precedent is totally there. Islamic Americans should be walking on glass in fear that their brethren will do something dramatic enough to cause a major response from the American people and goverment, who widely disapprove of terrorism.
Because western muslims have not come out and denouced terrorism en masse, when a group of muslim clergymen decide to take an airline on a domestic route, to me this is as tasteless as a former skinhead, who hasn't yet removed his swastika tattoo, going to buy diamonds from a Jewish shop in New York. Maybe you'll just never understand.
Now, to Chucker
A fear is an irrational human mental flaw, not something that could be legitimate. Instilling fear is a good old scare tactic, and the War on Terrorism is just one of the more recent examples.
Terrorism is a legitimate problem. For everyone to be worried about it, however, is not legitimate.
Fear isn't a flaw. Fear is a chemical response for the purpose of self-preservation. An irrational fear is a subset of the general category -- that is, a fear over something trivial.
Since you seem to realize that Terrorism is a legitimate problem, I can't see how a fear of terrorism isn't legitimate. I certainly fear terrorism. I don't necessarily think that the occupation of Iraq is the best way to abate the problem and thus abate the fear, but it's a lie to say that you don't fear terrorism.
I have to admit that I'd also be fearful over seeing a bunch of muslim imams praying before a plane fight. For the rationale here, see the common theme in my post. Now, I might react differently than the way it was handled, but given all the recent attempts at terrorism on airplanes, I think it's sensible for a muslim to be discreet when boarding an American airliner, just as it's sensible for the former skinhead to cover up his swastika tattoo.
Yeah, but I can stay out of the inner city fairly easily. I don't have much choice when it comes to the styles of the more recent terrorist attacks, since it's not terribly practical to avoid cities and air travel altogether.
. . .
Don't be stupid. Over the last ten years, the overwhelming majority of major terrorist acts have been carried out by islamic fundamentalists. This is pure statistics, not irrational bigotry. In fact, it's irrational to say that muslims aren't responsible for a large piece of the terrorism pie, by virtue of being simply incorrect. In addition to the front-page news, so much of the chaos in Africa and Southeast Asia is motivated by Islamic fundamentalists.
. . .
I think you can figure out the meaning of "heavy duty muslim." It's someone who conducts themselves in a way that is obviously Islamic, or at least a facsimile of Islamic behavior. Since western Muslims HAVE NOT made much of an effort (if one at all) to condemn the unforgivable actions of their brethren, I would have to weigh this heavily when making a quick decision. There's almost never the time to get to know each person individually and make a complete decision. Completely eschewing statistical stereotypes is pure lunacy: your value system fails in the common sense department.
. . .
Um, a lot of people have died in acts of Islamic terror. A lot of people have also died in plane crashes. Right now, I am not ready to die, and every time I get on a plane or a car, I realize that there's some chance of dying in a disaster. When Islam enters the equation, it's impossible not to think about the regular reports of terrorism attempts on airlines. It's absolute fact that Islamic terrorism has raised the statistical chance of dying on an airplace.
. . .
This is the pot calling the kettle black. You are known primarily for you persistence with crackpot conspiracy theories. I suppose it's only fitting for someone who's so detached from reality to also have shut down her own basic instincts. That is to say that when stimulated, naturally a response should follow. The west has been stimulated in a negative way by Islamic terrorism. If you don't agree with this, get pills. The United States is a country with western ideals, whether you like them or not, and it's really hard to look back and say that our ideals and well-being haven't been compromised by Islamic terrorism. The next question is what to do about it. In WWII, we detained Japanese Americans by the thousands. Currently, we have not done anything nearly this drastic to Islamic Americans, and I don't think we should, but the precedent is totally there. Islamic Americans should be walking on glass in fear that their brethren will do something dramatic enough to cause a major response from the American people and goverment, who widely disapprove of terrorism.
Because western muslims have not come out and denouced terrorism en masse, when a group of muslim clergymen decide to take an airline on a domestic route, to me this is as tasteless as a former skinhead, who hasn't yet removed his swastika tattoo, going to buy diamonds from a Jewish shop in New York. Maybe you'll just never understand.
You have so obviously bought into the program of fearmongering by the current Administration and DHS that it seems as if your life is, to a certain extent, being ruled by paranoia and irrationality.
Threats have to be taken in perspective. It is of value to look at things pragmatically. If, for example, I was standing at the corner of Hollywood and Vine waiting to cross the street, I am far more concerned about some idiot running a red light, than Ahmed or Mustafa setting off a bomb in the nearby wig store. Just translate that idea to any location in the US, and the perception and chance of dying in a "muslim inspired attack" doesn't even figure into the average person's reality frame.
From casual recall, I can count two attacks on the US mainland which have been popularly ascribed to "muslim terrorism" during the last several decades. (The World Trade Center bombs of 1993, and 9/11 (and those two events/stories are riddled in hearsay and non-evidence, and have some other monstrous problems, but thats another 100 threads, I am not gong there now). Then consider that the US covers 3.7 million square miles of territory, or almost half the entire North American continent, has a population of 300 million in several thousand of cities... and we have an open border with Mexico, where 3500 people cross into the US on a daily basis .. presumably providing cover for all those thousands of freedom-hating fundies soaked in Saudi oil money armed with C4 and AK47s blowing up all our soft targets, like any real or "bona fide" terrorist gang? Incidentally, there are some 4 million Muslims resident in the United States. Considering that you seem to believe the NeoCon hype that "all muslims are terrorists or potential terrorists".. then these 4 million folk must be the laziest bunch of ... whatever...
Get real. Trye not to buy into the hype, or the terrorists (whomever, and wherever , and whyever the heck they might actually be) have won.
If his reality is skewed because he assumes the worst too much, yours is skewed in a way that is equally unrealistic in that it couldn't possibly occur due to odds- which really doesn't mean much. How do you assign these odds? These odds sure don't mean much to the people in the twin towers who died that day. Who would've thought that could have happened? I certainly had an O face when I watched them collapse. So your rationale is to assigning odds of it happening again based on it never happening before? But since 9/11 there was at least one viable attempt- the shoe bomber. He slipped through ground security and then it was up to passengers to fight that guy for their lives. There are no odds here man, just human will. You can't assign odds to that.
This situation is unfortunate for sure, but it's a necessary by-product. Like it was reported by the people involved- it was more than the fact that they were praying. You are addressing irrational fear- when in this particular case there seems to be enough to warrant security taking preventive action. It's not like muslims are taken off planes everyday despite the fact that muslims fly every single day on US airlines.
Wait. Is someone here honestly suggesting that Muslims cannot pray in nominally public spaces?
Hell we should just ban all outward signs of religion. No crosses, no head coverings. No prayer anywhere where someone else could possibly see you.
Would be cool. It's between them and god, why I should see or hear it? Restaurants should have another door, next to restroom called "prayroom". For anyone who is in emergency to pray.
So we should do away with all security and bar them from reasonably assigning risks due to behavior and acting in a preventive manner?
If his reality is skewed because he assumes the worst too much, yours is skewed in a way that is equally unrealistic in that it couldn't possibly occur due to odds- which really doesn't mean much. How do you assign these odds? These odds sure don't mean much to the people in the twin towers who died that day. Who would've thought that could have happened?
Lots of people. There was so much foreknowledge in official circles of the 9/11 attacks I can't even begin to list them all. For example: Senior officials in the FBI knew up to 6 weeks in advance, re. the locations, the method used, the date and the time of the attacks. Agents who tried to raise the alarm were threatened with prosecution under the National Security Act (!!) if they went public.
Oh, and watch this video also... even a conspiracy guy predicted it.. kinda pretty accurately too. I wonder if they questioned him about foreknowledge?
I certainly had an O face when I watched them collapse. So your rationale is to assigning odds of it happening again based on it never happening before? But since 9/11 there was at least one viable attempt- the shoe bomber. He slipped through ground security and then it was up to passengers to fight that guy for their lives. There are no odds here man, just human will. You can't assign odds to that.
That shoebomber incident raises red flags all over. Airport explosives detection equipment in Paris should have detected the 10 ounces of explosives he apparently had in his hi- top basketball shoes. But no... Also, Reid was allowed to board a transatlantic flight with only a *backpack*, without challenge. (!!) Also, according to the FBI, the explosives in his shoe was a blend of almost One Pound of triacetone triperoxide (TATP) (aka The Mother of Satan because of its extreme sensitivity and instability), and pentaerythritol tetranitrate (PETN). Now this large, 6'3", 220lb bozo was apparently walking around the airport concourse with a bomb that was inherently so unstable that each time he planted his bomb-laden foot on the hard marble/tiled/concrete floor in the airport, there would be a big chance of blowing himself to kingdom come well before he got anywhere near a plane. So believable, that the guy was either a complete moron, or he and the planners of the operation didnt care if it succeeded ot not. Which seems to be pretty pointless going to the great effort of designin a bomb that most likely would detonate before the appointed time and place. In the terrorists' point of view... a lame-assed scheme, doomed to failure... unless.....
Well... we know the story... he was caught trying to set fire to something while on that flight, and since then we all have to take off our shoes when we enter an airport terminal.. which isn't really a great hardship or inconvenience, it merely served to ratchet the fear quotient a few notches tighter in the immediate wake of 9/11. There is much about that Richard Reid story that doesn't "ring true". Anyway, imagine if they found someone with a bomb hidden in a body cavity trying to board a plane? That would cause real chaos with air travel... so you can be pretty sure that ain't gonna happen.. for obvious reasons.
This situation is unfortunate for sure, but it's a necessary by-product. Like it was reported by the people involved- it was more than the fact that they were praying. You are addressing irrational fear- when in this particular case there seems to be enough to warrant security taking preventive action. It's not like muslims are taken off planes everyday despite the fact that muslims fly every single day on US airlines.
As I said in my earlier post: A group of Imams would have set off every red flag with airport security. If they got on that plane, then those guys were clean.
Lots of people. There was so much foreknowledge in official circles of the 9/11 attacks I can't even begin to list them all. For example: Senior officials in the FBI knew up to 6 weeks in advance, re. the locations, the method used, the date and the time of the attacks. Agents who tried to raise the alarm were threatened with prosecution under the National Security Act (!!) if they went public.
Oh, and watch this video also... even a conspiracy guy predicted it.. kinda pretty accurately too. I wonder if they questioned him about foreknowledge?
So if no one mentioned their gut feeling and something happened...? If security didn't check these people out and the consequence was a crashed plane?
FYI- I honestly don't buy into the conspiracy stuff- and this guy... heh. You can say he predicted 9/11 in the same way those 900 numbers tell your future. Exact same methodology.
That shoebomber incident raises red flags all over. Airport explosives detection equipment in Paris should have detected the 10 ounces of explosives he apparently had in his hi- top basketball shoes. But no... Also, Reid was allowed to board a transatlantic flight with only a *backpack*, without challenge. (!!) Also, according to the FBI, the explosives in his shoe was a blend of almost One Pound of triacetone triperoxide (TATP) (aka The Mother of Satan because of its extreme sensitivity and instability), and pentaerythritol tetranitrate (PETN). Now this large, 6'3", 220lb bozo was apparently walking around the airport concourse with a bomb that was inherently so unstable that each time he planted his bomb-laden foot on the hard marble/tiled/concrete floor in the airport, there would be a big chance of blowing himself to kingdom come well before he got anywhere near a plane. So believable, that the guy was either a complete moron, or he and the planners of the operation didn?t care if it succeeded to not. Which seems to be pretty pointless going to the great effort of designing a bomb that most likely would detonate before the appointed time and place. In the terrorists' point of view... a lame-assed scheme, doomed to failure... unless.....
Well... we know the story... he was caught trying to set fire to something while on that flight, and since then we all have to take off our shoes when we enter an airport terminal.. Which isn't really a great hardship or inconvenience, it merely served to ratchet the fear quotient a few notches tighter in the immediate wake of 9/11. There is much about that Richard Reid story that doesn't "ring true". Anyway, imagine if they found someone with a bomb hidden in a body cavity trying to board a plane? That would cause real chaos with air travel... so you can be pretty sure that isn?t going to happen.. for obvious reasons.
And now you EXACTLY reinforce my points by blasting Paris for their security failure on the ground before the plane took off. That is exactly why when enough is out of the ordinary you are obligated to check it out. Because if you don't that's how planes blow up.
And here you go on about conspiracy again- somehow something doesn't ring true to you. Are you saying that because something doesn't ring true.. We should what? Not check out threats? Or we should? The only thing that doesn't ring true is what you are talking about. Please explain.
As I said in my earlier post: A group of Imams would have set off every red flag with airport security. If they got on that plane, then those guys were clean.
So US airport security is so fool proof that we all can rest on our laurels and depend on some mystical odds even a sketchy casino would blush at? If a terrorist makes it to the gate then he may as well consider himself home free?
Nothing of what you said makes any sense in the context of why these men should not have been checked out. Throwing conspiracy theories at the situation we are talking about does nothing for these men. It is not even relevant.
But here's some cool links for you to check out:
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/03/25/airport.security/ And that's when they would have been the most vigilant due to the proximity of dates to the attack, no?
http://www.slate.com/id/2113157/ even a 16 year old can get a fake ID- my little sister has one, I had one by the time I was 18....
You're from L.A., right? Remember this?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/2096081.stm
Honestly, the incidents of lapses in airport ground security go on and on and on....
And so does the incidents of people expressing outrage in the press- from the WW2 vet who got searched and his medal confiscated (Ret. Gen Joe Foss), to the girl who had to remove her prosthetic leg, to the group of Imams praying... and that keeps on going.
Nonetheless, security has a duty, as do we all, in helping each other to stay safe.
Oh yea- and check this link out when you get some time and let me know if your conspiracies can disprove anything here:
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
Or here:
http://www.loosechangeguide.com/LooseChangeGuide.html
There are 16 ounces in a pound.... is that a typo?
That shoebomber incident raises red flags all over. Airport explosives detection equipment in Paris should have detected the 10 ounces of explosives he apparently had in his hi- top basketball shoes. But no... Also, Reid was allowed to board a transatlantic flight with only a *backpack*, without challenge. (!!) Also, according to the FBI, the explosives in his shoe was a blend of almost One Pound of triacetone triperoxide (TATP) (aka The Mother of Satan because of its extreme sensitivity and instability), and pentaerythritol tetranitrate (PETN).
So if no one mentioned their gut feeling and something happened...? If security didn't check these people out and the consequence was a crashed plane?
FYI- I honestly don't buy into the conspiracy stuff- and this guy... heh. You can say he predicted 9/11 in the same way those 900 numbers tell your future. Exact same methodology.
Mr. Jones did go on the record with this, and was proven correct. Perhaps the FBI (and numerous other 3 letter agencies) should have been watching the Alex Jones show on that day. How come he got it right with few resources. and the US government missed everything? Or did they? The overwhelming evidence is that many people knew beforehand. And why did the top brass in the FBI refuse to allow their agents to investigate the leads they had?
Re. you not buying into "conspiracy": Do you honestly believe that those attacks wee organized an executed by one person? From what we have been told, despite the hearsay or second hand nature of all the evidence against the alleged perps, does not the criminal plans pf 19 hijackers qualify as a conspiracy? Lets keep the middle-school stuff out of it, if possible. or the thread just gets trashed.
And now you EXACTLY reinforce my points by blasting Paris for their security failure on the ground before the plane took off. That is exactly why when enough is out of the ordinary you are obligated to check it out. Because if you don't that's how planes blow up
And here you go on about conspiracy again- somehow something doesn't ring true to you. Are you saying that because something doesn't ring true.. We should what? Not check out threats? Or we should? The only thing that doesn't ring true is what you are talking about. Please explain.
One doesn't have to venture anywhere "out there" to suggest that something is messed up with the story. A 6'3 220lb meathead goes clomping round an airport with 2/3 of a pound of explosives embedded in his shoes.. shoes are the part of ones attire that comes into direct contact with hard ground and absorbs some pretty heavy duty impact, no matter how gingerly he was walking; the explosives allegedly in his shoes being so sensitive that the "slightest of vibrations" could initiate a detonation. I have no idea how long he was at the airport, or how far he had to walk... but logic dictates that he should have met his 76 virgins well before he boarded that plane. How come nobody questioned this really obvious anomaly? If he had carried his shoes in his backpack (which was the only luggage he had), then his backback would have gone through the detectors on the gate's security stations ..which are tuned specifically to respond to explosives. But we were told that he got through because "airport explosive detection equipment didn't scan as far down as the feet". So we are back to the original notion, that the guy was clomping round the concourse subjecting some of the most unstable explosives there are to repeated shocks and impacts, without detonating them. Richard Reid, we have been told, is a moron. And to try pulling a stunt like that with success is entirely dependent on an extraordinary amount of luck... unless there are some other details of the incident that have not been released to the public.
I am just looking for a sensible explanation here, without the glaring holes. Right now, the story has glaring holes and inconsistencies.
So US airport security is so fool proof that we all can rest on our laurels and depend on some mystical odds even a sketchy casino would blush at? If a terrorist makes it to the gate then he may as well consider himself home free?
Since airport security is so bad, as you maintain, how come there are so few incidents all over the world where real planes are hijacked and real terrorists use real weapons and real bombs causing real people to die? Especially considering that there are some Two Billion Muslims on this planet, who, according to the opinions of the most influential figures within the Bush (and Israeli) administrations are all terrorists or potential terrorists?
Nothing of what you said makes any sense in the context of why these men should not have been checked out. Throwing conspiracy theories at the situation we are talking about does nothing for these men. It is not even relevant.
You can bet that these guys were checked out pretty thoroughly. At a US airport these days, anyone checking in with a Muslim name raises a flag. You know that as well as I!
But here's some cool links for you to check out:
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/03/25/airport.security/ And that's when they would have been the most vigilant due to the proximity of dates to the attack, no?
http://www.slate.com/id/2113157/ even a 16 year old can get a fake ID- my little sister has one, I had one by the time I was 18....
You're from L.A., right? Remember this?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/2096081.stm
Honestly, the incidents of lapses in airport ground security go on and on and on....
Fair enough: see comment above. All this appalling security seems to be allowing a rash of hijackings, airplane bombings, etc etc. Like, really.
And so does the incidents of people expressing outrage in the press- from the WW2 vet who got searched and his medal confiscated (Ret. Gen Joe Foss), to the girl who had to remove her prosthetic leg, to the group of Imams praying... and that keeps on going.
Nonetheless, security has a duty, as do we all, in helping each other to stay safe.
I have nothing against airport security. Like, d'oh. When I board a plane, which is one of the most potentially vulnerable places a human can be (6 miles up, doing >550 mph in a temperature of -55ºF and a few cm of Hg atmospheric pressure, protected by a thin aluminum frame)... I like to feel as safe as possible while up there. We all do. But to be honest, if I have any worries about flying, it is far more connected to whether the maintenance folks servicing the jet engines did their jobs properly, for example, than the chance of some Islamic bozo smuggled a bomb on board past what (in your estmation) is the default lousy airport security systems..... Mechanical failure (and pilot error, or unexpected severe weather) is a far more likely cause of a crash than the type of malicious human action that is getting attention.
Oh yea- and check this link out when you get some time and let me know if your conspiracies can disprove anything here:
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
Or here:
http://www.loosechangeguide.com/LooseChangeGuide.html
Oh dear.
Yes, I have read that NIST stuff. If you honestly believe that a government agency like NIST could be capable of releasing a scientifically transparent, non-politicized report on an incident as charged as 9/11, that has all the facts regarding the collapse of the Twin Towers, then you are more naive than I thought. When NIST started their own investigation, they were hampered by the fact that they were barred from taking samples on the WTC steel, unless it was from specified areas. Most of the crime scene evidence was off limits. and was very rapidly shipped off to China and India for recycling. Their report, even under the best of circumstances, remains incomplete. And, in their own words, the cause of the collapse of #7 is "an unknown".
*
Since you brought up the 9/11 controversy, I should point out this anomaly to you: All it takes, to doubt the official story, is for one aspect of their story to be proved wrong, or an outright lie. Here is one:
Re. the attack on the Pentagon: there has been lots of controversy. The official story is that Hani Hanjour piloted Flight 77, brought it in horizontally a few feet above above the lawn of the Pentagon, clipping off as many as 5 light poles and a generator, before slamming into the recently reinforced western facade.
Watch this animation It is very well done. But what evidence and data are they using, to construct this clever little piece? Perhaps it is this, the famous images released by the Pentagon that shows next to nothing, except a fireball?
Now contrast the above, officially sanctioned version of the flight path of Flight 77, with the real Flight Data Recorder's data, and the NTSB's own reconstruction of the flight path of 77: Here is also the final maneuver of Flight 77, as culled from the NTSB's own data from the FDR:
Oh my. Big oooops. Someone's telling some bigassed lies: Flight 77 could not possibly have brought down those light poles, since according to the FDR's altimeter data from the NTSB, the altitude of Flight 77 as it passed over the lawn in the vicinity of those light poles was at least 400 feet above ground level (!!) , and it was coming in at a relatively steep dive, as opposed to a horizontal aproach above the lawn. In other words, according to the FDR's data, there is no chance that the Boeing 757 (of Flight 77) was the airplane that hit those 5 light poles. Not only that, but the flight path of 77, referenced to the surface, is offset some 25º to the "official" version of Flight 77's track.
So, if Flight 77 could not have possibly hit those lamp poles, then just what the hell did? Something did, that is plain. If they so obviously lied about the event(s) at the Pentagon.. then why should we believe anything else about their account of 9/11? This administration has a long track record of lying to accomplish their agenda....look at Iraq, for one of many examples.
WTC 1993.
WTC 2001.
Non-Muslim Folks:
OKC Bombing.
Unabomber.
Anthrax attacks of 2001 (all sent to mainstream "liberal media" figures
Anthrax hoaxes (2006 [sent to Keith Olbermann, among others, by a radical Freeper])
Anthrax cookies sent to Supreme Court (2006)
Seriously, this is like arguing with a young earther.
I've been intrigued by Purdu Civil Engineer's work on simulations of the 9|11 attacks. You might want to take a look. Their work is still ongoing, but the simulations of the Pentagon attack have concluded (after four years of research) and they have a lot of evidence to prove that an airliner did hit the Pentagon.
Purdue Civil Engineering and Science Professors simulating jets colliding with Pentagon & World Trade Center.
Their simulations of the World Trade Towers are ongoing but there is ample evidence that the planes impacts did help bring the structures down.
I'm not saying that the US government and the agencies (FBI, CIA, NSA, etc.) left the door open for these attacks. It's just that I myself have come to the conclusion that terrorists hijacked these planes and did the deeds.
I don't know how old you are, but I recall the countless hijackings and hostage taking of airliners from the previous three decades. So though the attacks on 9|11 were horrible, I wasn't surprised that they happened. Airport security has always been difficult for the commercial airlines to implement because of the expense and inconvenience to their passengers. Now after 9|11 you'd think they be more vigilant.
Airport security needs to be tighter and more efficient. Israel has done it and we should too. The good old days of commercial (fun) flying are over.
What are you guys wittering about, re. "no plane hitting the Pentagon?". Can't you read yet? Did I ever make that crazy claim? No, and you damned well know it. It's getting beyond tedious to have one's posts twisted and misrepresented. Go back and READ the NTSB (Pentagon) material I included in that post. This kind of material is like the unwelcome elephant that lays a pile in the middle of a cocktail party, but rather than clean it up, we pinch our noses and keep on small-talking.
I am not making any accusation. I have no theory, wacky conspiracy or whatever (unlike the US government). All I have done is ask a fundamental question about that part of the attacks that nobody has come anywhere near answering in a consistent and satisfactory manner.
However, because I point out the fact that parties within the US Government have been caught red-handed and lying regarding the nature of the Pentagon attack, by data released by their very own freakin' agency charged with investigating plane crashes, you prefer to launch into an ad hominem attack comment, the sort of "commentary" that infests yahoo "discussion" groups.
And Hassan, that last time I posted in a thread relating to 9/11, you responded with spamming the discussion with pages and pages and pages of material which is on at least 6 sites I am familiar with, where a simple one line link would have worked.
Hassan, if you could solve the discrepancy of the NTSB's data (from Flight77) with the government accounts of Flight 77's final trajectory, then America would love to hear from you. If you prefer to remain in the schoolyard and name-call, then thats your prerogative.
Re, the two previous comments:
What are you guys wittering about, re. "no plane hitting the Pentagon?".
I'm sorry sammi jo. I didn't want my post to sound as an attack on your data (and I don't want to argue 9|11...I've done enough of that), only sharing the information I've found.
(and now that I've watched the NTSB clip you linked I'm afraid I might have to redo some more research...sigh...has anyone confirmed this animation is from the NTSB? Couldn't find anything on their site)
As far as airport security, we have to model all our airports to the same as El Al's procedures. It will be invasive and annoying but name one hijacking or attack that has come out of El Al's airport or within the airport itself since they beefed up security 30 years ago.
So, if Flight 77 could not have possibly hit those lamp poles, then just what the hell did? Something did, that is plain. If they so obviously lied about the event(s) at the Pentagon.. then why should we believe anything else about their account of 9/11? This administration has a long track record of lying to accomplish their agenda....look at Iraq, for one of many examples.
What is the point of your argument here then? It seems pretty clear to me that you believe it wasn't a plane, or am I missing something?
What is the point of your argument here then? It seems pretty clear to me that you believe it wasn't a plane, or am I missing something?
Hassan you are missing something, that is for sure. I already posted links to Catherder's explanation of the Pentagon attack, in which he/she conclusively debunks any of those IDIOTS who don't believe that a 757 (or at least a plane the size of a 757) did indeed, hit the Pentagon. (It is one of the beter analyses out there).
However. the discrepancy and conflict here is with the government's own explanation of what hit the Pentagon, and with what trajectory. Their own story, which they have maintained for 5 years, is that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon by means of flying horzontally just above the lawn, clipping 5 lamp poles and a generator on the lawn, before slamming into the side of the building. However, the NTSB's data, taken from Flight 77's flight data recorder itself, and animated by the NTSB, conclusively shows that there is no way that Flight 77 could have hit the building in the way the the government claimed. When it passed over the light poles, the altimeter readings showed that the plane was still 400 feet above the ground.
I have never claimed that Flight 77 did not hit the building. The NTSB's data suggests that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon in a dive, in direct contradiction to the Pentagon/Bush admin's story. Yes, numerous eyewitnesses also saw a large plane slam into the building... but a number of these eyewitnesses refer to a smaller plane as well (as in "corporate jet"/ "cruise missile"/ etc.
What might have happened, is that there were two events at the Pentagon that morning. This is borne out by the accounts of many clocks in the Pentagon stopping (and even falling off walls) at 9-31 or 9-32 am that morning as well as a huge blast and the "smell of cordite". 7 minutes later, around 9-38 am, is the officially recognized time that Flight 77 impacted.
What is bothersome, is the fact that the DoD refuses to release any of the 82 or so security camera tapes that could put this matter to rest once and for all. If there is niohing on the tapes, then releas the damn things. if Flight 77 is on the tapes, then release them and make the "conspiracy theorists" look like idiots. Their refusal to comply with FOIA requests, and general paranoia about the whole thing, reinforces the notion of malfeasance or conspiracy. The NTSB's data confirms that a partial truth is being told, at best.
I hope this clarifies the fact that I am merely asking a question re. a fundamental aspect of 9/11 that hasn't been resolved. It is disappointing that you insantly jumped to the conclusion that I am a 'no-plane' theorist, perhaps because I dare ask a question that has been rendered unaskable. or taboo.
What about the photos the government did release? They did not actually show anything, so nothing can be concluded from them. The photo that is more telling is that of the damaged building after the fact, showing the damage which, though severe, was missing certain elements that would likely have been present if the building had been struck by a large plane: damage from the engines and wings to the exterior of the building. It is simply not present.
Pennsylvania: How many airplane crashes have there been where the entire plane completely desintigrates? It is very, very rare. Even the space shuttle, which fell apart at altitude and speeads high enough to cause fricture ignition, left debris that could be easily identified and reconstructed.
---
That said, either the WH caused thhe event or allowed it to happen. Who knows, maybe the CIA contracted the terrorists; they have tried things like that before during the early years of dealing with CUba and other South American nations. GWB wanted a war; to get it, he needed provocation. That the events of 9/11 annd the subsequent wars have almost nothing in common is simply good spinning on the WH's part.
---
Now, has the fallout from 9/11 (whoever caused it) adversely effected American society so as to further the tensions we already had amongst ourselves? Racial, economic, religious, denial? I believe it has.
New article at CNN about the teaching of Thanksgiving; at least some people are looking at reality. As a teacher, though, I understand the difficulties in teaching history in a way that it is not a lie but so that children foster a sense of national pride. National pride, however, is pretty overblown in the USA anyway - how many songs are there about the country? How many hours do skool cids spend re-enacting historical scenes in a very favorable light? How often does the presidennt boast about America's greatness and ask for God's continued blessing (with the implied premis that he is already doing so)? How fine is the line between nationalism and nationalistic fervor?
http://www.cnn.com/2006/EDUCATION/11....ap/index.html
The FBI identified the 19 terrorist suspects from DNA matches. How did they get the samples of their DNA after the attacks? How and when did they obtain the DNA samples from the hijackers before 9/11 in order to make the matches?
Just wondering....