Terrorists Win
(longass article below)
So apparently British authorities caught some people trying to suicide bomb an American-bound transatlantic flight, and all of a sudden your toothpaste, suntan lotion, lip gloss and [i]all liquids[/i] are a deadly security threat.
Even though the transatlantic suicide people didn't actually kill anyone, they've actually accomplished a lot in the way of scaring the shit out of people who have the authority to cause a major disruption in society by imposing insanely strict regulations on whoever wants to get onto an airplane, resulting in bigass lines, and whatnot.
Egregiously stupid parts bolded for your skimming pleasure.
Passengers struggle with heightened security
National Guard to patrol Calif., Mass. airports; airlines cancel London flights
Image: Passengers at Logan Airport
Michael Dwyer / AP
Travelers wait in a line that stretches the length of the international terminal to pass through security at Logan International Airport in Boston on Thursday.
View related photos
Updated: 1 hour, 12 minutes ago
[b]CHICAGO - Growing lines of irritated travelers snaked through U.S. airport terminals Thursday as people waited hours to reach security checkpoints, where they were ordered to dump their water bottles, suntan lotion and even toothpaste following the discovery of a terror plot in Britain.[/b]
Guards armed with rifles stood watch in several airports, and the governors of California, New York and Massachusetts said they were sending National Guard troops to bolster security.
The new [b]ban on all liquids and gels from carry-on luggage left people with little choice but to throw away juice boxes, bags full of makeup, perfume and bottles of liquor and wine. Baby formula and medicines were exempt but had to be inspected.[/b]
Story continues below ↓ advertisement
“They’re ridiculous, but that’s part of the price you pay for traveling during a time like this,” Julius Ibraheem, 26, a college counselor from Chicago, said as he stared at the long lines in O’Hare Airport.
At Baltimore/Washington Airport, security workers opened every carry-on bag that passed through one terminal, and all the morning flights there were delayed.
“It’s better alive than dead,” said Bob Chambers, whose flight from Baltimore to Detroit for business meeting was delayed more than an hour. “It’s inconvenient, but we’ll make it.”
Red, orange alerts
The plot targeted flights from Britain to the United States, particularly to New York, Washington and California on United Airlines, American Airlines and Continental Airlines Inc., a counterterrorism official said Thursday, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the situation.
U.S. authorities raised the threat level to “red” for flights from Britain, the first time the highest threat of terrorist attack had been invoked since the system was created. All other flights were under an “orange” alert — one step below red.
Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff said the plot appeared to have been engineered by al-Qaida, the terrorist group that hijacked two planes from Boston on Sept. 11, 2001, and flew them into the World Trade Center towers in New York.
Slide show
Airline Terror Threat Foiled By police
Launch
• Air travel snarled by terror plot
European and American travelers face increased airport security following a foiled British terror plot.
Lines were longer than usual at San Francisco International Airport, and red plastic bins were quickly filling up with cups of coffee and water bottles.
‘What are you going to do?’
Kathy McMahon, 49, of Mill Valley, Calif., was frantically helping her daughter stuff sunscreen, makeup, contact lens solution and other liquids into every corner of her half-dozen suitcases to be checked as she headed off to college.
[b]“I think it’s ridiculous,” McMahon said. “But we’ll do it anyway. What are you going to do?”[/b]
At Kennedy Airport in New York, Sonia Gomes De Mesquita, 40, waited nervously to board a British Airways flight home to London. Her family had urged her not to fly.
“You wake up and what are you going to do?” she said. “The flight is today.”
She said she checked all her belongings rather than risk having something confiscated. “I even checked in my book.”
At Newark Airport in New Jersey, the security checkpoint line for Terminal B, home to most international flights, stretched the entire length of the terminal — roughly six football fields — and was barely moving.
Waiting and waiting
Andra Racibarskas, of Chatham, was trying to get to Michigan to pick up her daughter from camp.
“Checking in was very easy. It took one minute curbside. It took one minute to get my boarding pass,” she said. “This line is at least four hours long.”
As the morning went on and more passengers became aware of the ban, the long wait in security lines at Atlanta’s airport dropped from what at one point became a two-hour delay, airport spokeswoman Felicia Browder said.
Some passengers gave banned items away. Airport officials in Manchester, N.H., officials offered padded envelopes and paid the postage to mail items home.
‘Some things go beyond security’
At the Burlington International Airport in Vermont, travelers weren’t happy to be leaving behind souvenir maple-syrup jugs. In New Orleans, half-used bottles of hot sauce lay in garbage bins. Bottles of wine sat in the trash in San Francisco, south of California’s wine country.
Rather than packing toiletries in carry-ons, airport officials asked passengers to put them in checked baggage, which is screened by equipment that can detect explosives, said Phil Orlandella, spokesman for Boston’s Logan International Airport.
In the Atlanta airport, Brenda Lee was annoyed with the lines and having to remove items from her luggage. The 52-year-old commercial real estate appraiser from Snellville, Ga., had to throw away her shampoo, but she said she was keeping her contact lens solution in her carry-on luggage.
“I’m not sure it does what they want it to do,” she said. “It’s all for security, but some things go beyond security.”
[b]Laura Yeager left four bottles of Gucci and Cartier perfume for the hotel maid before heading to the Atlanta airport for her flight back to Philadelphia. She still had to give up her lip gloss at the security checkpoint.
She just shrugged and tossed it. “It’s better to feel safe. We thought it was going to be a lot worse.”[/b]
Restrictions could last days
Chicago aviation commissioner Nuria Fernandez said the tighter restriction will remain in place for at least 12 to 72 hours and possibly longer.
At Boston’s Logan Airport, Gov. Mitt Romney said additional screening stations were being set up at the airline gates and security was being tightened on the roads outside the airport. The exact number of National Guard troops was still being determined, but “it will certainly be in the hundreds,” he said.
[b]California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger said he was sending bomb-sniffing dogs with the California National Guard and Highway Patrol to help with airport security.[/b]
In New York, though, Mayor Michael Bloomberg said he didn’t think National Guard troops would be necessary. “The nature of this plot doesn’t lend itself to the high-profile police presence” that followed the London subway bombings, he said.
Extra police and dog units were sent out overnight at Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport, where American Airlines is based, to patrol terminals and parking garages, airport spokesman Ken Capps said.
Planes keep flying
American canceled three London-bound morning flights from Chicago, Boston and New York to accommodate delays at London’s Heathrow airport, spokesman John Hotard said. To balance the cancellations, the airline also dropped three afternoon or evening flights from London to U.S. cities, Hotard said.
The remaining 13 flights in each direction were expected to run from 1½ to 3½ hours late. The cancellations were due to scheduling delays and not because of direct threats to the flights, Hotard said.
The United Airlines terminal at San Francisco’s airport was a scene of growing unhappiness. Both the security and check-in lines had a number of switchbacks and confused travelers pushed and elbowed each other.
[b]Bill Poland, 61, of Ross was headed to Lake George, N.Y., with his wife and son. He held up a tube of lip balm and shouted to a security officer who told him he couldn’t bring it on the plane with him. He said he recently had a cancerous growth removed from his lip and the anti-bacterial ointment was necessary treatment.
“In an hour or two my lips are going to start burning and turning purple. And I’ve got five to six hours on a plane without this,” he said. “This is not something I’m looking forward to.”[/b]
© 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
[url]http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14282396/[/url]
Maybe nothing will boost the economy more then when you have to fly naked with no luggage.
Of course, Bush won't know whether to take credit for it, or bomb some country because of it.
[QUOTE=karbunkle]how exactly did the terrorists win?
should we have waited till they were able to blow up some planes and [i]then[/i] banned all this stuff?[/QUOTE]
They already caught the people who were going to blow up some planes. They're in jail in the UK right now. Whatever they did to catch the people who were going to blow up the planes [i]worked[/i].
And 9-11 wouldn't have happened if we actually did something about all that intelligence that said terrorists were going to use jetliners as weapons and attack buildings in New York City.
Terrorism only works if it makes people too scared to go about their lives as they normally do.
Basic airline security didn't prevent 9-11. What are stupid, insane restrictions that make people scared going to prevent?
The official line is that they were planning to blow up as many as ten planes mid-flight. The reasoning behind all these possibly overblown security restrictions was that they couldn't be sure that they had caught all of the members of the cell, or if there was a secondary plan in action.
The liquid thing is because aparently the logistics of the attack was something to do with liquid explosives smuggled in drinks containers detonated using other devices disguised as electronic goods.
Was it an exaggerated response? I don't know. Maybe. But as you say - they prevented something from happening (probably), so there's a chance that something else was prevented through these security measures.
I guess it depends how long these new rules are enforced for. I don't mind a few days of over-caution.
These attacks were foiled by British and Pakistani intelligence agencies that put operatives in the groups that wanted to carry out the attack. Has boarding gate airline security [i]ever[/i] foiled a terror attack? Remember when that Richard Reed guy planted a bomb in his shoe and got past airline security right after 9-11?
If there are so many terrorist out there to catch at the boarding gate, why do they even allow people on commerical airlines to exist in the first place, when they're apparently just a terrorist attack waiting to happen?
Is there really a secret invisible enemy that's infiltrated all areas of life?
[QUOTE=Spike]
Terrorism only works if it makes people too scared to go about their lives as they normally do.
[/QUOTE]
I'm sure it spooked plenty of people but everything I've seen has been more people complaining about lsoing their perfume and having to toss out the lip balm and going "Well, whatcha gonna do?"
it be interesting if they come out with how much business dropped because of this today
[QUOTE=Spike]These attacks were foiled by British and Pakistani intelligence agencies that put operatives in the groups that wanted to carry out the attack. Has boarding gate airline security [i]ever[/i] foiled a terror attack? Remember when that Richard Reed guy planted a bomb in his shoe and got past airline security right after 9-11?
If there are so many terrorist out there to catch at the boarding gate, why do they even allow people on commerical airlines to exist in the first place, when they're apparently just a terrorist attack waiting to happen?
Is there really a secret invisible enemy that's infiltrated all areas of life?[/QUOTE]
I understand what your concern is (and I suspect you might have watched the documentary "The Power of Nightmares" - good docu) - but I'm just saying that if they [I]really[/I] believed that the plan was to be carried out in the next few days, using a tactic that would not - as you say - have been detected using normal gate check procedures, then it seems reasonable to step up those checks based on the evidence.
I'm not saying it's been handled brilliantly - and I don't know what's happening in the US (particularly given that the plot seemed to be all flights from UK to US, not other way round), but here I think there's a grudging acceptance that maybe it's worth the inconvenience.
I also suspect that boarding gate security might well have foiled many attacks - if only because the potential terrorists knew what they could/could not get away with. If, on the day that Richard Reed got on that plane, intelligence had been tipped off that a guy planned to explode a plan using a shoe-bomb, and then they decided to check the shoes of all passengers at the gate - he wouldn't have even made it that far.
There's a lot of scepticism here too - two of our highest profile stings have resulted in an innocent man being gunned to death on the tube and the shooting of another innocent man in the shoulder.
I'm always wary, but I think that if such large-scale cases are genuine (and we never really know, or know until long after the fact) then sometimes these methods might be justified (though they have gone overboard a bit)
Terrorists start winning when some moron begins to say that they are winning.
When all the cities of Great Britain were bombed by the Luftwaffe during the Blitz, do you think it would have been very helpful to say the Germans were winning ? And knowing the Brits (a little), I don't think many of them said it at all.
The restrictions don't affect me. Long ago I started to UPS my stuff ahead of me so I can just walk onto the plane with a book and home-printed boarding pass. It saves a ton of time and my stuff is always there when I arrive. I also leave a couple changes of clothes and shoes down south as well as basic toiletries. It's funny to watch people wrestle with all the crap they think they need to have on the plane.
Hopefully the next foiled plot will be contraband stashed in brassiers.
[SIGPIC][IMG]http://i61.photobucket.com/albums/h53/McMuddle/song-of-south.jpg[/IMG][/SIGPIC]
[url=http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=400750&in_page_id=1770]Aiport Luggage Chaos as 20,000 bags are delayed[/url]
OMG TERROR! We must run around like the Three Stooges and lose your luggage!
That's just incompetence though. Unrelated.
17:22pm 15th August 2006
Comments Reader comments (8)
Thousands of airline passengers are facing an agonising wait of days to be reunited with their luggage [b]because of the terror alert.[/b]
The Daily Mail thinks otherwise.
Yeah - the inability to have proper procedures in place after such a scare.
I don't really understand what your point is here. It's not as if anyone is advocating the loss of thousands of bags.
Also - the Daily Mail is a piece of shit.
The airports should have arranged to collect and donate all that shit--meaning shampoo, hair gel, useful stuff, not backwashed soft beverages--to homeless shelters or something instead of just sending it to the landfill. Or maybe some charity could have thought of that. Well I did think of that, but too late to be any good to anybody.
Anyway, this "the terrorists are winning" whining shit is the biggest crock of shit ever. I think we should just make everybody get on the airplane naked after delousing and spraying with cold water from a garden hose.
This is a really good idea.
I don't think this ban includes Clinique products though?
It took a while to find it but the truth is finally revealed.
Funny thing about 9-11...
9 of those supposed 16 suicide-hijackers, the ones whose bodies the US gov't claimed they ID'd in the wreckage, are still alive an well.
| adj | facebook | an american atheist| warmed and bound |
Dude - you've got to stop getting your "facts" from that documentary.
How come there aren't metal detectors at banks?
Statistically speaking, you're way more likely to be an innocent bystander in a bank robbery than the victim of a suicide plane hijacking. Thousands of people could be strolling into banks [i]right now[/i] with guns concealed on their person and no one would be the wiser.
Bank robberies are certainly dangerous. People are killed in bank robberies. It would be the easiest thing in the world for banks to install metal detectors at the front doors and hire on extra security and make you empty your pockets and confiscate any liquids, which could be poison or acid or nitroglycerin for all they know.
The only thing we'd sacrifice is convenience. But we'd be safe!!!
On the other hand, not very many people are trying to hijack and crash airplanes. Why all the retarded security measures that are just an illusion of safety? Why are we having to take off our shoes after one person, five years ago, had a bomb in his shoe that failed to work? How many shoe bombing attempts have been foiled by this?
Yeah, I was going to have a nice, relaxing vacation. But the airports decided to screw me over.
But it is good that they caught them at Britian.
I feel bad for my friend whose a muslim coming from the middle east to The Western World. Hope he doesn't drop his soap.
[QUOTE=Spike]How come there aren't metal detectors at banks?
Statistically speaking, you're way more likely to be an innocent bystander in a bank robbery than the victim of a suicide plane hijacking. Thousands of people could be strolling into banks [i]right now[/i] with guns concealed on their person and no one would be the wiser.
Bank robberies are certainly dangerous. People are killed in bank robberies. It would be the easiest thing in the world for banks to install metal detectors at the front doors and hire on extra security and make you empty your pockets and confiscate any liquids, which could be poison or acid or nitroglycerin for all they know.
The only thing we'd sacrifice is convenience. But we'd be safe!!!
On the other hand, not very many people are trying to hijack and crash airplanes. Why all the retarded security measures that are just an illusion of safety? Why are we having to take off our shoes after one person, five years ago, had a bomb in his shoe that failed to work? How many shoe bombing attempts have been foiled by this?[/QUOTE]
Yeah - why bother with any security at all?
I mean, if it's statistically only a few people that want to crash a coupla planes, why don't we just have a fat guy glancing over at the checkin gates now and again to make sure nobody is wearing a massive clock strapped to their chest and making a ticking noise.
Because, really, banks have gone way over the top. They have armed guards, security cameras and bullet proof glass as a deterrent for something which - if it happens - will maybe kill only one or two people. If that.
Sure, if someone crashes a single plane it kills more people in a single incident than die in bank robberies in five years, but fuck it! Let's use the honour system.
Anyway...I don't advocate stupid security procedures, as I've said several times before. I do think that responding to what looks increasingly like a genuine threat to use liquid explosives by banning carry-on liquid for a while seems pretty sensible to me.
Did they fuck it up and cause unnecessary problems - yes. Will they learn from this and put in place better security measures that eliminate yet another potential form of threat in the next few weeks? Hopefully.
[QUOTE=Riddlegimp]Dude - you've got to stop getting your "facts" from that documentary.[/QUOTE]
No this is true, the guy who made that documentary actually saw them working as bag-boys in a supermarket near his home. Whenever anyone asks them about it they just say "Que?" Cunning bastards.
Did anyone see that thing about the flight from Malaga (I think) that was delayed because passengers refused to get on the plane? They saw two scruffy, arabic-looking men in their twenties. They were speaking what sounded like arabic, checking their watches a lot and wearing bulky leather jackets despite the heat. A load of passangers got off the flight and refused to get back on until these guys were taken off. They taken off and checked (despite already been checked twice) and came up clean, they had to catch a later flight.
!
[QUOTE=mikandrewz]No this is true, the guy who made that documentary actually saw them working as bag-boys in a supermarket near his home. Whenever anyone asks them about it they just say "Que?" Cunning bastards.[/QUOTE]
So all 9 of the guys were working in one supermarket as bag boys near this guy's home? Were they on different shifts, or one big cadre of bag boys?
This is a really good idea.
[QUOTE=Riddlegimp]Because, really, banks have gone way over the top. They have armed guards, security cameras and bullet proof glass as a deterrent for something which - if it happens - will maybe kill only one or two people. If that.[/QUOTE]
They should just put all the money in a big pile in the middle of the floor and have a sign in / sign out book so people can write down when they put in or take out money.
In airports, they should just ask people if their bags have always been in their posession and if anybody asked you to take anything on the plane.
This is a really good idea.
It's a disgrace how easy it is to smuggle stuff though. On the way back from India, waiting in the departure lounge I got chatting to some young lady training to be a truckdriver, from Greenwich. She had just spent 2 weeks in Dehli visiting her ex husband's family (who she'd married for 2 grand in exchange of English citizenship, a few years ago). Anyway the point was, she was carrying a pocketful of drugs (inside a pocket within a pocket in her jeans). This went totally un-noticed despite everybody having to go through thorough exterior body searches on the way (Heathrow) and way back to India.
What the fuck?!
[QUOTE=meatthinker]So all 9 of the guys were working in one supermarket as bag boys near this guy's home? Were they on different shifts, or one big cadre of bag boys?[/QUOTE]
Actually it seems that it was just one bag boy, but on nine different occasions the guy identified him as nine different terrorists. If you ask any of them about it their response will always be - "Que? Non, me llamo es Ramon." No one seems to be sure what this actually means in Arabic.
!
[QUOTE=SnowWhite]It's a disgrace how easy it is to smuggle stuff though. On the way back from India, waiting in the departure lounge I got chatting to some young lady training to be a truckdriver, from Greenwich. She had just spent 2 weeks in Dehli visiting her ex husband's family (who she'd married for 2 grand in exchange of English citizenship, a few years ago). Anyway the point was, she was carrying a pocketful of drugs (inside a pocket within a pocket in her jeans). This went totally un-noticed despite everybody having to go through thorough exterior body searches on the way (Heathrow) and way back to India.
What the fuck?![/QUOTE]
But that's not really the kind of drug smuggling that they try to stop, it was probably just a small amount for personal use. I'm sure if she had the quantities required to charge her with intent to deal then it would have been picked up. Besides, I always though body checks were intended to find weapons more than drugs.
!
I suppose they are but it just surprised me because the sentencing on travellers in possession of illegal drugs in India is incredibly strict. (This also meant that they were convieniently everywhere for us). It's very 'Lock them up and throw away the key' scenario. On the way in and out of the Himalayan airport I went to they checked everyone twice!
Even more shocking was how laid back this woman was. I would've been pissing myself if I were her.
Drug trafficking carried out by criminal organisations is a question of percentages. Even if a percentage of the merchandise is retrieved by the authorities and the smuggler arrested, the business goes on.
Air terrorism is different, because if one or several suicide bombers is caught, he will talk. Most of them, being "disposable carriers", are not trained as professional spies, able to resist police interrogation techniques. On the contrary, they end up talking, which puts their whole terrorist branch in peril. That's why even an imperfect detection system can deter a terrorist attack.
[QUOTE=Riddlegimp]Dude - you've got to stop getting your "facts" from that documentary.[/QUOTE]
And you've got to stop getting your "facts" from network news.
I didn't get those facts from that video, that was actually the third place I heard about that.
Just because that video was poorly made and poorly sourced doesn't discredit half the stuff he said. That just discredits the makers ability to make a good documentary.
That's like saying just because someone has a poor way of explaining Relativity that the theory itself is wrong.
It's easier for you to ignore the huge problems that people like that guy have addressed, the many physical impossibilities that all somehow simultaneously occurred that day, the problems that no one seems to be able to explain; all because of a couple weak side points he made. That's lazy thinking at best.
Now we're discussing terrorism as a post 9-11 thing in forums on the internet... We're giving up our rights and giving the big Dubya the right to do whatever he wants (Patriot Act etc...) all because of this event.
You should be more scared of what our president is allowed to do right now than men with box cutters...
But hey, whatever helps you sleep...
| adj | facebook | an american atheist| warmed and bound |
[QUOTE=ireLocus]And you've got to stop getting your "facts" from network news.[/QUOTE]
I don't.
[QUOTE]I didn't get those facts from that video, that was actually the third place I heard about that. [/QUOTE]
What were the other two? Whatereallyhappened.com and the guy with the jester's hat who keeps shouting at the moon?
[QUOTE]Just because that video was poorly made and poorly sourced doesn't discredit half the stuff he said. That just discredits the makers ability to make a good documentary. [/QUOTE]
It calls into question their ability to interpret and report facts in an unbiased way. Particularly when, with very little research, I can point to at least three or four places where they were just simply, factually wrong.
It therefore calls into question their entire theory (not that I don't have questions about 9/11 myself)
[QUOTE]
That's like saying just because someone has a poor way of explaining Relativity that the theory itself is wrong. [/QUOTE]
No it's not. It's like saying what if someone tries to explain Relativity using the wrong formulas or made-up terminology - I'm not only going to have trouble understanding it, it's going to lead to an entirely different answer.
[QUOTE]It's easier for you to ignore the huge problems that people like that guy have addressed, the many physical impossibilities that all somehow simultaneously occurred that day, the problems that no one seems to be able to explain; all because of a couple weak side points he made. That's lazy thinking at best. [/QUOTE]
Nope. Conspiracy theories actually offer some kind of comfort to people looking for order in the world. Kinda like the whole "god thing". But that's a different argument.
[QUOTE]Now we're discussing terrorism as a post 9-11 thing in forums on the internet... We're giving up our rights and giving the big Dubya the right to do whatever he wants (Patriot Act etc...) all because of this event.
You should be more scared of what our president is allowed to do right now than men with box cutters...[/QUOTE]
He's not my president - but believe me - I'm not happy with a lot of things going on with Dubya and my fuckhead of a Prime Minister.
Don't tell me what to worry about.
[QUOTE]But hey, whatever helps you sleep...[/QUOTE]
Earl Grey Tea, and a biscuit.
[QUOTE=Riddlegimp]I don't.
What were the other two? Whatereallyhappened.com and the guy with the jester's hat who keeps shouting at the moon?
It calls into question their ability to interpret and report facts in an unbiased way. Particularly when, with very little research, I can point to at least three or four places where they were just simply, factually wrong.
It therefore calls into question their entire theory (not that I don't have questions about 9/11 myself)
No it's not. It's like saying what if someone tries to explain Relativity using the wrong formulas or made-up terminology - I'm not only going to have trouble understanding it, it's going to lead to an entirely different answer.
Nope. Conspiracy theories actually offer some kind of comfort to people looking for order in the world. Kinda like the whole "god thing". But that's a different argument.
He's not my president - but believe me - I'm not happy with a lot of things going on with Dubya and my fuckhead of a Prime Minister.
Don't tell me what to worry about.
Earl Grey Tea, and a biscuit.[/QUOTE]
Look, several things happened that day that have never happened before. This would be the mother of all coincidences.
You seem ready to swallow [I]all that[/I] that because no one you respect on an intellectual level is begging those questions.
That's more a sign of 'clear thinking' (no, that's not a compliment) and hubirs than anything else.
4 planes crashed that day.
2 'completely disintergrated on impact,' which is completely impossible and has never happened in the history of commercial aviation. Btu it happened twice that day.
Only 1 black box (from flight 93) was ever found, out of the 8 (2 on every plane) that should have been found. That, also, just doesn't happen. If a black box isn't recovered, it's a big deal. But that day, we just glossed it over.
3 steel and concrete buildings collapsed because of fire, which is so statistically impossible it's mind boggling. The third building, WTC 7, just fell in on itself because of a fire no one actually saw. This is plain ridiculous.
All these things that are so improbbable all occurred on the same day? You'd be better off believing Johnny Carson was the second fabled shooter from the grassy nole.
Now I'm not in total agreement with this guy on this video that our gov't was behind all this, so you can stop flinging that red herring around.
I'm [I]not [/I]forming a conspiracy theory, I'm simply posing questions. I'm asking why I should be expected to believe that story when it really is so spectacular.
Most of this stuff, the stuff I'm citing, you can verify by simply watching old news footage and saying, 'Oh yeah, they pretty much told us that flight 93 completely disintegrated on impact... how is that possible?"
I'm not drawing a conclusion, forming a conspiracy theory, I'm just saying what we've been told happened doesn't add up.
The one problem I do have is that in the process the American people gave up a huge amount of privacy in the name of homeland security. I want to know why, because that affects everyone's freedom here. This may not matter to you, but it matters to me.
I don't think I know why or how this all happened and I'm not pointing fingers and saying this guy or that guy had such and such to gain from this pile of misinformation.
But I will always be ready to point out the serious, inconceiveable flaws in what we've been asked to swallow surrounding 9-11.
| adj | facebook | an american atheist| warmed and bound |
You've got to stop with this shit, you're so fucking gullable!
Two planes didn't 'vapourise' that day as you previously said. One hit the ground nose first going at a speed of around [U]one mile every six seconds![/U] That's like when planes have hit the sides of mountains, not much recognisable wreckage remains of them either. You could call that disintegration if you want. And wrong, two black boxes were found, go look at the pictures.
The other plane hit the pentagon, hundreds of people saw it hit the pentagon. They might not let you see pictures of all the wreckage from inside the building because it's classified. Two people said they thought it was a small plane or a missile but they couldn't even see it that well, they weren't in a great position. By suggesting that hundreds of people are all mistaken, or lying or brainwashed makes you a complete wacko.
People did see the fire inside WTC7, all the firemen that were inside there. Were they also lying or brainwashed or mistaken?
Finally, how do you fucking know that those buildings [I]couldn't[/I] have fallen down from the combination of impact, explosion and widespread intense fire? How does the guy who made that "documentary" know? I'd be willing to bet he's not an architect or a structural engineer. People have posted articles in respectable scientific journals explaning how it could have happened. Besides that, how else would it come down? How do you go about rigging a building as busy as that with enough explosives to bring it down without anyone noticing? There's something that's impossible.
!
all this missile garbage is also an insult to the people who were actually in the planes, and to their families, because i'd like to see you tell your fancy theories face to face with them.
how exactly did the terrorists win?
should we have waited till they were able to blow up some planes and [i]then[/i] banned all this stuff?