From: Ross A. Finlayson (extropy@apexinternetsoftware.com)
Date: Sat Sep 21 2002 - 14:46:24 MDT
At Boston Logan airport, a fateful day, September 11, when terrorists
destroyed the World Trade Center towers, some of the terrorists there
were on the pre-existing system that said they were supposed to not be
allowed on the plane.
What are the fly-by-wire capabilities of a 747?
What is the estimated time that it takes from when a fighter-interceptor
is scrambled until its target is splashed when the target is within a
hundred miles, and how was Flight 93 splashed?
I've had my luggage searched once at a podunk airport when checking in,
I'm not a terrorist and had no contraband. A couple other people's bags
were searched, not one of them stopped. The total effect of airport
security measure changes since the day the evil terrorists assaulted
America has been to delay a bunch of non-terrorists, that is to say,
unnecessarily searching the personal and even intimate belongings of
innocents.
Where's Osama bin Laden? We've got a bunch of questions for him, bring
him back alive. You see, he used to work for the CIA, or somebody,
organizing mujahadeen against Soviets in Afghanistan. Now, it's claimed
he was behind the multiple hijackings, where he denied it or something,
we'd like to know more about that complete chain of events.
Why did the Pakistani intelligence guy who met the CIA guys give the
terrorist 100,000? Why did the CIA guys meet bin Laden in the hospital?
What do you think about having a truth-phone run on public government
statements, and particularly in having open question and answer
sessions? What's the saying, trust but verify? I remember some footage
from Bush that day, from a Florida classroom, saying something about
evil, he didn't seem very surprised, nor exasperated, and he had
something of a very annoying smile on his face. Keep in mind that
Bush's approval rating numbers are from his staff, and that his career
is from his father, and his brother gave him quite a large gift one
November. Like many Americans, I was angry at the executive's actions
that day, they for various reasons. I'm among a group of people that is
suspicious of a U.S.A.'s unelected executive.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=unelected
I wonder how much Prozac or what that guy's on. He seems easily
distracted, and requires distraction from the administration's problems.
Anyways the terror attack was a crime, and an act of war. When
investigating a crime, a question is of motive. Who stood to gain?
There are some speculations that foreknowledge was widespread and that
large trades predicted the attacks. Here, widespread is a relative
term, New York City alone has more than five million residents, maybe
only hundreds knew. Most of the people in the towers got away. About
three thousand people were killed that day, many of them firefighters,
there to save lives. I heard somebody say 25,000 people were around
there that time of day. Few people stood to gain, definitely a minority.
I read the other day that hundreds of millions of dollars' worth of
transactions are being investigated as attempts to make fraudulent
transactions as the bond mainframes in the WTC which exploded crashed
into the basement, in other countries, and that as well unusual trading
occurred.
The administration has disgustingly gained a huge diversion from the
many problems plaguing them, and a smokescreen to put forward what would
have been very unpalatable policies.
I noticed that a lot of right-wing legislation that would have been spat
upon before it has seen a much cowed audience. People are still against
it, they're afraid, and confused, as terrorists have them afraid to
speak out against perceived injustices.
I heard some appointed person saying something that there would be
"internment camps" or something were "another such attack" to happen.
To that guy I would say this: no, there won't be, and if there is, I'm
blaming you.
September 11 is certainly a "day that will live in infamy". That's a
quote about December 7, 1941. On that day the Japanese Navy attacked
the military fleet at Pearl Harbor.
Today, it is sometimes said that Pearl Harbor was allowed to happen when
it didn't have to happen. Oh, and to hell with Hollywood.
Roosevelt in his infamy speech, I am reading a copy now from the
Internet, has such wonderful quotes out of context as "... makes it
obvious that the attack was deliberately planned many days or even weeks
ago", and "... has deliberately sought to deceive the United States by
false statements and expressions of hope for continued peace", in
context in reference to the attack.
"Very many American lives have been lost." At least Pearl Harbor was
attacked by an enemy to be fought as a nation instead of a very small
group of cowardly terrorists from various nations including our own.
Keep in mind that it is the terrorists whom we should fight.
Pearl Harbor is a military base. So is the Pentagon, with on average
thousands of people present in each section. On 9/11, the attacked
section was near-empty under renovation as part of a billion dollar
retrofit, repairs have cost in the range of five hundred million
dollars, and more than a hundred and less than two hundred lives were
lost. Many more people would have been in that area under normal
operating conditions.
There is a wide range of theories about the conspiracy behind the
criminal terrorist attacks. A Frenchman has written a book about what
he sees as high-level U.S. employee complicity:
http://www.time.com/time/europe/magazine/article/0,13005,901020520-237165,
00.html. A government agency had planned a terrorist plane-crashing
"drill" that very day.
Immediately after the attacks, many like myself who learned of them that
morning were instantly suspicious of the flailing administration and
cronies. I'm not alone.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=%229-11%22+conspiracyØhv
http://www.alltheweb.com/search?cat=web&cs=iso-8859-1&l=any&q=Vreeland+%229-11%22
http://www.altavista.com/sites/search/web?q=%229-11%22+conspiracy
Those references don't reflect a massive suspicion of the workings of
Afghani mercenaries.
A New York city tabloid trumpeted that "Bush knew", he may have not
known until as late as August 8, where in secret meetings at his Texas
ranch his activities were planned.
It's kind of sad to think that many people knew in advance.
Heh, the firefighters boycotted Bush. There are lawsuits on against
Bush, the Saudis, and other parties besides a bunch of ragheads from
Afghanistan. Don't get me wrong, I have dog, cow skull, Indian, and
several paisley bandannas, hard, golf, baseball, and ski hats.
Where's the truth?
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=WTC+truth
http://groups.google.com/groups?as_q=WTC+truth&as_qdr=m
http://www.alltheweb.com/search?cat=web&cs=iso-8859-1&l=any&q=WTC+truth
As it is, the case is open.
Ross Finlayson
On Friday, July 26, 2002, at 03:54 AM, Amara Graps wrote:
> Lee Corbin
> >A principle of Pan Critical Rationalism is that all knowledge is
> >conjectural; when applied to the particular case of an airport
> security
> >guard, this means that he or she can never be certain that person X is
> >not a terrorist. All he or she can do is to lower the probability to a
> >level corresponding to standards conforming to his or her training,
> and
> >to the standards of the organization.
>
>
> Popper vs. Bayesian statistics
> http://forum.javien.com/XMLmessage.php?id=id::K2xQZQh6-KixO-aGgi-bwMG-OxAfHH5IdmZs
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:17:13 MST