Pages: 1 … 10 11 12 13 14 15

 

2008-11-17 18:37:20
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6564|'Murka

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

The threat was that AQ would use aircraft in some manner. The vulnerability they would exploit was unknown--was it commercial aviation, was it general aviation, what would be targeted, etc. Hence, the threat was known, but the vulnerability was unknown, therefore, the risk was indeterminate.
Nevertheless your govt chose to do absolutely nothing about a known and definite threat, which makes all this excitement about a non-existent Iranian threat all the more ridiculous and unlikely.
You can't do anything about a threat if you don't know the vulnerability. It's not like you rub a magic lamp or something, ffs.

FEOS wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Now you are somehow linking this particular installation to the 2002 withdrawal. The 2002 withdrawal was focused primarily on North Korea and setting up an ABM shield for the US proper. This installation came along later, as the technology matured and Iran's missile development became more of a concern.
Like I said, you can argue about the detail all you like, its pointless.

Bottomline is:
US unilaterally withdrew from a treaty controlling ABMs
US unilaterally starts planting ABMs around the place - which would have breached said treaty if it were still in place - to counter a threat which doesn't exist.
Russians are suspicious and pissed off.

It would be a whole lot easier if the US could just stop being dickheads.
I can see why you don't like details...they derail your theories.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
2008-11-17 18:41:38
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6564|'Murka

Shahter wrote:

FEOS wrote:

There are basically four elements of national power: diplomatic, informational, military, and economic. All four are at play here.

But you already agreed with me on this...why are you still arguing?
so, all four are at play here? that includes military, right? so, you agree with me on that - why are YOU still arguing?
Eh? You're arguing from a military perspective, when you've already admitted that there is no military threat to Russia.

Shahter wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Ten missiles and the radar can only intercept 2-3 inbound warheads. If/when NATO/US starts installing more missile launchers and/or upgrading the radar system to do more than that...then come back with your argument.
if there was anything in ME that could actually be shot down by those ABM systems (from where it's being installed), some of your arguments might actually have some weight.
There are.

Shahter wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Let's see...the US and the USSR entered into the Cold War. Only the US came out of it. Pretty unambiguous.
let's see: it was long before USSR collapse that Cold War actually ended. so, both US and USSR came out of it. try again.
"Long before"? Just what is your definition of "long before"? Two years is not "long before" by any measure...unless you're a fruit fly.

try again.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
2008-11-17 23:08:37
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,813|6259|eXtreme to the maX

FEOS wrote:

You can't do anything about a threat if you don't know the vulnerability.
'AQ plan to hijack aeroplanes' - who cares what the specific vulnerability is, just losing an aircraft full of people is bad enough.
Weak excuse TBH, 'we didn't know what they planned to do with the hijacked aircraft, so we decided not to take the most basic precautions'

FEOS wrote:

I can see why you don't like details...they derail your theories.
The Russians don't accept your details either, suggest you go argue with them.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
2008-11-18 04:24:45
M.O.A.B
'Light 'em up!'
+1,220|6375|Escea

Dilbert_X wrote:

[Weak excuse TBH, 'we didn't know what they planned to do with the hijacked aircraft, so we decided not to take the most basic precautions'
Aircraft have been hijacked before and landed at airports after which hostages were freed/rescued. How were they to know until it was too late that this wouldn't happen? and that they may have to shoot an aircraft down? Imagine how much you'd be spouting off if they shot down a hijacked plane destined to land at an airport.
2008-11-18 10:37:38
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6734|SE London

M.O.A.B wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

[Weak excuse TBH, 'we didn't know what they planned to do with the hijacked aircraft, so we decided not to take the most basic precautions'
Aircraft have been hijacked before and landed at airports after which hostages were freed/rescued. How were they to know until it was too late that this wouldn't happen?
Perhaps from all the intelligence reports that said exactly that was going to happen?
2008-11-18 20:12:18
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6564|'Murka

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

You can't do anything about a threat if you don't know the vulnerability.
'AQ plan to hijack aeroplanes' - who cares what the specific vulnerability is, just losing an aircraft full of people is bad enough.
Weak excuse TBH, 'we didn't know what they planned to do with the hijacked aircraft, so we decided not to take the most basic precautions'
The most basic precautions for all hijacking experience up to that point were taken.

The specific vulnerability is critical...because you can't do anything to alter the threat. All you can do is mitigate the vulnerability to reduce the risk, as the threat is constant.

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

I can see why you don't like details...they derail your theories.
The Russians don't accept your details either, suggest you go argue with them.
They don't accept them for the same reason you don't: they are inconvenient to their agenda.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
2008-11-19 07:20:46
M.O.A.B
'Light 'em up!'
+1,220|6375|Escea

Bertster7 wrote:

M.O.A.B wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

[Weak excuse TBH, 'we didn't know what they planned to do with the hijacked aircraft, so we decided not to take the most basic precautions'
Aircraft have been hijacked before and landed at airports after which hostages were freed/rescued. How were they to know until it was too late that this wouldn't happen?
Perhaps from all the intelligence reports that said exactly that was going to happen?
So what about 7/7 during the period when security was higher?
2008-11-20 10:43:02
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6734|SE London

M.O.A.B wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

M.O.A.B wrote:


Aircraft have been hijacked before and landed at airports after which hostages were freed/rescued. How were they to know until it was too late that this wouldn't happen?
Perhaps from all the intelligence reports that said exactly that was going to happen?
So what about 7/7 during the period when security was higher?
Relevance?

You asked how they could've known. I told you. They had solid intel about it prior to the attack. That's how they knew before it was too late. Whether or not they were in a position to do anything about it is completely irrelevant to the question you posed.
2008-11-20 11:36:18
M.O.A.B
'Light 'em up!'
+1,220|6375|Escea

Bertster7 wrote:

M.O.A.B wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:


Perhaps from all the intelligence reports that said exactly that was going to happen?
So what about 7/7 during the period when security was higher?
Relevance?

You asked how they could've known. I told you. They had solid intel about it prior to the attack. That's how they knew before it was too late. Whether or not they were in a position to do anything about it is completely irrelevant to the question you posed.
They had intel that definitely said, two planes will hit the trade centre twoers, a third will hit the pentagon and another will go for the white house?

My question isn't irrelevant either. If this intelligence was so strong as to knowing exactly what was going to happen, then why didn't anyone know the 7/7 attacks were going to happen? So that precautions could be taken?
2008-11-20 17:28:30
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6564|'Murka

M.O.A.B wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

M.O.A.B wrote:


So what about 7/7 during the period when security was higher?
Relevance?

You asked how they could've known. I told you. They had solid intel about it prior to the attack. That's how they knew before it was too late. Whether or not they were in a position to do anything about it is completely irrelevant to the question you posed.
They had intel that definitely said, two planes will hit the trade centre twoers, a third will hit the pentagon and another will go for the white house?
No. They didn't. The people who claim there was actionable intelligence that, if acted upon, would've prevented 9/11 do not know what they are talking about.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
2008-11-21 03:54:04
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,813|6259|eXtreme to the maX
No. They didn't. The people who claim there was actionable intelligence that, if acted upon, would've prevented 9/11 do not know what they are talking about.
Yes we do.
Here is the memo put to Duhbya five months before the attack, black and white.
http://www.fas.org/irp/cia/product/pdb080601.pdf

Bin Laden determined to mount major attack inside US.

Planning to follow example of World Trade Centre bomber

Suspicious activity consistent with preparations for hijackings

Its really not too complicated - if you're not to busy playing golf to defend your country.

And as you always say in relation to the WMD 'intel' - no doubt there was plenty more much more detailed and convincing intel than put forward in the memo.

As for preventing 9/11. Just basic airport security would - no question - have prevented 9/11.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2008-11-21 03:57:23)

Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
2008-11-21 08:00:28
M.O.A.B
'Light 'em up!'
+1,220|6375|Escea

Dilbert_X wrote:

Its really not too complicated
We should get you into the intelligence buisness, you'll be foiling plots 24/7 since its that easy
2008-11-21 08:11:29
Braddock
Agitator
+916|6443|Éire

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

You can't do anything about a threat if you don't know the vulnerability.
'AQ plan to hijack aeroplanes' - who cares what the specific vulnerability is, just losing an aircraft full of people is bad enough.
Weak excuse TBH, 'we didn't know what they planned to do with the hijacked aircraft, so we decided not to take the most basic precautions'
It is a very weak argument FEOS is putting forward on this particular aspect of the argument to be honest. Implementing a new zero-tolerance policy on dangerous implements, incendiary devices and liquids doesn't require a big fat cheque, it just requires certain people to pay more attention to their work, If I had a report on my desk telling me domestic airliners were at risk then implementing these measures would have been the least I could have done and I wouldn't have needed a major attack to make me do it.

On a side note, I used to work for a security company affiliated with the people in charge of many US airport's security and supposedly they had been continually asking for security to be tightened on domestic flights, stating that the situation as it was was far too open to serious attack. We used to have a newspaper clipping relating to the story up in the office.
2008-11-21 10:44:28
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6734|SE London

M.O.A.B wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Its really not too complicated
We should get you into the intelligence buisness, you'll be foiling plots 24/7 since its that easy
You asked how they could've known - we've told you.

They had intelligence reports telling them, concisely, that it was likely to happen. That's how they could've known.
2008-11-21 12:57:27
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6564|'Murka

Braddock wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

You can't do anything about a threat if you don't know the vulnerability.
'AQ plan to hijack aeroplanes' - who cares what the specific vulnerability is, just losing an aircraft full of people is bad enough.
Weak excuse TBH, 'we didn't know what they planned to do with the hijacked aircraft, so we decided not to take the most basic precautions'
It is a very weak argument FEOS is putting forward on this particular aspect of the argument to be honest. Implementing a new zero-tolerance policy on dangerous implements, incendiary devices and liquids doesn't require a big fat cheque, it just requires certain people to pay more attention to their work, If I had a report on my desk telling me domestic airliners were at risk then implementing these measures would have been the least I could have done and I wouldn't have needed a major attack to make me do it.

On a side note, I used to work for a security company affiliated with the people in charge of many US airport's security and supposedly they had been continually asking for security to be tightened on domestic flights, stating that the situation as it was was far too open to serious attack. We used to have a newspaper clipping relating to the story up in the office.
How many reports do you think they get saying domestic airliners are at risk for hijacking? What was the predominant nature of hijacking prior to 9/11?

You people with your 20/20 hindsight are incredible. You take something that provides nothing actionable, then filter it through what has been learned since then...completely ignoring the state of things at the time and all the trend data associated with it at the time.

So, if you completely ignore the reality of the context of the report and resultant decision, then assume they should've known something that had never happened would happen in a way that was totally inconsistent with all experience prior to that....well, gee I guess you're right.

The worst part is you don't even realize what you're doing and think it's a valid argument.

Last edited by FEOS (2008-11-21 12:57:54)

“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
2008-11-21 14:48:49
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,813|6259|eXtreme to the maX

MOAB wrote:

We should get you into the intelligence buisness, you'll be foiling plots 24/7 since its that easy
In this case, yes it was that easy.
- Stop people taking knives on planes
- Lock the cockpit door

And as the Bush apologists keep pointing out - no attacks since 9/11 - it obviously WAS that easy.

FEOS wrote:

You take something that provides nothing actionable
Its so simple
'Terrorists plan to hijack airliners'
'Should we raise our security level to that of every country outside America?'
'Nah, whats the point, we don't know exactly what they'll do once they have the airliners, seems pointless really'

It was right there, in black and white, on Duhbya's desk, the stupid monkey failed you.
Still, thats what you get if you elect a stupid monkey.

Its laughable really, when you're prepared to install multi-million dollar missile systems across Europe to protect against a missile system which doesn't yet exist which will carry warheads which don't yet exist either and probably never will.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
2008-11-21 15:45:45
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6564|'Murka

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

You take something that provides nothing actionable
Its so simple
'Terrorists plan to hijack airliners'
'Should we raise our security level to that of every country outside America?'
'Nah, whats the point, we don't know exactly what they'll do once they have the airliners, seems pointless really'

It was right there, in black and white, on Duhbya's desk, the stupid monkey failed you.
Still, thats what you get if you elect a stupid monkey.

Its laughable really, when you're prepared to install multi-million dollar missile systems across Europe to protect against a missile system which doesn't yet exist which will carry warheads which don't yet exist either and probably never will.
You act as if there weren't multiple instances of terrorists hijacking airliners to establish a trend. You conveniently forget that NEVER...not ONCE...had any of those terrorist hijackings resulted in the aircraft being used as a guided missile.

You further conveniently forget that our security posture at airports and in aircraft was based on the threat of hijacking for money/demands--a completely different situation.

You further conveniently forget that the changes made in the US were also made world-wide by agreement. Israel was probably the only country that didn't need to make any changes. Now how could that be if the rest of the world were already properly protected?

The bottomline is that if AQ had wanted to hijack planes in England and fly them into Big Ben, Parliament, and Windsor Castle, they would have. Because European airliners were just as vulnerable to the tactics used on 9/11 as US airliners were.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
2008-11-21 17:44:15
Commie Killer
Member
+192|6540
You guys wanna bring this back to the missiles and Russia?
We probably have 500 threads discussing terrorism, this is only like the 30th thread on this topic.
2008-11-21 22:46:31
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,813|6259|eXtreme to the maX

CommieKiller wrote:

You guys wanna bring this back to the missiles and Russia?
I tried.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Its laughable really, when you're prepared to install multi-million dollar missile systems across Europe to protect against a missile system which doesn't yet exist which will carry warheads which don't yet exist either and probably never will.

FEOS wrote:

You further conveniently forget that our security posture at airports and in aircraft was based on the threat of hijacking for money/demands--a completely different situation.
Exactly my point, your posture was wrong, based on the memo linked your posture should have been changed.
Had AQ hijacked anything and issued demands before? No they hadn't.
It was known AQ wanted a spectacular, taking out as many people as possible, they had used boats and trucks as suicide bombs before, and the CIA knew of plans to use aircraft as missiles.
Every nuclear reactor is designed to take a direct hit from an airliner, its not as if it was a scenario which never occurred to anyone.

FEOS wrote:

The bottomline is that if AQ had wanted to hijack planes in England and fly them into Big Ben, Parliament, and Windsor Castle, they would have.
European domestic security arrangements were generally much tighter than the US 'flying bus' system used to be, from what I saw of both before and after 9/11. Not to say it couldn't have happened, but the US has had four hijackings lately, Europe zero.
According to the weak logic the Bush apologists use, no hijackings therefore our system works while yours failed.

Now the US posture on Iran and Russia is just ridiculous, the threat from Iran is currently infinitesimal, 'countering' it just ups the ante with Russia so what really is the point?
Compared with the slackness in countering AQ it doesn't make a lot of sense.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2008-11-21 22:48:49)

Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
2008-11-22 07:54:27
M.O.A.B
'Light 'em up!'
+1,220|6375|Escea

Dilbert_X wrote:

MOAB wrote:

We should get you into the intelligence buisness, you'll be foiling plots 24/7 since its that easy
In this case, yes it was that easy.
- Stop people taking knives on planes
- Lock the cockpit door

And as the Bush apologists keep pointing out - no attacks since 9/11 - it obviously WAS that easy.
Its funny how you seem to only use the 9/11 hijackings, saying that US security was useless compared to European etc. Ever think the reason four US jets were hijacked is because they wanted to hit US targets? If they went for a European one they probably could've done it. European airlines don't have armour plated doors and security guards at the cockpit. and not the many that occured before then.

Here's a few recent hijackings for you as well.

wiki wrote:

Turkish Airlines Flight 1476, flying from Tirana to Istanbul, was hijacked in Greek airspace. The aircraft, with 107 passengers and six crew on board, transmitted two coded hijack signals which were picked up by the Greek air force; the flight was intercepted by military aircraft and landed safely at Brindisi, Italy.

    An Aeroflot Airbus A320 flying from Moscow to Geneva was hijacked by a drunk man in Prague and there released crew and passengers after he was arrested by the Czech Republic.

    An Air West Boeing 737 was hijacked over Sudan, but landed safely at N'Djamena, Chad.

    An Air Mauritanie Boeing 737 flying from Nouakchott to Las Palmas with 87 passengers on board was hijacked by a man who wanted to fly to Paris, but the plane landed in an air base near Las Palmas and the hijacker, a Moroccan, was arrested. [2]

    An Atlasjet MD-80 en route from Nicosia to Istanbul was hijacked by two Arab students, who said they were Al Qaeda operatives, one trained in Afghanistan, and wanted to go to Tehran, Iran. The plane landed in Antalya, the passengers escaped and the hijackers were arrested.[3]

    A Sun Air Boeing 737 flying from Nyala, Darfur, in Western Sudan to the Sudanese capital, Khartoum, was hijacked shortly after takeoff. The hijackers demanded to be taken to France where they reputedly wanted to gain asylum. The plane initially tried to land at Cairo but was refused permission. It subsequently touched down at Kufra, Lybia. The hijackers gave themselves up almost 24 hours after taking the plane. There were no reported casualties.
2008-11-22 09:05:29
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6564|'Murka

Dilbert_X wrote:

CommieKiller wrote:

You guys wanna bring this back to the missiles and Russia?
I tried.
By moving the discussion on to 9/11?

Dilbert_X wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Its laughable really, when you're prepared to install multi-million dollar missile systems across Europe to protect against a missile system which doesn't yet exist which will carry warheads which don't yet exist either and probably never will.

FEOS wrote:

You further conveniently forget that our security posture at airports and in aircraft was based on the threat of hijacking for money/demands--a completely different situation.
Exactly my point, your posture was wrong, based on the memo linked your posture should have been changed.
Had AQ hijacked anything and issued demands before? No they hadn't.
It was known AQ wanted a spectacular, taking out as many people as possible, they had used boats and trucks as suicide bombs before, and the CIA knew of plans to use aircraft as missiles.
The report you people keep pointing to talked about hijacking. That's it. The entire history of hijacking in the world prior to 9/11 involved demands, not guided missile-like usage. Again, your use of hindsight and ignoring the actual context of the report and decision, while convenient to your argument, thoroughly exposes your lack of understanding/objectivity of the situation AT THE TIME.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Every nuclear reactor is designed to take a direct hit from an airliner, its not as if it was a scenario which never occurred to anyone.
The WTC was designed to take a hit from an airliner too...what's your point? Do you think that scenario had to do with intentionally running a jet into the buildings? If you do, you're wrong. Prior to 9/11, they were designed to withstand an impact at roughly 500 kts. That's twice the normal airspeed of a jet at that altitude in the landing/takeoff pattern...because that was the scenario envisioned. Not purposefully running the planes into the buildings at full power and over 500kts.

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

The bottomline is that if AQ had wanted to hijack planes in England and fly them into Big Ben, Parliament, and Windsor Castle, they would have.
European domestic security arrangements were generally much tighter than the US 'flying bus' system used to be, from what I saw of both before and after 9/11. Not to say it couldn't have happened, but the US has had four hijackings lately, Europe zero.
According to the weak logic the Bush apologists use, no hijackings therefore our system works while yours failed.
Well, I was able to fly in Europe with a pocket knife prior to 9/11. There were no door barricades on the cockpits in Europe prior to 9/11...and those are the only things that would've stopped a 9/11-like attack in Europe. So tell me again how much better European standards were than US standards? Especially considering that the standards are INTERNATIONAL.

But as MOAB points out with a simple wiki search...you can't bother yourself with those pesky facts when constructing your theories. They're just too damned inconvenient.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Now the US posture on Iran and Russia is just ridiculous, the threat from Iran is currently infinitesimal, 'countering' it just ups the ante with Russia so what really is the point?
Compared with the slackness in countering AQ it doesn't make a lot of sense.
I guess it's a good thing you're not in a decision-making position on national security threats...
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
2008-11-22 09:19:14
M.O.A.B
'Light 'em up!'
+1,220|6375|Escea

FEOS wrote:

The WTC was designed to take a hit from an airliner too...what's your point? Do you think that scenario had to do with intentionally running a jet into the buildings? If you do, you're wrong. Prior to 9/11, they were designed to withstand an impact at roughly 500 kts. That's twice the normal airspeed of a jet at that altitude in the landing/takeoff pattern...because that was the scenario envisioned. Not purposefully running the planes into the buildings at full power and over 500kts.
A doc I watched a while back said something like the WTC were designed to withstand a 707 I think it was, which was the largest aircraft at the time the towers were designed. The ones that hit the towers were bigger, heavier planes
2008-11-22 12:31:52
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6564|'Murka

M.O.A.B wrote:

FEOS wrote:

The WTC was designed to take a hit from an airliner too...what's your point? Do you think that scenario had to do with intentionally running a jet into the buildings? If you do, you're wrong. Prior to 9/11, they were designed to withstand an impact at roughly 500 kts. That's twice the normal airspeed of a jet at that altitude in the landing/takeoff pattern...because that was the scenario envisioned. Not purposefully running the planes into the buildings at full power and over 500kts.
A doc I watched a while back said something like the WTC were designed to withstand a 707 I think it was, which was the largest aircraft at the time the towers were designed. The ones that hit the towers were bigger, heavier planes
Tis true.

More pesky facts.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
2008-11-22 21:08:46
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,813|6259|eXtreme to the maX

MOAB wrote:

European airlines don't have armour plated doors and security guards at the cockpit.
They do keep the door locked though, and never allowed knives in the cabin.

MOAB wrote:

doc I watched a while back said something like the WTC were designed to withstand a 707 I think it was, which was the largest aircraft at the time the towers were designed. The ones that hit the towers were bigger, heavier planes
Not much, and it was the burning fuel not the weight of impact. Who knows if a marginally smaller plane might not have blown off the inadequate fire insulation. They were 'designed' to resist the impact, but the design was inadequate, I vaguley remember something about the insulation not being the right grade or misapplied.

FEOS wrote:

'The report you people keep pointing to talked about hijacking. That's it. The entire history of hijacking in the world prior to 9/11 involved demands, not guided missile-like usage.
As pointed out already, AQ had never taken hostages, issued demands, just carried out spectacular mass casualty suicide attacks - the threat of hijackings related to AQ specifically. Someone needed to join the dots. Shame there was no-one smart enough in the room.
And it was known well prior that terrorists were considering using aircraft as missiles.
I'm not saying the WTC was designed to take a direct hit from an airliner as a suicide attack, just that using aircraft as missiles was a known threat.

Its not much to do with us Europeans if aircraft boarded at foregin airports were hijacked.
All the internal European flights I'd been on prohibited knives, US internal flights didn't even check ID.

While the 9/11 hijacks were under way aircraft were instructed to lock the cockpit doors, if that had been SOP maybe 9/11 would not have happened.

FEOS wrote:

I guess it's a good thing you're not in a decision-making position on national security threats...
If I were I reckon 9/11 would have been averted or mitigated, you idiots wouldn't STILL be bogged down in Afghanistan and wouldn't have gone into Iraq at all.
You'd be trillions of dollars richer and not trying to rebuild your army.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2008-11-23 03:15:39)

Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
2008-11-22 21:13:25
usmarine
Banned
+2,785|6914

Dilbert_X wrote:

and never allowed knives in the cabin.
guess you never had a meal on a air france flight have you?  the flight attendants used to slice roast beef with very sharp knives for example.  you also got very nice silverware, including forks which can very well be a weapon.

so, stop talking out of that ass of yours like you normally do.

it appears you know nothing and are very young.  or you have never been anywhere.  either way, it seems you know nothing about the world unless you read it on the internet.

Last edited by usmarine (2008-11-22 21:16:49)

 

Pages: 1 … 10 11 12 13 14 15

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard