PDA

View Full Version : Bush Kept Us Safe?



lineupguy
September 8th, 2009, 03:57 AM
True or not?

This is very sinister sounding (http://sleepny.lefora.com/2009/09/08/nonsense-or-a-real-threat/).

Does everyone think that another 911 style plot could be real, or is it just fiction?

ablarc
September 8th, 2009, 07:02 AM
^ Very scary.

ablarc
September 8th, 2009, 07:15 AM
Three days to 9/11 !

ZippyTheChimp
September 8th, 2009, 09:09 AM
A terrorist attack can happen at any time, at any place.

But those predictions are full of inconsistencies. For example:
I asked Hill, "Why now?"

"Eight years from 1993 to 2001, eight years from that 9/11 to this 9/11," he said. "Symbolism. They're big on symbolism."

"Ramadan started two weeks ago Saturday," he said, referring to the Muslim holy month of fasting. "It always hits around Ramadan."

The 1993 bombing occurred in February.

ablarc
September 8th, 2009, 09:37 AM
Well, since it's doubtful we can do anything about it defensively, complacency at least has the virtue of "what, me worry".

I'd noticed the numerological connection before. 911: isn't that the number you call when there's an emergency. Clever.

As I recall, both the Madrid and London attacks had a numerological basis that you could or could not take note of, depending on your inclination.

Since we're pretty much helpless, complacency makes sense. At least it lets us get to tomorrow without pointless anxiety.

dtolman
September 8th, 2009, 09:51 AM
A terrorist attack can happen at any time, at any place.

But those predictions are full of inconsistencies. For example:
Quote:
I asked Hill, "Why now?"

"Eight years from 1993 to 2001, eight years from that 9/11 to this 9/11," he said. "Symbolism. They're big on symbolism."

"Ramadan started two weeks ago Saturday," he said, referring to the Muslim holy month of fasting. "It always hits around Ramadan."
The 1993 bombing occurred in February.

uh... Tue, Feb 23 1993 Ramadan begins (the start date is a few weeks earlier each year - lunar calendar).

The 1993 World Trade Center bombing occurred on February 26, 1993.

No inconsistency there.

And its true - they are VERY big on symbolism. Al Qaeda rarely does anything without some symbolism behind the date. Course the question is, what symbolism are they going after? A famous martyr? A previous attack? The start of the crusades? The 12th Imams birthday? You can probably link almost any date to something symbolic.

NYatKNIGHT
September 8th, 2009, 10:01 AM
In 1993 Ramadan was in February/March.

I don't see a reason to believe the attacks aren't done with symbolic intentions, it's just that they do find symbolism in so many things that trying to predict what particular symbolism is intended is near impossible. So it might as well be random.

ETA: oops, I didn't see you just basically said the same thing^^.

dtolman
September 8th, 2009, 10:04 AM
ETA: oops, I didn't see you just basically said the same thing^^.

Great Minds... :)

ablarc
September 8th, 2009, 10:05 AM
If I lived in New York City, I'd arrange for me and my family to be Upstate somewhere-- preferably not downwind from the City.

Daquan13
September 8th, 2009, 10:22 AM
Here's an even easier question, I think;

Did Bush find Osama Binladen, like he promised the country that he would? Did he (Quote) 'smoke him out of his hole'?

OmegaNYC
September 8th, 2009, 11:30 AM
^^ Call me crazy, but without Bin Laden, there would be no Iraq War.

As for Bush keeping us safe: He didn't.

Daquan13
September 8th, 2009, 11:44 AM
Without BinLaden, we'd have still had the Twin Towers still standing tall in Lower Manhattan.

The USS Cole would not have been attacked, and neither would that train bombing take place that occured in Madrid.

The 19 terrorists who had all gotten aboard those 4 planes would have been scrutinized more and stopped fom carrying out their deadly diabolical plan.

How on earth could the gov't let this evil plan slip through the cracks? They KNEW that something was up because they were warned beforehand. :mad:

OmegaNYC
September 8th, 2009, 12:45 PM
^^^

I'm no conspiracy theorist , but.... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century)

NewYorkDoc
September 8th, 2009, 03:51 PM
Without BinLaden, we'd have still had the Twin Towers still standing tall in Lower Manhattan.

The USS Cole would not have been attacked, and neither would that train bombing take place that occured in Madrid.

The 19 terrorists who had all gotten aboard those 4 planes would have been scrutinized more and stopped fom carrying out their deadly diabolical plan.

How on earth could the gov't let this evil plan slip through the cracks? They KNEW that something was up because they were warned beforehand. :mad:

The government doesnt care about the people. They care about making names for themselves and money for their pockets.

lineupguy
September 8th, 2009, 05:06 PM
If I lived in New York City, I'd arrange for me and my family to be Upstate somewhere-- preferably not downwind from the City.

Could you guys please do a favor for me.

Ask everyone you know in New York whether they have heard of this story.

And ask them what their reaction is and post it.

I just wonder whether this news if broadcast would cause a panic. I sure hope not.

lofter1
September 8th, 2009, 06:48 PM
What NEWS? That at some unspecified time, maybe around mid-October, a couple of guys MIGHT fly over NYC and blow up a plane that MAY be loaded with nuclear material?

I live in the heart of NYC. But what can anybody do with such unspecific and general information?

As far as discussing it with "everyone" I know: That's a real party stopper.

If folks don't have an escape plan in mind (nearly impossible to put into effect at any time of emergency, and even more so if the Troubles return) then they probably will never do so. And if and when the evil-doers plane spews forth radiation, covering most of Manhattan in killer dust, it will be too late to try and get off the island.

lofter1
September 8th, 2009, 06:52 PM
Nuclear Engineers: How much explosives (weight / size) would the Nuke-'Em Martyrs have to pack onto a little plane in order to blow up a "suitcase" so that it would send out a deadly cloud of radiation in the direction of their choosing?

Daquan13
September 8th, 2009, 06:59 PM
The government doesnt care about the people. They care about making names for themselves and money for their pockets.



It's TRUE.

They NEVER gave a crap about the safety and welfare of the people. For years, it was all about THEM, and even today, it is STILL all about THEM.

We are so safer today than we were before 09-11. Just a pure false sense of security.

windycity
September 8th, 2009, 08:42 PM
Is that guy hi?

Yeah those orphan children really don't care that their family was blown up by an American missile.

No he wont grow up with hate in his heart against the big AMERIKA.
We are completely safe people. Bush was a good daddy.

/goes back to brave new world

Bob
September 8th, 2009, 09:35 PM
9/11 would have been foiled were AIR TRAFFIC CONTROLLERS aboard each of the aircraft involved on that day. Controllers used to have the privilege of riding the jumpseat in the cockpit, a privilege that has been denied to controllers ever since 9/11. Had controllers been aboard any of those aircraft, this would have resulted in a THIRD PERSON available to assist the flight crew and help defend the flight deck. Had there been controllers up front in the cockpit, the terrorists might not have gone ahead with their attack on that day.

On security reasons alone, this is reason enough for the FAA to rethink its policy and allow air traffic controllers access to the flight deck.

HoveringCheesecake
September 8th, 2009, 11:17 PM
Nuclear Engineers: How much explosives (weight / size) would the Nuke-'Em Martyrs have to pack onto a little plane in order to blow up a "suitcase" so that it would send out a deadly cloud of radiation in the direction of their choosing?

I don't have any figures, but I'm fairly certain that I've read articles in the past that state that even if terrorists did obtain enough material to make a "dirty" bomb, the effects would not be apocalyptic. NYC would have to be abandoned, yes, but it wouldn't be instant death for everyone in the area.

Oh, the article talks about suitcase nukes. These supposedly have a yield anywhere from 0.1 to 5 kilotons depending on country of manufacture and size. To put this in perspective, Little Boy was 13-18 kt Fat Man was 21 kt. Would such an attack be devastating? Of course, but I'm not sure Al Qaeda would be able to obtain THAT many of them. I'm having difficulty imagining the world afterwards if such an attack did take place.

RandySavage
September 9th, 2009, 01:12 AM
An actual nuclear detonation (far worse than a dirty bomb) wouldn't be as apocalyptic as you might imagine. A 0.1 kiloton suitcase bomb would flatten buildings and kill people only within a few hundred yards... it would be bad, but New York would recover.

Even a 15-kiloton bomb (Hiroshima-size) would only destroy everything within a 1 mile radius. In time, New York would recover from that (just as Hiroshima did), as well.

source:http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0508/feature6/index.html

Daquan13
September 9th, 2009, 05:18 AM
Randy, I am not high.

All that red tape and BS that everyone is forced to friggen go though at the airports is unreal and is just plain stupid - yet people will put up with that crap to get on the planes.

And who's to say that another attack like the one that occured won't ever happen again? It shouldn't have been allowed to happen then!

And every time that an attempt is made by would-be terrorists to bring down a commercial airliner and their plans are foiled, then that's all the more bullshit that travelers have to put up with at the airport terminals.

And I was also told that they don't even bother to check cargo for any suspicious materials. What's the sense in going through all that crap to get on the planes when cargo and freight goes unchecked?!

Another reason not to fly.

Had the lazy gov't done their job and tried to stop those 19 madmen, we wouldn't be going through all that crap. :mad:

195Broadway
September 9th, 2009, 10:10 AM
9/11 would have been foiled were AIR TRAFFIC CONTROLLERS aboard each of the aircraft involved on that day. Controllers used to have the privilege of riding the jumpseat in the cockpit, a privilege that has been denied to controllers ever since 9/11. Had controllers been aboard any of those aircraft, this would have resulted in a THIRD PERSON available to assist the flight crew and help defend the flight deck. Had there been controllers up front in the cockpit, the terrorists might not have gone ahead with their attack on that day.

On security reasons alone, this is reason enough for the FAA to rethink its policy and allow air traffic controllers access to the flight deck.

I don't get it. Are you saying all air traffic controllers are Kung-Fu experts or something? There are plenty of other people who currently fly in those seats anyway.
Remember, in this post 911 era, anyone forcing their way through that cockpit door (very difficult) will most likely be shot. There are a lot of conservative gun-toting pilots out there, many with military training.

lofter1
September 9th, 2009, 04:08 PM
Don't you mean Air Marshalls?

lofter1
September 9th, 2009, 04:24 PM
NYC would have to be abandoned, yes, but it wouldn't be instant death for everyone in the area.

That makes me feel much better. :(

A few follow-up questions:

Are you sure ALL of NYC would have to be abandoned?

For example: Let's say they blow up their little Jihad Cessna at 1000' right over the bow tie of Times Square aka 45th & Broadway (despite the "No Fly" rules over Manhattan such a location is possible [aside from the fact that FAA rules won't impress these guys] because it will take the Holy Martyrs no time at all to reach there after they make the turn from the Hudson and zip towards the middle of the island). And say the prevailing winds are blowing East / SE at 10 mph ...

That would flatten (+ crumble + incinerate) what?? 42nd <> 50th / Eighth Ave <> Sixth Ave??

And what's the range of radioactive fall-out from their 0.1 K dirty martyr bomb (given the spreading fan-like nature of such a cloud)?

How many batteries should I stockpile in order to keep my Coleman portable lamp burning through the winter (I'm not so keen on storing flammable lamp fuel in my place)?

Finally: If I live downtown (below 14th Street) should I forego any thought of buying tickets now for the Met Opera this season (productions I'd like to see start up in November)? Or will I be still able to get up to Lincoln Center via the far west side (since the winds were blowing E/SE from TS)?

HoveringCheesecake
September 9th, 2009, 04:50 PM
That makes me feel much better. :(

A few follow-up questions:

Are you sure ALL of NYC would have to be abandoned?

For example: Let's say they blow up their little Jihad Cessna at 1000' right over the bow tie of Times Square aka 45th & Broadway (despite the "No Fly" rules over Manhattan such a location is possible [aside from the fact that FAA rules won't impress these guys] because it will take the Holy Martyrs no time at all to reach there after they make the turn from the Hudson and zip towards the middle of the island). And say the prevailing winds are blowing East / SE at 10 mph ...

That would flatten (+ crumble + incinerate) what?? 42nd <> 50th / Eighth Ave <> Sixth Ave??

And what's the range of radioactive fall-out from their 0.1 K dirty martyr bomb (given the spreading fan-like nature of such a cloud)?

How many batteries should I stockpile in order to keep my Coleman portable lamp burning through the winter (I'm not so keen on storing flammable lamp fuel in my place)?

Finally: If I live downtown (below 14th Street) should I forego any thought of buying tickets now for the Met Opera this season (productions I'd like to see start up in November)? Or will I be still able to get up to Lincoln Center via the far west side (since the winds were blowing E/SE from TS)?

Sell all of your assets, stockpile weapons and food, invest the rest in gold, and move out to a bunker in Montana. lol ;)

The reason I said it'd have to be abandoned is simply because I was thinking about the large exclusion zone around Chernobyl NPP. Imagine the Deutsche Bank Building, except this time it's every building in the city. Aaaaaaaaaaagggggggghhhhhhhhh

User Name
September 9th, 2009, 05:14 PM
HYDESim (http://meyerweb.com/eric/tools/gmap/hydesim.html) used to work all the way down to 0.04kt (which was a favorite conspiracy theorist 9/11 talking point years ago.)

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y70/AceLannigan/th_40tonswtc.jpg (http://s3.photobucket.com/albums/y70/AceLannigan/?action=view&current=40tonswtc.jpg)

But now it seems bugged at 100kt, a bummer.

Ninjahedge
September 9th, 2009, 09:38 PM
It depends. Can you get a true critical mass at 0.1 KT? I thought that really was not possible, but I may be wrong. The key is to get enough material all in the same volume so that the radioactive decay of one Uranium atom will trigger others in a cascade. Fat boy I believe was just using plain old Critical Mass (putting enough in one spot by clapping it together) but I believe less material is needed today becaise of explosive compression of the radioactive material.

But I do not know if 0.1kt is possible (maybe I should have Googled?).

As for Dirty Bomb, those are tricky in that they are only poison. They can only carry so much radioactivity, they are a limited mass and a stiff wind could ruin its effectiveness (sending a good deal into one river or another).

Would it still kill people? Probably, and it would spread a low level of radioactive material around a large area, but an airborne dirty bomb would probably not be the most effective in that it would be too diluted to do much. So much radioactively inert material (concrete, steel, macadam, even PEOPLE) is there that it would be difficult to raise its mean level enough to make it a significant risk to anyone.

Dirty bombs MO is usually a small area, not an airborne attack.



As for the whole association thing... well... that seems to be a bit of a stretch. I think they MIGHT do somethingon 9-11 again, but if it was a different sect, why would they want to give "fear cred" to someone else that did something before? Why would Mohammed BoogaBooga want to lose any of his exposure to Osama? His plan, his men, his success. Osama would have nothing to do with it.

So thinking that 9-11 will be the next BECAUSE something else happened on 9-11 is a bit silly. At least in my mind.

Maybe they should do it by Zodiac Signs. Yeah, that would be special, wouldn't it?

lineupguy
September 10th, 2009, 06:52 AM
Operation Blackjack (http://sleepny.lefora.com/2009/09/08/nonsense-or-a-real-threat/14809690/)

This made up scenario involving the destruction of several US cities in the same way assessed above is brought to you by the Telegraph, a newspaper from the country that let Megrahi go free.

NICE ONE! THANKS TELEGRAPH! WHY DONT YOU JUST GIVE INSTRUCTIONS NEXT TIME.

The original link to the story in the paper is here (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/culturepicturegalleries/4220575/Blackjack.html)

lofter1
September 10th, 2009, 10:52 AM
Wow ^^ A silly Power Point presentation showing cheesy photo-shopped images of destruction and annihilation.

Should be called Power Pointless.

195Broadway
September 10th, 2009, 11:22 AM
Don't you mean Air Marshalls?

I'm not sure if your question was directed at me or Bob.

lofter1
September 10th, 2009, 11:33 AM
Who ever was saying that Air Traffic Controllers should have been on board to protect the planes and shoot people.

dtolman
September 10th, 2009, 11:42 AM
Who ever was saying that Air Traffic Controllers should have been on board to protect the planes and shoot people.

There's an 80's style action movie in that sentence... Should it star Bruce Willis, or is he too old?

lineupguy
September 10th, 2009, 11:48 AM
Wow ^^ A silly Power Point presentation showing cheesy photo-shopped images of destruction and annihilation.

Should be called Power Pointless.

Yes. What prompted the Telegraph to even contrive this "Operation"?

Its bizarre.

lofter1
September 10th, 2009, 01:22 PM
Should it star Bruce Willis, or is he too old?


Depends if he's wearing the toupee (http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/10009598-surrogates/) ...

Bob
September 10th, 2009, 09:56 PM
When air traffic controllers (like me) rode up front, we were under specific direction from the Captain and FAA policy to act as a member of the flight crew. We were to act as an extra set of eyes and ears to assist in flight safety. On board one flight, I was the only one who caught an incorrect altitude readback, and I immediately notified the Captain who replied, "thanks, good catch." A third person in the cockpit would be available in the event of an unauthorized entry. Just trying to get by the jumpseat would itself be a problem. In short, the air traffic controller would be in the way. You'd have to get by him (or her) FIRST before getting any access to the Captain or Copilot. And another thing: there's quite a few controllers who could easily pass for linebackers...

Alonzo-ny
September 11th, 2009, 07:55 AM
I'm not understanding this. An air traffic controller as I understand it is responsible for the many planes in a certain area of the sky and directing them. How can this be done in the cockpit of a plane?

ablarc
September 11th, 2009, 08:09 AM
Alonzo, I think Bob is talking about a new and expanded role for air traffic controllers: sort of like marshals but in the cockpit, where it really counts now that the cockpit doors are reinforced.

If one of these guys were in the cockpit, I'd be much reassured (especially if they were packing a rod). These guys have hardened nervous systems; their everyday role is plenty tense enough to engender cool heads.

Alonzo-ny
September 11th, 2009, 08:30 AM
I know what he is getting at with the extra person in the plane. Maybe its the terminology of 'air traffic controller' I misunderstanding. From what I understand, what I described, that can't be done from a moving plane.

Air traffic controller to me, is the guys (on the ground) telling tens of planes at a time what altitude to be at, speed, etc in a certain air space.

Bob
September 11th, 2009, 08:52 AM
Air Traffic Controllers work in terminal and enroute facilities, such as control towers and air route traffic control centers. When the FAA allowed controllers to ride in the cockpit, this was limited to so many flights per year. Although controllers could take as many as 8 round trips per year, the average controller took perhaps 2 each year. These were training opportunities, allowing the controller to see flight operations, first hand, and allowing the controllers and pilots to directly interact. It facilitated communications and helped to improve flight safety by increasing the understanding of each others' occupation. What I'm adding to the mix is that the air traffic controller was a security component as well. The controller was properly badged and vetted by the FAA. Access to the flight deck was in accord with stringent security protocols.

In short, this was a good program and it ought to be reinstated.

195Broadway
September 11th, 2009, 02:29 PM
Controllers used to have the privilege of riding the jumpseat in the cockpit, a privilege that has been denied to controllers ever since 9/11.

OK. I'm a little slow, so bear with me here.
911 happened when controllers were allowed to fly the jump seat.............

195Broadway
September 11th, 2009, 02:35 PM
Who ever was saying that Air Traffic Controllers should have been on board to protect the planes and shoot people.
LOL!
You may be onto something here.

Daquan13
September 11th, 2009, 02:58 PM
It was amazing that Ground Control was able to get all the other flights back on the ground safely that day. That was a feat in and of itself. :)

195Broadway
September 11th, 2009, 03:18 PM
Agreed, though I feel the pilots had something to do with it also. (BTW, it was ATC, not ground control) No offence to Major Tom.

Ninjahedge
September 11th, 2009, 03:29 PM
May god's love be with you.