Beta

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

DHS's 'Secure Flight' Program Proven Insecure

Zonk posted more than 7 years ago | from the i-trust-the-government-as-far-as-i-can-throw-it dept.

Privacy 131

News.com is reporting the somewhat unsurprising news that a government program we were assured was 'perfectly safe', has actually been proven to be a privacy nightmare. The 'Secure Flight' program matched air traveler information with commercial databases in the interests of national security. The charter for the program specifically forbade the TSA from accessing this information; the organization got their hands on it anyway. The Department of Homeland Security has released a report, detailing these findings and analyzing the situation. The News.com piece makes it clear the report was released on Friday in an attempt to obscure it from public notice; it was only linked to from a DHS subsite, and has not shown up on the DHS or TSA main pages. From the article: "The report from the Homeland Security privacy office takes pains to say that the privacy compromises over Secure Flight were 'not intentional,' and includes a list of seven recommendations to avoid similar mishaps in the future. Those include explaining to the public exactly what's going on and creating a 'data flow map' to ensure information is handled in compliance with the 1974 Privacy Act. This isn't the first report to take issue with Secure Flight. Last year, auditors at the U.S. Government Accountability Office reported that the program violated the Privacy Act."

cancel ×

131 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Misreading (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17352812)

Am I the only one who had read "the 1984 Privacy Act" ?

Re:Misreading (2, Funny)

jazir1979 (637570) | more than 7 years ago | (#17352880)

all signs point to yes.

Just like criminal background checks... (5, Insightful)

Caspian (99221) | more than 7 years ago | (#17352852)

...it hasn't any right at all to be anything but a Boolean, at least at first. DHS has a right to check for the answer to the question 'Is this person a terror suspect?', and perhaps 'Is this person a known friend or confidant of a terror suspect?'. ONLY if the answer to one of those questions is 'yes' have the underpaid security monkeys at the airport got any right whatsoever to see any information on people. All too often, the quest for 'security' is just another grab for power and intimidation.

Re:Just like criminal background checks... (0, Offtopic)

CPMO (1013807) | more than 7 years ago | (#17353464)

All too often, the quest for 'security' is just another grab for power and intimidation.

All too often, the quest for 'karma' is just another grab for power and intimidation.

Help protect the rights of slashdot users by joining the CPMO, at http://science.slashdot.org/~CPMO/journal/ [slashdot.org]

Spread the word!

Signed, CPMO

Re:Just like criminal background checks... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17354400)

Help protect the rights of slashdot users by joining the CPMO, at http://science.slashdot.org/~CPMO/journal/ [slashdot.org]

You know, sometimes, the minority opinion is wrong.

Re:Just like criminal background checks... (2, Insightful)

geoff lane (93738) | more than 7 years ago | (#17353472)

'Is this person a terror suspect?'

In the new world order, everybody is a terror suspect until proven otherwise. It won't be long before special rewards will be authorised for children who inform on their non-conformist parents.

Re:Just like criminal background checks... (2, Funny)

starkraven (136614) | more than 7 years ago | (#17353740)

Only you can't prove that someone is/isn't a suspect... that's why they call it "suspicion" ;-)

Re:Just like criminal background checks... (2, Insightful)

mpe (36238) | more than 7 years ago | (#17355510)

In the new world order, everybody is a terror suspect until proven otherwise.

Actually there are classes of people who do not have to be proven otherwise. e.g. those who pass and enforce laws about terrorist suspects.

Re:Just like criminal background checks... (5, Insightful)

swillden (191260) | more than 7 years ago | (#17353880)

Is this person a terror suspect?

Is *which* person a terror suspect?

Obviously, it would be nice to know if the person at the airport is actually suspected of being a terrorist, via evidence of links to known terrorists, etc., but to do that, you have to be able to correctly identify the person at the airport, and not just by name, and you also have to know that the reason for the suspicion is real.

All this system does is pick out people who identify themselves using a name that matches one that was placed on the list somehow. Read that last statement carefully, and identify all of the ways in which it's different from "identify suspected terrorists". Then think about what kind of program you'd have to implement in order to really "identify suspected terrorists", and what kind of police state would be required to make it work.

it hasn't any right at all to be anything but a Boolean, at least at first

Given a full profile of the terror suspect, trained TSA agents might be able to ascertain with some reliability whether or not the person trying to travel is actually the suspect, so if implemented it should definitely NOT be a boolean value based only on a matching name. Since the whole thing is so completely unreliable, though, and the only way to make it reliable is to further eliminate our civil liberties, the better solution is just to scrap it.

Somehow, the people in the US need to realize that the blood that must water the tree of liberty isn't just the blood of soldiers who go "over there" and kill the enemy. A free society is vulnerable in ways that a police state is not, but accepting that vulnerability is part and parcel of freedom. If an occasional 9/11 is the price of our civil liberties, we should be prepared to pay it, and consider it the bargain that it is. Cue the famous Benjamin Franklin quote.

I wonder... (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17352868)

I wonder how long it will be before we hear politicians praising a new bill to remove these constraints, framing it in terms of a "wall" which prevents the TSA from effectively securing our skies, like they did when they wanted to let foreign intelligence and domestic law enforcement exchange data?

See, this is why I'm always skeptical of these things. And for some reason, critics are always written off as paranoid or unrealistic. I wonder if they said the same things when people warned that the new "small" income tax would quickly grow?

Re:I wonder... (1)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 7 years ago | (#17352964)

I wonder how long it will be before we hear politicians praising a new bill to remove these constraints

      A new bill? Why? Haven't you noticed, the government doesn't obey laws now anyway. They just do what they want. Surely they don't feel "accountable" to the people anymore... /sarcasm

Re:I wonder... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17353492)

The only way to secure the skies is to completely ban everything man made that flies.
That way, if anything appears on the Radar Screens is a legitimate target and can be shot down.

Then you have to ban every man made form of transport. These pesky car suicide bombers that are appearing in every town daily. So if any car is seen moving it can be blasted with an anti tank missile.

I hope you get my drift. You CAN'T SECURE ANY FORM OF TRANSPORTATION. Please tell your Congressman/MP/whoever. Think Pirates, Highwaymen etc etc and you will see it is futile.
So, get back in your nuclear bunker (think Iran) and pray to whichever god you worship.

Re:I wonder... (2, Insightful)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 7 years ago | (#17354490)

It's not quite that black and white. There is a fundamental difference between good security, and absolute security. What the government is promising us is absolute security if we just give up the Constitution. Would that be a worthwhile trade-off? Not to me, certainly, but some might accept it if it was possible to have absolute security. As you correctly pointed out, it isn't. However, that doesn't mean that ordinary good security isn't worth striving for. It can be done. Other nations have managed to do it without abusing their own citizens with "no fly" lists and "scores" and all the rest of the TSA claptrap. The reasons we have failed in this regard are political not practical.

My problem with the TSA is that it is an organization infected by unaccountability, that has been repeatedly shown to be ineffective at accomplishing its Congressionally-mandated tasks, has lied to Congress (and us!), and is a civil liberties nightmare. It's time for Congress to just give it up as a bad job. My fear is that it has become too bureaucratically-entrenched to be eliminated at this point, much like the DHS itself.

On the other hand, it is always best to make the enemy pay for what he takes, and if we raise the bar enough to make things difficult for would-be terrorists that's a good thing. All terrorists are not the same, so if nothing else, maybe we'll catch the really stupid ones. The professionals will get through no matter what, but there's no good reason to make it easy for them. And the harder they have to work, the odds get better that they'll make a mistake.

Of course, that would mean spending significant amounts of money on the human element, which means airport guards and security people that are properly trained and well-paid. Period. Probably Israel's national airline could give us some pointers in that regard. For some reason, the TSA seems to be much more interested in half-baked technological "solutions" to the problem of providing good security (at considerable profit to the vendors of such solutions) rather than implementing proven techniques for securing an installation. Why has that not been done? They seem to be pretty free with our money on their other pet projects.

Any way you look at this, it's a trade-off between our traditional way of life and personal security: the only question is at what point do we stop trading rights for some vague idea of "security". The government won't tell us what it is doing, won't give us any numbers to help to quantify the real value of these programs, and insists on using emotional appeals to push this crap on us. In general, that's a sign of bad government and it goes well beyond airport security.

Re:I wonder... (1)

Qzukk (229616) | more than 7 years ago | (#17355722)

It's time for Congress to just give it up as a bad job

I agree. I'm tired of the whining from people saying "but at least it's something, and something is better than nothing!" At some point you have to admit that the only "something" in the TSA is handwaving, and lots of it, and that it's no better than "nothing" but costs a whole lot more.

Re:I wonder... (2, Insightful)

koreth (409849) | more than 7 years ago | (#17354352)

And for some reason, critics are always written off as paranoid or unrealistic.
Nah, just left-wing nutjobs. That drumbeat will continue until the next time a Democrat is elected president and the new administration addresses the security rules. At which point the new security rules will instantly become either (a) an unacceptable affront to America's tradition of personal liberty and a symbol of how the left is out to control everyone's lives (if the restrictions are tightened), (b) a sign that the left is weak and doesn't understand the sacrifices required to fight the war on terror (if the restrictions are loosened), or (c) a sign that the left has no new ideas and should be removed from office (if the rules aren't changed at all.)

You read it here first.

Friday news releases... (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17352870)

the report was released on Friday in an attempt to obscure it from public notice

It's an old trick to release news on a Friday night, when less people are going to see it. Also, any day in which a major news story (superbowl, oscar night, day after elections, etc.) is scheduled -- those are the days to read the newspaper carefully-- those are days that are typically used to obscure potentially damaging news.

In a 24-hour news cycle it's much harder to hide bad news from the public, but there are still golden times when the government and others are virtually guaranteed no one will be paying attention. Kudos for bringing this story to light.

Re:Friday news releases... (2, Funny)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 7 years ago | (#17352948)

In a 24-hour news cycle it's much harder to hide bad news from the public

      Thank god we have reliable 24 hour news, like CNN. Oh wait, I don't see anything about Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie in the story... this isn't NEWS!!!

Re:Friday news releases... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17353042)

Thank god the intrepid reporters at slashdot are always so ready to take up the slack of fed bashing.

Re:Friday news releases... (2, Insightful)

mpe (36238) | more than 7 years ago | (#17353178)

It's an old trick to release news on a Friday night, when less people are going to see it. Also, any day in which a major news story (superbowl, oscar night, day after elections, etc.) is scheduled -- those are the days to read the newspaper carefully-- those are days that are typically used to obscure potentially damaging news.

There's also releasing potentially politically embarrasing stories on the same day as a major disaster.

In a 24-hour news cycle it's much harder to hide bad news from the public, but there are still golden times when the government and others are virtually guaranteed no one will be paying attention. Kudos for bringing this story to light.

It isn't so much 24 hour news as "alternative media" some of which specifically looks for stories downplayed or ignored by the "mainstream".

Re:Friday news releases... (1)

OriginalArlen (726444) | more than 7 years ago | (#17353188)

We read it here first [schneier.com] .

stupid americans (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17352896)

ahahahaha

you fools voted for the neocons and look what you have - a police state

you reap what you sow

Re:stupid americans (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17352906)

indeed, your government and country are bigger but your brains and penis' are smaller.

Re:stupid americans (2, Insightful)

ScouseMouse (690083) | more than 7 years ago | (#17353400)

Whereas in the UK, we voted for a bunch of people hwo arent supposed to be Neo-conservative, and ended up with a police state anyway.

If you think this sort of things dont happen in european states, your wrong. Were just better at keeping it quiet.

Heard a great line on any questions today (A BBC Radio 4 comedy quiz show):
The americans had a revolution because they were sick of being told what to do from London.
Boy did THEY manage to turn things around.

Re:stupid americans (1)

shenanigans (742403) | more than 7 years ago | (#17353744)

I agree with you about what is happening in the US. And as a fellow European it is sometimes too easy to gloat, unfortunately. But when it comes down to it, what we are witnessing these days is the rapidly increasing downfall of the largest democracy on earth. The US IS (currently) the worlds most powerful nation. It's fall into a police state would affect all of us, in a very bad way. It's hardly a laughing matter.

Re:stupid americans (1)

slashrogue (775436) | more than 7 years ago | (#17354086)

No we didn't. Bush had to get a court ruling to get in the first time and the second time he did not have the majority of the popular vote even if he got the electoral votes.

Re:stupid americans (1)

Dark_Gravity (872049) | more than 7 years ago | (#17354246)

Bush had to get a court ruling to get in the first time and the second time he did not have the majority of the popular vote even if he got the electoral votes.
While it pains me to think that we elected W twice as many times as his father, the statistics [archives.gov] disagree with your statement about the 2004 popular vote.

BushCo doesn't CARE about that (0, Flamebait)

Travoltus (110240) | more than 7 years ago | (#17352938)

The whole reason for the "Secure Flight" program is yet another way to put countless Americans into one giant database for corporate exploitation.

It's just another way businesses are making money by talking about you behind your back and you're completely cut out of the profits from the trading of your personal information.

This is actually (4, Insightful)

CaptainZapp (182233) | more than 7 years ago | (#17352982)

The very reason why I refrain from currently travelling to the US after having visited ~20 times in the 90s (and the last time in 2002). It's not so much the fingerprinting / mug shot procedure, which I resent, but the fact that potentially any slimeball marketing sleazoid may be able to get hold of my private data.

Sorry dudes in the US; you really, really need to clean up your privacy laws to actually protect the individual and not to favor major business (and making identity theft darn easy in the bargain).

Lock 'em up! (4, Insightful)

Tom (822) | more than 7 years ago | (#17353026)

Sorry, but "not intentional" doesn't cut it when something happens that was explicitly forbidden in the charter of the program.

If I sign a contract that specifically says I can only get X under condition of Y and Z, then breaking those conditions invalidates the contract. Secure Flight should be terminated and TSA be made liable for any and all damages.

Why is it that governments and corporations can fuck up constantly on a scale that makes you dizzy while any natural person doing a fuckup on a similar scale would be locked away for life?

Re:Lock 'em up! (1)

twiddlingbits (707452) | more than 7 years ago | (#17353358)

There is not any explicit right to privacy in the USA. It's been written by case law over the last 30-40 yrs. However, when the Government is concerned should you even expect you REALLY have privacy?? Come on, they have your name, address and phone in the Drivers License, IRS and Social Security systems. If you travel you are in the TSA database (and the airline database). If you own property the State & Local Gov't know the value and improvements. If you deposit/withdraw more than 10K in Cash the Government knows the details. If you associate with criminals or have ever been charged or filed a police report the Government knows. If you make any income the IRS knows how much, when and where. If you go to school and get Gov't loans or support that's on file. If you tithe to your church or another charity the Government (IRS) knows. If you have a library card the Gov't knows what you read. The Gov't knows what you drive from your car registration. However I don't think any one Gov't agency knows ALL of this together, it's very fragmented and pulling it together from 1000's of databases would be a huge IT project. About the only thing the Gov't doesnt know about you is what you eat, what web sites you visit, and who your friends are. And Wal-Mart probably knows that about you.

Re:Lock 'em up! (1)

Watson Ladd (955755) | more than 7 years ago | (#17354824)

Only if you claim the donation as a deduction. The libraries are not controlled by the FBI. As for name, address and phone, that's something I WANT the government to have in case they need to contact me. Your point about the barriers to abuse being technical rather then legal is a good one however.

Re:Lock 'em up! (1)

UnknownSoldier (67820) | more than 7 years ago | (#17354442)

Good luck suing the government!

This is similiar to:
You _can not_ sue the police for them failing to protect you.

Without accountability, the point of government disappears.

So. It was proven pointless long before that. (5, Insightful)

the_REAL_sam (670858) | more than 7 years ago | (#17353072)

The Murder rate in the USA is 16,000 PER YEAR.
The US terror rate since (and before) 911 death toll was 3,300 TOTAL.

We maintained our constitution for over 200 years with the number of murders growing the whole time, and we didn't take that as a reason to torch our own constitution.

911 shouldn't have changed a damn thing. Yet it seems as if the Bush team has milked it to build the bedrock for a police state. Given their political donations come from the same private interests that profit from such draconian right wing lunacy, it looks like the Bush team staged it themselves, quite honestly.

http://www.the7thfire.com/Politics%20and%20History /Missile-Not-Flight-77.html [the7thfire.com]

Getting security "locked down" is the wrong answer. Getting the nazis out of office is the right answer.

Re:So. It was proven pointless long before that. (1)

the_REAL_sam (670858) | more than 7 years ago | (#17353074)

Correction.
The US terror rate since (and before) 911 death toll was 3030. TOTAL.

Re:So. It was proven pointless long before that. (1)

Foolicious (895952) | more than 7 years ago | (#17353220)

Governments do plenty of things that infringe on people's rights in order to try and curb the rate of murder. For example, the city of Chicago, Illinois, USA doesn't allow handguns. Even if you interpret the US Constitution as not allowing each individual person to own guns (as groups like the American Civil Liberties Union do) the Illinois State Constitution http://www.ilga.gov/commission/lrb/con1.htm/ [ilga.gov] explicitly provides for that, leaving little if any room for such interpretation. That seems like a way the government is screwing with people's constitutionally-provided rights -- but it's just not the federal government doing it.

I suppose you could say that the right to have a gun isn't as popular with some people, so fewer people care about that right being infringed, but it's still a constitutionally-stated right

Re:So. It was proven pointless long before that. (1)

Scrameustache (459504) | more than 7 years ago | (#17353264)

the city of Chicago, Illinois, USA doesn't allow handguns. Even if you interpret the US Constitution as not allowing each individual person to own guns (as groups like the American Civil Liberties Union do) the Illinois State Constitution http://www.ilga.gov/commission/lrb/con1.htm/ [ilga.gov] explicitly provides for that, leaving little if any room for such interpretation.
Handguns. What about hunting rifles?

Re:So. It was proven pointless long before that. (1)

Foolicious (895952) | more than 7 years ago | (#17353962)

It depends on your definition of "hunting rifle", I guess. My understanding is that Chicago outlaws "assault weapons" as well; however, I can't find documentation of that anywhere. I guess I didn't mean or want to start a debate about "gun control". I just wanted to say that the government's violation of Constitutional rights isn't restricted to the context of defeating terrorism, but everyone seems to get the most worked up about those scenarios. The ridiculous Supreme Court ruling re: personal property is another example (Kelo v. New London?). But I am sure that has already been debated many times here.

Re:So. It was proven pointless long before that. (1)

Scrameustache (459504) | more than 7 years ago | (#17354044)

It depends on your definition of "hunting rifle", I guess. My understanding is that Chicago outlaws "assault weapons" as well; however, I can't find documentation of that anywhere. I guess I didn't mean or want to start a debate about "gun control". I just wanted to say that the government's violation of Constitutional rights isn't restricted to the context of defeating terrorism
To be fair, banning AK-47s is somewhat related to preventing terrorism.

Re:So. It was proven pointless long before that. (1)

Fulcrum of Evil (560260) | more than 7 years ago | (#17355406)

To be fair, banning AK-47s is somewhat related to preventing terrorism.

Based on what? Name one terrorist incident that involved AK47s.

Re:So. It was proven pointless long before that. (1)

Scrameustache (459504) | more than 7 years ago | (#17355496)

To be fair, banning AK-47s is somewhat related to preventing terrorism.

Based on what? Name one terrorist incident that involved AK47s.

You're kidding? Right? You can't possibly be this ignorant.

learn something [unodc.org]

Re:So. It was proven pointless long before that. (1)

Foolicious (895952) | more than 7 years ago | (#17355980)

I can't speak to the poster's ignorance level; however, terrorists generally don't bother with small arms in this country because it takes too much time to inflict a high level of damage with them. By the time you'd kill a few dozen people, if you could even kill that many, you'd be dead yourself. The death ceiling for explosives is much higher.

Re:So. It was proven pointless long before that. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17354984)

You might sound a bit more credible if you simply read the constitution while not thinking so concretely, the quote from the second amendment is:

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Meaning the right to bear arms is granted to a well regulated militia, not to private citizens. This has been discussed for ages, but gun fanatics like you will continue to say, "... see, Daddy told me I could do it, waaaa!" It's an abomination that private citizens are allowed to own such weapons with the sole purpose of murder.

Re:So. It was proven pointless long before that. (1)

thoughtcriminal87 (685816) | more than 7 years ago | (#17355304)

And you might sound a little less like a coward if you simply read the section of the Illinois state constitution that was linked to (remove the last slash), and scrolled on down to "Right to Bear Arms."

you were making great points (3, Insightful)

SethJohnson (112166) | more than 7 years ago | (#17353290)



Your comments about the murder rate vs. terror rate and torching the constitution were strong.

You lost me with the conspiracy theory about the neocons planning 9/11. As much as I distrust Cheney, Rumsfeld, and their puppet, the theories about missles hitting the Pentagon just aren't credible to me. At most, I will believe that 9/11 was a happy accident [reference.com] which Cheney leveraged to enrich his friends at Haliburton. He sold it to Bush as an opportunity to finish what his dad had started. Rumsfeld? Well, that guy wanted to prove a war could be fought on the cheap and wanted to take credit for that accomplishment. Turned out it can be fought on the cheap, so long as you're not concerned with winning.

Seth

Re:you were making great points (1)

Scrameustache (459504) | more than 7 years ago | (#17353352)

the theories about missles hitting the Pentagon just aren't credible to me. At most, I will believe that 9/11 was a happy accident [reference.com]
I don't know about the missile story... on 9-11 it was a "car bomb", then a "truck bomb" that blew up at the pentagon after the plane hit in NY.

But I think it was at LEAST a happy accident, possibly something that was allowed to happen, and at my most cynical, I might think it was actually planned by the facists in government and more likely in the "intelligence community".
They predictably won so much power and funding as a result, it's hard not to think they would want it to happen.

Re:you were making great points (1)

Apoklypse (853837) | more than 7 years ago | (#17353950)

so the pentagon, the headquarters for the strongest military on this planet, doesn't have so much as radar or automated surface to air defenses ? or cameras, that images could be obtained from and released into the wild? national security? what? outside images of the pentagon, hmmmnn isn't that up there with outdoor images of the mountains? identify the potential threat please.

Re:you were making great points (1)

Apoklypse (853837) | more than 7 years ago | (#17353988)

I'm seeing an awful lot of score 0 mods lately, most likely originating with bleeding heart fascist sympathizing american sheep ... at least score 1 ...

Re:you were making great points (1)

Scrameustache (459504) | more than 7 years ago | (#17354606)

I'm seeing an awful lot of score 0 mods lately, most likely originating with bleeding heart fascist sympathizing american sheep ... at least score 1 ...
Your karma is so bad that you now post as low as an AC.

Re:you were making great points (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17354376)

There were several cameras looking in the direction of the Pentagon that day, the FBI seized the tapes for every one, and has never released them. The only media ever released were those 5 blurry frames from a security gate camera that hit the news again recently as if they were some new evidence.

Re:you were making great points (1)

Scrameustache (459504) | more than 7 years ago | (#17355222)

There were several cameras looking in the direction of the Pentagon that day, the FBI seized the tapes for every one, and has never released them. The only media ever released were those 5 blurry frames from a security gate camera that hit the news again recently as if they were some new evidence.
Ah, I see, those 5 frames were leaked in 2002, then released in 2006 [wtc7.net] . They just cropped out the date when they released it officially.

Re:you were making great points (1)

symbolic (11752) | more than 7 years ago | (#17353990)

Man have you missed something! Haven't you seen the "video" released after some years by the fed after confiscating ALL surveillance footage in the area- including footage that was shot from private property? The "video" consists of five frames, taken at a quite a distance. All you get to see is a whitish blur (claimed to be the nosecone of the incoming plane) and a fireball. It's only five frames, so the likelihood of tampering, enhancement, or outright fabrication isn't outside the realm of possibility, especially when you consider the mounds of unanswered questions surrounding 9/11 in general.

Re:you were making great points (1)

Scrameustache (459504) | more than 7 years ago | (#17354170)

Man have you missed something! Haven't you seen the "video" released after some years by the fed
Yeah, I also saw the surveillance footage from the parking lot's security booth shown on TV some time after 9-11 (not years after, weeks I think), it showed very little and was dated 9-12.

I also remember, from that faithfull day, an announcer asking a follow up question: "a car bomb? Not a plane?" and the radio reporter answering "we're being told it was a truck bomb".
Then there was talk of an order to shoot down any planes not following directions to go land in Canada, and about two hours later a pentagon press release stating that that order had not been given and the guy that gave the order didn't have the authority to give that order anyway, and the united states would NEVER shoot down a civilian plane!

So I don't know if it was a missile, or a car bomb, or a truck bomb, but looking at that hole in those early picture, and having seen a plane hitting a building previously, leaving a clear-plane shaped hole (just like in cartoons), then exploding in a huge fireball... I don't think it was a plane.
And having seen pictures from around ground zero of big plane chunks, including a whole, twisted jet engine, I look at the area around that pentagon impact, and frankly, there's just a few flakes... looks like something blew up allright, but it doesn't look like the "plane hitting a building and then exploding" debris from New York.

It's clear that they are hiding something (they are hiding the footage they seized, for 'national security' reasons), I figure they're hiding a major fuck-up involving a trigger happy pilot and the "against their own people" soundclip.

Re:you were making great points (2, Insightful)

Darby (84953) | more than 7 years ago | (#17355982)


They predictably won so much power and funding as a result, it's hard not to think they would want it to happen.


Well, you can take it that far without just "thinking" it. We know with 100% certainty that they wanted it to happen, since they stated exactly that back in 2000. Just read "Rebuilding America's Defenses" here [newamericancentury.org] .

They stated flat out that "in order to ensure American economic world domination in the 21st century" it would be necessary to invade Iraq. Further they said that they knew full well that the American people wouldn't go along with their lunatic plot so that it would be necessary for there to be an attack on the order of Pearl Harbor which they could then misuse for the purpose of convincing the American people to invade Iraq.

So, we don't have to think that they wanted it, we know it for certain. We know further that it was the single most important event required for them to put their prelaid plans in motion which they bagan doing immediately after 9/11 regardless of the fact that they knew full well that Iraq had no involvement.

Now, none of this proves any involvement with the actual attacks, but it most certainly does make suspicion of them the only rational course as if everything else they did hadn't already made it impossible for any sane person to support them.

Re:you were making great points (1, Insightful)

mrplastik (722391) | more than 7 years ago | (#17353438)

The conspiracy nuts are worse than right-wing christian zealots and left-wing socialist morons put together.

Re:you were making great points (1)

freedom_india (780002) | more than 7 years ago | (#17353508)

The conspiracy nuts were the ones who unraveled Watergate and Telephone Tapping scandals.
So don't go about dissing them.

If they weren't there, your rights which you inherited because some lame ass-kicking horse jockey fought on your behalf and ACTUALLY died for it.

Sheesh, how many times do we have to tell these mid fencers that having a friday romp and a sunday shopping deal is NOT freedom.

Re:you were making great points (1)

mrplastik (722391) | more than 7 years ago | (#17353544)

Conspiracy nuts create FUD. As for Watergate, even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

Re:you were making great points (1)

symbolic (11752) | more than 7 years ago | (#17354068)

Agreed. The whitehouse's continued attempts to pin the blame for 9/11 on a terrorist attack was full of holes from the very start.

Re:you were making great points (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17354762)

Conspiracy nuts keep people on their toes. Just remember, if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, then the fact that there were no wing or engine debris seen outside of the pentagon despite the fact that the plane's wings could not have fit through the hole in the wall is certainly "interesting".

Re:you were making great points (1)

mpe (36238) | more than 7 years ago | (#17355540)

The conspiracy nuts are worse than right-wing christian zealots and left-wing socialist morons put together.

When it comes to "911" the term "conspiracy nuts" has to include the entire US Government. Given that the "Bin Laden did it" is a rather complex conspiracy theory with very little supporting evidence.

Re:you were making great points (5, Insightful)

DaMattster (977781) | more than 7 years ago | (#17353486)

Perhaps the conspiracy theories are not so wrong. Politics and the economy seem to dictate that in a tragedy, their will be some that profit and others that loose. Look at Haliburton. Haliburton's profits increased megafold as a result of non-competitive contracts with the DoD. Come on folks, we know if the owners of Haliburton were some poor inner city folk (or just a start up without political connections) they wouldn't have gotten a chance to even bid on the contract. I also have to say that our freedoms have erroded. This is not theory, this law. The Patriot Act puts severe limitations on our freedoms and we are traveling down a steep, slippery slope. As much as I despise the acts of 9/11, I cannot condone Guantanamo Bay and the secret prisons and the domestic wire tapping program.

We accused Clinton of being a liar and Bush repeatedly lied about their being no domestic wire tapping program or secret prison Mr. Bush drove us to war on a lie. There were no weapons of mass destruction. While I do not like Cynthia McKinney from Georgia at all, she drove a point by attempting to introduce legislation to impeach Bush. Honestly, he is far more impeachable than Clinton. We hold ourselves up on such high, hypocritical horses that we punished Clinton for a blow job: a harmless, repeat harmless act whereas Mr. Bush has effectively killed 16,000 people because he wanted to finish daddy's work. Mr. Bush needs to answer for his actions but, so long as he has money, he has a get out of jail ticket. It would take the collective bravery of the International Criminal Court to bring charges down. I could only hope that the ICC is brave enough to take this on. Bush has committed war crimes under a guise.

Bush is an extremeist in his own right. He is the antithesis of Ahmadenjinad of Iran. It has been speculated that Bush has some fascination with the Apocalypse and the Born-Again Christians do have a preocupation with this event. Clinton got some undeserved negative attention. He did wonders for the economy. The presidency requires an intelligent, well-thought, and well-spoken indidivdual.

Some have attempted to compare Bush to Lincoln. True, both were in unpopular wars and both rather folksy. There remains an important difference. Lincoln was not ideologically driven and he was doing what was morally correct for ANY time period: ending a wrong justified by pseudoscientific means. Lincoln saw the problems with calling our nation free while slavery still existed. This was a moral and ethical dilemna. Lincoln dealt with this. While Lincoln is folksy, it is clear that his intelligence and thought capacity is higher than that of Bush. As far as I am concerned there is no comparison and history will see the George W. Bush Presidency as one of the worst administrations in the history of our country.

Re:you were making great points (4, Insightful)

thona (556334) | more than 7 years ago | (#17353704)

Gratulations. Your words give me hope that there are americans that are not idiots. Seriously - you spoke the truth, in exactly the way it needs to be spoken.

I am european, and I have always thought as the US as the country wher edemocracy was strong - today I am not traveling to the US because I refuse to deal with terrorist nations, and unless the us government gets some sort of clue what country they re supposed to govern, the US is just not a place I want to step on even for a day.

Let's all hope that things change once Mr. Bush is out of his office. The uss has dealt with horrendous aberrations in the past (just say McCarthy Era) and recovered.

Re:you were making great points (1)

DarkVader (121278) | more than 7 years ago | (#17354868)

Someone, please mod parent up!

That's not a troll. That's simply accurate.

Re:you were making great points (1)

Atzanteol (99067) | more than 7 years ago | (#17353796)

Lincoln was not ideologically driven and he was doing what was morally correct for ANY time period:

You think so? There was more to the Civil war than slavery you know. In fact there was tension between the federalists and states rights folks for some time. Many in the south saw/see the Civil war as a federal power grab by the north and believe Lincoln just used slavery as an excuse (a good one mind you, but a red herring none-the-less).

In fact, Lincoln and GWB have something else in common. GWB ran (the first time) on a platform that would not get us involved in a foreign war. Lincoln's inauguration speech talked about allowing the south to keep slaves...

Re:you were making great points (1)

sgtrock (191182) | more than 7 years ago | (#17353814)

OK, if what you say is true, why on Earth did the Southern states insist so strongly on maintaining slavery? Why did they secede when their candidate lost a fair election? Could it possibly be that maybe the South has to share some of the guilt for all those dead on both sides?

Re:you were making great points (3, Interesting)

AceM2 (655504) | more than 7 years ago | (#17354440)

We're always going to see slavery as the reason because it was the most revolutionary change created by the war. You must remember southerners of the time (and many still today) saw the slavery debate as a hit to their pride rather than a moral issue. Most rich plantation owners would quickly cease to be rich if slavery were abolished. Point being turning against slavery at that moment only serves to make the rich southerners angrier while making yourself look good to the northerners. Slavery would have ended anyway eventually, and we would have had a civil war anyway. It was one straw (a heavy one perhaps), not the whole pile.

Re:you were making great points (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17354950)

We're always going to see slavery as the reason because the majority of the states said so in their articles of secession. Whether they coated it in terms of an assault by northerners on their way of life or the northerners not upholding the spirit of the constitution by not returning slaves (while it says that a slave cannot become free just by fleeing to another state, it says nothing about that state having to expend effort to return them), the "slavery debate" was why they left the United States. The rest mostly whined about their taxes and representation by population (even with the 3/5ths rule the Northerners were outnumbering Southerners).

Re:you were making great points (1)

Atzanteol (99067) | more than 7 years ago | (#17354838)

You misunderstand. Slavery wasn't the *only* issue, though it was one of them. Sure the south has to share in the guilt for the war (perhaps even take the lions share), but the dispute was over far more than civil rights. States rights vs. federalism was a very big issue for much of the early years of the US. The battle is all but lost these days as the Federal government has grown in power over the years. Federal control of many aspects of life is now taken for granted.

Re:you were making great points (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17355034)

The great thing about posting anonymously is I can vent without fear of personal attack. Parent is an absolute idiot, and those agreeing with him/her or suggesting the poster be "modded up" are equally idiots. Clinton was a lying, cheating, manipulating butt and his only evidence of intelligence was his creativity and gile when faced with his lies. If Bush wasn't sharing the predominant ideas of the majority of people in the USA, he would not have won both elections with the majority of popular vote. The tremendous surge in the 18-25 year voters in the last election simply reflects the "me too" mentality of the younger generation who has no experience yet to make value judgements affecting society. For the same reason we send 18 year olds to war (they're ignorant of the world, have no sense of proportion or balance, they think they're invinciable) is exactly why they should not be voting... Sadly, anyone with the good sense, balance, and sense of human mortality would not go to war. So long as there are people, there will always be war... history shows us that in our own humankind... we see it on all levels of recognized creation.

Re:you were making great points (1)

mrplastik (722391) | more than 7 years ago | (#17353618)

The Haliburton contract was put in place by Clinton's administration, long before 9/11 -- you're pointing the finger at the wrong administration with that claim.

Re:you were making great points (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17355350)

That's whacked. Please explain how clinton offered a no-bid contract for support services during the iraq invasion, and then recently decided there shouldn't be any auditors (because they were finding all sorts of waste and misbilling)?

Re:you were making great points (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17355668)

I have to agree about 9/11 not being a conspiracy. I personally believe that it was allowed to happen because the administration wanted to create the current political situation. That is pure (but educated) speculation. Regardless of whether that is true or not, it is impossible to argue that they did not already have their ducks in a row to take advantage of such an event.

Here, for the conspiracy theorists, is why I am convinced it was NOT planned to go down the way it did:

1) Every target was strategic (the WTC was the primary comms hub for the East Coast). Any one of those targets being destroyed would have greatly weakened the US's ability to resist a real attack.

2) Every target contained a concentration of Cheney's allies. Say what you want about these guys, they take care of their own.

If the Neocons had actually planned the attack or expected it to succeed, they would have targeted a less well-heeled neighbourhood (consider that they had no compunction about turning foreign mercenaries loose on NO) and a place that would trigger more outrage (say Disneyland). They probably would have also targeted both coasts to increase the visibility of the attacks.

Re:So. It was proven pointless long before that. (1)

Scrameustache (459504) | more than 7 years ago | (#17353304)

911 shouldn't have changed a damn thing. Yet it seems as if the Bush team has milked it to build the bedrock for a police state. Given their political donations come from the same private interests that profit from such draconian right wing lunacy, it looks like the Bush team staged it themselves, quite honestly.
Maybe they did, I guess we'll never really know, since by definition the people capable of that are capable of killing to cover it up.

But even if they didn't explicitly plan it, Ossama was trained, funded and armed by the CIA, back when the Taliban were labelled "freedom fighters" (is that like "freedom fries"?), what goes around comes around.

Re:So. It was proven pointless long before that. (1)

mrplastik (722391) | more than 7 years ago | (#17353488)

9/11 was not a person murdering another person, you frame this as if it were a typical crime we should pursue through our court system. When in reality it was an extremely large entity attacking our country, not just singular persons. So terrorism is just a crime we pursue in criminal courts? When the movement is as large and concerted as it is, you cannot simply frame it as a typical crime. You may lie to yourself, but the rest of us see (save for the sheep).

Re:So. It was proven pointless long before that. (1)

the_REAL_sam (670858) | more than 7 years ago | (#17353670)

9/11 was not a person murdering another person, you frame this as if it were a typical crime we should pursue through our court system.

There was never any reason NOT to handle it through our court system. I DO frame it as if it should have been handled in a different way. I frame it as if the president and his entire cabinet should have been investigated, impeached, and probably tried for treason.

When in reality it was an extremely large entity attacking our country, not just singular persons. So terrorism is just a crime we pursue in criminal courts?

I don't believe Al Quaeda exists in the form it has been advertised. Perhaps there IS an AQ somewhere, but I seriously doubt it had anything to do with 911.

If you ask me, the amount of technical expertise needed to conduct 911 already points to not a bunch of camel riding freedom fighters from afghanistan. It points to a western military organization with experience of command and coordination of complex military operations.

The NAME of the date alone points to an AMERICAN source, since the term 9-11 is only meaningful to Americans... Unless you think osama thought of it. I guess he could have watched "cops" on tv from his tent. ??

Car bombs in occupied Iraq do not point to alquaeda. OF COURSE there were going to be car bombs. The U.S. military went in and invaded. That same thing would probably happen in the U.S., too, if it got invaded. It doesn't mean Al Quaeda materialized. It means people (let just call them "Iraqi patriots" / "Iraqi freedom fighters" the same way the administration would have done if they were overthrowing a communist government) objected to the unprovoked and illegal military domination of their country.

Osama bin Laden was trained by the CIA. I have no reason to believe he ever stopped bing a CIA person. That's only boosted by the fact that they never caught him. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are just costly, bloody unjustified military moneygrabs that have served to distract from Osama's failed manhunt. Those wars siphened billions towards military contracts.

When the movement is as large and concerted as it is, you cannot simply frame it as a typical crime. You may lie to yourself, but the rest of us see (save for the sheep).

Yes, in fact it MUST be framed as a typical crime. If it HAD been, it would HAVE BEEN INVESTIGATED PROPERLY.

But 911 was never properly investigated, and the Bush police state after-the-fact isn't a suitable replacement for the proper investigation that they failed to conduct.

the coup (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17354752)

The key to it is building 7 at the WTC, the "contractors" that were in all three buildings the weeks previous where the security cameras were turned off and people had to not use certain floors for the still to this day unnamed "work" that was done, and the "dancing israelis" with the video cameras and "moving vans" that police dogs hit on as being previously used to transport explosives, who were quietly arrested by local cops and then re taken by feds and quickly deported without much media coverage. If these situations were truly investigated, along with the amazing coincidence of the DOD running planes smacking into buildings as a "terror exercise" on the same exact day, we might maybe could unravel this.

    Unfortunately., the shadow government rot and corruption runs up and down and sideways, inside the government, and outside the government in the mainstream media and big business. That is the harsh truth that the people have to recognize.

  What happened on 9-11 was a stealth coup near as I can read it, or more accurately, a further consolidation of a long running stealth coup.. I don't know yet what total involvement various PNAC players had in the actual hijacking, or even if there was a hijacking as we know it or remote controlled planes were used, but they are the ones who ordered Norad to stand down and not follow normal procedure with hijacked planes, and I defy any government paid shill (yes we know you get paid to troll message boards, you sould be ashamed of yourselves) or neocon regimist supporter to explain how osama could have arranged that little bit of reality. Go ahead and explain how osma got the procedures in place when hijacking was reported to change. How exactly did he do that? He got on his satellite phone and called up norad and told them to not intercept those planes? Orly? He called all the air traffic control towers and told them to ignore those blips on the screen because they were part of an "exercise"? Orly?

Somehow, I find that rather hard to swallow, but you must swallow that if you want to believe the government's official fairy tale of how the events went down that way on that day.

  There are also numerous whistleblower governmental insiders, cops, soldiers and others, who were time after time ordered to STOP looking at linkages with terrorists at a certain point where the next step looked squarely at caucasian people in suits, either black suits with ties or fancier suits with ribbons and medals. Ordered to shut up and go away and stop talking about it, or face serious repercussions. That is a serious clue. This is 2006 and some of those lawsuits are still not resolved, obfuscation and delay, totally from governmental orders, is what is happening there. Again, there is no way osama could have ordered any of that. No possible way in hell could that occur. I don't know how much more smoking gun evidence is needed for anyone to just stop believing the fairy tale at their proclaimed face value. It is *ludicrous*, beyond my ability to comprehend why anyone would believe that nonsense promulgated by known liars.

In other words, one would have to be either a complete fascist supporter or a total retard, one or the other or most likely both, to not recognize that 9-11 was an inside job at least at some seriously powerful levels. There is more than enough for real investigations beyond the 9-11 whitewash report, which is just this generation's version of the warren commission whitewash report.

The implications of some governmental and big business powerful insiders being in on it are simply enormous, because that would require a radical emergency restructuring of government by the people, in the full historical sense.

  I do not think at this time there are enough true patriots (people who would put nation over personal safety and paycheck) or honest people (people who can look at what data is available and arrve at a 2+2=4 solution) either inside government or inside either of the two main stream political parties who would have the courage and wherewithal to push this to where it needs to be pushed, and most obviously the big name mainstream media is corrupt beyond any semblance of help in this matter as well. Completely corrupt and cowed into subservience. Outside of blogs and some shortwave and net radio, we have a fully controlled press, just as much designed to push globalist and political propaganada with what is called "the big lie concept", as they are designed to sell soap flakes and professional sports games and mindless sitcom entertainments.

  Orders fall downill there as well, and at the top levels giving the orders are billionaire globalists, who profit immensely from a two class society of masters and cowed sheep, which, IMO, was the entire purpose of 9-11, to help that along. The patriot act, homeland security, public video cameras everywhere, the gradual insistence on RFID in everything, total branwashing of the nation's youth to accept this as they grow up, the insistence on shipping out middle class jobs and shipping in illegals by the multi million to drive down wages for those jobs that can't be shipped out, focing people to stop and grovel for any governmental mini-god lord and master who barks orders at them, and so on and so forth; all for the general purposes of trying to institute a total two class feudalistic/fascistic type society, even moreso than it has been, and to pull that off with the least bit of resistance by "the people", by manipulating the people psychologically and physically to insist on the measures taken to "save them from terror".

    Terrorized into accepting one brand of terror by threatening them with another brand of terror in other words. Quite simple really.

  It seems to have worked quite well for them so far, sad to say. Many other regimes down through history have done similar, terrorize their populations with exterrnal and internal "threats". And the reason is simple, all societies gradually evolve into totalitarian regimes because pure predatory megalomaniacs claw their way to the top of government and business, either in public view or behind the scenes but in still powerful positions. One of the traits of a megalomaniac is the ability to seamlessly and transparently lie in any situation, another is total locak of remorse for any actions taken, another is greed for seriously perverted power over other humans, something beyond a pure pile of money level..

  This has happened way back in the time of the Roman and Egyptian empires, it happened in the middle ages, it happened extensively in the 20th century, so I fail to understand why so many people insist that it could just never happen today.

I guess cognitive dissonance is a human trait that is hard coded into our genes.

Re:So. It was proven pointless long before that. (1)

DarkVader (121278) | more than 7 years ago | (#17354914)

No, it's the sheeple who see it as a large entity attacking our country.

Now, it may have become that because of our actions since then, but when it happened it was a small, isolated group of crazies.

Whether that group of crazies was religious fanatics in Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan or Washington, we will likely never know. I suspect it was most likely simply a happy accident for the religious fanatics in Washington.

Re:So. It was proven pointless long before that. (1)

mpe (36238) | more than 7 years ago | (#17355580)

9/11 was not a person murdering another person, you frame this as if it were a typical crime we should pursue through our court system. When in reality it was an extremely large entity attacking our country, not just singular persons.

Previous terrorist attacks have been handled through criminal courts. Including those in the US, including those involving paramilitary terrorists.

Re:So. It was proven pointless long before that. (1)

Yosho (135835) | more than 7 years ago | (#17353530)

The US terror rate since (and before) 911 death toll was 3,300 TOTAL.

What the hell is a "terror rate"? Besides that -- the goal of terrorism isn't to kill, it's to terrorize. You're saying the equivalent of something like "We shouldn't worry about forest fires because almost no forest fires were caused due to 9/11."

We maintained our constitution for over 200 years with the number of murders growing the whole time, and we didn't take that as a reason to torch our own constitution.

What the fuck does that mean? The number of murders per year climbs over time (but not necessarily constantly; sometimes it drops, too) and that means we should torch the constitution? Could you please insert some logic in there?

Besides that -- the number of people in the US has been constantly growing. Guess what: when you have more people, there are going to be more murders. On top of that, technology has made it easier to kill over time. It's also made it easier to discover murders & murderers, so naturally, the number of reports will climb. Can you show me a single country that's had such a massive growth in population and technology in the US that hasn't had their number of murders per year climb?

Re:So. It was proven pointless long before that. (2, Insightful)

the_REAL_sam (670858) | more than 7 years ago | (#17353718)

No, I'm saying 911 was a single event, and if you ask me it looks more like an event planned against hte american people by their own government in an effort to galvanize them against an invisible enemy, in order to gain a more absolute form of dictatorial control. That's what 911 looks like, if you ask me.

Fighting a war against an invisible enemy, and using that as a justification for searching everyone who passes through an airport, train station, you name it, already encroaches on basic civil liberties. The fact that the enemy is unseen makes it all the more insidious when the right wingers are asking for permission to spy domestically. It gives them the same sort of blank check request that joseph mccarthy had back in the commie witch hunts during the 50's. Have you such a short memory for history as to overlook the terrible right wing history of the 50's?

here. this is the recent murder rate. it's been close to 16000 for a long time.
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_04/offenses_reported/v iolent_crime/murder.html [fbi.gov]

3030 killed in 911. that's the only terror attack ever done on that scale on us soil. you think that's a good reason to say "screw civil liberty, privacy and forget about not getting searched. forget about the right to carry a can of coke or a letter opener on an airplane. forget all that it's just not worth it.

you are tire kicking. your whole post is just tire kicking. look at the whole argument and fill in the gaps with your own mind.

Secret trials and detentions, patriot act, roving wiretaps, expanded police powers to read things like email, gone to an airport recently?. there's alot more than I know about but there is plenty.

Sheesh. Wake up, people.

Re:So. It was proven pointless long before that. (1)

swillden (191260) | more than 7 years ago | (#17353912)

The number of murders per year climbs over time (but not necessarily constantly; sometimes it drops, too) and that means we should torch the constitution?

No, it means that since 9/11 did less damage to us than we regularly do to ourselves, we shouldn't use either as an excuse to destroy our civil liberties.

I've always compared it to the death toll from traffic accidents (which exceeds the 9/11 death toll every *month*), but I like the murder comparison even better.

Re:So. It was proven pointless long before that. (2, Insightful)

DarkVader (121278) | more than 7 years ago | (#17354962)

How about, we shouldn't worry about terrorism - because if we don't get scared, terrorism has FAILED.

The response should have been an investigation, and a change in hijacker handling policy (previous policy was to just give them what they wanted) and a "cockpit door stays locked at all times" policy. And then we should have started flying again the next week, with EXACTLY the same airport security as before.

Everything that was done by the government was instead calculated to terrorize the population, as a power grab.

Re:So. It was proven pointless long before that. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17353638)

You were really sounding reasonable until you started spouting that conspiracy bullshit.

Re:So. It was proven pointless long before that. (1)

the_REAL_sam (670858) | more than 7 years ago | (#17353818)

I know it sounds crazy. I can hardly get myself to look at it with credibility, but the facts ARE in line.

The third WTC building on 911 collapsed without ANYTHING touching it. It just collapsed straight down as if it had been demolished. They even abandoned it first. It was UNDAMAGED until it collapsed.

The HOLE in the pentagon was not large enough for the plane that struck.

The jet fuel of an airliner doesn't burn hot enough to melt the structural steel that was used in the WTC buildings. Yet they found molten steel in the wreckage.

Get on line and look at the video wreckage of that third building.

http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=911+collapse [google.com]

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-784274150 9736411725&q=wtc+3 [google.com]
That was not an airplane strike, it was demolition.

Re:So. It was proven pointless long before that. (2, Interesting)

Cl1mh4224rd (265427) | more than 7 years ago | (#17353952)

The third WTC building on 911 collapsed without ANYTHING touching it. It just collapsed straight down as if it had been demolished. They even abandoned it first. It was UNDAMAGED until it collapsed.
You're waaaay behind the times, buddy.

http://www.kolumbus.fi/av.caesar/wtc/wtc7_2.jpg [kolumbus.fi]
http://img301.imageshack.us/img301/3990/wtc7roof7p z.jpg [imageshack.us]

It well known by people on the ground that WTC7 was going to collapse.

Here's some accounts from firefighters [bautforum.com] on the scene that day. They describe the severe structural damage, large fires, and the potential for collapse.

The HOLE in the pentagon was not large enough for the plane that struck.
Wrong.

http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e207/Mercury2/pe nt-foam-small2.jpg [photobucket.com]

Beyond that, you still have to explain the downed street lights [tripod.com] along the highway, and the damage generator [911review.com] .

You should watch this video: http://youtube.com/watch?v=YVDdjLQkUV8 [youtube.com]

The jet fuel of an airliner doesn't burn hot enough to melt the structural steel that was used in the WTC buildings. Yet they found molten steel in the wreckage.
Absolute idiocy. The steel certainly doesn't have to melt before it fails. And what does the alleged molten metal actually prove? Explosives don't melt steel, and they certainly aren't capable of keeping that steel molten weeks after they've been detonated.

Thermite/thermate doesn't fit the alleged phenomenon either, unless you're suggesting that there was so much of the stuff at the site that it was burning for weeks in order to keep the metal in a liquefied state. (We've all seen videos of thermite at work. The metal resolidifies within a minute after the thermite is expended.)

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7842741 50 9736411725&q=wtc+3
That was not an airplane strike, it was demolition.
Here's a better video: http://youtube.com/watch?v=dWemhf8fZ2w [youtube.com]

It clearly shows the eastern mechanical penthouse collapsing into the building a full 5 seconds before the western penthouse collapses, followed immediately by the rest of the building. Not nearly as clean as you'd like people to believe by showing them only one video of the collapse.

Stop fooling yourself, please.

Re:So. It was proven pointless long before that. (1)

Apoklypse (853837) | more than 7 years ago | (#17354074)

that photo-shopped photobuckets pentagon thingey pic - where's the jet? just a wii bit curious ?

Re:So. It was proven pointless long before that. (2, Insightful)

Scrameustache (459504) | more than 7 years ago | (#17354466)

Oh, there was damage done to the building, they wouldn't have wasted that building for no reason. That doesn't mean it wasn't a controlled demolition, though.

The lease holder [cbsnews.com] gave the OK to "pull it [youtube.com] ".
I didn't know you could do that. Can just any building be "pulled", just like that?

("Silverstein's spokesperson, Dara McQuillan, said in September 2005 that by "pull it" Silverstein was referring to the contingent of firefighters remaining in the building, and confirming that they should evacuate the premises.")

The main challenge in bringing a building down is controlling which way it falls. Ideally, a blasting crew will be able to tumble the building over on one side, into a parking lot or other open area. This sort of blast is the easiest to execute, and it is generally the safest way to go. Tipping a building over is something like felling a tree. To topple the building to the north, the blasters detonate explosives on the north side of the building first, in the same way you would chop into a tree from the north side if you wanted it to fall in that direction. Blasters may also secure steel cables to support columns in the building, so that they are pulled a certain way as they crumble.

Sometimes, though, a building is surrounded by structures that must be preserved. In this case, the blasters proceed with a true implosion, demolishing the building so that it collapses straight down into its own footprint (the total area at the base of the building). This feat requires such skill that only a handful of demolition companies in the world will attempt it [howstuffworks.com] .

Re:So. It was proven pointless long before that. (1)

Cl1mh4224rd (265427) | more than 7 years ago | (#17354546)

The lease holder gave the OK to "pull it".
I didn't know you could do that. Can just any building be "pulled", just like that?

"Pull it" is not a term for explosive demolition. No where, no how, no matter how many times the conspiracy theorists say it is (none of them are demolitions experts). The owner of Controlled Demolitions, Inc. has written a short paper about WTC7 (don't have a link at the moment, getting ready to leave for the holiday).

"Pull it" means to literally pull the building over with cables or the like. You don't do that to a 47 story building.

Read this closely: http://911myths.com/html/wtc7_pulled.html [911myths.com]

Re:So. It was proven pointless long before that. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17354590)

You are retarded. Simple as that. Get you head out of you ass and look at the drivel you have been spewing -- it is pathetic that you are in such denial.

Re:So. It was proven pointless long before that. (1)

Scrameustache (459504) | more than 7 years ago | (#17354724)

The lease holder gave the OK to "pull it".
I didn't know you could do that. Can just any building be "pulled", just like that?

"Pull it" is not a term for explosive demolition. No where, no how, no matter how many times the conspiracy theorists say it is (none of them are demolitions experts). The owner of Controlled Demolitions, Inc. has written a short paper about WTC7 (don't have a link at the moment, getting ready to leave for the holiday).
 
"Pull it" means to literally pull the building over with cables or the like. You don't do that to a 47 story building.
Larry Silverstein is not a demolition expert.
He's an old real estate tycoon. You kids and your fancy demolition talk. Why, in my day! Get off my lawn! We had to walk to work in snow, and when you wanted your building pulled down, you said to pull it! I said get off my lawn!

I read your page carefully, it's crap. Their interpretation of "pull it" isn't even the one I quoted from Larry's spin doctor (their definition of "it" is "a unit of firefighters").
That site you linked makes it sound like Larry's referring to live firefighters as inanimate objects, if he was referring to firefighters directly, he would have said "them", not it. For people deconstructing's someone's words, you'd think they'd bother to check what his official interpretation is.

Now, onto the crux of the argument: Buildings do not fall naturally onto their own footprints.
I can explain felled lightpoles (marines with powertools), how do you explain the implosions?

Re:So. It was proven pointless long before that. (1)

eskayp (597995) | more than 7 years ago | (#17355992)

Pointless that is, to attempt convincing conspiracy theorists with facts.
A review of the posts in this string makes that abundantly clear.
For a dispassionate, rational, fact-based review of the 9-11 events
refer to SKEPTIC magazine, vol 12, No. 4, 2006.
www.skeptic.com has an overview of the issure's contents,
but alas only the dead tree version has the details.
Not that conspiracy buffs will ever let facts get in the way
of conjecture and accusation.
For them, the only thing worse than some malevolent force
pulling the strings, is the thought that there are no strings
holding their make-believe tin-hat world together.

An evil enemy they can handle, but not uncertainty or ambiguity.

Take the train. (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17353256)

Chooo! Choo! All tokers know that, duh!

I'm waiting for the old Quote... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17353626)

If you have nothing to hide, why do you care.

This is exactly why I care. Once the tools are given to a gov't agency, they will be abused, and used to target other groups that weren't the original objective. As one poster on /. said, "Terrorism and 'for the children' are the root password to the constitution".

Note: they can get away with violating the law, because there isn't any penality when a gov't official, or a gov't contractor violates it.

Re:I'm waiting for the old Quote... (1)

mpe (36238) | more than 7 years ago | (#17355624)

Once the tools are given to a gov't agency, they will be abused, and used to target other groups that weren't the original objective.

They may not even be used that much to target the "original objective". e.g. how often do you see "animal right" and "anti-abortion" people facing terrorist charges?

plus 1, T8oll) (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17353882)

are there? let's to fight what has but With Netcraft it there. Bring

I coulda had first post ... (0, Offtopic)

Apoklypse (853837) | more than 7 years ago | (#17353894)

but I chose not to ... onward, does anyone actually believe that any of these personal privacy and rights invasions are going to do anything to really enhance our safety as opposed to the safety of the president and the other fascist control freaks?

What is going to make your life suck first? (2, Insightful)

Marrow (195242) | more than 7 years ago | (#17353986)

This seems like a small incremental threat increase given
that the information is already available to anyone who
wants to buy it. Anyone foriegn or domestic regardless
of criminal record can buy data right? That TSA got what
everyone else can access seems a small thing.

What are the greatest threats? Which of these will most likely get you?

National Debt
Trade Inequity
Job Exportation
Oil Dependence / Oil exaustion
Terrorist Attack
Government Intrusion
False Inprisonment
Identity Theft
Neocons
Pinko Liberals
Automated Vote Fraud via Hacked Voting Machines
Contaminated Food or Water
Dumbed down Education
Microsoft World Dominance

I am curious. Which one do you think will actually
make your life "suck" first. Or add one that I
missed.

Ribbit (1)

nevillethedevil (1021497) | more than 7 years ago | (#17354488)

I was recently having a discussion about this with the "older generation" of my wifes family (my wife is American , I'm British). One of them is a former marine colonel from the cold war era. It scared the hell out of me to hear them in total support of things like this. I asked the question "Isn't this the exact type of thing you guys fought against?".

The answer basically boiled down to "we must trust what the government says without question". Thats not freedom thats blind stupidity. As said as it may sound, the sooner that generation dies out the sooner things will can begin to heal. That may sound harsh but sadly true. remember we're the ones who are ghoing to be left behind to deal with the cleanup. At this stage the best we can hope is too be able to limit the damage being done.

I don't know about you my fellow frogs, but I'm getting a little hot............

Re:Ribbit (1)

MmmDee (800731) | more than 7 years ago | (#17355094)

Since you referred to them as the, "older generation", I suspect you heard what you wanted to hear rather than trying to understand what was trying to be said. Don't worry, it's a common trait of the "younger generation" to doubt anything and everything that's gone on before because, "what the hell", no one knows as much about the world and what should be done than the proverbial younger crowd. My 8 year old thinks candy for breakfast is a good idea... In an 8 year old, I can appreciate and be amused by her logic... in someone in your age group, it's cause for concern. Sadly, costly mistakes generation after generation are caused by NOT learning from the past, because the former generations are too old and senile to be given any credance. It's not a nationality issue, it's an older-wiser vs younger-enthusiastic issue. Remember the phrase, "Don't trust anyone over 30?" That's been every generations' motto.

Re:Ribbit (1)

nevillethedevil (1021497) | more than 7 years ago | (#17355292)

Actually not at all. I am a strong proponent of the saying " listen to the words of the very and old for both have wisdom beyond their years. I don't remember saying anything about nationality either The point I was trying to make, and I apologise if I didn't make it very clear, was that the very ideals that at least one member of the discussion had fought for were now being slowly eroded away. And that it was being done on such a way that even he couldn't see it. If he couldn't then is there hope for many others being able to?

Sadly a lot of the younger generation care more about who will be the next pop idol, than whats happening around them. To quote the roman poet Juvenal: "panem et circenses". And as for "Don't trust anyone over 30?", well I am close enough to that age to not believe it. In fact I know that it is those of us just below and just above that are going to end up living with the mistakes being made now.

It is time for change and time for some fresh blood.

Government Assurances (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17354964)

Like all government assurances, this is just lip service. You notice that no one is going to prison, no sanctions have been issued, etc.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>