The Long Knives Are Out For George Tenet

Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper

Svar
Deirdre Sholto Douglas

Re: The Long Knives Are Out For George Tenet

Legg inn av Deirdre Sholto Douglas » 26 aug 2007 19:33:56

Paul J Gans wrote:
In alt.history.british Deirdre Sholto Douglas <finch.enteract@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

Paul J Gans wrote:

In alt.history.british Deirdre Sholto Douglas <finch.enteract@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

Jack Linthicum wrote:

What do you call "frozen salt water"?

Sea ice.

Sea ice differs in its salt content by age. And the salt is
not distributed at all evenly throughout.

It's still frozen salt water...the lack of homogeneity
in a solid phase will not prevent it from being "salt
water" in a liquid one.

The basic point (nobody seems to want to actually try it) is
that there is a phase separation on freezing. What solidifes
first is essentially pure water.

Eventually the remaining water reaches the saturation point
and what then freezes out is essentially pure water with an
admixture of salt It looks cloudy because of the solid salt
present.

This is what happens if you freeze the salt water slowly. If
you freeze it rapidly you do get "frozen salt water". But it
isn't in equilibrium and will slowly revert.

Thus there is really no such thing as frozen salt water. What
you call it when it is melted has nothing to do with it.

"If you freeze it rapidly you do get "frozen salt water"."
and "no such thing as frozen salt water"...do you nor-
mally contradict yourself in the span of two paragraphs?

The question, Paul, wasn't "What do you call a frozen
ionically dissociated aqueous solution of sodium chloride?"
it was "What do you call frozen salt water?"

Most people, particularly those who don't live in a reagent
grade world, are referring to marine environments when
they say "salt water" and are making a distinction between
said environment and a lentic/lotic freshwater one…hence
the linguistic distinction between "sea ice" and "ice".

The fact that salt water does not freeze homogenously
(when frozen in a quiescent manner like an ice cube tray)
is irrelevant, the average Joe on the street doesn't give
a damn about heterogeneity, -21.1 C eutectic points,
brine density or porosity. They also don't care about the
salt being trapped in concentrated form in the air pockets
or migrating to the outer edge of the structure…they
want to know what to _call_ it because they know that
if they melt it, they can't drink it.

Frozen salt/oceanic water is called "sea ice", and given
that this is being crossed out to a naval group, I expect
someone, _somewhere_ has served on an ice breaker…
maybe you should ask them if homogeneity makes a dif-
ference in their terminology.

For what it's worth, frozen salt water apparently has
commercial applications as well...at least commercial if
you own a skating rink. Someone even managed to get
a patent on the method (US Patent 4467619).

Deirdre

Paul J Gans

Re: The Long Knives Are Out For George Tenet

Legg inn av Paul J Gans » 27 aug 2007 03:44:03

In alt.history.british Deirdre Sholto Douglas <finch.enteract@sbcglobal.net> wrote:


Paul J Gans wrote:

In alt.history.british Deirdre Sholto Douglas <finch.enteract@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

Paul J Gans wrote:

In alt.history.british Deirdre Sholto Douglas <finch.enteract@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

Jack Linthicum wrote:

What do you call "frozen salt water"?

Sea ice.

Sea ice differs in its salt content by age. And the salt is
not distributed at all evenly throughout.

It's still frozen salt water...the lack of homogeneity
in a solid phase will not prevent it from being "salt
water" in a liquid one.

The basic point (nobody seems to want to actually try it) is
that there is a phase separation on freezing. What solidifes
first is essentially pure water.

Eventually the remaining water reaches the saturation point
and what then freezes out is essentially pure water with an
admixture of salt It looks cloudy because of the solid salt
present.

This is what happens if you freeze the salt water slowly. If
you freeze it rapidly you do get "frozen salt water". But it
isn't in equilibrium and will slowly revert.

Thus there is really no such thing as frozen salt water. What
you call it when it is melted has nothing to do with it.

"If you freeze it rapidly you do get "frozen salt water"."
and "no such thing as frozen salt water"...do you nor-
mally contradict yourself in the span of two paragraphs?

Please don't show your ignorance. I happen to know that
you've had an elementary scientific education. Rapid freezing
produces a metastable state. It isn't a true anything.


The question, Paul, wasn't "What do you call a frozen
ionically dissociated aqueous solution of sodium chloride?"
it was "What do you call frozen salt water?"

There is no such thing. So you can call it "Barzooki"
for all it matters.

Most people, particularly those who don't live in a reagent
grade world, are referring to marine environments when
they say "salt water" and are making a distinction between
said environment and a lentic/lotic freshwater oneÂ…hence
the linguistic distinction between "sea ice" and "ice".

Aha, you want to use the word "lentic" but you don't
want to understand "equilibrium"... Very interesting...



The fact that salt water does not freeze homogenously
(when frozen in a quiescent manner like an ice cube tray)
is irrelevant, the average Joe on the street doesn't give
a damn about heterogeneity, -21.1 C eutectic points,
brine density or porosity. They also don't care about the
salt being trapped in concentrated form in the air pockets
or migrating to the outer edge of the structureÂ…they
want to know what to _call_ it because they know that
if they melt it, they can't drink it.

Actually, they can. If it is old ice and they wash off the
surface (since it has been sitting in salt water) they can
drink it just fine.

It is new ice that can't be consumed.


Frozen salt/oceanic water is called "sea ice", and given
that this is being crossed out to a naval group, I expect
someone, _somewhere_ has served on an ice breakerÂ…
maybe you should ask them if homogeneity makes a dif-
ference in their terminology.

No. The term "sea ice" refers to ice on the sea, not to
frozen salt water. It differentiates it from "land ice"
or "glacier".

For what it's worth, frozen salt water apparently has
commercial applications as well...at least commercial if
you own a skating rink. Someone even managed to get
a patent on the method (US Patent 4467619).

I'm glad to hear it.

You really don't like being crossed, do you?

--
--- Paul J. Gans

Tiglath

Re: The Long Knives Are Out For George Tenet

Legg inn av Tiglath » 27 aug 2007 06:40:53

On Aug 24, 9:58 pm, Ken Wood <ken_woo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Aug 24, 7:22 pm, Tiglath <te...@tiglath.net> wrote:



On Aug 24, 3:41 pm, Ken Wood <ken_woo...@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Aug 23, 4:32 pm, Tiglath <te...@tiglath.net> wrote:

On Aug 23, 6:07 pm, Ken Wood <ken_woo...@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Aug 23, 11:55 am, Tiglath <te...@tiglath.net> wrote:

On Aug 23, 11:13 am, Ken Wood <ken_woo...@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Aug 23, 8:31 am, Tiglath <te...@tiglath.net> wrote:

On Aug 22, 11:18 pm, "Ray O'Hara" <mary.palmu...@rcn.com> wrote:

"Tiglath" <te...@tiglath.net> wrote in message

news:1187818353.214431.135820@l22g2000prc.googlegroups.com...

On Aug 22, 3:07 pm, "Ray O'Hara" <mary.palmu...@rcn.com> wrote:
"Tiglath" <te...@tiglath.net> wrote in message

news:1187801726.685952.112280@j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com...

Monday morning quarterbacking.

a term used to excuse continuing failure.
successful NFL teams look at what happened sunday on monday to see what
happened and what needs to be fixed.

Which doesn't apply to 9/11, because nothing had happened on "Sunday";
only after it happened clever trevors "saw it coming."

that and the assessment. "bin laden determined to attack" that bush ignored.

"Monday morning quarterbacking" doesn't mean "post-mortem, lessons-
learned review" as you imply.

It means criticizing with the benefit of hindsight those who without
it failed to act in a winning way, especially in reference to dealing
with unforseen circumstances.

To say that Bush should not have invaded Iraq is not it, because the
current difficulties were far from unforseen.

To say that all cockpits should have been made hijack proof is it, for
nobody anticipated 9/11, even though Tenet did urged Rice to attack Al-
Qaeda in Afghanistan -- not quite the same.

Let's say that someone lives in a bad neighborhood with a lot of home
intrusions going on. It's only common sense that using flimsy doors,
poor locks and lack of a door peephole only invites trouble.
That's not hindsight.

Agree. And your example is not analogous to 9/11 either.

In the wake of decades of highjackings and suicide attacks using cars
and trucks, only one lacking in common sense would think that barring
access of terrorists and the insane to airliners' cockpits was
hindsight.

snip inanity

Inanity is saying that in 2001 plan hijackings were anything but a
thing of the past, with the added point that in the past there were no
suicide hijackers.

Inanity is arguing that the growing popularity of suicide bombing
could not have been foreseen to extend to airliners.

snip further inanity

And Ken adds the flourish of a strawman to camouflage his inane
argument.

This isn't even a good strawman that you are trying to erect.
snip further inanity

And Ken follows his inane strawman with an even more inane to
quoque.

He is on a roll.

Tiglath

Re: The Long Knives Are Out For George Tenet

Legg inn av Tiglath » 27 aug 2007 06:53:17

On Aug 24, 10:03 pm, Ken Wood <ken_woo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Aug 24, 7:29 pm, Tiglath <te...@tiglath.net> wrote:



On Aug 24, 3:57 pm, "D. Spencer Hines" <pant...@excelsior.com> wrote:

You don't think terrorists are smart enough to play out that scenario with a
number of tactics -- one of which is cutting the hydraulic lines?...

Or threatening to cut them and then dragging things out until they can have
their way?

Video cameras can be easily disabled.

No Ken and Ray see it perfectly logic that because Black September
hijacked planes in the 70s -- their so called precedent -- 30 years
later all of a sudden airlines CEOs wake up one morning feeling a
compulsion to sink further into the red by ordering a general
refitting of cockpit doors, just in case.

How stupid can people get projecting their hindsight?

The expenses of installing strong doors and a video system were minor.
You're showing your own stupidity in not recognizing that much or all
the impetus to effect such measures should have come from insurers and
re-insurers (as I pointed out in a prior post).
But go ahead and keep digging.

What a long rap sheet you would have if stupidity was a crime, Woody
Ken, lucky you.

Why on earth insurers and re-insurers (whatever that is) should wake
up one morning and decree that they are going to force all commercial
passenger aircraft on the planet to fortify their cockpits -- a
"small" bill according Ken Thick-as-Plank Wood -- just because a few
guys thought that since there were hijackings in the 70s and they has
STOPPED being a problem let us go anyway on a cockpit door spending
spree.

Ken thinks that people had a crystal ball back then, so they SHOULD
have known what Ken knows now.

In other words Ken is and KEEPS projecting his hindsight onto recent
history and he doesn't even know it yet.

Please tell us again the rational, in more detail, of how stupid
people were in 2001 for not knowing what Ken knows now.

Fascinating...

D. Spencer Hines

Re: The Long Knives Are Out For George Tenet

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 27 aug 2007 07:18:53

Bingo!

DSH

"Tiglath" <temp5@tiglath.net> wrote in message
news:1188193997.046692.294840@50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...

On Aug 24, 10:03 pm, Ken Wood <ken_woo...@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Aug 24, 7:29 pm, Tiglath <te...@tiglath.net> wrote:



On Aug 24, 3:57 pm, "D. Spencer Hines" <pant...@excelsior.com> wrote:

You don't think terrorists are smart enough to play out that scenario
with a number of tactics -- one of which is cutting the hydraulic
lines?...

Or threatening to cut them and then dragging things out until they
can have their way?

Video cameras can be easily disabled.

No Ken and Ray see it perfectly logic that because Black September
hijacked planes in the 70s -- their so called precedent -- 30 years
later all of a sudden airlines CEOs wake up one morning feeling a
compulsion to sink further into the red by ordering a general
refitting of cockpit doors, just in case.

How stupid can people get projecting their hindsight?

The expenses of installing strong doors and a video system were minor.
You're showing your own stupidity in not recognizing that much or all
the impetus to effect such measures should have come from insurers and
re-insurers (as I pointed out in a prior post).
But go ahead and keep digging.

What a long rap sheet you would have if stupidity was a crime, Woody
Ken, lucky you.

Why on earth insurers and re-insurers (whatever that is) should wake
up one morning and decree that they are going to force all commercial
passenger aircraft on the planet to fortify their cockpits -- a
"small" bill according Ken Thick-as-Plank Wood -- just because a few
guys thought that since there were hijackings in the 70s and they has
STOPPED being a problem let us go anyway on a cockpit door spending
spree.

Ken thinks that people had a crystal ball back then, so they SHOULD
have known what Ken knows now.

In other words Ken is and KEEPS projecting his hindsight onto recent
history and he doesn't even know it yet.

Please tell us again the rationale, in more detail, of how stupid
people were in 2001 for not knowing what Ken knows now.

Fascinating...

Brian Sharrock

Re: The Long Knives Are Out For George Tenet

Legg inn av Brian Sharrock » 27 aug 2007 09:46:38

"Vince" <firelaw@firelaw.us> wrote in message
news:9NydnSbO4NXx80zbnZ2dnUVZ_tvinZ2d@comcast.com...
Brian Sharrock wrote:
"Vince" <firelaw@firelaw.us> wrote in message
news:Y5ydnX5ZkduaVE3bnZ2dnUVZ_vCknZ2d@comcast.com...
Deirdre Sholto Douglas wrote:
Vince wrote:

FWIW I was from 1977-1991 Lecturer, Assistant prof, Associate
Professor
and Professor in the Consumer Economics program of the U of Maryland
Was your teaching as sloppy as your posts? I think readers can be
forgiven for believing that your lack of attention to detail wrt to
things like spelling and gram-
mar spills over into other areas of your life
They would be wrong since Posting is an amusement

however I am an awful speller and have even worse handwriting

I am told I must have been an absolute legal genius to pass the bar
first time out with my handicaps in spelling grammar and handwriting
writing

Vince


Do you attribute your 'pass the bar' to your genius or Affirmative
Action?


Grading the bar exam is anonymous

Vince

By implication; anonymous infers a written examination ? { And not a
'vote-for-Joe', multiple choice tick-the-box exam )
You've stated 'however I am an awful speller and have even worse
handwriting' so when the 'exam was ''graded which in your opinion did the
graders drop your scrip into; the 'absolute legal genius' (your (im)modest
assertion) pile _or_ the 'functionally dyslexic illiterate handicapped
(Affirmative Action) ' pile?


--

Brian

Jack Linthicum

Re: The Long Knives Are Out For George Tenet

Legg inn av Jack Linthicum » 27 aug 2007 11:01:31

On Aug 27, 4:46 am, "Brian Sharrock" <b.sharr...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
"Vince" <fire...@firelaw.us> wrote in message

news:9NydnSbO4NXx80zbnZ2dnUVZ_tvinZ2d@comcast.com...



Brian Sharrock wrote:
"Vince" <fire...@firelaw.us> wrote in message
news:Y5ydnX5ZkduaVE3bnZ2dnUVZ_vCknZ2d@comcast.com...
Deirdre Sholto Douglas wrote:
Vince wrote:

FWIW I was from 1977-1991 Lecturer, Assistant prof, Associate
Professor
and Professor in the Consumer Economics program of the U of Maryland
Was your teaching as sloppy as your posts? I think readers can be
forgiven for believing that your lack of attention to detail wrt to
things like spelling and gram-
mar spills over into other areas of your life
They would be wrong since Posting is an amusement

however I am an awful speller and have even worse handwriting

I am told I must have been an absolute legal genius to pass the bar
first time out with my handicaps in spelling grammar and handwriting
writing

Vince

Do you attribute your 'pass the bar' to your genius or Affirmative
Action?

Grading the bar exam is anonymous

Vince

By implication; anonymous infers a written examination ? { And not a
'vote-for-Joe', multiple choice tick-the-box exam )
You've stated 'however I am an awful speller and have even worse
handwriting' so when the 'exam was ''graded which in your opinion did the
graders drop your scrip into; the 'absolute legal genius' (your (im)modest
assertion) pile _or_ the 'functionally dyslexic illiterate handicapped
(Affirmative Action) ' pile?

--

Brian

Or "Have you thought about family practice medicine?"

Vince

Re: The Long Knives Are Out For George Tenet

Legg inn av Vince » 27 aug 2007 13:27:08

Brian Sharrock wrote:
"Vince" <firelaw@firelaw.us> wrote in message
news:9NydnSbO4NXx80zbnZ2dnUVZ_tvinZ2d@comcast.com...
Brian Sharrock wrote:
"Vince" <firelaw@firelaw.us> wrote in message
news:Y5ydnX5ZkduaVE3bnZ2dnUVZ_vCknZ2d@comcast.com...
Deirdre Sholto Douglas wrote:
Vince wrote:

FWIW I was from 1977-1991 Lecturer, Assistant prof, Associate
Professor
and Professor in the Consumer Economics program of the U of Maryland
Was your teaching as sloppy as your posts? I think readers can be
forgiven for believing that your lack of attention to detail wrt to
things like spelling and gram-
mar spills over into other areas of your life
They would be wrong since Posting is an amusement

however I am an awful speller and have even worse handwriting

I am told I must have been an absolute legal genius to pass the bar
first time out with my handicaps in spelling grammar and handwriting
writing

Vince

Do you attribute your 'pass the bar' to your genius or Affirmative
Action?

Grading the bar exam is anonymous

Vince

By implication; anonymous infers a written examination ? { And not a
'vote-for-Joe', multiple choice tick-the-box exam )
You've stated 'however I am an awful speller and have even worse
handwriting' so when the 'exam was ''graded which in your opinion did the
graders drop your scrip into; the 'absolute legal genius' (your (im)modest
assertion) pile _or_ the 'functionally dyslexic illiterate handicapped
(Affirmative Action) ' pile?

The Bar had two components a multiple choice "multistate bar exam" and a
handwritten Exam. You had to pass both components separately Each took
a full day.

The first time pass rate on the hand written exam was 47% in my year.

Vince

Tiglath

Re: The Long Knives Are Out For George Tenet

Legg inn av Tiglath » 27 aug 2007 15:26:36

On Aug 24, 10:06 pm, Andrew Swallow <am.swal...@btinternet.com> wrote:
Tiglath wrote:
On Aug 24, 1:18 am, "Ray O'Hara" <mary.palmu...@rcn.com> wrote:
"Tiglath" <te...@tiglath.net> wrote in message

news:1187908335.549893.322340@q4g2000prc.googlegroups.com...

On Aug 23, 6:07 pm, Ken Wood <ken_woo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
The fact remains that in 2001 there were NO PRECEDENTS of hijackers
flying planes into buildings, it was an INNOVATION. Live with it.
but there was precedent of PLANES BEING HIJACKED.
you are an idiot tiglette

The precedent was but a memory. We didn't have a hijacking problem
in 2001 as we did in the 70s. Stupid ass.

The fortified doors should have been fitted during the 1970s.


Why?

It was never the problem back then that the hijackers took over
piloting the plane and flew it into targets. The way the operated in
the 70s was by threatening to blow up the plane or kill people and
cockpit doors would not have helped that problem. Most of the crew
and lives are not in cockpit.

Tiglath

Re: The Long Knives Are Out For George Tenet

Legg inn av Tiglath » 27 aug 2007 15:38:57

On Aug 24, 11:26 pm, Deirdre Sholto Douglas
<finch.enter...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Andrew Swallow wrote:

Tiglath wrote:
On Aug 24, 1:18 am, "Ray O'Hara" <mary.palmu...@rcn.com> wrote:
"Tiglath" <te...@tiglath.net> wrote in message

news:1187908335.549893.322340@q4g2000prc.googlegroups.com...

On Aug 23, 6:07 pm, Ken Wood <ken_woo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
The fact remains that in 2001 there were NO PRECEDENTS of hijackers
flying planes into buildings, it was an INNOVATION. Live with it.
but there was precedent of PLANES BEING HIJACKED.
you are an idiot tiglette

The precedent was but a memory. We didn't have a hijacking problem
in 2001 as we did in the 70s. Stupid ass.

The fortified doors should have been fitted during the 1970s.

Some airlines did...El Al comes to mind.


El Al did much more than that. The secured the entire plane, putting
armed guards among the passengers and making airport security a
nightmare. I have to fly to Israel next month and I had to submit
security forms in advance to speed up the security checks in Tel Aviv.

The point so inanely being made here by the hindsight projectors is
that reinforced doors should have been put on planes before 9/11,
naturally.

I see no references from these people having foreseen 9/11 modus
operandi, yet they expect others to not only have foreseen it, but to
embark on a global refitting of aircraft, which additionally they
think was going to be inexpensive, without further qualification.

That from a business sector that has been strapped for profits for
decades and that continues to shave inches from legroom, give up nuts
for pretzels, and thinking of charging for air.

To think that people in such business will splash out on new doors
unless faced with the gravest of situations is inanely ignorant, and
to think that their insurers should have led the way is gonzo inane.

D. Spencer Hines

Re: The Long Knives Are Out For George Tenet

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 27 aug 2007 18:11:32

Tiglath, Jose Suriol, is correct here.

Yet Pogue Gans has been prattling and pontificating with this "They should
have fortified the cockpit doors" folderol for YEARS since 9/11.

Hilarious!

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

"Tiglath" <temp5@tiglath.net> wrote in message
news:1188225537.630256.105870@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com...

The fortified doors should have been fitted during the 1970s. [sop]

Some airlines did...El Al comes to mind. [sop]


El Al did much more than that. The secured the entire plane, putting
armed guards among the passengers and making airport security a
nightmare. I have to fly to Israel next month and I had to submit
security forms in advance to speed up the security checks in Tel Aviv.

The point so inanely being made here by the hindsight projectors is
that reinforced doors should have been put on planes before 9/11,
naturally.

I see no references from these people having foreseen 9/11 modus
operandi, yet they expect others to not only have foreseen it, but to
embark on a global refitting of aircraft, which additionally they
think was going to be inexpensive, without further qualification.

That from a business sector that has been strapped for profits for
decades and that continues to shave inches from legroom, give up nuts
for pretzels, and thinking of charging for air.

To think that people in such business will splash out on new doors
unless faced with the gravest of situations is inanely ignorant, and
to think that their insurers should have led the way is gonzo inane.

Ken Wood

Re: The Long Knives Are Out For George Tenet

Legg inn av Ken Wood » 27 aug 2007 19:02:11

On Aug 26, 11:53 pm, Tiglath <te...@tiglath.net> wrote:
On Aug 24, 10:03 pm, Ken Wood <ken_woo...@yahoo.com> wrote:





On Aug 24, 7:29 pm, Tiglath <te...@tiglath.net> wrote:

On Aug 24, 3:57 pm, "D. Spencer Hines" <pant...@excelsior.com> wrote:

You don't think terrorists are smart enough to play out that scenario with a
number of tactics -- one of which is cutting the hydraulic lines?...

Or threatening to cut them and then dragging things out until they can have
their way?

Video cameras can be easily disabled.

No Ken and Ray see it perfectly logic that because Black September
hijacked planes in the 70s -- their so called precedent -- 30 years
later all of a sudden airlines CEOs wake up one morning feeling a
compulsion to sink further into the red by ordering a general
refitting of cockpit doors, just in case.

How stupid can people get projecting their hindsight?

The expenses of installing strong doors and a video system were minor.
You're showing your own stupidity in not recognizing that much or all
the impetus to effect such measures should have come from insurers and
re-insurers (as I pointed out in a prior post).
But go ahead and keep digging.

What a long rap sheet you would have if stupidity was a crime, Woody
Ken, lucky you.

You follow the witless tactic of accusing others of your faults.

Why on earth insurers and re-insurers (whatever that is) should wake
up one morning and decree that they are going to force all commercial
passenger aircraft on the planet to fortify their cockpits -

Because assessing risks and scaling insurance premuims to them, or
withholding coverage entirely, is what insures and re-insurers are
supposed to do. School is starting again - ask one of your teachers.

<snip inanity>

Andrew Swallow

Re: The Long Knives Are Out For George Tenet

Legg inn av Andrew Swallow » 27 aug 2007 19:24:14

Tiglath wrote:
On Aug 24, 10:06 pm, Andrew Swallow <am.swal...@btinternet.com> wrote:
Tiglath wrote:
On Aug 24, 1:18 am, "Ray O'Hara" <mary.palmu...@rcn.com> wrote:
"Tiglath" <te...@tiglath.net> wrote in message
news:1187908335.549893.322340@q4g2000prc.googlegroups.com...
On Aug 23, 6:07 pm, Ken Wood <ken_woo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
The fact remains that in 2001 there were NO PRECEDENTS of hijackers
flying planes into buildings, it was an INNOVATION. Live with it.
but there was precedent of PLANES BEING HIJACKED.
you are an idiot tiglette
The precedent was but a memory. We didn't have a hijacking problem
in 2001 as we did in the 70s. Stupid ass.
The fortified doors should have been fitted during the 1970s.


Why?

It was never the problem back then that the hijackers took over
piloting the plane and flew it into targets. The way the operated in
the 70s was by threatening to blow up the plane or kill people and
cockpit doors would not have helped that problem. Most of the crew
and lives are not in cockpit.

Hijackers tended to use guns. The doors would have stopped them
pointing the guns at the pilots. The plane could then land where
it wants to, including military airports.

Andrew Swallow

Jack Linthicum

Re: The Long Knives Are Out For George Tenet

Legg inn av Jack Linthicum » 27 aug 2007 19:53:47

On Aug 27, 2:24 pm, Andrew Swallow <am.swal...@btinternet.com> wrote:
Tiglath wrote:
On Aug 24, 10:06 pm, Andrew Swallow <am.swal...@btinternet.com> wrote:
Tiglath wrote:
On Aug 24, 1:18 am, "Ray O'Hara" <mary.palmu...@rcn.com> wrote:
"Tiglath" <te...@tiglath.net> wrote in message
news:1187908335.549893.322340@q4g2000prc.googlegroups.com...
On Aug 23, 6:07 pm, Ken Wood <ken_woo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
The fact remains that in 2001 there were NO PRECEDENTS of hijackers
flying planes into buildings, it was an INNOVATION. Live with it.
but there was precedent of PLANES BEING HIJACKED.
you are an idiot tiglette
The precedent was but a memory. We didn't have a hijacking problem
in 2001 as we did in the 70s. Stupid ass.
The fortified doors should have been fitted during the 1970s.

Why?

It was never the problem back then that the hijackers took over
piloting the plane and flew it into targets. The way the operated in
the 70s was by threatening to blow up the plane or kill people and
cockpit doors would not have helped that problem. Most of the crew
and lives are not in cockpit.

Hijackers tended to use guns. The doors would have stopped them
pointing the guns at the pilots. The plane could then land where
it wants to, including military airports.

Andrew Swallow

Omitting the homicidal maniac, especially recruited for the next part,
where he drags a pregnant woman up to the door of the cockpit and
shoots her in the head, followed by two small children and the best
looking flight attendant. Attention getter.

Tiglath

Re: The Long Knives Are Out For George Tenet

Legg inn av Tiglath » 27 aug 2007 20:02:32

On Aug 27, 2:24 pm, Andrew Swallow <am.swal...@btinternet.com> wrote:
Tiglath wrote:
On Aug 24, 10:06 pm, Andrew Swallow <am.swal...@btinternet.com> wrote:
Tiglath wrote:
On Aug 24, 1:18 am, "Ray O'Hara" <mary.palmu...@rcn.com> wrote:
"Tiglath" <te...@tiglath.net> wrote in message
news:1187908335.549893.322340@q4g2000prc.googlegroups.com...
On Aug 23, 6:07 pm, Ken Wood <ken_woo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
The fact remains that in 2001 there were NO PRECEDENTS of hijackers
flying planes into buildings, it was an INNOVATION. Live with it.
but there was precedent of PLANES BEING HIJACKED.
you are an idiot tiglette
The precedent was but a memory. We didn't have a hijacking problem
in 2001 as we did in the 70s. Stupid ass.
The fortified doors should have been fitted during the 1970s.

Why?

It was never the problem back then that the hijackers took over
piloting the plane and flew it into targets. The way the operated in
the 70s was by threatening to blow up the plane or kill people and
cockpit doors would not have helped that problem. Most of the crew
and lives are not in cockpit.

Hijackers tended to use guns. The doors would have stopped them
pointing the guns at the pilots. The plane could then land where
it wants to, including military airports.

Andrew Swallow

Wrong again.

What happens when you fire a gun inside an airplane? Did you ever see
Goldfinger?

Doors were not strengthened in the 70s because were useless against
the threat presented. The threat was to kill passengers and crew,
which happened to be on the wrong side of the cockpit.

If you forget 9/11, what pilot would have remained unflinching behind
a secure door while the slaughter of hundreds of passengers proceeded,
knowing by precedent that he could avoid it by flying the hijackers to
Cuba or wherever they demanded to go.

Just imagine a pilot who remained safe and landed in a military base
with all passengers and crew dead?

It worked differently then; hijackers didn't want to die unless they
had to, and everybody understood that. The best thing was always to
do as the hijacker wanted.

Therefore stronger doors were totally irrelevant.

You guys still don't get it. Doors become relevant only when you
know that the hijackers intent is to take the pilot seat and do a
9/11. But that was never the case before 9/11. Therefore stronger
doors would in fact made things worse in the 70s, for with the door
open the hijacker can see that the pilots are doing as he commands and
therefore things don't go to the next level.

Tiglath

Re: The Long Knives Are Out For George Tenet

Legg inn av Tiglath » 27 aug 2007 20:20:33

On Aug 27, 2:02 pm, Ken Wood <ken_woo...@yahoo.com> wrote:


But go ahead and keep digging.

What a long rap sheet you would have if stupidity was a crime, Woody
Ken, lucky you.

You follow the witless tactic of accusing others of your faults.


I call them as I see them. You have not presented yet ANY evidence
of why people should have had a world wide reaction to
a kind of attack that was not expected.

When are you going to show us your pre-9/11 posts warning the airlines
that suicide bombers were going to commandeer their aircrafts?
Until you do you are pissing against the wind.


Why on earth insurers and re-insurers (whatever that is) should wake
up one morning and decree that they are going to force all commercial
passenger aircraft on the planet to fortify their cockpits -

Because assessing risks and scaling insurance premuims to them, or
withholding coverage entirely, is what insures and re-insurers are
supposed to do.

What is your evidence that actuaries didn't do their job before 9/11?

What do you think actuaries use for risk assessment, a crystal ball?

Woody Ken can't yet explain WHY it was warranted to go on a global
plane refitting on a danger that was neither clear nor present.

With dumb blond persistence, Ken re-states his argument without
evidence or even a line of reasoning of why he is correct, as if
repeating it will make it true.

Woody needs a two-by-four upside the head to get him unstuck and tell
us WHY it is to be expected airlines or their insurers had spent a lot
of money to prepare against a danger that ws clearly unforeseen,
unprecedented, and far from imminent.


snip inanity

Ken circumcises himself online.

Ken Wood

Re: The Long Knives Are Out For George Tenet

Legg inn av Ken Wood » 27 aug 2007 21:32:38

On Aug 27, 1:02 pm, Tiglath <te...@tiglath.net> wrote:
On Aug 27, 2:24 pm, Andrew Swallow <am.swal...@btinternet.com> wrote:





Tiglath wrote:
On Aug 24, 10:06 pm, Andrew Swallow <am.swal...@btinternet.com> wrote:
Tiglath wrote:
On Aug 24, 1:18 am, "Ray O'Hara" <mary.palmu...@rcn.com> wrote:
"Tiglath" <te...@tiglath.net> wrote in message
news:1187908335.549893.322340@q4g2000prc.googlegroups.com...
On Aug 23, 6:07 pm, Ken Wood <ken_woo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
The fact remains that in 2001 there were NO PRECEDENTS of hijackers
flying planes into buildings, it was an INNOVATION. Live with it.
but there was precedent of PLANES BEING HIJACKED.
you are an idiot tiglette
The precedent was but a memory. We didn't have a hijacking problem
in 2001 as we did in the 70s. Stupid ass.
The fortified doors should have been fitted during the 1970s.

Why?

It was never the problem back then that the hijackers took over
piloting the plane and flew it into targets. The way the operated in
the 70s was by threatening to blow up the plane or kill people and
cockpit doors would not have helped that problem. Most of the crew
and lives are not in cockpit.

Hijackers tended to use guns. The doors would have stopped them
pointing the guns at the pilots. The plane could then land where
it wants to, including military airports.

Andrew Swallow

Wrong again.

What happens when you fire a gun inside an airplane? Did you ever see
Goldfinger?

Here we see just how informed this person is. It was a *movie* and a
poor one at that.

DEBUNKING THE MYTHS OF GUNS ON PLANES
One objection that Senate offices may throw at you is this supposed
idea that a bullet hole in an airplane's hull can cause catastrophic
depressurization or cause the ship to crash. First, one should note
that such an argument against pilots carrying guns would also apply to
Federal Air Marshals. But the fact is, pre-fragmented ammo can
minimize the supposed risks of a bullet puncturing a plane's hull.

Having said that, writer David Kopel (along with author and pilot,
Captain David Petteys) notes that the risks related to the hull being
punctured are greatly exaggerated. In a recent National Review Online
article dated September 16, they state, "There is only one known
instance in which a bullet hole in an aircraft frame yanked objects
across the plane, expanded, and sucked a person out into the sky. That
was the James Bond movie Goldfinger. The movie was not intended to
teach real-life lessons about physics." (Go to
http://www.nationalreview.com/kopel/kopel091401.shtml to read the
entire article.)

Aircraft engineers have likewise downplayed the ability of a few
bullets to depressurize a plane. "If one round, or two or three for
that matter pierce the skin [of a plane]," says Dan Todd, a licensed
aircraft engineer for 20 years, "it's not necessarily catastrophic."
Todd says that in such a case, "air will go whistling out the hole,
and the outflow valve will close a little further to maintain the
desired cabin pressure." Another engineer notes that "a Boeing 747 can
lose five cabin windows and maintain cabin pressure." (Go to
https://www.keepandbeararms.com/informa ... sp?ID=2474
for articles dispelling myths relating to guns & planes.)


Doors were not strengthened in the 70s because were useless against
the threat presented. The threat was to kill passengers and crew,
which happened to be on the wrong side of the cockpit.

If you forget 9/11, what pilot would have remained unflinching behind
a secure door while the slaughter of hundreds of passengers proceeded,
knowing by precedent that he could avoid it by flying the hijackers to
Cuba or wherever they demanded to go.

Just imagine a pilot who remained safe and landed in a military base
with all passengers and crew dead?

Again, you display ignorance.
For a long time it has been very dificult to get guns on airplanes.
The 911 highjackers would have preferred guns to small blades if they
could have smuggled them on. Anyone trying to murder people with a
blade would be overwhelmed quickly.
However, what if someone did get a gun on the plane and shot a few
people and the pilots ignored it and landed at the nearest airfield?
They would be praised for following the same dictum that the US Govt.
follows in not giving in to terrorist demands, even when they involve
threats of murder on hostages.



It worked differently then; hijackers didn't want to die unless they
had to, and everybody understood that. The best thing was always to
do as the hijacker wanted.

Therefore stronger doors were totally irrelevant.

Days ago I pointed out that the onset of suicide bombings, often
involving cars, trucks and public conveyances (buses most often) in
the early '80's onward changed the risk profile of the situation for
airlines.

You guys still don't get it.

No, it is *you* who doesn't get it.



Doors become relevant only when you
know that the hijackers intent is to take the pilot seat and do a
9/11. But that was never the case before 9/11. Therefore stronger
doors would in fact made things worse in the 70s, for with the door
open the hijacker can see that the pilots are doing as he commands and
therefore things don't go to the next level.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Ken Wood

Re: The Long Knives Are Out For George Tenet

Legg inn av Ken Wood » 27 aug 2007 21:35:00

On Aug 27, 1:02 pm, Tiglath <te...@tiglath.net> wrote:
On Aug 27, 2:24 pm, Andrew Swallow <am.swal...@btinternet.com> wrote:





Tiglath wrote:
On Aug 24, 10:06 pm, Andrew Swallow <am.swal...@btinternet.com> wrote:
Tiglath wrote:
On Aug 24, 1:18 am, "Ray O'Hara" <mary.palmu...@rcn.com> wrote:
"Tiglath" <te...@tiglath.net> wrote in message
news:1187908335.549893.322340@q4g2000prc.googlegroups.com...
On Aug 23, 6:07 pm, Ken Wood <ken_woo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
The fact remains that in 2001 there were NO PRECEDENTS of hijackers
flying planes into buildings, it was an INNOVATION. Live with it.
but there was precedent of PLANES BEING HIJACKED.
you are an idiot tiglette
The precedent was but a memory. We didn't have a hijacking problem
in 2001 as we did in the 70s. Stupid ass.
The fortified doors should have been fitted during the 1970s.

Why?

It was never the problem back then that the hijackers took over
piloting the plane and flew it into targets. The way the operated in
the 70s was by threatening to blow up the plane or kill people and
cockpit doors would not have helped that problem. Most of the crew
and lives are not in cockpit.

Hijackers tended to use guns. The doors would have stopped them
pointing the guns at the pilots. The plane could then land where
it wants to, including military airports.

Andrew Swallow

Wrong again.

What happens when you fire a gun inside an airplane? Did you ever see
Goldfinger?

Why am I wasting time on you? That is a ridiculous wives tale.

Anyway, just to show how tolerant and well disposed I am:

DEBUNKING THE MYTHS OF GUNS ON PLANES
One objection that Senate offices may throw at you is this supposed
idea that a bullet hole in an airplane's hull can cause catastrophic
depressurization or cause the ship to crash. First, one should note
that such an argument against pilots carrying guns would also apply to
Federal Air Marshals. But the fact is, pre-fragmented ammo can
minimize the supposed risks of a bullet puncturing a plane's hull.

Having said that, writer David Kopel (along with author and pilot,
Captain David Petteys) notes that the risks related to the hull being
punctured are greatly exaggerated. In a recent National Review Online
article dated September 16, they state, "There is only one known
instance in which a bullet hole in an aircraft frame yanked objects
across the plane, expanded, and sucked a person out into the sky. That
was the James Bond movie Goldfinger. The movie was not intended to
teach real-life lessons about physics." (Go to
http://www.nationalreview.com/kopel/kopel091401.shtml to read the
entire article.)

Aircraft engineers have likewise downplayed the ability of a few
bullets to depressurize a plane. "If one round, or two or three for
that matter pierce the skin [of a plane]," says Dan Todd, a licensed
aircraft engineer for 20 years, "it's not necessarily catastrophic."
Todd says that in such a case, "air will go whistling out the hole,
and the outflow valve will close a little further to maintain the
desired cabin pressure." Another engineer notes that "a Boeing 747 can
lose five cabin windows and maintain cabin pressure." (Go to
https://www.keepandbeararms.com/informa ... sp?ID=2474
for articles dispelling myths relating to guns & planes.)

<snip further inanities>

Ken Wood

Re: The Long Knives Are Out For George Tenet

Legg inn av Ken Wood » 27 aug 2007 21:40:02

On Aug 27, 1:20 pm, Tiglath <te...@tiglath.net> wrote:
On Aug 27, 2:02 pm, Ken Wood <ken_woo...@yahoo.com> wrote:

But go ahead and keep digging.

What a long rap sheet you would have if stupidity was a crime, Woody
Ken, lucky you.

You follow the witless tactic of accusing others of your faults.

I call them as I see them. You have not presented yet ANY evidence
of why people should have had a world wide reaction to
a kind of attack that was not expected.

Someone should post a list of terrorist suicide bombing attacks on
public conveyances leading up to 911.
Also, he apparently has never heard of the term "kamikaze".




When are you going to show us your pre-9/11 posts warning the airlines
that suicide bombers were going to commandeer their aircrafts?
Until you do you are pissing against the wind.

Why on earth insurers and re-insurers (whatever that is) should wake
up one morning and decree that they are going to force all commercial
passenger aircraft on the planet to fortify their cockpits -

Because assessing risks and scaling insurance premuims to them, or
withholding coverage entirely, is what insures and re-insurers are
supposed to do.

What is your evidence that actuaries didn't do their job before 9/11?

What do you think actuaries use for risk assessment, a crystal ball?

Woody Ken can't yet explain WHY it was warranted to go on a global
plane refitting on a danger that was neither clear nor present.

With dumb blond persistence, Ken re-states his argument without
evidence or even a line of reasoning of why he is correct, as if
repeating it will make it true.

Woody needs a two-by-four upside the head to get him unstuck and tell
us WHY it is to be expected airlines or their insurers had spent a lot
of money to prepare against a danger that ws clearly unforeseen,
unprecedented, and far from imminent.

Well chiklet, because appraising risk and adjusting insurance and
premiums is their job.
As demonstrated by your stupidity re. firing a gun in a pressurized
aircraft, it is you who need the 2x4 upside the head.



snip inanity

Ken circumcises himself online.

The Goldfinger thing says it all.

Tiglath

Re: The Long Knives Are Out For George Tenet

Legg inn av Tiglath » 27 aug 2007 22:09:52

On Aug 27, 4:32 pm, Ken Wood <ken_woo...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Andrew Swallow

Wrong again.

What happens when you fire a gun inside an airplane? Did you ever see
Goldfinger?

Here we see just how informed this person is. It was a *movie* and a
poor one at that.

DEBUNKING THE MYTHS OF GUNS ON PLANES
One objection that Senate offices may throw at you is this supposed
idea that a bullet hole in an airplane's hull can cause catastrophic
depressurization or cause the ship to crash. First, one should note
that such an argument against pilots carrying guns would also apply to
Federal Air Marshals. But the fact is, pre-fragmented ammo can
minimize the supposed risks of a bullet puncturing a plane's hull.


Here we see, again, my interlocutor making MY POINT for me.

There you have it folks, Ken's evidence tells us that you need PRE-
FRAGMENTED AMMO in order to minimize (not eliminate) the risk of
perforating the plane's hull.

In other words, Ken counts on terrorists choosing their ammo as
judiciously as Air Marshals do.

That is, Ken's inanity reaches a new high.

Hilarious.




Another engineer notes that "a Boeing 747 can
lose five cabin windows and maintain cabin pressure."

Ken still doesn't get it.

Even in the 70s most pistols carried more than five bullets.

And why is Ken loading the dice by telling us how the bullets would be
spent? If an armed hijacker wanted to down the plane, would he shoot
the ceiling or the windows? He would look for places to shoot the
plane where it would hurt it. Ken forgets that a cockpit door
secures the cockpit and NOTHING ELSE.


Just imagine a pilot who remained safe and landed in a military base
with all passengers and crew dead?

Again, you display ignorance.
For a long time it has been very dificult to get guns on airplanes.
The 911 highjackers
would have preferred guns to small blades if they
could have smuggled them on.

Ken is now trying to confuse the argument. The argument is NOT about
how hard it is to get a gun onboard a plane; the argument is if about
prior to 9/11, there was a precedent, or a clear and present threat
against pilots losing control of their aircraft to terrorists, that
would have called for strong cockpits.

This is very simple. If that threat was clear and present then a lot
of people deserve Ken's admonition, if it was not they Ken is
projecting his hindsight to make himself look smarter than he is.

To continue the side point of getting guns on board. THAT was the
problem in the 70s, and effective measures were taken, so 9/11
hijackers had to use box-cutters instead. It shows, clearly how
these things work. The danger presents itself; if it is only once
little is done, but when it becomes a great risk and a threat to
business, and ONLY THEN, airlines go to the trouble to introduce new,
expensive security.

It clearly illustrates also how it does not work as Inane Ken expects,
that because someone can name a threat, on its mere probability
billions are spent on new security.



It worked differently then; hijackers didn't want to die unless they
had to, and everybody understood that. The best thing was always to
do as the hijacker wanted.

Therefore stronger doors were totally irrelevant.

Days ago I pointed out that the onset of suicide bombings, often
involving cars, trucks and public conveyances (buses most often) in
the early '80's onward changed the risk profile of the situation for
airlines.


That you think so doesn't make it true. Show some supporting evidence
at long last that such threat was something so highly probably before
9/11 that warranted costly action.

When are you going to do that?

How can you expect airlines and actuaries to have anticipated 9/11 if
not even the intelligence community did?

Not to mention that Woody Ken did not either.

Ken Wood

Re: The Long Knives Are Out For George Tenet

Legg inn av Ken Wood » 27 aug 2007 22:24:12

On Aug 27, 3:09 pm, Tiglath <te...@tiglath.net> wrote:
On Aug 27, 4:32 pm, Ken Wood <ken_woo...@yahoo.com> wrote:







Andrew Swallow

Wrong again.

What happens when you fire a gun inside an airplane? Did you ever see
Goldfinger?

Here we see just how informed this person is. It was a *movie* and a
poor one at that.

DEBUNKING THE MYTHS OF GUNS ON PLANES
One objection that Senate offices may throw at you is this supposed
idea that a bullet hole in an airplane's hull can cause catastrophic
depressurization or cause the ship to crash. First, one should note
that such an argument against pilots carrying guns would also apply to
Federal Air Marshals. But the fact is, pre-fragmented ammo can
minimize the supposed risks of a bullet puncturing a plane's hull.

Here we see, again, my interlocutor making MY POINT for me.

Like hell I am. You're desparate and making a fool of yourself.

You thought a grade B movie showing that a firearm discharged in an
airliner causing a catasrophy was true. Most people know that isn't
true. About 10 years ago the whole top forward portion of an airliner
came off in flight and a few peope were sucked out of the plane but
the aircraft did make it back to an airfield in Hawaii.

From a quick Google

DEBUNKING THE MYTHS OF GUNS ON PLANES
One objection that Senate offices may throw at you is this supposed
idea that a bullet hole in an airplane's hull can cause catastrophic
depressurization or cause the ship to crash. First, one should note
that such an argument against pilots carrying guns would also apply to
Federal Air Marshals. But the fact is, pre-fragmented ammo can
minimize the supposed risks of a bullet puncturing a plane's hull.

Having said that, writer David Kopel (along with author and pilot,
Captain David Petteys) notes that the risks related to the hull being
punctured are greatly exaggerated. In a recent National Review Online
article dated September 16, they state, "There is only one known
instance in which a bullet hole in an aircraft frame yanked objects
across the plane, expanded, and sucked a person out into the sky. That
was the James Bond movie Goldfinger. The movie was not intended to
teach real-life lessons about physics." (Go to
http://www.nationalreview.com/kopel/kopel091401.shtml to read the
entire article.)

Aircraft engineers have likewise downplayed the ability of a few
bullets to depressurize a plane. "If one round, or two or three for
that matter pierce the skin [of a plane]," says Dan Todd, a licensed
aircraft engineer for 20 years, "it's not necessarily catastrophic."
Todd says that in such a case, "air will go whistling out the hole,
and the outflow valve will close a little further to maintain the
desired cabin pressure." Another engineer notes that "a Boeing 747 can
lose five cabin windows and maintain cabin pressure." (Go to
https://www.keepandbeararms.com/informa ... sp?ID=2474
for articles dispelling myths relating to guns & planes.)

There you have it folks, Ken's evidence tells us that you need PRE-
FRAGMENTED AMMO in order to minimize (not eliminate) the risk of
perforating the plane's hull.

Read the report, witless one.

<snip further inane wriggling>

Deirdre Sholto Douglas

Re: The Long Knives Are Out For George Tenet

Legg inn av Deirdre Sholto Douglas » 28 aug 2007 01:41:15

Paul J Gans wrote:
In alt.history.british Deirdre Sholto Douglas <finch.enteract@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

Please don't show your ignorance. I happen to know that
you've had an elementary scientific education. Rapid freezing
produces a metastable state. It isn't a true anything.

You happen to know very little about me, Paul, so I
suggest you not pretend otherwise about _any_
aspect my life. I'm not one of your slack-jawed,
students sucking up for a grade and academics,
by and large, don't impress me (particularly not
those who've only published three times in sixteen
years). A frighteningly large percentage haven't
done any original thinking since their dissertation
and are little more than intellectually moribund
parrots teaching the same basic principles semes-
ter after semester...you appear to be one of them.

Most people, particularly those who don't live in a reagent
grade world, are referring to marine environments when
they say "salt water" and are making a distinction between
said environment and a lentic/lotic freshwater oneÂ…hence
the linguistic distinction between "sea ice" and "ice".

Aha, you want to use the word "lentic" but you don't
want to understand "equilibrium"... Very interesting...

The equilibrium state of a compound has _nothing_ to
do with its common name.

The fact that salt water does not freeze homogenously
(when frozen in a quiescent manner like an ice cube tray)
is irrelevant, the average Joe on the street doesn't give
a damn about heterogeneity, -21.1 C eutectic points,
brine density or porosity. They also don't care about the
salt being trapped in concentrated form in the air pockets
or migrating to the outer edge of the structureÂ…they
want to know what to _call_ it because they know that
if they melt it, they can't drink it.

Actually, they can. If it is old ice and they wash off the
surface (since it has been sitting in salt water) they can
drink it just fine.

It is new ice that can't be consumed.

I thought salt water didn't freeze, so how can you even
call it "ice", new or old? And assuming it _does_ freeze,
(as the "new ice" statement would imply) if it's, as you
allege, fresh water, why isn't it potable when melted?

Could the reason be...wait for it...salt content in the ice?
Hm. However did that salt get there? Obviously it couldn't
have been in the water because "salt water doesn't freeze",
so maybe it just magic(k)ally appeared out of the air and
implanted itself in the ice. Nice to see you've not lost your
"a miracle occurs here" edge from organic chem.

Frozen salt/oceanic water is called "sea ice", and given
that this is being crossed out to a naval group, I expect
someone, _somewhere_ has served on an ice breakerÂ…
maybe you should ask them if homogeneity makes a dif-
ference in their terminology.

No. The term "sea ice" refers to ice on the sea, not to
frozen salt water. It differentiates it from "land ice"
or "glacier".

It also has a salt content. I tell you what, Mr. Professor,
why don't you run out and nick a piece of sea ice, put
it in a beaker and let it melt. Do the same to a piece
from the ice-maker (I'll even give you a sodium fluoride
handicap if it's tap water and not deionised) and then,
when both are liquid, stick a conductivity meter in there
and check ionic strength...I guarantee the two won't be
the same.

Failing that, take the cheap way out (in case your Fine
Academic Institution's budget doesn't run to conductivity
meters) and measure the density of the ice itself...it won't
be the same either, but obviously you won't believe it until
you do the measurements, so have at it.

You really don't like being crossed, do you?

I don't mind being crossed, I just don't much like your
tendency to dance around the realities of a topic.

Deirdre

Deirdre Sholto Douglas

Re: The Long Knives Are Out For George Tenet

Legg inn av Deirdre Sholto Douglas » 28 aug 2007 02:02:43

Tiglath wrote:
On Aug 24, 11:26 pm, Deirdre Sholto Douglas
finch.enter...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

The fortified doors should have been fitted during the 1970s.

Some airlines did...El Al comes to mind.


El Al did much more than that. The secured the entire plane, putting
armed guards among the passengers and making airport security a
nightmare. I have to fly to Israel next month and I had to submit
security forms in advance to speed up the security checks in Tel Aviv.

It's been years since I've been on El Al but I remember
the guards and the forms...and the delays...the com-
bination of El Al plus O'Hare was _lethal_ in the late
'80s.

The point so inanely being made here by the hindsight projectors is
that reinforced doors should have been put on planes before 9/11,
naturally.

Those which thought they had reason to, did so...
but I agree, no one particularly thought domestic
carriers on domestic flights (which all the 9/11
planes were) were "high risk" prior to 2001.

That from a business sector that has been strapped for profits for
decades and that continues to shave inches from legroom, give up nuts
for pretzels, and thinking of charging for air.

And bankrupts anyway. The number of Chapter
11 reorgs in that sector is mind-boggling.

To think that people in such business will splash out on new doors
unless faced with the gravest of situations is inanely ignorant, and
to think that their insurers should have led the way is gonzo inane.

20/20 hindsight is a wonderful thing, it makes
experts of everyone.

Deirdre

Tiglath

Re: The Long Knives Are Out For George Tenet

Legg inn av Tiglath » 28 aug 2007 02:36:41

On Aug 27, 4:40 pm, Ken Wood <ken_woo...@yahoo.com> wrote:

I call them as I see them. You have not presented yet ANY evidence
of why people should have had a world wide reaction to
a kind of attack that was not expected.

Someone should post a list of terrorist suicide bombing attacks on
public conveyances leading up to 911.

Why someone? It's YOU who is in dire need to support your claim.

And when you get round to it add why suicide bombings herald the
tactics used by Bin Lade on 9/11. I would like you to tell the Fair
Readers how such bombings constitute a clear and present danger of
having a few airplanes hijacked with box cutters and expertly flown
into buildings. Why don't you do that?



Also, he apparently has never heard of the term "kamikaze".

Hmmm. Ken's logic takes an even worse tumble here. Just because
the Japanese used suicide pilots sixty years ago, airliners and their
insurers HAD to infer that a hijacking like 9/11 was imminent.

Bravo.





When are you going to show us your pre-9/11 posts warning the airlines
that suicide bombers were going to commandeer their aircrafts?
Until you do you are pissing against the wind.

Why on earth insurers and re-insurers (whatever that is) should wake
up one morning and decree that they are going to force all commercial
passenger aircraft on the planet to fortify their cockpits -

Because assessing risks and scaling insurance premuims to them, or
withholding coverage entirely, is what insures and re-insurers are
supposed to do.

What is your evidence that actuaries didn't do their job before 9/11?

What do you think actuaries use for risk assessment, a crystal ball?

Woody Ken can't yet explain WHY it was warranted to go on a global
plane refitting on a danger that was neither clear nor present.

With dumb blond persistence, Ken re-states his argument without
evidence or even a line of reasoning of why he is correct, as if
repeating it will make it true.

Woody needs a two-by-four upside the head to get him unstuck and tell
us WHY it is to be expected airlines or their insurers had spent a lot
of money to prepare against a danger that ws clearly unforeseen,
unprecedented, and far from imminent.

Well chiklet, because appraising risk and adjusting insurance and
premiums is their job.

Hindsight is still all over Woody Ken's answers. Actuaries obviously
didn't rate Kamikaze pilots very high in their risk scale.
Surprise. More than sixty years have passed since Kamikazes kill
anyone, and as you said it was very hard to smuggle lethal weapons
onboard to effect a takeover, therefore there were no indicators that
the risk of Kamikaze pilots warranted to spend a fortune on preventive
measures.

The problem you keep having is that you think that the threat was
obvious enough to invest heavily on preventive measures, but the
experts and most people with a brain don't.

Unfortunately you REMAIN unable to show that such thread was
obvious. Your leaps of logic from kamikazes to 9/11, from home
intrusions to 9/11, and from regular suicide bombings to 9/11, lack
the glue of reality, and inform the readers of you inability to make
correct inferences.

Ken also uses 9/11 hindsight as a validation of what happen on 9/11 as
a certain risk, when in fact the 9/11 terrrorists had all the luck of
the world and them some.

I doubt very much they aimed at demolishing the towers. They must
have hoped at best to devastate a few floors. They were immensely
lucky that people didn't react to the fact that they were not heavily
armed. The passengers that did, could well have succeded and put
manage to land the plane. If it happened in one plane it could have
happened on others. So 9/11 could WELL have been a much smaller
disaster, and mostly luck rather than design brought about the immense
tragedy.

It is in fact highly surprising that men armed with tiny blades could
have controlled so many people for so long.
The herd mentality was on their side.

Ken STILL remains unable to explain how Kamikaze pilots were a clear
and present great danger in this century prior to 9/11.

Ken STILL remains unable to explain was it is a sound business
practice to spend hundreds of millions of dollar on what it is not a
clear and present great danger...

Why is that?


As demonstrated by your stupidity re. firing a gun in a pressurized
aircraft, it is you who need the 2x4 upside the head.

snip inanity

Ken circumcises himself online.

The Goldfinger thing says it all.

You are making another strawman when you argue that a bullet would not
destroy a plane's airframe. No one has said it would and, I did not
see the plane hull being destroyed in Goldfinger, did you?

Would you want your blockhead next to an airplane window before it
shattered with a pressure differenctial of 9 psi?

You contradict yourself. If there is no danger from firing bullets
in a pressurized cabin why did your source recommend the use of
prefragmented ammo with all its drawbacks when you more than ever need
a kill per shot?

Make up your mind, Woody.

Ken Wood

Re: The Long Knives Are Out For George Tenet

Legg inn av Ken Wood » 28 aug 2007 02:46:51

On Aug 27, 7:02 pm, Deirdre Sholto Douglas
<finch.enter...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

To think that people in such business will splash out on new doors
unless faced with the gravest of situations is inanely ignorant, and
to think that their insurers should have led the way is gonzo inane.

20/20 hindsight is a wonderful thing, it makes
experts of everyone.

Deirdre


Criticism for errors of omission are often, but not always,
hindsighting. Sometimes its more along the line of common sense.
Fortified cockpit doors are not a total answer to 911 type situations,
but they are an important part of any solution. And it took no great
foresight to see the need for them.

As for hindsight, take a look at this Salon article published about 17
months before 911.


salon.com > Travel April 8, 2000
URL: http://www.salon.com/travel/diary/hest/ ... 8/cockpits

Cockpit assault

Since July 1997, over a dozen passengers have attempted to breach
cockpit doors during commercial airline flights. We've been lucky so
far.

- - - - - - - - - - - -
By Elliott Neal Hester

On March 16, aboard Alaska Airlines flight 259 from Puerto Vallarta,
Mexico, to San Francisco, a man did something that angry, frightened,
deranged and intoxicated passengers are doing with alarming frequency
these days: He broke through the cockpit door and attacked the pilots.
Provoked (or so his attorney claims) by a bad reaction to blood-
pressure medicine, Peter Bradley, 39, shouted, "I'm going to kill
you," and lunged for the controls.

Having been alerted of the impending attack, the co-pilot was armed
with an ax. He fought with Bradley, suffering a cut to his hand that
would require eight stitches. Struggling to fly the plane during this
tight-quartered assault, the pilot made an urgent plea for help over
the intercom. At least seven passengers responded. The 6-foot-2, 250-
pound assailant was snatched from the cockpit, wrestled to the ground,
bound hand and foot with plastic restraints and taken into custody by
federal authorities upon landing in San Francisco. A potential
airplane disaster was averted. But what might have happened if no one
had responded to the captain's plea? Or what if the response had been
too little or too late?

Eleven days later, on March 27, an airplane cockpit was the scene of
yet another in-flight battle. This time the results were even scarier.
A German man broke into the flight deck during a Germania charter
flight from Berlin to the Canary Islands. The man, believed by
authorities to have been under the influence of alcohol, forced his
way into the cockpit while the plane was over Spanish airspace. Once
inside, reports say, he threatened the pilots and told them the plane
was under assault by "terrorists." He then proceeded to punch, kick
and choke the 59-year-old pilot.


At some point the attacker managed to grab the controls. The aircraft
veered from its flight path and lost altitude briefly, but the co-
pilot managed to stabilize it. "Help, we need strong men, we need
strong men!" the co-pilot reportedly announced. Four passengers from
Sweden, Russia and Germany, along with flight attendants, responded to
his plea and managed to subdue the attacker. A spokesman for Germania,
a charter company operated by LTU, said "There was no real danger at
any point for the passengers." This statement is a crock of public-
relations bullshit, pungent enough to wrinkle noses on both sides of
the Atlantic. Everyone aboard the aircraft was in danger, all 143
passengers and crew. Why else would the co-pilot be screaming for
help?

During the past few years, passenger attacks against flight attendants
have been well documented by the media. Cabin personnel have been
slammed against bulkheads, put into headlocks, punched, kicked, spat
at, urinated upon, hit over the head with beer bottles and threatened
with their lives. These in-flight assaults are extremely rare, yet
more and more air ragers find themselves traveling to that final
destination behind bars. Horrible though it may be, when a flight
attendant is attacked, the safety of an aircraft and its passengers is
not always at issue. When someone breaks through the cockpit door,
however, when someone poses a physical threat to the only two people
qualified to keep an aircraft aloft, the potential for disaster makes
it everybody's issue.


The cockpit door is the only barrier between a kamikaze passenger and
an unsuspecting pilot. It is a marginal defense, built for ease of
crew entry and as an emergency escape, not as a fortification against
determined intruders. The Alaska Airlines ordeal prompted five popular
airlines (Alaska, American, Delta, Northwest and TWA) to announce,
just one week after the incident, that they are seeking ways to
fortify bifold cockpit doors -- standard on MD-83 aircraft -- like the
one Bradley was able to break through. "The one thing you can't do is
put a bank vault door on the cockpit," said Alaska Airlines spokesman
Jack Evans. "The door needs to be secure, but it also needs to be an
emergency exit as well."

Paradoxically, some international carriers allow the cockpit door to
remain unlocked during a flight. Any passenger can walk right in, even
those who might mistake the cockpit for the lavatory. U.S. airlines
adopt a quite different policy, however. They require that the cockpit
door remain locked at all times during flight, except, of course,
while crew members are entering and exiting. In this respect, pilots
and flight attendants carry cockpit keys as standard equipment. But in
one particularly appalling incident, a cockpit key gave a deranged
passenger access to the flight deck and the consequences were fatal.

On July 23, as All Nippon Airways flight 61 ascended from Tokyo's
Haneda Airport on its way to Sapporo, Yuji Nishizawa, 28, got up from
his seat, pulled an 8-inch knife on a female flight attendant and
forced her to unlock the cockpit door. It's not certain how he managed
to smuggle a deadly weapon through airport security. But what he did
next is crystal clear. He ordered the co-pilot out of the cockpit and
demanded that the pilot fly to a U.S. military base west of Tokyo.
When the pilot refused, Nishizawa stabbed him in the neck and took
control of the aircraft.

With the deranged man behind the yoke, the Boeing 747, packed with 503
passengers and a crew of 14, plunged to within 300 meters (984 feet)
of the ground. Moments before what might have been the airline
industry's worst-ever disaster, the deposed co-pilot and an off-duty
pilot stormed the cockpit, tied up the assailant and resumed control
of the aircraft, which they managed to land safely in Tokyo. Despite
the efforts of an onboard physician, the injured pilot bled to death.

Later, when police questioned Nishizawa about his motive, he expressed
a fondness for flight simulation games, which had apparently ceased to
capture his imagination. "I wanted to soar through the air," he
reportedly told police.


In the All Nippon Airways case, a hijacker forced his way past the
cockpit door in a planned attack. But unplanned break-in attempts by
disturbed passengers add a whole new wrinkle to the withering face of
in-flight tranquillity. Since July 1997, there have been at least 14
instances where an unauthorized person attempted to breach the cockpit
door during a commercial airline flight, including the two described
above. Of these, eight were successful. The result: Three physical
attacks on pilots (all in March), at least five flight diversions and
more than two dozen pilots who were forced to shift their attention
from the controls to a potentially violent intruder. Here's how the
incidents played out:

July 14, 1997: After Thomas Kasper poured hot coffee on a flight
attendant (inflicting second- and third-degree burns), his traveling
companion, Susan Callihan, kicked a hole in the cockpit door.
Witnesses on the Continental Airlines flight from Houston to Los
Angeles said Callihan then told the flight crew there were bombs and
guns on the airplane, though none were found. In addition to this,
Kasper nearly opened an emergency door when the plane landed. Both
were arrested and convicted of interfering with a flight crew. The
couple received his-and-hers prison sentences of three and two years
respectively.

July 27, 1997: A woman traveling with her young son tried to enter the
cockpit aboard a Northwest Airlink flight from Iowa to the Minneapolis-
St.Paul airport. When the pilot closed the door, the woman --
described by one passenger as a white-knuckle flier in the midst of a
panic attack -- became hysterical. She kicked open the cockpit door.
Passengers said the pilots chose to return to Fort Dodge Regional
Airport because they could no longer concentrate.

Nov. 25, 1997: As the pilots of a Cathay Pacific aircraft prepared to
land in Bangkok, Thailand, a drunken Burmese passenger stormed the
cockpit. He was removed by passengers and crew, handcuffed and turned
over to Bangkok police upon landing. At the time of the incident,
Cathay Pacific's policy allowed cockpit doors to remain unlocked
during flight. The policy, an airline spokesman claimed, facilitates
better communication between pilots and cabin crew.

Dec. 16, 1997: Dean Trammel, a muscular, 200-pound college football
player, suffered a "psychotic break" aboard U.S. Airways flight 38
bound for Baltimore from Los Angeles. After wandering up the aisle and
claiming to be Jesus Christ, he tried to get into the cockpit. Flight
attendants blocked access, but Trammel threw one of them over three
rows of seats. She slammed into a bulkhead. Passengers and off-duty
U.S. Airways pilots wrestled Trammel to the ground. He was tied with
seat-belt extensions at his wrists, elbows, ankles, knees and legs.
The plane landed with the two off-duty pilots sitting on top of him.

Sept. 23, 1998: The FBI charged Titan Tibor Sallai with intimidating a
flight crew by allegedly attempting to enter the cockpit of a United
Airlines jet. The plane was traveling between Las Vegas and
Washington. Crew members had to use force to prevent Sallai from
opening the cockpit door as well as an emergency exit door. Federal
agents reported that at some point during the flight, Sallai attempted
to drink contact lens cleaning fluid. The plane diverted to Denver.

Oct. 27, 1998: British rock star Ian Brown, formerly a singer with the
Stone Roses, threatened to cut off the hands of a British Airways
flight attendant. While the pilots attempted to land the aircraft, he
hammered against the door. Brown claimed the pilot had provoked him.
Lawyers have attempted to exonerate him.

April 5, 1999: An intoxicated passenger forced his way into the
cockpit of an unidentified commercial jet as pilots were attempting to
land at Copenhagen, Denmark's Kastrup Airport. Once inside the
cockpit, the passenger began shouting abuse at the pilots. His voice
was reported to have been so loud and distracting that the crew had
difficulty hearing radio directives from air-traffic control. The man
was arrested upon landing.

June 6, 1999: After being denied more alcohol, Christopher Bayes
fought with flight attendants and tried to storm into the cockpit,
according to prosecutors at his trial. Delta Airlines Flight 64, en
route to Manchester, England, from Atlanta, was forced to divert to
Bangor, Maine, where Bayes was arrested. Bayes, who continues to deny
his guilt, was convicted of assault and sentenced to six months in
prison.


Aug. 5, 1999: Sanil Shetty Kumar, an American, was given a six-month
jail sentence after trying to force his way into the cockpit on a
Singapore Airlines flight from Los Angeles to Singapore via Tokyo.
Kumar became intoxicated during the L.A. to Tokyo segment. After
cockpit entry was thwarted by passengers and two male flight
attendants, Kumar attempted to open an emergency exit door, shouting,
"Tonight, everybody will die."

Nov. 21, 1999: A Canadian Airlines jet flying to Halifax from Calgary
was forced to divert to Ontario after an angry passenger walked into
the cockpit. The man, who allegedly attempted to assault the pilot,
had been shouting and creating a ruckus earlier. He had to be removed
from the cockpit by passengers and crew members. At the time of the
incident, Canadian Airlines policy allowed cockpit doors to remain
unlocked except during takeoff and landing.

March 2, 2000: The FBI filed a criminal complaint against Joachim
Peter Franke, a German national who tried to break into the cockpit of
a Delta Airlines jet because he thought the plane was "flying too low
and was in danger of crashing." The deranged man had to be restrained
after repeatedly trying to push past a flight attendant who blocked
the cockpit door. The attendant yelled for help. Two passengers came
to the rescue and held Franke in a seat until landing. Franke faces a
fine of $10,000 and up to 20 years in prison.

March 20, 2000: An angry American woman was arrested after allegedly
entering the cockpit during an America West flight from Phoenix to New
York. How Denise Laverne Brown managed to breach the cockpit door is
not exactly clear. But once inside, Brown allegedly attacked the co-
pilot. FBI agent Doug Beldon said, "Apparently she refused to return
to her seat, failed to obey the orders of the flight personnel, became
angry, went into the cockpit and struck the co-pilot." The flight
diverted to Albuquerque, N.M., where the passenger was taken into
custody by federal authorities.

As much a testament to the competence of airline pilots as to the
swift response of dauntless passengers and cabin crew, not one of
these cockpit intrusions resulted in an airplane disaster. But if
attacks continue at the present rate, how long can courage and
competence hold out?

At least one airline isn't waiting to find out. More as a deterrent to
hijacking than a defense against cockpit-bound passengers with fear or
alcohol pumping through their veins, the government of India recently
instituted a sky marshals program. As of Jan. 1, all Indian carriers
are subject to random occupation by armed National Security Guard
commandos. In an attempt to add an additional layer of in-flight
security, flight attendants now undergo special "anti-hijacking"
training. This no-nonsense approach comes after the Christmas Eve
hijacking of an Indian Airlines plane that left one man dead and saw
hostages held aboard the aircraft for nearly a week.

Are similar measures needed to prevent unplanned attacks like those on
Alaska Airlines and Germania? Does this latest development by the
Indian government signal an increase of federal marshals on U.S.
carriers? Veteran fliers will remember that in 1970, following a
decade in which U.S. airlines experienced dozens of airplane
hijackings -- many of them to Cuba -- the sky marshal program was
born.

These specially trained, armed agents travel on flights that have a
higher-than-normal probability of being hijacked. Referred to nowadays
as "federal air marshals," they sit quietly in coach or first class,
dressed in civilian clothes and are authorized to make arrests without
warrants for any offense against the United States or its aircraft.
The air marshal program was enabled by the Federal Aviation Act of
1958, the Anti-hijacking Act of 1947 and the International Security
and Development Act of 1985.

Capt. Bob Cox is special projects officer for the national security
committee of the Air Line Pilots Association, an employee labor union
representing 55,000 pilots at 51 U.S. and Canadian carriers (including
United, Delta, TWA, Northwest, U.S. Airways and Alaska). Cox believes
that other airlines should follow the example set by Indian carriers.
"The ALPA strongly endorses an increase in the use of armed federal
air marshals on random domestic flights to deter or prevent violent
attacks on crew members," he says. "These are highly trained
individuals with well-refined abilities to protect the cockpit and
will do so at all costs."

Not all pilots agree with such a drastic approach. Ed Horton, an
international airline captain with 25 years' experience in matters of
flight security and disruptive passengers, doesn't want the airplane
cabin to turn into a battle zone. "The last thing you want is shots
being fired inside an aircraft." Horton believes the best way to stop
potentially violent passengers is with well-trained eyes rather than
weaponry. "All airlines need to do a better job at training crew
members to recognize potentially disruptive passengers," he says. "We
need to learn more effective ways to approach them, how to diffuse the
problem and how to deal with them effectively should violence erupt."



With the possible exception of Indian Airlines and a few others, most
airline companies do not properly train their flight attendants on how
to handle violent passengers. Cabin crews are equipped with written,
step-by-step procedures for dealing with almost every conceivable
problem on a flight: seat malfunctions, broken ovens, cabin
depressurization, medical emergencies, emergency evacuations and
inoperative lavatories. They even receive detailed information on what
steps to take should a woman give birth in flight. But there are no
comprehensive procedures for suppressing a ballistic customer, no
blueprint for crews to follow should they come face to face with the
passenger from hell.

Left to their own devices, crew members are nevertheless quick to
improvise. When Trammel attempted to break into the cockpit of the
U.S. Airways jet, a quick-thinking flight attendant used a service
cart to block access to the door. That stopped him long enough for
passengers to help wrestle him to the ground. Flight attendant Renee
Sheffer suffered serious injuries during the melee. Her husband, Mike,
promptly created the Skyrage Foundation, a watchdog organization aimed
at eradicating assaults against flight crews. With Sheffer at the
helm, the foundation's Web site tracks every reported instance of in-
flight violence and serves as a forum for open dialogue on the
subject. Sheffer believes that "anyone who attempts to, or actually
enters, the cockpit and endangers the safe operation of the aircraft
should have the maximum penalty imposed if convicted. (If President
Clinton signs the aviation bill that the House and Senate just passed,
that would mean a $25,000 fine)."

But he'd like to see the penalties become even more severe. "We should
also adjust the federal sentencing guidelines to reflect the
enormously serious nature of these acts, by increasing the level of
offense to something similar to kidnapping or attempted murder. That
way, federal judges would be able to impose serious prison terms."

In 1994, the Federal Aviation Administration reported 121 incidents of
in-flight passenger misconduct. These incidents run the gamut, from
severely rude and obnoxious behavior -- for example, a passenger
verbally threatening to punch a crew member -- to outright physical
assault. By 1998 the figure had reached 283.

But because the FAA records only those incidents that airlines choose
to disclose, the total number of assaults is probably much higher.
United Airlines, for example, recorded 635 incidents of disruptive
behavior in 1998. Of these, 61 were physical assaults. If one airline
claims to have had 635 disruptive incidents in one year (9.6 percent
of which were assaults), and the FAA reports a grand total of only 283
occurrences on 84 U.S. airlines during the same period, it's safe to
say that somebody is not telling the whole story.

Perhaps in the not-too-distant future, a pleasant smile and friendly
demeanor will no longer be listed in the job description for those
seeking employment as a flight attendant. Instead, airlines may seek
physically imposing, nightclub bouncer types who can deliver a knee to
the groin or a blow to the solar plexus as effortlessly as an after-
dinner cordial.

Now that older jets with three-pilot cockpits are gradually giving way
to economically efficient models built with a cockpit for two, the
modern-day flight crew is reduced by 33 percent. With only two pilots
aboard instead of three on many flights, their safety and well-being
have become more important than ever. As a result, pilots are becoming
more and more reluctant to put themselves in harm's way. "Sending a
pilot into the passenger cabin to help resolve a dispute seriously
diminishes the safety of the flight," says Northwest Airlines Capt.
Stephen Luckey, chairman of the ALPA's national security committee.
"This is particularly so in the event of an altercation which could
result in an incapacitated pilot."

Airline pilots must remain untouched and unencumbered behind the
cockpit door. Unsound doors need to be fortified. Cabin crews need to
be better trained. The federal air marshal program may need to be
expanded or restructured to accommodate this new wave of nonterrorist
terrorism. Until these aspects of in-flight security are properly
addressed, who's going to stop a fearless, able-bodied maniac from
breaking into the cockpit and assaulting the two most important
individuals on an aircraft? Fearless, able-bodied passengers and cabin
crew have done so in the past, but our luck is bound to run out one of
these days.
salon.com | April 8, 2000




- - - - - - - - - - - -

About the writer
Elliott Neal Hester has been a flight attendant for 14 years. He has
also written for National Geographic Traveler, Men's Fitness, Glamour,
Maxim and Caribbean Travel & Life. Out of the Blue appears every other
Tuesday. E-mail your tale of life in the sky to Salon Travel. For more
columns by Hester, visit his column archive.

Ken Wood

Re: The Long Knives Are Out For George Tenet

Legg inn av Ken Wood » 28 aug 2007 03:54:17

On Aug 27, 8:37 pm, Tiglath <te...@tiglath.net> wrote:
On Aug 27, 9:46 pm, Ken Wood <ken_woo...@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Aug 27, 7:02 pm, Deirdre Sholto Douglas

finch.enter...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
To think that people in such business will splash out on new doors
unless faced with the gravest of situations is inanely ignorant, and
to think that their insurers should have led the way is gonzo inane.

20/20 hindsight is a wonderful thing, it makes
experts of everyone.

Deirdre

Criticism for errors of omission are often, but not always,
hindsighting.

Backpedaling already?

Goldfinger boy tries to plant more phony arguments by clipping and
distorting.

Sometimes its more along the line of common sense.
Fortified cockpit doors are not a total answer to 911 type situations.

9/11 'type situations" are characterized by terrorists using planes as
missiles.

No cockpit access means no missile.

So much for your "common sense."

Goldfinger boy tries to plant more phony arguments by clipping and
distorting.



but they are an important part of any solution. And it took no great
foresight to see the need for them.

The "need" had not presented itself yet, other than the need to keep
drunks out of the cockpit, which is something else altogether.
Therefore without the "need" nothing warranted anything better than a
good latch to keep irate passengers out, not quite the same as keeping
Jihadists bent on martyrdom. Learn the difference.

Tiggy, you're sinking and flailing around.

The article was clearly about the danger of people getting acces to
airliners cockpits, much like the 911 terrorists did.

The author even uses the word "kamikaze" in the discussion of
potential risks.

Tiggy, you're sinking and flailing around.

Goldfinger, indeed, ;-)




As for hindsight, take a look at this Salon article published about 17
months before 911.

salon.com > Travel April 8, 2000
URL:http://www.salon.com/travel/diary/hest/2000/04/08/cockpits

Cockpit assault

How inane!

LOL


That article is about assaulting pilots with no other purpose in mind
than venting anger, and there was not a single incident in which the
plane was left without a pilot or crashed because of the incident.
It has NOTHING to do with 9/11.


LOL. Tiggy, who looked to the movie Goldfinger for engineering
information on airliners, now cannot see why drunks and crazies
assaulting pilots in airliner cockpits prior to 911 was relevant to
security.

HAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHA
;-))





All the more, it is VERY LIKELY that if the 9/11 planes had fortified
doors that the pilots would have opened them as the terrorist
threatened to kill the crew, for AGAIN DUMMY:

The only dummie here is you Tiggy.

You're thrashing around like a child pretending that there weren't
clear indications pre 911 that airliner security was way too lax -
particularly in terms of nuts getting into the cockpit.


NO ONE SUSPECTED that
the AIM was to take command of the plane and fly it against a
building. ONLY upon that realization would a pilot have stayed put
and consider all killed on board as preferable to having the plane
flown into a building.

Get with it, already, dummy.

I am with it Dummy, and that's why I'm finding so laughably easy to
show you up.

Folks,
Let's remember, this is about pre 911 airliner security and stopping
nuts and terrosits from getting into airliner cockpits.

I AM WINNING ;-)))

Hell, I've WON.

LOL


Ken is trying to peddle his hindsight as visionary gift. Pathetic.

Oh, hindsight?? I'll just paste the Salon article again.

Folks' look at the artile date and the incidents it describes.

Carry on, Tiggy. ;-)) Hindsight, ideed, Goldfinger, indeed ;-))


salon.com > Travel April 8, 2000
URL: http://www.salon.com/travel/diary/hest/ ... 8/cockpits

Cockpit assault

Since July 1997, over a dozen passengers have attempted to breach
cockpit doors during commercial airline flights. We've been lucky so
far.

- - - - - - - - - - - -
By Elliott Neal Hester

On March 16, aboard Alaska Airlines flight 259 from Puerto Vallarta,
Mexico, to San Francisco, a man did something that angry, frightened,
deranged and intoxicated passengers are doing with alarming frequency
these days: He broke through the cockpit door and attacked the pilots.
Provoked (or so his attorney claims) by a bad reaction to blood-
pressure medicine, Peter Bradley, 39, shouted, "I'm going to kill
you," and lunged for the controls.

Having been alerted of the impending attack, the co-pilot was armed
with an ax. He fought with Bradley, suffering a cut to his hand that
would require eight stitches. Struggling to fly the plane during this
tight-quartered assault, the pilot made an urgent plea for help over
the intercom. At least seven passengers responded. The 6-foot-2, 250-
pound assailant was snatched from the cockpit, wrestled to the ground,
bound hand and foot with plastic restraints and taken into custody by
federal authorities upon landing in San Francisco. A potential
airplane disaster was averted. But what might have happened if no one
had responded to the captain's plea? Or what if the response had been
too little or too late?

Eleven days later, on March 27, an airplane cockpit was the scene of
yet another in-flight battle. This time the results were even scarier.
A German man broke into the flight deck during a Germania charter
flight from Berlin to the Canary Islands. The man, believed by
authorities to have been under the influence of alcohol, forced his
way into the cockpit while the plane was over Spanish airspace. Once
inside, reports say, he threatened the pilots and told them the plane
was under assault by "terrorists." He then proceeded to punch, kick
and choke the 59-year-old pilot.


At some point the attacker managed to grab the controls. The aircraft
veered from its flight path and lost altitude briefly, but the co-
pilot managed to stabilize it. "Help, we need strong men, we need
strong men!" the co-pilot reportedly announced. Four passengers from
Sweden, Russia and Germany, along with flight attendants, responded to
his plea and managed to subdue the attacker. A spokesman for Germania,
a charter company operated by LTU, said "There was no real danger at
any point for the passengers." This statement is a crock of public-
relations bullshit, pungent enough to wrinkle noses on both sides of
the Atlantic. Everyone aboard the aircraft was in danger, all 143
passengers and crew. Why else would the co-pilot be screaming for
help?

During the past few years, passenger attacks against flight attendants
have been well documented by the media. Cabin personnel have been
slammed against bulkheads, put into headlocks, punched, kicked, spat
at, urinated upon, hit over the head with beer bottles and threatened
with their lives. These in-flight assaults are extremely rare, yet
more and more air ragers find themselves traveling to that final
destination behind bars. Horrible though it may be, when a flight
attendant is attacked, the safety of an aircraft and its passengers is
not always at issue. When someone breaks through the cockpit door,
however, when someone poses a physical threat to the only two people
qualified to keep an aircraft aloft, the potential for disaster makes
it everybody's issue.


The cockpit door is the only barrier between a kamikaze passenger and
an unsuspecting pilot. It is a marginal defense, built for ease of
crew entry and as an emergency escape, not as a fortification against
determined intruders. The Alaska Airlines ordeal prompted five popular
airlines (Alaska, American, Delta, Northwest and TWA) to announce,
just one week after the incident, that they are seeking ways to
fortify bifold cockpit doors -- standard on MD-83 aircraft -- like the
one Bradley was able to break through. "The one thing you can't do is
put a bank vault door on the cockpit," said Alaska Airlines spokesman
Jack Evans. "The door needs to be secure, but it also needs to be an
emergency exit as well."

Paradoxically, some international carriers allow the cockpit door to
remain unlocked during a flight. Any passenger can walk right in, even
those who might mistake the cockpit for the lavatory. U.S. airlines
adopt a quite different policy, however. They require that the cockpit
door remain locked at all times during flight, except, of course,
while crew members are entering and exiting. In this respect, pilots
and flight attendants carry cockpit keys as standard equipment. But in
one particularly appalling incident, a cockpit key gave a deranged
passenger access to the flight deck and the consequences were fatal.

On July 23, as All Nippon Airways flight 61 ascended from Tokyo's
Haneda Airport on its way to Sapporo, Yuji Nishizawa, 28, got up from
his seat, pulled an 8-inch knife on a female flight attendant and
forced her to unlock the cockpit door. It's not certain how he managed
to smuggle a deadly weapon through airport security. But what he did
next is crystal clear. He ordered the co-pilot out of the cockpit and
demanded that the pilot fly to a U.S. military base west of Tokyo.
When the pilot refused, Nishizawa stabbed him in the neck and took
control of the aircraft.

With the deranged man behind the yoke, the Boeing 747, packed with 503
passengers and a crew of 14, plunged to within 300 meters (984 feet)
of the ground. Moments before what might have been the airline
industry's worst-ever disaster, the deposed co-pilot and an off-duty
pilot stormed the cockpit, tied up the assailant and resumed control
of the aircraft, which they managed to land safely in Tokyo. Despite
the efforts of an onboard physician, the injured pilot bled to death.

Later, when police questioned Nishizawa about his motive, he expressed
a fondness for flight simulation games, which had apparently ceased to
capture his imagination. "I wanted to soar through the air," he
reportedly told police.


In the All Nippon Airways case, a hijacker forced his way past the
cockpit door in a planned attack. But unplanned break-in attempts by
disturbed passengers add a whole new wrinkle to the withering face of
in-flight tranquillity. Since July 1997, there have been at least 14
instances where an unauthorized person attempted to breach the cockpit
door during a commercial airline flight, including the two described
above. Of these, eight were successful. The result: Three physical
attacks on pilots (all in March), at least five flight diversions and
more than two dozen pilots who were forced to shift their attention
from the controls to a potentially violent intruder. Here's how the
incidents played out:

July 14, 1997: After Thomas Kasper poured hot coffee on a flight
attendant (inflicting second- and third-degree burns), his traveling
companion, Susan Callihan, kicked a hole in the cockpit door.
Witnesses on the Continental Airlines flight from Houston to Los
Angeles said Callihan then told the flight crew there were bombs and
guns on the airplane, though none were found. In addition to this,
Kasper nearly opened an emergency door when the plane landed. Both
were arrested and convicted of interfering with a flight crew. The
couple received his-and-hers prison sentences of three and two years
respectively.

July 27, 1997: A woman traveling with her young son tried to enter the
cockpit aboard a Northwest Airlink flight from Iowa to the Minneapolis-
St.Paul airport. When the pilot closed the door, the woman --
described by one passenger as a white-knuckle flier in the midst of a
panic attack -- became hysterical. She kicked open the cockpit door.
Passengers said the pilots chose to return to Fort Dodge Regional
Airport because they could no longer concentrate.

Nov. 25, 1997: As the pilots of a Cathay Pacific aircraft prepared to
land in Bangkok, Thailand, a drunken Burmese passenger stormed the
cockpit. He was removed by passengers and crew, handcuffed and turned
over to Bangkok police upon landing. At the time of the incident,
Cathay Pacific's policy allowed cockpit doors to remain unlocked
during flight. The policy, an airline spokesman claimed, facilitates
better communication between pilots and cabin crew.

Dec. 16, 1997: Dean Trammel, a muscular, 200-pound college football
player, suffered a "psychotic break" aboard U.S. Airways flight 38
bound for Baltimore from Los Angeles. After wandering up the aisle and
claiming to be Jesus Christ, he tried to get into the cockpit. Flight
attendants blocked access, but Trammel threw one of them over three
rows of seats. She slammed into a bulkhead. Passengers and off-duty
U.S. Airways pilots wrestled Trammel to the ground. He was tied with
seat-belt extensions at his wrists, elbows, ankles, knees and legs.
The plane landed with the two off-duty pilots sitting on top of him.

Sept. 23, 1998: The FBI charged Titan Tibor Sallai with intimidating a
flight crew by allegedly attempting to enter the cockpit of a United
Airlines jet. The plane was traveling between Las Vegas and
Washington. Crew members had to use force to prevent Sallai from
opening the cockpit door as well as an emergency exit door. Federal
agents reported that at some point during the flight, Sallai attempted
to drink contact lens cleaning fluid. The plane diverted to Denver.

Oct. 27, 1998: British rock star Ian Brown, formerly a singer with the
Stone Roses, threatened to cut off the hands of a British Airways
flight attendant. While the pilots attempted to land the aircraft, he
hammered against the door. Brown claimed the pilot had provoked him.
Lawyers have attempted to exonerate him.

April 5, 1999: An intoxicated passenger forced his way into the
cockpit of an unidentified commercial jet as pilots were attempting to
land at Copenhagen, Denmark's Kastrup Airport. Once inside the
cockpit, the passenger began shouting abuse at the pilots. His voice
was reported to have been so loud and distracting that the crew had
difficulty hearing radio directives from air-traffic control. The man
was arrested upon landing.

June 6, 1999: After being denied more alcohol, Christopher Bayes
fought with flight attendants and tried to storm into the cockpit,
according to prosecutors at his trial. Delta Airlines Flight 64, en
route to Manchester, England, from Atlanta, was forced to divert to
Bangor, Maine, where Bayes was arrested. Bayes, who continues to deny
his guilt, was convicted of assault and sentenced to six months in
prison.


Aug. 5, 1999: Sanil Shetty Kumar, an American, was given a six-month
jail sentence after trying to force his way into the cockpit on a
Singapore Airlines flight from Los Angeles to Singapore via Tokyo.
Kumar became intoxicated during the L.A. to Tokyo segment. After
cockpit entry was thwarted by passengers and two male flight
attendants, Kumar attempted to open an emergency exit door, shouting,
"Tonight, everybody will die."

Nov. 21, 1999: A Canadian Airlines jet flying to Halifax from Calgary
was forced to divert to Ontario after an angry passenger walked into
the cockpit. The man, who allegedly attempted to assault the pilot,
had been shouting and creating a ruckus earlier. He had to be removed
from the cockpit by passengers and crew members. At the time of the
incident, Canadian Airlines policy allowed cockpit doors to remain
unlocked except during takeoff and landing.

March 2, 2000: The FBI filed a criminal complaint against Joachim
Peter Franke, a German national who tried to break into the cockpit of
a Delta Airlines jet because he thought the plane was "flying too low
and was in danger of crashing." The deranged man had to be restrained
after repeatedly trying to push past a flight attendant who blocked
the cockpit door. The attendant yelled for help. Two passengers came
to the rescue and held Franke in a seat until landing. Franke faces a
fine of $10,000 and up to 20 years in prison.

March 20, 2000: An angry American woman was arrested after allegedly
entering the cockpit during an America West flight from Phoenix to New
York. How Denise Laverne Brown managed to breach the cockpit door is
not exactly clear. But once inside, Brown allegedly attacked the co-
pilot. FBI agent Doug Beldon said, "Apparently she refused to return
to her seat, failed to obey the orders of the flight personnel, became
angry, went into the cockpit and struck the co-pilot." The flight
diverted to Albuquerque, N.M., where the passenger was taken into
custody by federal authorities.

As much a testament to the competence of airline pilots as to the
swift response of dauntless passengers and cabin crew, not one of
these cockpit intrusions resulted in an airplane disaster. But if
attacks continue at the present rate, how long can courage and
competence hold out?

At least one airline isn't waiting to find out. More as a deterrent to
hijacking than a defense against cockpit-bound passengers with fear or
alcohol pumping through their veins, the government of India recently
instituted a sky marshals program. As of Jan. 1, all Indian carriers
are subject to random occupation by armed National Security Guard
commandos. In an attempt to add an additional layer of in-flight
security, flight attendants now undergo special "anti-hijacking"
training. This no-nonsense approach comes after the Christmas Eve
hijacking of an Indian Airlines plane that left one man dead and saw
hostages held aboard the aircraft for nearly a week.

Are similar measures needed to prevent unplanned attacks like those on
Alaska Airlines and Germania? Does this latest development by the
Indian government signal an increase of federal marshals on U.S.
carriers? Veteran fliers will remember that in 1970, following a
decade in which U.S. airlines experienced dozens of airplane
hijackings -- many of them to Cuba -- the sky marshal program was
born.

These specially trained, armed agents travel on flights that have a
higher-than-normal probability of being hijacked. Referred to nowadays
as "federal air marshals," they sit quietly in coach or first class,
dressed in civilian clothes and are authorized to make arrests without
warrants for any offense against the United States or its aircraft.
The air marshal program was enabled by the Federal Aviation Act of
1958, the Anti-hijacking Act of 1947 and the International Security
and Development Act of 1985.

Capt. Bob Cox is special projects officer for the national security
committee of the Air Line Pilots Association, an employee labor union
representing 55,000 pilots at 51 U.S. and Canadian carriers (including
United, Delta, TWA, Northwest, U.S. Airways and Alaska). Cox believes
that other airlines should follow the example set by Indian carriers.
"The ALPA strongly endorses an increase in the use of armed federal
air marshals on random domestic flights to deter or prevent violent
attacks on crew members," he says. "These are highly trained
individuals with well-refined abilities to protect the cockpit and
will do so at all costs."

Not all pilots agree with such a drastic approach. Ed Horton, an
international airline captain with 25 years' experience in matters of
flight security and disruptive passengers, doesn't want the airplane
cabin to turn into a battle zone. "The last thing you want is shots
being fired inside an aircraft." Horton believes the best way to stop
potentially violent passengers is with well-trained eyes rather than
weaponry. "All airlines need to do a better job at training crew
members to recognize potentially disruptive passengers," he says. "We
need to learn more effective ways to approach them, how to diffuse the
problem and how to deal with them effectively should violence erupt."



With the possible exception of Indian Airlines and a few others, most
airline companies do not properly train their flight attendants on how
to handle violent passengers. Cabin crews are equipped with written,
step-by-step procedures for dealing with almost every conceivable
problem on a flight: seat malfunctions, broken ovens, cabin
depressurization, medical emergencies, emergency evacuations and
inoperative lavatories. They even receive detailed information on what
steps to take should a woman give birth in flight. But there are no
comprehensive procedures for suppressing a ballistic customer, no
blueprint for crews to follow should they come face to face with the
passenger from hell.

Left to their own devices, crew members are nevertheless quick to
improvise. When Trammel attempted to break into the cockpit of the
U.S. Airways jet, a quick-thinking flight attendant used a service
cart to block access to the door. That stopped him long enough for
passengers to help wrestle him to the ground. Flight attendant Renee
Sheffer suffered serious injuries during the melee. Her husband, Mike,
promptly created the Skyrage Foundation, a watchdog organization aimed
at eradicating assaults against flight crews. With Sheffer at the
helm, the foundation's Web site tracks every reported instance of in-
flight violence and serves as a forum for open dialogue on the
subject. Sheffer believes that "anyone who attempts to, or actually
enters, the cockpit and endangers the safe operation of the aircraft
should have the maximum penalty imposed if convicted. (If President
Clinton signs the aviation bill that the House and Senate just passed,
that would mean a $25,000 fine)."

But he'd like to see the penalties become even more severe. "We should
also adjust the federal sentencing guidelines to reflect the
enormously serious nature of these acts, by increasing the level of
offense to something similar to kidnapping or attempted murder. That
way, federal judges would be able to impose serious prison terms."

In 1994, the Federal Aviation Administration reported 121 incidents of
in-flight passenger misconduct. These incidents run the gamut, from
severely rude and obnoxious behavior -- for example, a passenger
verbally threatening to punch a crew member -- to outright physical
assault. By 1998 the figure had reached 283.

But because the FAA records only those incidents that airlines choose
to disclose, the total number of assaults is probably much higher.
United Airlines, for example, recorded 635 incidents of disruptive
behavior in 1998. Of these, 61 were physical assaults. If one airline
claims to have had 635 disruptive incidents in one year (9.6 percent
of which were assaults), and the FAA reports a grand total of only 283
occurrences on 84 U.S. airlines during the same period, it's safe to
say that somebody is not telling the whole story.

Perhaps in the not-too-distant future, a pleasant smile and friendly
demeanor will no longer be listed in the job description for those
seeking employment as a flight attendant. Instead, airlines may seek
physically imposing, nightclub bouncer types who can deliver a knee to
the groin or a blow to the solar plexus as effortlessly as an after-
dinner cordial.

Now that older jets with three-pilot cockpits are gradually giving way
to economically efficient models built with a cockpit for two, the
modern-day flight crew is reduced by 33 percent. With only two pilots
aboard instead of three on many flights, their safety and well-being
have become more important than ever. As a result, pilots are becoming
more and more reluctant to put themselves in harm's way. "Sending a
pilot into the passenger cabin to help resolve a dispute seriously
diminishes the safety of the flight," says Northwest Airlines Capt.
Stephen Luckey, chairman of the ALPA's national security committee.
"This is particularly so in the event of an altercation which could
result in an incapacitated pilot."

Airline pilots must remain untouched and unencumbered behind the
cockpit door. Unsound doors need to be fortified. Cabin crews need to
be better trained. The federal air marshal program may need to be
expanded or restructured to accommodate this new wave of nonterrorist
terrorism. Until these aspects of in-flight security are properly
addressed, who's going to stop a fearless, able-bodied maniac from
breaking into the cockpit and assaulting the two most important
individuals on an aircraft? Fearless, able-bodied passengers and cabin
crew have done so in the past, but our luck is bound to run out one of
these days.
salon.com | April 8, 2000

- - - - - - - - - - -

About the writer
Elliott Neal Hester has been a flight attendant for 14 years. He has
also written for National Geographic Traveler, Men's Fitness, Glamour,
Maxim and Caribbean Travel & Life. Out of the Blue appears every other
Tuesday. E-mail your tale of life in the sky to Salon Travel. For more
columns by Hester, visit his column archive.


Hindsight, ideed, Goldfinger, indeed ;-))

Peter Jason

Re: The Long Knives Are Out For George Tenet

Legg inn av Peter Jason » 28 aug 2007 04:13:25

...... of course this behaviour could only
happen in steerage!

Ken Wood

Re: The Long Knives Are Out For George Tenet

Legg inn av Ken Wood » 28 aug 2007 04:31:05

On Aug 27, 8:18 pm, Tiglath <te...@tiglath.net> wrote:
On Aug 27, 5:24 pm, Ken Wood <ken_woo...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Here we see, again, my interlocutor making MY POINT for me.

Like hell I am. You're desparate and making a fool of yourself.

You thought a grade B movie showing that a firearm discharged in an
airliner causing a catasrophy was true.

Ken is losing it now. First, Goldfinger was never a B movie.

LOL. Now that is desparate!



Secondly, Ken opines about a movie he has not seen, obviously. The
scene didn't take place in an airliner but on a private jet. And
although it was heavily dramatized so that Bond could parachute with
Pussy Galore -- why not -- the plane didn't rupture in explosive
decompression.

More flailing around.
We were talking about airliners, and you brought up Goldfinger as an
example of why a gun couldn't be used in an airline.

The expert artilce I used to refute you also mentions and is dismissve
of the Goldfinger movie's "engineering" that you ridiculously
believed.










Mose know that isn't
true. About 10 years ago the whole top forward portion of an airliner
came off in flight and a few peope were sucked out of the plane but
the aircraft did make it back to an airfield in Hawaii.

Most people have seen the movie and see the plane is whole when the
pilot abandons it. You are rebutting a point of your own invention,
not the movie.

That's a lie, and a transparent one at that.
Too bad.



From a quick Google

DEBUNKING THE MYTHS OF GUNS ON PLANES
One objection that Senate offices may throw at you is this supposed
idea that a bullet hole in an airplane's hull can cause catastrophic
depressurization or cause the ship to crash. First, one should note
that such an argument against pilots carrying guns would also apply to
Federal Air Marshals. But the fact is, pre-fragmented ammo can
minimize the supposed risks of a bullet puncturing a plane's hull.

Are you that stupid?

No sport, you're stupid. I'm the one showing you up.

<snip inanity>

Ken Wood

Re: The Long Knives Are Out For George Tenet

Legg inn av Ken Wood » 28 aug 2007 04:39:01

On Aug 27, 9:13 pm, "Peter Jason" <p...@jostle.com> wrote:
..... of course this behaviour could only
happen in steerage!

;-)))

Wasn't there some Wall St stock broker that went nuts and took a crap
on top of a steward's cart (in first class, I think), during a flight?

Peter Jason

Re: The Long Knives Are Out For George Tenet

Legg inn av Peter Jason » 28 aug 2007 06:42:08

"Ken Wood" <ken_wood56@yahoo.com> wrote in
message
news:1188272341.537877.94730@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com...
On Aug 27, 9:13 pm, "Peter Jason"
p...@jostle.com> wrote:
..... of course this behaviour could only
happen in steerage!

;-)))

Wasn't there some Wall St stock broker that
went nuts and took a crap
on top of a steward's cart (in first class,
I think), during a flight?

Tut!
Lawyers, Stockbrokers, Investment Advisors
and caged rats tend to do it just *anywhere*!
:-[)

Andrew Swallow

Re: The Long Knives Are Out For George Tenet

Legg inn av Andrew Swallow » 28 aug 2007 11:16:02

Ken Wood wrote:
[snip]

You're thrashing around like a child pretending that there weren't
clear indications pre 911 that airliner security was way too lax -
particularly in terms of nuts getting into the cockpit.

Before 911 there was sufficient information to know that aircraft
needed strong cockpit doors. What we did not know was that fighter
aircraft had to be keep on high alert with standing orders to shoot
down civilian airliners.

Andrew Swallow

Bryn

Re: The Long Knives Are Out For George Tenet

Legg inn av Bryn » 28 aug 2007 14:46:40

In article <1188268669.381327.239170@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com>, Ken
Wood <ken_wood56@yahoo.com> writes
On Aug 27, 7:36 pm, Tiglath <te...@tiglath.net> wrote:
On Aug 27, 4:40 pm, Ken Wood <ken_woo...@yahoo.com> wrote:



I call them as I see them. You have not presented yet ANY evidence
of why people should have had a world wide reaction to
a kind of attack that was not expected.

Someone should post a list of terrorist suicide bombing attacks on
public conveyances leading up to 911.

Why someone? It's YOU who is in dire need to support your claim.

There's no big shame in being wrong about something, but to carry on
like you are...

LOL
It's only you, witless, who is too inane to understand. But then you
thought a grade B movie showing that a firearm discharged in an
airliner causing a catasrophy was true. Most people know that isn't
true. About 10 years ago the whole top forward portion of an airliner
came off in flight and a few peope were sucked out of the plane but
the aircraft did make it back to an airfield in Hawaii.



And when you get round to it add why suicide bombings herald the
tactics used by Bin Lade on 9/11. I would like you to tell the Fair
Readers how such bombings constitute a clear and present danger of
having a few airplanes hijacked with box cutters and expertly flown
into buildings. Why don't you do that?

Islamic terrorits highjackings of airplanes, Islamic terrorist suicide
bombings aimed at mass casuallties. Islamic terrorit car and truck
bombs bringing down buildings.
Middle easterners taking airliners flight lessons without wanting to
snip loads of scary stuff


OK! That does it! I'm walking everywhere from now on!

--
Bryn


Duct tape sticks to most things but itself best of all....

Remove the gremlins to email me...

Tiglath

Re: The Long Knives Are Out For George Tenet

Legg inn av Tiglath » 28 aug 2007 17:12:01

On Aug 27, 10:54 pm, Ken Wood <ken_woo...@yahoo.com> wrote:


Goldfinger boy tries to plant more phony arguments by clipping and
distorting.



What is that I distorted, you fool?

You clearly said that strong cockpit doors are not the total answer to
"911 type situations."

THEY ARE, you fool.

How can you get a 9/11 type situation if you can't gain access to the
cockpit?

I bet Woody Ken can't answer that.






Tiggy, you're sinking and flailing around.


Woody Ken STILL doesn't answer the key questions to support his
argument.



The article was clearly about the danger of people getting acces to
airliners cockpits, much like the 911 terrorists did.


Going to the cockpit to punch a pilot is absolutely not "much like the
911 terrorists did," you stupid ass.



The author even uses the word "kamikaze" in the discussion of
potential risks.


So what? The point is not whether anyone at all came close to
articulating the possibility of what happened on 9/11. I believe
some intelligent reports got even close than your stupid source.

The POINT, you fool, is that the mere perception of a threat as a
possibility is NOT a trigger to embark on an expensive refitting of
aircraft, unless it is a clear and present danger; especially so, as
several have told you already, in an industry that can't afford
luxuries like anticipating every threat people can name, unless it is
clear, present, and great danger.





Tiggy, you're sinking and flailing around.

Goldfinger, indeed, ;-)

You mean that "B movie"?

I dont' know what makes you so dumb, Woody, but it works great.

Richard Casady

Re: The Long Knives Are Out For George Tenet

Legg inn av Richard Casady » 28 aug 2007 17:18:11

On Tue, 28 Aug 2007 11:16:02 +0100, Andrew Swallow
<am.swallow@btinternet.com> wrote:
What we did not know was that fighter
aircraft had to be keep on high alert with standing orders to shoot
down civilian airliners.

Was it not SOP for the USSR to shoot down all hijacked aircraft?

Casady

Tiglath

Re: The Long Knives Are Out For George Tenet

Legg inn av Tiglath » 28 aug 2007 17:23:11

On Aug 28, 6:16 am, Andrew Swallow <am.swal...@btinternet.com> wrote:
Ken Wood wrote:

[snip]



You're thrashing around like a child pretending that there weren't
clear indications pre 911 that airliner security was way too lax -
particularly in terms of nuts getting into the cockpit.

Before 911 there was sufficient information to know that aircraft
needed strong cockpit doors. What we did not know was that fighter
aircraft had to be keep on high alert with standing orders to shoot
down civilian airliners.

Andrew Swallow


Most emotionally disturbed passengers can be deterred by a LOCKED
standard cockpit door.

A single or even a few occurrences of an angry passenger breaking that
door will NOT trigger a policy change, as it will be considerer an
aberration.

What information can you name that would trigger such a policy, as you
claim?

In specific, when did anyone breached a locked cockpit door and came
close to taking control of the plane?

As Ken admits, the possibility that anyone carries a gun or a lethal
weapon, was very small. That made a potential intrusion far less
dangerous, and any crew could feel capable of restraining an unarmed
intruder.

Therefore, WHERE WAS THE CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER?

Or are you saying that in business, people spend vast amounts on
security for threats that do NOT loom large?

Before 9/11, how likely did YOU think it was that three of four men
armed with little boxcutters were able to overpower and keep at bay
the entire crew and all the passengers?

Tiglath

Re: The Long Knives Are Out For George Tenet

Legg inn av Tiglath » 28 aug 2007 17:56:59

On Aug 27, 11:31 pm, Ken Wood <ken_woo...@yahoo.com>
Like hell I am. You're desparate and making a fool of yourself.

You thought a grade B movie showing that a firearm discharged in an
airliner causing a catasrophy was true.

Ken is losing it now. First, Goldfinger was never a B movie.

LOL. Now that is desparate!


No. it is WRONG. Just as many of your inferences.

While not relevant to the main point, it informs of your careless
writing and sloppy thinking, which pervades your entire argument.


Secondly, Ken opines about a movie he has not seen, obviously. The
scene didn't take place in an airliner but on a private jet. And
although it was heavily dramatized so that Bond could parachute with
Pussy Galore -- why not -- the plane didn't rupture in explosive
decompression.

More flailing around.

I don't expect you to like it. It shows how ignorant you are of that
which you write.


We were talking about airliners, and you brought up Goldfinger as an
example of why a gun couldn't be used in an airline.


I did not. A gun can be used on a plane. Nothing stops you once you
get it there.

I brought up the movie as an example that it is a bad idea to shoot
guns in a pressurized cabin. Again, would you sit happily by a
window if a shot shattered when there is a pressure differential of 9
psi? Why don't you answer that simple question? That is part of
what the movie depicts and that is what obtains in reality. I am
not saying that your fat ass can fit through an airplane window, but
would you like to try it?



The expert artilce I used to refute you also mentions and is dismissve
of the Goldfinger movie's "engineering" that you ridiculously
believed.


Are you saying that you would happily sit next to a window as it
breaks when the pressure differential between the cabin and the
outside is about 9 psi. Yes or no?

Let us see...

Say that Woody's blockhead is a foot square. That's 144 square
inches. When the window next to his head breaks Woody would enjoy
1296 pounds pushing on his blockhead towards the hole...

His ass is much bigger...

Now, dear Blockhead, tell us about how this "engineering" is something
desirable and not to be avoided.

Ken has even told us that cabin pressure WOULD be maintained if a
single window shattered, meaning that the 1296 pounds would KEEP
pushing on his blockhead.


And please Ken, tell us what you find so objectionable about the
movie. Contrary to your rebuttal, the plane doesn't break.

Pussy Galore puts it into an emergency dive, which is the right thing
to do.

So what's the beef?

Your rebuttal mentions that a bullet will not likely cause
catastrophic failure of the airframe, but so what? No such thing
happens in the movie.

As to Goldfinger being sucked out of the window it is a dramatization
on the true fact that a ruptured window causes a strong outward flow.
How strong? I don't think it can suck people a few feet away but the
closer you are to the window the worse it gets. We've done the math
and Ken apparently is quite happy to lend us his blockhead to test
it. Right?

Tiglath

Re: The Long Knives Are Out For George Tenet

Legg inn av Tiglath » 28 aug 2007 18:19:13

On Aug 27, 10:37 pm, Ken Wood <ken_woo...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Someone should post a list of terrorist suicide bombing attacks on
public conveyances leading up to 911.

Why someone? It's YOU who is in dire need to support your claim.

There's no big shame in being wrong about something, but to carry on
like you are...

Ken, has decide on spitballs instead of evidence for his claims.
He is not very good at that either.



LOL

Nervous laugh at his own cleverness. Always a sign.



It's only you, witless, who is too inane to understand. But then you
thought a grade B movie showing that a firearm discharged in an
airliner causing a catasrophy was true.

What "catasrophy" is that?

Woody Turnip is rewriting the screenplay for Albert Broccoli.



Most people know that isn't
true. About 10 years ago the whole top forward portion of an airliner
came off in flight and a few peope were sucked out of the plane but
the aircraft did make it back to an airfield in Hawaii.


And Ken' critique of the final scene of Goldfinger that never was
continues. Please write more.



And when you get round to it add why suicide bombings herald the
tactics used by Bin Lade on 9/11. I would like you to tell the Fair
Readers how such bombings constitute a clear and present danger of
having a few airplanes hijacked with box cutters and expertly flown
into buildings. Why don't you do that?

Islamic terrorits highjackings of airplanes, Islamic terrorist suicide
bombings aimed at mass casuallties. Islamic terrorit car and truck
bombs bringing down buildings.

Finally some rationale... Thanks.

Unfortunately all irrelevant. Let us take them one at a time.

"Islamic terrorits highjackings of airplanes"

That was clearly a thing of the past. Measures against armed
hijackers had put a stop to it. So, NO.

"Islamic terrorist suicide bombings aimed at mass casuallties"

None of those involved a plane. All involved large quantities of
explosives on an individual or a car. Again, existing security
measures made that very unlikely.

"Islamic terrorit car and truck bombs bringing down buildings."

That's easy. Cars and trucks are not allowed on airplanes.

So since you didn't do it this time, I ask again, WHERE were the
indicators that heralded the clear and present danger of terrorists
armed with boxcutters taking over airplanes and use them as
missiles. Can't answer?




Middle easterners taking airliners flight lessons without wanting to
learn landing procedures...

I left this one separate to illustrate Ken's problem. He doesn't even
notice that he is using hindsight when he is.

Who was privvy to the fact you mention above before 9/11?

No one other that a few flight instructors who found it unusual but
not alarming, and who only IN HINDSIGHT connected the dots.

Not terribly bright are you?


When it comes to thinking you need the equivalent of a miners' helmet,
Woody.




LOL. You're not very good at logic, are you. The doors and associated
security measures should have done years before 911.


More hindsight.

And Ken's rebuttal is to repeat his argument, again sans evidence, on
the hope that if he repeats it often enough it might sound true.

<lengthy inanity left out>

Tiglath

Re: The Long Knives Are Out For George Tenet

Legg inn av Tiglath » 28 aug 2007 18:21:27

On Aug 27, 11:39 pm, Ken Wood <ken_woo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Aug 27, 9:13 pm, "Peter Jason" <p...@jostle.com> wrote:

..... of course this behaviour could only
happen in steerage!

;-)))

Wasn't there some Wall St stock broker that went nuts and took a crap
on top of a steward's cart (in first class, I think), during a flight?

Which immediately led Woody to an aha moment in which 9/11 played on
his mind.

Hindsight being peddled as smarts: the lowest form of masturbation.

Ray O'Hara

Re: The Long Knives Are Out For George Tenet

Legg inn av Ray O'Hara » 28 aug 2007 18:48:52

"Tiglath" <temp5@tiglath.net> wrote in message
news:1188225537.630256.105870@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
On Aug 24, 11:26 pm, Deirdre Sholto Douglas
finch.enter...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Andrew Swallow wrote:

Tiglath wrote:
On Aug 24, 1:18 am, "Ray O'Hara" <mary.palmu...@rcn.com> wrote:
"Tiglath" <te...@tiglath.net> wrote in message

news:1187908335.549893.322340@q4g2000prc.googlegroups.com...

On Aug 23, 6:07 pm, Ken Wood <ken_woo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
The fact remains that in 2001 there were NO PRECEDENTS of
hijackers
flying planes into buildings, it was an INNOVATION. Live with it.
but there was precedent of PLANES BEING HIJACKED.
you are an idiot tiglette

The precedent was but a memory. We didn't have a hijacking problem
in 2001 as we did in the 70s. Stupid ass.

The fortified doors should have been fitted during the 1970s.

Some airlines did...El Al comes to mind.


El Al did much more than that. The secured the entire plane, putting
armed guards among the passengers and making airport security a
nightmare. I have to fly to Israel next month and I had to submit
security forms in advance to speed up the security checks in Tel Aviv.

The point so inanely being made here by the hindsight projectors is
that reinforced doors should have been put on planes before 9/11,
naturally.

I see no references from these people having foreseen 9/11 modus
operandi, yet they expect others to not only have foreseen it, but to
embark on a global refitting of aircraft, which additionally they
think was going to be inexpensive, without further qualification.

That from a business sector that has been strapped for profits for
decades and that continues to shave inches from legroom, give up nuts
for pretzels, and thinking of charging for air.

To think that people in such business will splash out on new doors
unless faced with the gravest of situations is inanely ignorant, and
to think that their insurers should have led the way is gonzo inane.


the no one forsaw 9/11 so why secure planes is an idiots point.
hijacking planes had a long history before 9/11 and just common sense should
have made the cockpit tamper proof.
your point is a false one.
we've all heard of the stockholm syndrome , that syndrome stems from an
airliner hijacking.

Brian Sharrock

Re: The Long Knives Are Out For George Tenet

Legg inn av Brian Sharrock » 28 aug 2007 19:55:39

"Ray O'Hara" <mary.palmucci@rcn.com> wrote in message
news:_9KdnZ5e972Z_UnbnZ2dnUVZ_gGdnZ2d@rcn.net...
Once again , from the account of mary.palmucci@rcn.com a stupid remark is

uttered; -

snip

we've all heard of the stockholm syndrome , that syndrome stems from an
airliner hijacking.


The event which occurred in more-or-less on this date thirty-four years
ago - perhaps before 'ray-o-hara ever was permitted near a keyboard is
recorded as; -
Stockholm syndrome is a psychological response sometimes seen in an abducted
hostage, in which the hostage shows signs of loyalty to the hostage-taker,
regardless of the danger (or at least risk) in which the hostage has been
placed. Stockholm syndrome is also sometimes discussed in reference to other
situations with similar tensions, such as battered person syndrome, rape
cases, child abuse cases, and bride kidnapping. The syndrome is named after
the Norrmalmstorg robbery of Kreditbanken at Norrmalmstorg, Stockholm,
Sweden, in which the bank robbers held bank employees hostage from August 23
to August 28 in 1973. In this case, the victims became emotionally attached
to their victimizers, and even defended their captors after they were freed
from their six-day ordeal. The term Stockholm Syndrome was coined by the
criminologist and psychiatrist Nils Bejerot, who assisted the police during
the robbery, and referred to the syndrome in a news broadcast.



Now perhaps 'Ray O Hara / Mary Palmuco can state precisely 'airliner
high-jacking' the bank raid stems from?

Come on ! Step up to the plate!



--



Brian

Tiglath

Re: The Long Knives Are Out For George Tenet

Legg inn av Tiglath » 28 aug 2007 21:39:53

On Aug 28, 1:48 pm, "Ray O'Hara" <mary.palmu...@rcn.com> wrote:
"Tiglath" <te...@tiglath.net> wrote in message

news:1188225537.630256.105870@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com...



On Aug 24, 11:26 pm, Deirdre Sholto Douglas
finch.enter...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Andrew Swallow wrote:

Tiglath wrote:
On Aug 24, 1:18 am, "Ray O'Hara" <mary.palmu...@rcn.com> wrote:
"Tiglath" <te...@tiglath.net> wrote in message

news:1187908335.549893.322340@q4g2000prc.googlegroups.com...

On Aug 23, 6:07 pm, Ken Wood <ken_woo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
The fact remains that in 2001 there were NO PRECEDENTS of
hijackers
flying planes into buildings, it was an INNOVATION. Live with it.
but there was precedent of PLANES BEING HIJACKED.
you are an idiot tiglette

The precedent was but a memory. We didn't have a hijacking problem
in 2001 as we did in the 70s. Stupid ass.

The fortified doors should have been fitted during the 1970s.

Some airlines did...El Al comes to mind.

El Al did much more than that. The secured the entire plane, putting
armed guards among the passengers and making airport security a
nightmare. I have to fly to Israel next month and I had to submit
security forms in advance to speed up the security checks in Tel Aviv.

The point so inanely being made here by the hindsight projectors is
that reinforced doors should have been put on planes before 9/11,
naturally.

I see no references from these people having foreseen 9/11 modus
operandi, yet they expect others to not only have foreseen it, but to
embark on a global refitting of aircraft, which additionally they
think was going to be inexpensive, without further qualification.

That from a business sector that has been strapped for profits for
decades and that continues to shave inches from legroom, give up nuts
for pretzels, and thinking of charging for air.

To think that people in such business will splash out on new doors
unless faced with the gravest of situations is inanely ignorant, and
to think that their insurers should have led the way is gonzo inane.

the no one forsaw 9/11 so why secure planes is an idiots point.

The ass is back.

Who said the no one foresaw a scenario similar to 9/11?

Strawmangering is the lowest form of rebuttal and you excel at it.

I have repeatedly said that those who warned of something similar to
9/11 were talking probabilities which however plausible were not
sufficient to expect a hard up industry to splash on new security.

How many more times will I have to write to this effect until
Blockhead and a dumbass like you understand it, and try to rebut THAT
point for a change instead of one of your invention?

Many probably. It won't be done nicely.



hijacking planes had a long history before 9/11

That was old bag and solved, hardly a looming danger.

I have rebutted that several times. Pay attention.

<spare readers further stupidity>

Ken Wood

Re: The Long Knives Are Out For George Tenet

Legg inn av Ken Wood » 28 aug 2007 22:19:16

On Aug 28, 10:12 am, Tiglath <te...@tiglath.net> wrote:
On Aug 27, 10:54 pm, Ken Wood <ken_woo...@yahoo.com> wrote:



Goldfinger boy tries to plant more phony arguments by clipping and
distorting.

What is that I distorted, you fool?





You clearly said that strong cockpit doors are not the total answer to
"911 type situations."

THEY ARE, you fool.

How can you get a 9/11 type situation if you can't gain access to the
cockpit?

I bet Woody Ken can't answer that.



Tiggy, you're sinking and flailing around.

Woody Ken STILL doesn't answer the key questions to support his
argument.

The article was clearly about the danger of people getting acces to
airliners cockpits, much like the 911 terrorists did.

Going to the cockpit to punch a pilot is absolutely not "much like the
911 terrorists did," you stupid ass.

The author even uses the word "kamikaze" in the discussion of
potential risks.

So what? The point is not whether anyone at all came close to
articulating the possibility of what happened on 9/11. I believe
some intelligent reports got even close than your stupid source.

The POINT, you fool, is that the mere perception of a threat as a
possibility is NOT a trigger to embark on an expensive refitting of
aircraft, unless it is a clear and present danger; especially so, as
several have told you already, in an industry that can't afford
luxuries like anticipating every threat people can name, unless it is
clear, present, and great danger.

Tiggy, you're sinking and flailing around.

Goldfinger, indeed, ;-)

You mean that "B movie"?

I dont' know what makes you so dumb, Woody, but it works great.

Ken Wood

Re: The Long Knives Are Out For George Tenet

Legg inn av Ken Wood » 28 aug 2007 22:33:39

On Aug 28, 10:12 am, Tiglath <te...@tiglath.net> wrote:
On Aug 27, 10:54 pm, Ken Wood <ken_woo...@yahoo.com> wrote:



Goldfinger boy tries to plant more phony arguments by clipping and
distorting.

What is that I distorted, you fool?

You clearly said that strong cockpit doors are not the total answer to
"911 type situations."

THEY ARE, you fool.

How can you get a 9/11 type situation if you can't gain access to the
cockpit?

I bet Woody Ken can't answer that.

LOL- it gets better and better.

What a moron you are Goldfinger boy. I'm supposed to point out
instances where a fortified cockpit door might be defeated, so
Goldfinger boy can pretend I'm going back on my original argument. I
think most of us understand that nothing is foolproof - hell, what if
they were neglegent in leaving the thing open?


Laughable and pathetic. Goldfinger boy is desperate to cover his
retreat by obfuscating, shifting arguments and setting up strawmen
arguments. He's not too bright in doing it, and reading upthread
anyone can see he's lying and backtracking and trying childish
reversal ploys.

A summary is in order. Early on in the thread I stated that the 911
attacks could have been deterred just by locked fortified cockpit
doors.

Tigless responded that that was ridiculous. In the course of the
argument he has tried to float a few foolish arguments.

First, Tigless expounded at length on how no one (including even
people paid to assess such risk) could have predicted a 911 type
attack and the airlines would be crazy to spend money on fortified
doors, they would go bankrupt, etc.

His stupidity in making this argument was shown by pointing out the
prevalence of Islamic terrorist highjackings, the growing prevalence
of Islamic terrorist suicide bombings in the '80s and '90s, the
vehicle bombings aimed at destroying whole buildings (including the
WTC in 1993), the mass murder bombings on busses etc. And, I responded
with an article published 17 months before the 911 attack discussed a
number of cockpit intrusions by drunks and crazies and mentioned the
risk of "kamikazes" taking over the flight controls.

Obviously, these factors should have warned people responsible for
airline security that cockpits were way too insecure. I pointed that
out to Tigless early on that in addition to the airlines, insurers, re-
insures, and Federal Govt. security people (especially FAA) all should
have recognized these risk factors and imposed remedies. Tigless was
astounded - it was over his head.


Secondly, that even with a locked fortified cockpit door, the
terrorists could just start murdering people one by one and force the
pilots into opening the door. This was stupid for the simple reason
that even in pre 911 times, screening was good enough that people
planning terror attacks like 911 couldn't depend on getting a gun on a
plane.

The 911 perpetrators had to depend on small knives. That means that a
few terrorists have to start killing people with small knives, or
garroting or whatever and broadcasting what they were doing to the
pilots - to get them to open the (fortified) cockpit door. Obviously,
even a child could figure out that if they tried that they would risk
being overrun by passengers seeing that they might be next to be
murdered. Forcing the pilots to open the door by murdering people in
the passenger compartment is obviously a poor, risk filled approach
for the terrorist.

Third, and most comical, Tigless on a tangent showed how stupid and
clueless he is by referencing a movie called "Goldfinger", about how
catastrophic it is to fire a gun in a pressurized airplane. The movie
shows a catastrophic depressurization. Most people know a small bullet
hole in planes skin will not usually do much of anything. But then,
most people know better than to get their technical information from
grade B movies. LOL. I provided an article by experts on the
subject, that shows what a dancing clown this guy is, and that
specically states the Goldfinger example is bogus.


The plethora of phony arguments, strawmen and lying and abusive
language shows a lack of character in Tigless when he's under
pressure.

It is funny to watch Tigless squirming, wriggling and trying out one
strawman argument after another.
In frantic attempts to reverse his positions, he also reveals more
stupidity.

Keep it up Tigless. Keep digging Golfinger boy.


<snip firther inanity>

Ken Wood

Re: The Long Knives Are Out For George Tenet

Legg inn av Ken Wood » 28 aug 2007 22:35:34

On Aug 28, 10:56 am, Tiglath <te...@tiglath.net> wrote:
On Aug 27, 11:31 pm, Ken Wood <ken_woo...@yahoo.com



Like hell I am. You're desparate and making a fool of yourself.

You thought a grade B movie showing that a firearm discharged in an
airliner causing a catasrophy was true.

Ken is losing it now. First, Goldfinger was never a B movie.

LOL. Now that is desparate!

No. it is WRONG. Just as many of your inferences.

While not relevant to the main point, it informs of your careless
writing and sloppy thinking, which pervades your entire argument.

Laughable and pathetic. Goldfinger boy is desperate to cover his
retreat by obfuscating, shifting arguments and setting up strawmen
arguments. He's not too bright in doing it, and reading upthread
anyone can see he's lying and backtracking and trying childish
reversal ploys.

A summary is in order. Early on in the thread I stated that the 911
attacks could have been deterred just by locked fortified cockpit
doors.

Tigless responded that that was ridiculous. In the course of the
argument he has tried to float a few foolish arguments.

First, Tigless expounded at length on how no one (including even
people paid to assess such risk) could have predicted a 911 type
attack and the airlines would be crazy to spend money on fortified
doors, they would go bankrupt, etc.

His stupidity in making this argument was shown by pointing out the
prevalence of Islamic terrorist highjackings, the growing prevalence
of Islamic terrorist suicide bombings in the '80s and '90s, the
vehicle bombings aimed at destroying whole buildings (including the
WTC in 1993), the mass murder bombings on busses etc. And, I responded
with an article published 17 months before the 911 attack discussed a
number of cockpit intrusions by drunks and crazies and mentioned the
risk of "kamikazes" taking over the flight controls.

Obviously, these factors should have warned people responsible for
airline security that cockpits were way too insecure. I pointed that
out to Tigless early on that in addition to the airlines, insurers, re-
insures, and Federal Govt. security people (especially FAA) all should
have recognized these risk factors and imposed remedies. Tigless was
astounded - it was over his head.


Secondly, that even with a locked fortified cockpit door, the
terrorists could just start murdering people one by one and force the
pilots into opening the door. This was stupid for the simple reason
that even in pre 911 times, screening was good enough that people
planning terror attacks like 911 couldn't depend on getting a gun on a
plane.

The 911 perpetrators had to depend on small knives. That means that a
few terrorists have to start killing people with small knives, or
garroting or whatever and broadcasting what they were doing to the
pilots - to get them to open the (fortified) cockpit door. Obviously,
even a child could figure out that if they tried that they would risk
being overrun by passengers seeing that they might be next to be
murdered. Forcing the pilots to open the door by murdering people in
the passenger compartment is obviously a poor, risk filled approach
for the terrorist.

Third, and most comical, Tigless on a tangent showed how stupid and
clueless he is by referencing a movie called "Goldfinger", about how
catastrophic it is to fire a gun in a pressurized airplane. The movie
shows a catastrophic depressurization. Most people know a small bullet
hole in planes skin will not usually do much of anything. But then,
most people know better than to get their technical information from
grade B movies. LOL. I provided an article by experts on the
subject, that shows what a dancing clown this guy is, and that
specically states the Goldfinger example is bogus.


The plethora of phony arguments, strawmen and lying and abusive
language shows a lack of character in Tigless when he's under
pressure.

It is funny to watch Tigless squirming, wriggling and trying out one
strawman argument after another.
In frantic attempts to reverse his positions, he also reveals more
stupidity.

Keep it up Tigless. Keep digging Golfinger boy.


<snip further inanity>

Ken Wood

Re: The Long Knives Are Out For George Tenet

Legg inn av Ken Wood » 28 aug 2007 22:36:53

On Aug 28, 11:19 am, Tiglath <te...@tiglath.net> wrote:
On Aug 27, 10:37 pm, Ken Wood <ken_woo...@yahoo.com> wrote:



Someone should post a list of terrorist suicide bombing attacks on
public conveyances leading up to 911.

Why someone? It's YOU who is in dire need to support your claim.

There's no big shame in being wrong about something, but to carry on
like you are...

Ken, has decide on spitballs instead of evidence for his claims.
He is not very good at that either.



LOL

Nervous laugh at his own cleverness. Always a sign.

Laughable and pathetic. Goldfinger boy is desperate to cover his
retreat by obfuscating, shifting arguments and setting up strawmen
arguments. He's not too bright in doing it, and reading upthread
anyone can see he's lying and backtracking and trying childish
reversal ploys.

A summary is in order. Early on in the thread I stated that the 911
attacks could have been deterred just by locked fortified cockpit
doors.

Tigless responded that that was ridiculous. In the course of the
argument he has tried to float a few foolish arguments.

First, Tigless expounded at length on how no one (including even
people paid to assess such risk) could have predicted a 911 type
attack and the airlines would be crazy to spend money on fortified
doors, they would go bankrupt, etc.

His stupidity in making this argument was shown by pointing out the
prevalence of Islamic terrorist highjackings, the growing prevalence
of Islamic terrorist suicide bombings in the '80s and '90s, the
vehicle bombings aimed at destroying whole buildings (including the
WTC in 1993), the mass murder bombings on busses etc. And, I responded
with an article published 17 months before the 911 attack discussed a
number of cockpit intrusions by drunks and crazies and mentioned the
risk of "kamikazes" taking over the flight controls.

Obviously, these factors should have warned people responsible for
airline security that cockpits were way too insecure. I pointed that
out to Tigless early on that in addition to the airlines, insurers, re-
insures, and Federal Govt. security people (especially FAA) all should
have recognized these risk factors and imposed remedies. Tigless was
astounded - it was over his head.


Secondly, that even with a locked fortified cockpit door, the
terrorists could just start murdering people one by one and force the
pilots into opening the door. This was stupid for the simple reason
that even in pre 911 times, screening was good enough that people
planning terror attacks like 911 couldn't depend on getting a gun on a
plane.

The 911 perpetrators had to depend on small knives. That means that a
few terrorists have to start killing people with small knives, or
garroting or whatever and broadcasting what they were doing to the
pilots - to get them to open the (fortified) cockpit door. Obviously,
even a child could figure out that if they tried that they would risk
being overrun by passengers seeing that they might be next to be
murdered. Forcing the pilots to open the door by murdering people in
the passenger compartment is obviously a poor, risk filled approach
for the terrorist.

Third, and most comical, Tigless on a tangent showed how stupid and
clueless he is by referencing a movie called "Goldfinger", about how
catastrophic it is to fire a gun in a pressurized airplane. The movie
shows a catastrophic depressurization. Most people know a small bullet
hole in planes skin will not usually do much of anything. But then,
most people know better than to get their technical information from
grade B movies. LOL. I provided an article by experts on the
subject, that shows what a dancing clown this guy is, and that
specically states the Goldfinger example is bogus.


The plethora of phony arguments, strawmen and lying and abusive
language shows a lack of character in Tigless when he's under
pressure.

It is funny to watch Tigless squirming, wriggling and trying out one
strawman argument after another.
In frantic attempts to reverse his positions, he also reveals more
stupidity.

Keep it up Tigless. Keep digging Goldfinger boy. ;-))

<snip snip ;-)) >

Ken Wood

Re: The Long Knives Are Out For George Tenet

Legg inn av Ken Wood » 28 aug 2007 22:38:11

On Aug 28, 11:21 am, Tiglath <te...@tiglath.net> wrote:
On Aug 27, 11:39 pm, Ken Wood <ken_woo...@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Aug 27, 9:13 pm, "Peter Jason" <p...@jostle.com> wrote:

..... of course this behaviour could only
happen in steerage!

;-)))

Wasn't there some Wall St stock broker that went nuts and took a crap
on top of a steward's cart (in first class, I think), during a flight?

Which immediately led Woody to an aha moment in which 9/11 played on
his mind.

Hindsight being peddled as smarts: the lowest form of masturbation.

Laughable and pathetic. Goldfinger boy is desperate to cover his
retreat by obfuscating, shifting arguments and setting up strawmen
arguments. He's not too bright in doing it, and reading upthread
anyone can see he's lying and backtracking and trying childish
reversal ploys.

A summary is in order. Early on in the thread I stated that the 911
attacks could have been deterred just by locked fortified cockpit
doors.

Tigless responded that that was ridiculous. In the course of the
argument he has tried to float a few foolish arguments.

First, Tigless expounded at length on how no one (including even
people paid to assess such risk) could have predicted a 911 type
attack and the airlines would be crazy to spend money on fortified
doors, they would go bankrupt, etc.

His stupidity in making this argument was shown by pointing out the
prevalence of Islamic terrorist highjackings, the growing prevalence
of Islamic terrorist suicide bombings in the '80s and '90s, the
vehicle bombings aimed at destroying whole buildings (including the
WTC in 1993), the mass murder bombings on busses etc. And, I responded
with an article published 17 months before the 911 attack discussed a
number of cockpit intrusions by drunks and crazies and mentioned the
risk of "kamikazes" taking over the flight controls.

Obviously, these factors should have warned people responsible for
airline security that cockpits were way too insecure. I pointed that
out to Tigless early on that in addition to the airlines, insurers, re-
insures, and Federal Govt. security people (especially FAA) all should
have recognized these risk factors and imposed remedies. Tigless was
astounded - it was over his head.


Secondly, that even with a locked fortified cockpit door, the
terrorists could just start murdering people one by one and force the
pilots into opening the door. This was stupid for the simple reason
that even in pre 911 times, screening was good enough that people
planning terror attacks like 911 couldn't depend on getting a gun on a
plane.

The 911 perpetrators had to depend on small knives. That means that a
few terrorists have to start killing people with small knives, or
garroting or whatever and broadcasting what they were doing to the
pilots - to get them to open the (fortified) cockpit door. Obviously,
even a child could figure out that if they tried that they would risk
being overrun by passengers seeing that they might be next to be
murdered. Forcing the pilots to open the door by murdering people in
the passenger compartment is obviously a poor, risk filled approach
for the terrorist.

Third, and most comical, Tigless on a tangent showed how stupid and
clueless he is by referencing a movie called "Goldfinger", about how
catastrophic it is to fire a gun in a pressurized airplane. The movie
shows a catastrophic depressurization. Most people know a small bullet
hole in planes skin will not usually do much of anything. But then,
most people know better than to get their technical information from
grade B movies. LOL. I provided an article by experts on the
subject, that shows what a dancing clown this guy is, and that
specically states the Goldfinger example is bogus.


The plethora of phony arguments, strawmen and lying and abusive
language shows a lack of character in Tigless when he's under
pressure.

It is funny to watch Tigless squirming, wriggling and trying out one
strawman argument after another.
In frantic attempts to reverse his positions, he also reveals more
stupidity.

Keep it up Tigless. Keep digging Golfinger boy.

Tiglath

Re: The Long Knives Are Out For George Tenet

Legg inn av Tiglath » 29 aug 2007 03:50:21

On Aug 28, 5:33 pm, Ken Wood <ken_woo...@yahoo.com> wrote:

THEY ARE, you fool.

How can you get a 9/11 type situation if you can't gain access to the
cockpit?

I bet Woody Ken can't answer that.

LOL- it gets better and better.

What a moron you are Goldfinger boy. I'm supposed to point out
instances where a fortified cockpit door might be defeated,

Ken now posits a "fortified door" that can be defeated with box
cutters or similar weapons -- "a 911 similar situation."

Tell us about that door.

You clearly said "a 911 type situation." That is clearly a situation
where terrorists have no guns or other heavy weapons and gain access
to the cockpit. How could terrorists of the in a 911 type situation
breach a fortified door?

See Ken weasel out of just another fair and relevant question about
HIS claim.

Ken is trying to distract from the sad truth that he is getting his
hind quarter kicked because of his hindsight.

Six years after 9/11 Slow Ken has figured out that an impregnable
cockpit might have prevented 9/11. But he is not sure of it yet, and
thus he tells us that properly fortified cockpits doors are not the
total solution to 9/11.

One more moronic statement from Ken, and he wants to paper over it by
ignoring a simple question of how can you get a 9/11 without cockpit
access.

Ken has been stumped again.



Goldfinger boy can pretend I'm going back on my original argument. I
think most of us understand that nothing is foolproof - hell, what if
they were neglegent in leaving the thing open?

You are such an idiot. The argument is about doors, not the doors
keepers. A safe is only as secure as the keeper of his combination,
Duh!

Nobody has put a limit on what fortifying a door means. It is quite
easy to arrange a mechanism by which the plane can't take off until
the cockpit checks locked. Duh!

Now that Ken realizes how moronic his statement is, he is trying to
backpedal and imagines scenarios in which the door is fortified but
there is still access to the cockpit "somehow." As if ensuring that
a door is locked was a rocket science problem beyond aviation
engineers.


A summary is in order. Early on in the thread I stated that the 911
attacks could have been deterred just by locked fortified cockpit
doors.


Hindsight.


Tigless responded that that was ridiculous. In the course of the
argument he has tried to float a few foolish arguments.


Ken now adds dishonesty to his rhetorical sins.

I challenge Woody to quote me saying what he claims I said.

Quite simply, if he does, his summary is accurate, if he doesn't he is
a fucking liar.

Go on, quote it.



First, Tigless expounded at length on how no one (including even
people paid to assess such risk) could have predicted a 911 type
attack and the airlines would be crazy to spend money on fortified
doors, they would go bankrupt, etc.


Ditto. When did I say that airlines would go bankrupt if they
fortified their cockpit doors?

The best part is that not even distorting my argument at his pleasure
can Ken present a cogent argument of his own.


His stupidity in making this argument was shown by pointing out the
prevalence of Islamic terrorist highjackings, the growing prevalence
of Islamic terrorist suicide bombings in the '80s and '90s, the
vehicle bombings aimed at destroying whole buildings (including the
WTC in 1993), the mass murder bombings on busses etc. And, I responded
with an article published 17 months before the 911 attack discussed a
number of cockpit intrusions by drunks and crazies and mentioned the
risk of "kamikazes" taking over the flight controls.

Ken still doesn't understand that ground suicide attacks do not
translate or imply aviation threats, given that aviation has stopped
potential hijackers boarding planes with guns and bombs quite
effectively. He refuses to learn that important fact.



Obviously, these factors should have warned people responsible for
airline security that cockpits were way too insecure.

Obviously only to Ken and the other idiot. A cockpit even when open
is quite secure against suicide bombers, because bombers find it very
hard to board a plane with a suicide vest.

In fact, Ken completely missed the real threat that existed before
9/11 that was FAR MORE plausible than attacks to the cockpit.

Before 9/11 a suicide bomber could easily have downed a plane by
putting a bomb into the checked-in baggage.

Checks on checked-in baggage were spotty, and the pairing of baggage
to passengers relies on the premise that nobody who is on the plane
will be crazy enough to blow up the plane that way; the premise is, of
course, false for suicide bombers.

There you go. Shouldn't Ken be saying that sniffing checked in
baggage thoroughly for explosives should have been done well before
911?

If he is so damned smart he should. But he didn't. Because there is
no hindsight to help him there.

Yet that sort of attack was far more plausible that a plan involving
learning to fly a big airliner, and then relying on little boxcutters
to intimidate a plane load of people and its trained crew, for long
enough to fly the plane into a building.




I pointed that
out to Tigless early on that in addition to the airlines, insurers, re-
insures, and Federal Govt. security people (especially FAA) all should
have recognized these risk factors and imposed remedies. Tigless was
astounded - it was over his head.


As we see Ken's hindsight compels him to clamor only against the lack
of fortified cockpit doors before 9/11. But Ken is silent about the
lack of inspections on checked-in baggage. Shouldn't "suicide
bombers" have suggested him the existence of such threat?

Another arrow bitterly bites Ken's hind quarter.



The 911 perpetrators had to depend on small knives. That means that a
few terrorists have to start killing people with small knives, or
garroting or whatever and broadcasting what they were doing to the
pilots - to get them to open the (fortified) cockpit door. Obviously,
even a child could figure out that if they tried that they would risk
being overrun by passengers seeing that they might be next to be
murdered.

Unfortunately, terrorists are MUCH smarter than Blockhead Ken.



Forcing the pilots to open the door by murdering people in
the passenger compartment is obviously a poor, risk filled approach
for the terrorist.

The idiot prances on...

Ken thinks that something that is a "risk filled approach" will deter
suicide teams... O boy...

He is on a roll.

I am having a good time here.

Also, Ken can't scheme a escape out of a brown bag, it seems.

If a terrorist had to murder someone as the pilot looks through the
cockpit spy hole, without alarming other passengers into action, it
would not be a tall order. Easy. He makes crew and passengers go to
steerage, closes the first class curtains, gags the victim and pushes
a pencil into his or her ear and make his intentions crystal clear to
the pilot in a silent way



Third, and most comical, Tigless on a tangent showed how stupid and
clueless he is by referencing a movie called "Goldfinger", about how
catastrophic it is to fire a gun in a pressurized airplane. The movie
shows a catastrophic depressurization.

Ken confuses Top Gun with Goldfinger and there is no telling him that
there is no such thing as a catastrophic depressurization in
Goldfinger, though he very much believes there is one. I don't
grudge him that. Give a dog a bone.







Most people know a small bullet
hole in planes skin will not usually do much of anything. But then,
most people know better than to get their technical information from
grade B movies. LOL. I provided an article by experts on the
subject, that shows what a dancing clown this guy is, and that
specically states the Goldfinger example is bogus.


Ken is still afraid to answer whether he would be safe with his
blockhead inches away from an airplane window shattered at 35,000
feet.

It's only the physics depicted somewhat exaggerated in the movie he
rates as a B movie, yet he is afraid to confront those physics.

So afraid.



The plethora of phony arguments, strawmen and lying and abusive
language shows a lack of character in Tigless when he's under
pressure.


Ken started the offensive and disparaging language. It's in the
recent archives.

His insults are on a par with the rest of what he writes. I can
both return fire and debate the points. In all his replies I note
that he has to refrain from answering my question, pertinent to his
claims, lest the lameness of his claims be further magnified. I am
content with that... for now.

Tiglath

Re: The Long Knives Are Out For George Tenet

Legg inn av Tiglath » 29 aug 2007 04:00:00

On Aug 28, 5:38 pm, Ken Wood <ken_woo...@yahoo.com> wrote:


Hindsight being peddled as smarts: the lowest form of masturbation.

Laughable and pathetic. Goldfinger boy is desperate to cover his
retreat by obfuscating,

Hmmm. So early in the thread Ken runs out of gas and has to resort to
cutting and pasting previous replies.

It's not a new tactic. NoGall tried it to his eternal discredit.

What is clear is that Ken has RUN from all the questions I posted
about his claims. He has declared victory and left the field after
burying the various points on which I asked him for clarification and
answers, so that he doesn't have to see them again.

He is now posting a "summary" of the thread as he wishes it had
happened.

Unfortunately for Ken, the archives provide instant correction and
tacit rebuke at his dishonesty.

Tell us again, Ken, how a strong, locked cockpit door doesn't totally
prevent 9/11 type situations...

I love it.

Ken Wood

Re: The Long Knives Are Out For George Tenet

Legg inn av Ken Wood » 29 aug 2007 18:00:20

On Aug 28, 8:50 pm, Tiglath <te...@tiglath.net> wrote:
On Aug 28, 5:33 pm, Ken Wood <ken_woo...@yahoo.com> wrote:



THEY ARE, you fool.

How can you get a 9/11 type situation if you can't gain access to the
cockpit?

I bet Woody Ken can't answer that.

LOL- it gets better and better.

What a moron you are Goldfinger boy. I'm supposed to point out
instances where a fortified cockpit door might be defeated,

Ken now posits a "fortified door" that can be defeated with box
cutters or similar weapons -- "a 911 similar situation."

Tell us about that door.

You clearly said "a 911 type situation." That is clearly a situation
where terrorists have no guns or other heavy weapons and gain access
to the cockpit. How could terrorists of the in a 911 type situation
breach a fortified door?

See Ken weasel out of just another fair and relevant question about
HIS claim.

Poor little weaselly Tigless&less - in a panic, and not able to
think.

Here again I'll show just how bright Goldfinger boy really is.

Early on he said a fortified door would be ineffective in detering
cockpit takeovers. Now he has apparently totally reversed positions
and is claiming that it's undefeatable. LOL at the dunce.

Apparently, he really can't figure out how a fortified door on an
airliner can be defeated.

What a moron.

Early on in this thread, I stated that: "the only viable large
casualty method open to terrorists at
that time was a large airplane "kamikaze" attack of the the type they
did. It could have been foreseen, thwarted or precluded merely by
fortified cockpit doors and an in-plane camera system for monitoring
activity in the passenger compartment. It was systematic stupidity
from the airlines, the government, insurers and re-insurers that none
of that was done years before. "

Tigless disagreed with that statement, but has now flip-flopped to
saying a strong door alone is essentially not defeatable by terrorists
- not bright.

Little Tigless&less can't figure out why I mentioned "an in-plane
camera system".

Obviously Tigless&less never flies up front in an airliner, or else he
would know that the cockpit door is opened a number of times during a
normal flight in order for fight crew to use the lavatory, and for
stewards bringing food to the cockpit. Sitting back in coach all the
furtive Tigless&less can see is an endless array of seat backs.

Even procedures and habits of quick opening and closing of a fortified
cockpit door, opens the opportunity for someone right outside the door
to force their way in.

Tigless&less needs that pointed out to him. That's why I mentioned
"an in-plane camera system".


Ken is trying to distract from the sad truth that he is getting his
hind quarter kicked because of his hindsight.

No little weasel punk - it is YOU getting your ass kicked. And it's F
U N , Tigless&less IT"S F U N .





Six years after 9/11 Slow Ken has figured out that an impregnable
cockpit might have prevented 9/11. But he is not sure of it yet, and
thus he tells us that properly fortified cockpits doors are not the
total solution to 9/11.

One more moronic statement from Ken, and he wants to paper over it by
ignoring a simple question of how can you get a 9/11 without cockpit
access.

See above, witless weasel.

<snip further weasel words from Goldfinger boy>

Ken Wood

Re: The Long Knives Are Out For George Tenet

Legg inn av Ken Wood » 29 aug 2007 18:14:09

On Aug 28, 9:00 pm, Tiglath <te...@tiglath.net> wrote:
On Aug 28, 5:38 pm, Ken Wood <ken_woo...@yahoo.com> wrote:



Hindsight being peddled as smarts: the lowest form of masturbation.

Laughable and pathetic. Goldfinger boy is desperate to cover his
retreat by obfuscating,

Hmmm. So early in the thread Ken runs out of gas and has to resort to
cutting and pasting previous replies.

In your retreat, Goldfinger boy, you've used so much lying, phony
arguments and strawmen that repeatedly keeping the record straight has
become essential, Tigless.

A summary is in order. Early on in the thread I stated that the 911
attacks could have been deterred just by locked fortified cockpit
doors.


Tigless responded that that was ridiculous. In the course of the
argument he has tried to float a few foolish arguments.


First, Tigless expounded at length on how no one (including even
people paid to assess such risk) could have predicted a 911 type
attack and the airlines would be crazy to spend money on fortified
doors, they would go bankrupt, etc.


His stupidity in making this argument was shown by pointing out the
prevalence of Islamic terrorist highjackings, the growing prevalence
of Islamic terrorist suicide bombings in the '80s and '90s, the
vehicle bombings aimed at destroying whole buildings (including the
WTC in 1993), the mass murder bombings on busses etc. And, I
responded
with an article published 17 months before the 911 attack discussed a
number of cockpit intrusions by drunks and crazies and mentioned the
risk of "kamikazes" taking over the flight controls.


Obviously, these factors should have warned people responsible for
airline security that cockpits were way too insecure. I pointed that
out to Tigless early on that in addition to the airlines, insurers,
re-
insures, and Federal Govt. security people (especially FAA) all
should
have recognized these risk factors and imposed remedies. Tigless was
astounded - it was over his head.


Secondly, that even with a locked fortified cockpit door, the
terrorists could just start murdering people one by one and force the
pilots into opening the door. This was stupid for the simple reason
that even in pre 911 times, screening was good enough that people
planning terror attacks like 911 couldn't depend on getting a gun on
a
plane.


The 911 perpetrators had to depend on small knives. That means that
a
few terrorists have to start killing people with small knives, or
garroting or whatever and broadcasting what they were doing to the
pilots - to get them to open the (fortified) cockpit door. Obviously,
even a child could figure out that if they tried that they would risk
being overrun by passengers seeing that they might be next to be
murdered. Forcing the pilots to open the door by murdering people in
the passenger compartment is obviously a poor, risk filled approach
for the terrorist.


Third, and most comical, Tigless on a tangent showed how stupid and
clueless he is by referencing a movie called "Goldfinger", about
how
catastrophic it is to fire a gun in a pressurized airplane. The movie
shows a catastrophic depressurization. Most people know a small
bullet
hole in planes skin will not usually do much of anything. But then,
most people know better than to get their technical information from
grade B movies. LOL. I provided an article by experts on the
subject, that shows what a dancing clown this guy is, and that
specically states the Goldfinger example is bogus.


The plethora of phony arguments, strawmen and lying and abusive
language shows a lack of character in Tigless when he's under
pressure.

It is funny to watch Tigless squirming, wriggling and trying out one
strawman argument after another.
In frantic attempts to reverse his positions, he also reveals more
stupidity.

Keep it up Tigless. Keep digging Golfinger boy.

It's not a new tactic. NoGall tried it to his eternal discredit.

What is clear is that Ken has RUN from all the questions I posted
about his claims. He has declared victory and left the field after
burying the various points on which I asked him for clarification and
answers, so that he doesn't have to see them again.

You are a liar, pure and simple.


He is now posting a "summary" of the thread as he wishes it had
happened.

Unfortunately for Ken, the archives provide instant correction and
tacit rebuke at his dishonesty.

Yes, they do, moron.



Tell us again, Ken, how a strong, locked cockpit door doesn't totally
prevent 9/11 type situations...

I love it.

No you don't. You're in such a panic you can't think straight - and
that's the truth.

Here's you r answer (again), fool.


Here again I'll show just how bright Goldfinger boy really is.


Early on he said a fortified door would be ineffective in detering
cockpit takeovers. Now he has apparently totally reversed positions
and is claiming that it's undefeatable. LOL at the dunce.


Apparently, he really can't figure out how a fortified door on an
airliner can be defeated.


What a moron.


Early on in this thread, I stated that: "the only viable large
casualty method open to terrorists at
that time was a large airplane "kamikaze" attack of the the type they
did. It could have been foreseen, thwarted or precluded merely by
fortified cockpit doors and an in-plane camera system for monitoring
activity in the passenger compartment. It was systematic stupidity
from the airlines, the government, insurers and re-insurers that none
of that was done years before. "


Tigless disagreed with that statement, but has now flip-flopped to
saying a strong door alone is essentially not defeatable by
terrorists
- not bright.


Little Tigless&less can't figure out why I mentioned "an in-plane
camera system".


Obviously Tigless&less never flies up front in an airliner, or else
he
would know that the cockpit door is opened a number of times during a
normal flight in order for fight crew to use the lavatory, and for
stewards bringing food to the cockpit. Sitting back in coach all the
furtive Tigless&less can see is an endless array of seat backs.


Even procedures and habits of quick opening and closing of a
fortified
cockpit door, opens the opportunity for someone right outside the
door
to force their way in.


Tigless&less needs that pointed out to him. That's why I mentioned
"an in-plane camera system".

Tigless- it takes a lot of smarts and a lot of work to be a successful
liar. You are not equipped.

Ken Wood

Re: The Long Knives Are Out For George Tenet

Legg inn av Ken Wood » 29 aug 2007 19:06:12

On Aug 28, 8:50 pm, Tiglath <te...@tiglath.net> wrote:


Ken still doesn't understand that ground suicide attacks do not
translate or imply aviation threats, given that aviation has stopped
potential hijackers boarding planes with guns and bombs quite
effectively. He refuses to learn that important fact.



Obviously, these factors should have warned people responsible for
airline security that cockpits were way too insecure.

Obviously only to Ken and the other idiot. A cockpit even when open
is quite secure against suicide bombers, because bombers find it very
hard to board a plane with a suicide vest.


You're in a panic and unable to think clearly.

No one was implying that an airliner suicide terrorist would be
wearing a suicide vest.

This is another Tigless "self immolation" like when you thought the
Goldfinger movie gave a reliable view of results of a gunshot inside a
pressurized airplane.
[ Tigless: What happens when you fire a gun inside an airplane? Did
you ever see
Goldfinger? ]

You really are out of it and I'm actually getting embarrased for you.

Here is my orginal statement that you objected to:
" the only viable large casualty method open to terrorists at that
time was a large airplane "kamikaze" attack of the the type they
did. It could have been foreseen, thwarted or precluded merely by
fortified cockpit doors and an in-plane camera system for monitoring
activity in the passenger compartment. It was systematic stupidity
from the airlines, the government, insurers and re-insurers that none
of that was done years before. "

Why don't you just say you now agree, or continue to disagree, with
that statement and leave it at that?

Your friend.

Tiglath

Re: The Long Knives Are Out For George Tenet

Legg inn av Tiglath » 29 aug 2007 22:30:41

On Aug 29, 1:00 pm, Ken Wood <ken_woo...@yahoo.com> wrote:

What a moron you are Goldfinger boy. I'm supposed to point out
instances where a fortified cockpit door might be defeated,

Ken now posits a "fortified door" that can be defeated with box
cutters or similar weapons -- "a 911 similar situation."

Tell us about that door.

You clearly said "a 911 type situation." That is clearly a situation
where terrorists have no guns or other heavy weapons and gain access
to the cockpit. How could terrorists of the in a 911 type situation
breach a fortified door?

See Ken weasel out of just another fair and relevant question about
HIS claim.

Poor little weaselly Tigless&less - in a panic, and not able to
think.

Here again I'll show just how bright Goldfinger boy really is.

Early on he said a fortified door would be ineffective in detering
cockpit takeovers. Now he has apparently totally reversed positions
and is claiming that it's undefeatable. LOL at the dunce.


Ken refuses to clarify his numerous claims about the argument and
about my position.

Buffeted by the winds of reason his replies are spray and prey
rhetoric, hoping he hits something sensitive. Good luck.

Ken refuses to answer any question I ask him to elaborate on his
position, he is clearly not confident that he could hold his own if we
got into what he actually claims and writes.

As long as he refuses to answer the several questions outstanding he
makes himself the loser and the coward.

Ken remains unable to quote me saying all he claims I said.

Where did I make the unqualified claim that a fortified door would be
ineffective in detering cockpit takeovers.

Quote me if you can.

Ken continues UNABLE to quote me. He prefers the massaged version of
what I say.

When you have to resort to such dishonesty to prevail, you have lost.

You are good entertainment, though.

Ken Wood

Re: The Long Knives Are Out For George Tenet

Legg inn av Ken Wood » 29 aug 2007 22:47:02

On Aug 29, 3:30 pm, Tiglath <te...@tiglath.net> wrote:
On Aug 29, 1:00 pm, Ken Wood <ken_woo...@yahoo.com> wrote:







What a moron you are Goldfinger boy. I'm supposed to point out
instances where a fortified cockpit door might be defeated,

Ken now posits a "fortified door" that can be defeated with box
cutters or similar weapons -- "a 911 similar situation."

Tell us about that door.

You clearly said "a 911 type situation." That is clearly a situation
where terrorists have no guns or other heavy weapons and gain access
to the cockpit. How could terrorists of the in a 911 type situation
breach a fortified door?

See Ken weasel out of just another fair and relevant question about
HIS claim.

Poor little weaselly Tigless&less - in a panic, and not able to
think.

Here again I'll show just how bright Goldfinger boy really is.

Early on he said a fortified door would be ineffective in detering
cockpit takeovers. Now he has apparently totally reversed positions
and is claiming that it's undefeatable. LOL at the dunce.

Ken refuses to clarify his numerous claims about the argument and
about my position.

Buffeted by the winds of reason his replies are spray and prey
rhetoric, hoping he hits something sensitive. Good luck.

Ken refuses to answer any question I ask him to elaborate on his
position, he is clearly not confident that he could hold his own if we
got into what he actually claims and writes.

You have already been bested, and you are too much of a coward to
admit it.


As long as he refuses to answer the several questions outstanding he
makes himself the loser and the coward.

The coward is you Tigless.

You lie and use phony arguments and strawmen.


Ken remains unable to quote me saying all he claims I said.

Where did I make the unqualified claim that a fortified door would be
ineffective in detering cockpit takeovers.

Quote me if you can.

Ken continues UNABLE to quote me. He prefers the massaged version of
what I say.

Here's one Tigless quote refuting the value of fortified doors.

Watch him squirm.

Tigless: "' If you forget 9/11, what pilot would have remained
unflinching behind
a secure door while the slaughter of hundreds of passengers
proceeded,
knowing by precedent that he could avoid it by flying the hijackers
to
Cuba or wherever they demanded to go.

Just imagine a pilot who remained safe and landed in a military base
with all passengers and crew dead?

It worked differently then; hijackers didn't want to die unless they
had to, and everybody understood that. The best thing was always to
do as the hijacker wanted. ""


When you have to resort to such dishonesty to prevail, you have lost.

You are good entertainment, though.- Hide quoted text -

Again, you accuse others of your own traits, coward.




- Show quoted text -

D. Spencer Hines

Re: The Long Knives Are Out For George Tenet

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 29 aug 2007 22:51:20

Tiglath, Joseph Suriol, is correct on all points.

Wood forfeits the match.

Game Over.

Gans, knowing he would lose too, refused to play.

Hilarious!

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

"Tiglath" <temp5@tiglath.net> wrote in message
news:1188423041.102965.226530@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...

On Aug 29, 1:00 pm, Ken Wood <ken_woo...@yahoo.com> wrote:

What a moron you are Goldfinger boy. I'm supposed to point out
instances where a fortified cockpit door might be defeated,

Ken now posits a "fortified door" that can be defeated with box
cutters or similar weapons -- "a 911 similar situation."

Tell us about that door.

You clearly said "a 911 type situation." That is clearly a situation
where terrorists have no guns or other heavy weapons and gain access
to the cockpit. How could terrorists of the in a 911 type situation
breach a fortified door?

See Ken weasel out of just another fair and relevant question about
HIS claim.

Poor little weaselly Tigless&less - in a panic, and not able to
think.

Here again I'll show just how bright Goldfinger boy really is.

Early on he said a fortified door would be ineffective in detering
cockpit takeovers. Now he has apparently totally reversed positions
and is claiming that it's undefeatable. LOL at the dunce.

Ken refuses to clarify his numerous claims about the argument and
about my position.

Buffeted by the winds of reason his replies are spray and prey
rhetoric, hoping he hits something sensitive. Good luck.

Ken refuses to answer any question I ask him to elaborate on his
position, he is clearly not confident that he could hold his own if we
got into what he actually claims and writes.

As long as he refuses to answer the several questions outstanding he
makes himself the loser and the coward.

Ken remains unable to quote me saying all he claims I said.

Where did I make the unqualified claim that a fortified door would be
ineffective in detering cockpit takeovers.

Quote me if you can.

Ken continues UNABLE to quote me. He prefers the massaged version of
what I say.

When you have to resort to such dishonesty to prevail, you have lost.

You are good entertainment, though.

Ken Wood

Re: The Long Knives Are Out For George Tenet

Legg inn av Ken Wood » 29 aug 2007 23:17:39

On Aug 29, 3:30 pm, Tiglath <te...@tiglath.net> wrote:
On Aug 29, 1:00 pm, Ken Wood <ken_woo...@yahoo.com> wrote:







What a moron you are Goldfinger boy. I'm supposed to point out
instances where a fortified cockpit door might be defeated,

Ken now posits a "fortified door" that can be defeated with box
cutters or similar weapons -- "a 911 similar situation."

Tell us about that door.

You clearly said "a 911 type situation." That is clearly a situation
where terrorists have no guns or other heavy weapons and gain access
to the cockpit. How could terrorists of the in a 911 type situation
breach a fortified door?

See Ken weasel out of just another fair and relevant question about
HIS claim.

Poor little weaselly Tigless&less - in a panic, and not able to
think.

Here again I'll show just how bright Goldfinger boy really is.

Early on he said a fortified door would be ineffective in detering
cockpit takeovers. Now he has apparently totally reversed positions
and is claiming that it's undefeatable. LOL at the dunce.

Ken refuses to clarify his numerous claims about the argument and
about my position.

Buffeted by the winds of reason his replies are spray and prey
rhetoric, hoping he hits something sensitive. Good luck.

Ken refuses to answer any question I ask him to elaborate on his
position, he is clearly not confident that he could hold his own if we
got into what he actually claims and writes.

As long as he refuses to answer the several questions outstanding he
makes himself the loser and the coward.

Tigless, the coward is the one who runs from his own positions, who
doesn't have the courage to admit errors. That would be *you*.

Here's another of your clueless statements regarding the lack of value
of fortified cockpit doors. It is filled with clueless assumptions and
ranks along with your Goldfinger aeronotics and your thinking that
the discussion involved a terroist getting on an airliner wearing a
suicide vest.

Of course, you won't own up to any this. You'll be squirming and
obfuscating and putting up more strawmen. Sad about you.

Tigless: " Ok, Let me clarify the scenario that has been variously
described by
others and me.

A 747 with 300+ passengers and crew gets hijacked. No real weapons,
only a fake gun made entirely of plastic but looking very real.
Using
that gun the hijackers handcuff everybody that is not in the cockpit.
They brought on board plastic cuffs, and a bass guitar. They demand
that the pilot opens the door and complies with their demands or
else.

The pilots say No way, Jose, and the hijackers use the metal strings
of the bass to begin strangling the powerless passengers and crew,
checking from time to time if the pilot wants to reconsider.

The plane lands, the pilots are safe, the hijackers are apprehended
and we have 350 people dead.

Thank God we had a strong door, or else we could have had the
catastrophe of having to take those hijackers to Cuba or Algiers, God
forbid, "


Again, a summary is called for and I repeat is for anyone just
entering the thread. Tigless won't like it, but who cares?

Early on in the thread I stated that the 911
attacks could have been deterred just by locked fortified cockpit
doors.


Tigless responded that that was ridiculous. In the course of the
argument he has tried to float a few foolish arguments.


First, Tigless expounded at length on how no one (including even
people paid to assess such risk) could have predicted a 911 type
attack and the airlines would be crazy to spend money on fortified
doors, they would go bankrupt, etc.


His stupidity in making this argument was shown by pointing out the
prevalence of Islamic terrorist highjackings, the growing prevalence
of Islamic terrorist suicide bombings in the '80s and '90s, the
vehicle bombings aimed at destroying whole buildings (including the
WTC in 1993), the mass murder bombings on busses etc. And, I
responded
with an article published 17 months before the 911 attack discussed a
number of cockpit intrusions by drunks and crazies and mentioned the
risk of "kamikazes" taking over the flight controls.


Obviously, these factors should have warned people responsible for
airline security that cockpits were way too insecure. I pointed that
out to Tigless early on that in addition to the airlines, insurers,
re-
insures, and Federal Govt. security people (especially FAA) all
should
have recognized these risk factors and imposed remedies. Tigless was
astounded - it was over his head.


Secondly, that even with a locked fortified cockpit door, the
terrorists could just start murdering people one by one and force the
pilots into opening the door. This was stupid for the simple reason
that even in pre 911 times, screening was good enough that people
planning terror attacks like 911 couldn't depend on getting a gun on
a
plane.


The 911 perpetrators had to depend on small knives. That means that
a
few terrorists have to start killing people with small knives, or
garroting or whatever and broadcasting what they were doing to the
pilots - to get them to open the (fortified) cockpit door. Obviously,
even a child could figure out that if they tried that they would risk
being overrun by passengers seeing that they might be next to be
murdered. Forcing the pilots to open the door by murdering people in
the passenger compartment is obviously a poor, risk filled approach
for the terrorist.


Third, and most comical, Tigless on a tangent showed how stupid and
clueless he is by referencing a movie called "Goldfinger", about
how
catastrophic it is to fire a gun in a pressurized airplane. The movie
shows a catastrophic depressurization. Most people know a small
bullet
hole in planes skin will not usually do much of anything. But then,
most people know better than to get their technical information from
grade B movies. LOL. I provided an article by experts on the
subject, that shows what a dancing clown this guy is, and that
specically states the Goldfinger example is bogus.

The plethora of phony arguments, strawmen and lying and abusive
language shows a lack of character in Tigless when he's under
pressure.

It is funny to watch Tigless squirming, wriggling and trying out one
strawman argument after another.
In frantic attempts to reverse his positions, he also reveals more
stupidity.













Ken remains unable to quote me saying all he claims I said.

Where did I make the unqualified claim that a fortified door would be
ineffective in detering cockpit takeovers.

Quote me if you can.

Ken continues UNABLE to quote me. He prefers the massaged version of
what I say.

When you have to resort to such dishonesty to prevail, you have lost.

You are good entertainment, though.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Tiglath

Re: The Long Knives Are Out For George Tenet

Legg inn av Tiglath » 30 aug 2007 04:15:12

On Aug 29, 5:47 pm, Ken Wood <ken_woo...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Poor little weaselly Tigless&less - in a panic, and not able to
think.

Here again I'll show just how bright Goldfinger boy really is.

Early on he said a fortified door would be ineffective in detering
cockpit takeovers. Now he has apparently totally reversed positions
and is claiming that it's undefeatable. LOL at the dunce.

Ken refuses to clarify his numerous claims about the argument and
about my position.

Buffeted by the winds of reason his replies are spray and prey
rhetoric, hoping he hits something sensitive. Good luck.

Ken refuses to answer any question I ask him to elaborate on his
position, he is clearly not confident that he could hold his own if we
got into what he actually claims and writes.

You have already been bested, and you are too much of a coward to
admit it.


You would say that, but claiming victory and victory are not the same
thing. A man who RUNS from relevant and fair questions about his
claims bests no one.

You are still running.

You are also UNABLE to quote me writing any of the claims you
attribute to me. That's not the hallmark of debate winners either.

How can I be a coward I am here, and you are the one who cut from the
discussion and went directly to give himself a standing ovation of
one. You look silly.



As long as he refuses to answer the several questions outstanding he
makes himself the loser and the coward.

The coward is you Tigless.


How so? You are afraid of my questions I am not of yours. It's
clearly written, you lie, the record doesn't.


You lie and use phony arguments and strawmen.


Fine, list them, debate them, asks questions and let's see. Or are
you afraid?





Ken remains unable to quote me saying all he claims I said.

Where did I make the unqualified claim that a fortified door would be
ineffective in detering cockpit takeovers.

Quote me if you can.

Ken continues UNABLE to quote me. He prefers the massaged version of
what I say.

Here's one Tigless quote refuting the value of fortified doors.

Watch him squirm.

Tigless: "' If you forget 9/11, what pilot would have remained
unflinching behind
a secure door while the slaughter of hundreds of passengers
proceeded,
knowing by precedent that he could avoid it by flying the hijackers
to
Cuba or wherever they demanded to go.

Just imagine a pilot who remained safe and landed in a military base
with all passengers and crew dead?


Nowhere in that quote I see the claim you attribute to me. Where is
it?

You rightly quote me above, but your attribution is this:

"a fortified door would be ineffective in detering cockpit
takeovers"

Nowhere I made that absolute statement. Saying that a pilot may open
a cockpit door to avoid a massacre is not the same as saying that
fortified doors would be ineffective in deterring cockpit
takeovers.

You are unable to see the contrast between before and after 9/11, when
no pilot will ever open a cockpit door no matter what happens in the
cabin.

I don't expect a man of low intelligence like yourself to follow a
compound argument like this, but I am not your mentor. So if you
don't get it yet, you can go a fillern yourself. Other than that, have a
nice day.

Tiglath

Re: The Long Knives Are Out For George Tenet

Legg inn av Tiglath » 30 aug 2007 04:39:31

On Aug 29

Tigless, the coward is the one who runs from his own positions, who
doesn't have the courage to admit errors. That would be *you*.

I have invite you to detail those errors and debate them, but you keep
running from it.

Debate like a man instead of shrinking like a violet, and we may get
to the end of it.




Here's another of your clueless statements regarding the lack of value
of fortified cockpit doors. It is filled with clueless assumptions and
ranks along with your Goldfinger aeronotics and your thinking that
the discussion involved a terroist getting on an airliner wearing a
suicide vest.

Of course, you won't own up to any this.

I take responsibility for what I write, but not for what you think I
wrote.


Tigless: " Ok, Let me clarify the scenario that has been variously
described by
others and me.

A 747 with 300+ passengers and crew gets hijacked. No real weapons,
only a fake gun made entirely of plastic but looking very real.
Using
that gun the hijackers handcuff everybody that is not in the cockpit.
They brought on board plastic cuffs, and a bass guitar. They demand
that the pilot opens the door and complies with their demands or
else.

The pilots say No way, Jose, and the hijackers use the metal strings
of the bass to begin strangling the powerless passengers and crew,
checking from time to time if the pilot wants to reconsider.

The plane lands, the pilots are safe, the hijackers are apprehended
and we have 350 people dead.

Thank God we had a strong door, or else we could have had the
catastrophe of having to take those hijackers to Cuba or Algiers, God
forbid, "

You quote me correctly.

And you fail again to understand the significance of it. In no way it
means that cockpit doors are ineffective.

The example aims to CONTRAST how things were before 9/11, and after
9/11. BEFORE 9/11 a pilot may well have chosen to open the cockpit
fortified or not to save his crew and passengers from harm, because
9/11 type of situations had not yet occurred and were not expected.
AFTER 9/11 pilots know dangers they didn't know before, so they may
well choose to keep the cockpit locked no matter what.

It is a simple argument that most people would understand. It has no
contradictions or inconsistencies, but if flies right over your
head. You think that the example is about the strength of doors,
instead, but you would Wood.





Early on in the thread I stated that the 911
attacks could have been deterred just by locked fortified cockpit
doors.
Tigless responded that that was ridiculous.

WRONG. Where did I say that? Can you quote me? That is the second
time I ask.

I responded saying that you were using hindsight, and that you should
not try to pass hindsight for smarts.

Stop lying about what I said. Dumb and honest is sort of OK, but
dishonest as well, makes we wish for better material for an opponent.

Ken Wood

Re: The Long Knives Are Out For George Tenet

Legg inn av Ken Wood » 30 aug 2007 04:46:20

On Aug 29, 9:15 pm, Tiglath <te...@tiglath.net> wrote:
On Aug 29, 5:47 pm, Ken Wood <ken_woo...@yahoo.com> wrote:





Poor little weaselly Tigless&less - in a panic, and not able to
think.

Here again I'll show just how bright Goldfinger boy really is.

Early on he said a fortified door would be ineffective in detering
cockpit takeovers. Now he has apparently totally reversed positions
and is claiming that it's undefeatable. LOL at the dunce.

Ken refuses to clarify his numerous claims about the argument and
about my position.

Buffeted by the winds of reason his replies are spray and prey
rhetoric, hoping he hits something sensitive. Good luck.

Ken refuses to answer any question I ask him to elaborate on his
position, he is clearly not confident that he could hold his own if we
got into what he actually claims and writes.

You have already been bested, and you are too much of a coward to
admit it.

You would say that, but claiming victory and victory are not the same
thing. A man who RUNS from relevant and fair questions about his
claims bests no one.

You are still running.

LOL. The evader and liar is the one running, Tigless ;-)


You are also UNABLE to quote me writing any of the claims you
attribute to me. That's not the hallmark of debate winners either.

How can I be a coward I am here, and you are the one who cut from the
discussion and went directly to give himself a standing ovation of
one. You look silly.

As long as he refuses to answer the several questions outstanding he
makes himself the loser and the coward.

The coward is you Tigless.

How so? You are afraid of my questions I am not of yours. It's
clearly written, you lie, the record doesn't.

You lie and use phony arguments and strawmen.

Fine, list them, debate them, asks questions and let's see. Or are
you afraid?

I already have, in several cases. In any case anyone reading the
thread knows what you're doing.

For someone just coming into the thread, a summary is in order.
Someone can read it, then read the thread and see if i'm
misrepresenting things.

Early on in the thread I stated that the 911
attacks could have been deterred just by locked fortified cockpit
doors, and camera observation of the passenger compartment.


Tigless responded that that was ridiculous. In the course of the
argument he has tried to float a few foolish arguments.


First, Tigless expounded at length on how no one (including even
people paid to assess such risk) could have predicted a 911 type
attack and the airlines would be crazy to spend money on fortified
doors, they would go bankrupt, etc.


His stupidity in making this argument was shown by pointing out the
prevalence of Islamic terrorist highjackings, the growing prevalence
of Islamic terrorist suicide bombings in the '80s and '90s, the
vehicle bombings aimed at destroying whole buildings (including the
WTC in 1993), the mass murder bombings on busses etc. And, I
responded
with an article published 17 months before the 911 attack discussed a
number of cockpit intrusions by drunks and crazies and mentioned the
risk of "kamikazes" taking over the flight controls.


Obviously, these factors should have warned people responsible for
airline security that cockpits were way too insecure. I pointed that
out to Tigless early on that in addition to the airlines, insurers,
re-
insures, and Federal Govt. security people (especially FAA) all
should
have recognized these risk factors and imposed remedies. Tigless was
astounded - it was over his head.


Secondly, that even with a locked fortified cockpit door, the
terrorists could just start murdering people one by one and force the
pilots into opening the door. This was stupid for the simple reason
that even in pre 911 times, screening was good enough that people
planning terror attacks like 911 couldn't depend on getting a gun on
a
plane.


The 911 perpetrators had to depend on small knives. That means that
a
few terrorists have to start killing people with small knives, or
garroting or whatever and broadcasting what they were doing to the
pilots - to get them to open the (fortified) cockpit door. Obviously,
even a child could figure out that if they tried that they would risk
being overrun by passengers seeing that they might be next to be
murdered. Forcing the pilots to open the door by murdering people in
the passenger compartment is obviously a poor, risk filled approach
for the terrorist.


Third, and most comical, Tigless on a tangent showed how stupid and
clueless he is by referencing a movie called "Goldfinger", about
how
catastrophic it is to fire a gun in a pressurized airplane. The movie
shows a catastrophic depressurization. Most people know a small
bullet
hole in planes skin will not usually do much of anything. But then,
most people know better than to get their technical information from
grade B movies. LOL. I provided an article by experts on the
subject, that shows what a dancing clown this guy is, and that
specically states the Goldfinger example is bogus.


The plethora of phony arguments, strawmen and lying and abusive
language shows a lack of character in Tigless when he's under
pressure.

It is funny to watch Tigless squirming, wriggling and trying out one
strawman argument after another.
In frantic attempts to reverse his positions, he also reveals more
stupidity.

Keep it up Tigless. Keep digging Goldfinger boy.

Where did I make the unqualified claim that a fortified door would be
ineffective in detering cockpit takeovers.

Quote me if you can.

Ken continues UNABLE to quote me. He prefers the massaged version of
what I say.

Here's one Tigless quote refuting the value of fortified doors.

Watch him squirm.

Tigless: "' If you forget 9/11, what pilot would have remained
unflinching behind
a secure door while the slaughter of hundreds of passengers
proceeded,
knowing by precedent that he could avoid it by flying the hijackers
to
Cuba or wherever they demanded to go.

Just imagine a pilot who remained safe and landed in a military base
with all passengers and crew dead?

Nowhere in that quote I see the claim you attribute to me. Where is
it?

You rightly quote me above, but your attribution is this:

"a fortified door would be ineffective in detering cockpit
takeovers"

Nowhere I made that absolute statement.

Setting up phony evasive arguments won't work Tigless, it won't work.

Keep it up Tigless. Keep digging Goldfinger boy. ;--))

<snip evasions>

Ken Wood

Re: The Long Knives Are Out For George Tenet

Legg inn av Ken Wood » 30 aug 2007 05:04:07

On Aug 29, 9:39 pm, Tiglath <te...@tiglath.net> wrote:
On Aug 29



Tigless, the coward is the one who runs from his own positions, who
doesn't have the courage to admit errors. That would be *you*.

I have invite you to detail those errors and debate them, but you keep
running from it.

Debate like a man instead of shrinking like a violet, and we may get
to the end of it.

Here's another of your clueless statements regarding the lack of value
of fortified cockpit doors. It is filled with clueless assumptions and
ranks along with your Goldfinger aeronotics and your thinking that
the discussion involved a terroist getting on an airliner wearing a
suicide vest.

Of course, you won't own up to any this.

I take responsibility for what I write, but not for what you think I
wrote.





Tigless: " Ok, Let me clarify the scenario that has been variously
described by
others and me.

A 747 with 300+ passengers and crew gets hijacked. No real weapons,
only a fake gun made entirely of plastic but looking very real.
Using
that gun the hijackers handcuff everybody that is not in the cockpit.
They brought on board plastic cuffs, and a bass guitar. They demand
that the pilot opens the door and complies with their demands or
else.

The pilots say No way, Jose, and the hijackers use the metal strings
of the bass to begin strangling the powerless passengers and crew,
checking from time to time if the pilot wants to reconsider.

The plane lands, the pilots are safe, the hijackers are apprehended
and we have 350 people dead.

Thank God we had a strong door, or else we could have had the
catastrophe of having to take those hijackers to Cuba or Algiers, God
forbid, "

You quote me correctly.

And you fail again to understand the significance of it. In no way it
means that cockpit doors are ineffective.

The example aims to CONTRAST how things were before 9/11, and after
9/11. BEFORE 9/11 a pilot may well have chosen to open the cockpit
fortified or not to save his crew and passengers from harm, because
9/11 type of situations had not yet occurred and were not expected.
AFTER 9/11 pilots know dangers they didn't know before, so they may
well choose to keep the cockpit locked no matter what.

Moron, we long ago went over the point that fortified doors and camera
observation should have been systematicly put on airliners long before
911. That's were this argument started. And you keeping harpng as
though the risks could not have been foreseen or acted against.


My first post, that you argued against, said:

""" First, the only viable large casualty method open to terrorists
at
that time was a large airplane "kamikaze" attack of the the type they
did. It could have been foreseen, thwarted or precluded merely by
fortified cockpit doors and an in-plane camera system for monitoring
activity in the passenger compartment. It was systematic stupidity
from the airlines, the government, insurers and re-insurers that none
of that was done years before. """

The whole point is that security measures should have been implemented
well before 911 becasue the risk was becoming more apparent all
through the '80s and '90s.

I point all this out in the second point of my summary, below:

Obviously, these factors should have warned people responsible for
airline security that cockpits were way too insecure. I pointed that
out to Tigless early on that in addition to the airlines, insurers,
re-
insures, and Federal Govt. security people (especially FAA) all
should
have recognized these risk factors and imposed remedies. Tigless was
astounded - it was over his head.


Secondly, that even with a locked fortified cockpit door, the
terrorists could just start murdering people one by one and force the
pilots into opening the door. This was stupid for the simple reason
that even in pre 911 times, screening was good enough that people
planning terror attacks like 911 couldn't depend on getting a gun on
a
plane.


The 911 perpetrators had to depend on small knives. That means that
a
few terrorists have to start killing people with small knives, or
garroting or whatever and broadcasting what they were doing to the
pilots - to get them to open the (fortified) cockpit door. Obviously,
even a child could figure out that if they tried that they would risk
being overrun by passengers seeing that they might be next to be
murdered. Forcing the pilots to open the door by murdering people in
the passenger compartment is obviously a poor, risk filled approach
for the terrorist.


Third, and most comical, Tigless on a tangent showed how stupid and
clueless he is by referencing a movie called "Goldfinger", about
how
catastrophic it is to fire a gun in a pressurized airplane. The movie
shows a catastrophic depressurization. Most people know a small
bullet
hole in planes skin will not usually do much of anything. But then,
most people know better than to get their technical information from
grade B movies. LOL. I provided an article by experts on the
subject, that shows what a dancing clown this guy is, and that
specically states the Goldfinger example is bogus.


You're just too weak to admit you're on the obviously wrong side of
the following, that I initialy posted.

Going off on diversions and rasiing pretend arguments won't work.

You're DONE.


Anybody who needs Hines as an ally is only showing what a lost foll
they are.

<snip further evasion>

Ken Wood

Re: The Long Knives Are Out For George Tenet

Legg inn av Ken Wood » 30 aug 2007 05:17:42

On Aug 29, 9:39 pm, Tiglath <te...@tiglath.net> wrote:
On Aug 29



Tigless, the coward is the one who runs from his own positions, who
doesn't have the courage to admit errors. That would be *you*.

I have invite you to detail those errors and debate them, but you keep
running from it.


You can run Goldfinger boy, but you can't hide.

Tigless::::>

What happens when you fire a gun inside an airplane? Did you ever
see
Goldfinger?


Doors were not strengthened in the 70s because were useless against
the threat presented. The threat was to kill passengers and crew,
which happened to be on the wrong side of the cockpit.


If you forget 9/11, what pilot would have remained unflinching behind
a secure door while the slaughter of hundreds of passengers
proceeded,
knowing by precedent that he could avoid it by flying the hijackers
to
Cuba or wherever they demanded to go.


Just imagine a pilot who remained safe and landed in a military base
with all passengers and crew dead?


It worked differently then; hijackers didn't want to die unless they
had to, and everybody understood that. The best thing was always to
do as the hijacker wanted.


Therefore stronger doors were totally irrelevant.


You guys still don't get it. Doors become relevant only when you
know that the hijackers intent is to take the pilot seat and do a
9/11. But that was never the case before 9/11. Therefore stronger
doors would in fact made things worse in the 70s, for with the door
open the hijacker can see that the pilots are doing as he commands
and
therefore things don't go to the next level.

Tigless:::


Ok, Let me clarify the scenario that has been variously described by
others and me.

A 747 with 300+ passengers and crew gets hijacked. No real weapons,
only a fake gun made entirely of plastic but looking very real.
Using
that gun the hijackers handcuff everybody that is not in the cockpit.
They brought on board plastic cuffs, and a bass guitar. They demand
that the pilot opens the door and complies with their demands or
else.


The pilots say No way, Jose, and the hijackers use the metal strings
of the bass to begin strangling the powerless passengers and crew,
checking from time to time if the pilot wants to reconsider.


The plane lands, the pilots are safe, the hijackers are apprehended
and we have 350 people dead.


Thank God we had a strong door, or else we could have had the
catastrophe of having to take those hijackers to Cuba or Algiers, God
forbid,

Right?


End Tigless quotes.


Just to make Tigless crazy, here's a repeat of the summary that
Tigless can't deal with.


Early on in the thread I stated that the 911
attacks could have been deterred just by locked fortified cockpit
doors, and camera observation of the passenger compartment.


Tigless responded to the effect that that was ridiculous (see above
quotes of his). In the course of the
argument he has tried to float a few foolish arguments.


First, Tigless expounded at length on how no one (including even
people paid to assess such risk) could have predicted a 911 type
attack and the airlines would be crazy to spend money on fortified
doors, they would go bankrupt, etc.


His stupidity in making this argument was shown by pointing out the
prevalence of Islamic terrorist highjackings, the growing prevalence
of Islamic terrorist suicide bombings in the '80s and '90s, the
vehicle bombings aimed at destroying whole buildings (including the
WTC in 1993), the mass murder bombings on busses etc. And, I
responded
with an article published 17 months before the 911 attack discussed a
number of cockpit intrusions by drunks and crazies and mentioned the
risk of "kamikazes" taking over the flight controls.


Obviously, these factors should have warned people responsible for
airline security that cockpits were way too insecure. I pointed that
out to Tigless early on that in addition to the airlines, insurers,
re-
insures, and Federal Govt. security people (especially FAA) all
should
have recognized these risk factors and imposed remedies. Tigless was
astounded - it was over his head.


Secondly, that even with a locked fortified cockpit door, the
terrorists could just start murdering people one by one and force the
pilots into opening the door. This was stupid for the simple reason
that even in pre 911 times, screening was good enough that people
planning terror attacks like 911 couldn't depend on getting a gun on
a
plane.


The 911 perpetrators had to depend on small knives. That means that
a
few terrorists have to start killing people with small knives, or
garroting or whatever and broadcasting what they were doing to the
pilots - to get them to open the (fortified) cockpit door. Obviously,
even a child could figure out that if they tried that they would risk
being overrun by passengers seeing that they might be next to be
murdered. Forcing the pilots to open the door by murdering people in
the passenger compartment is obviously a poor, risk filled approach
for the terrorist.


Third, and most comical, Tigless on a tangent showed how stupid and
clueless he is by referencing a movie called "Goldfinger", about
how
catastrophic it is to fire a gun in a pressurized airplane. The movie
shows a catastrophic depressurization. Most people know a small
bullet
hole in planes skin will not usually do much of anything. But then,
most people know better than to get their technical information from
grade B movies. LOL. I provided an article by experts on the
subject, that shows what a dancing clown this guy is, and that
specically states the Goldfinger example is bogus.


The plethora of phony arguments, strawmen and lying and abusive
language shows a lack of character in Tigless when he's under
pressure.


It is funny to watch Tigless squirming, wriggling and trying out one
strawman argument after another.
In frantic attempts to reverse his positions, he also reveals more
stupidity.


Keep it up Tigless. Keep digging Goldfinger boy.

This is FUN. My summary stands and your running and ducking can't
alter that.

Ken Wood

Re: The Long Knives Are Out For George Tenet

Legg inn av Ken Wood » 30 aug 2007 05:31:23

On Aug 29, 9:15 pm, Tiglath <te...@tiglath.net> wrote:
On Aug 29, 5:47 pm, Ken Wood <ken_woo...@yahoo.com> wrote:





Poor little weaselly Tigless&less - in a panic, and not able to
think.

Here again I'll show just how bright Goldfinger boy really is.

Early on he said a fortified door would be ineffective in detering
cockpit takeovers. Now he has apparently totally reversed positions
and is claiming that it's undefeatable. LOL at the dunce.

Ken refuses to clarify his numerous claims about the argument and
about my position.

Buffeted by the winds of reason his replies are spray and prey
rhetoric, hoping he hits something sensitive. Good luck.

Ken refuses to answer any question I ask him to elaborate on his
position, he is clearly not confident that he could hold his own if we
got into what he actually claims and writes.

You have already been bested, and you are too much of a coward to
admit it.

You would say that, but claiming victory and victory are not the same
thing. A man who RUNS from relevant and fair questions about his
claims bests no one.

You are still running.

LOL. Am I?

You are also UNABLE to quote me writing any of the claims you
attribute to me. That's not the hallmark of debate winners either.

Tigless::::>

Wrong again.

What happens when you fire a gun inside an airplane? Did you ever
see
Goldfinger?


Doors were not strengthened in the 70s because were useless against
the threat presented. The threat was to kill passengers and crew,
which happened to be on the wrong side of the cockpit.


If you forget 9/11, what pilot would have remained unflinching behind
a secure door while the slaughter of hundreds of passengers
proceeded,
knowing by precedent that he could avoid it by flying the hijackers
to
Cuba or wherever they demanded to go.


Just imagine a pilot who remained safe and landed in a military base
with all passengers and crew dead?


It worked differently then; hijackers didn't want to die unless they
had to, and everybody understood that. The best thing was always to
do as the hijacker wanted.


Therefore stronger doors were totally irrelevant.


You guys still don't get it. Doors become relevant only when you
know that the hijackers intent is to take the pilot seat and do a
9/11. But that was never the case before 9/11. Therefore stronger
doors would in fact made things worse in the 70s, for with the door
open the hijacker can see that the pilots are doing as he commands
and
therefore things don't go to the next level.

Tigless:::


Ok, Let me clarify the scenario that has been variously described by
others and me.

A 747 with 300+ passengers and crew gets hijacked. No real weapons,
only a fake gun made entirely of plastic but looking very real.
Using
that gun the hijackers handcuff everybody that is not in the cockpit.
They brought on board plastic cuffs, and a bass guitar. They demand
that the pilot opens the door and complies with their demands or
else.


The pilots say No way, Jose, and the hijackers use the metal strings
of the bass to begin strangling the powerless passengers and crew,
checking from time to time if the pilot wants to reconsider.


The plane lands, the pilots are safe, the hijackers are apprehended
and we have 350 people dead.


Thank God we had a strong door, or else we could have had the
catastrophe of having to take those hijackers to Cuba or Algiers, God
forbid,

End Tigless quotes


How can I be a coward I am here, and you are the one who cut from the
discussion and went directly to give himself a standing ovation of
one. You look silly.

See above, Tigless&less

D. Spencer Hines

Re: The Long Knives Are Out For George Tenet

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 30 aug 2007 07:47:36

Yes, Wood is practicing "Coulda, Shoulda, Woulda" History.

Wood also makes ONE of the CARDINAL mistakes of the very young and
inexperienced [as well as academics] that if they can CONCEPTUALIZE a
"LOGICAL" way that something must have happened then that is the way it DID
happen.

It saves them [both the young and inexperienced and the academics] of
actually having to do the hard work of gathering, sifting, winnowing and
UNDERSTANDING the FACTS...

As Tiglath has.

Pogue Gans, an academic, displays this same crippling failing -- in
abundance.

I shall be detailing more of Wood's CARDINAL ERRORS.

AFTER he answers Tiglath's quite apropos questions.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Deus Vult

"Ken Wood" <ken_wood56@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1188446647.694883.310080@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com...

<baldersnip>

Ken Wood

Re: The Long Knives Are Out For George Tenet

Legg inn av Ken Wood » 30 aug 2007 14:26:53

On Aug 30, 12:47 am, "D. Spencer Hines" <pant...@excelsior.com> wrote:
Yes, Wood is practicing "Coulda, Shoulda, Woulda" History.

Wood also makes ONE of the CARDINAL mistakes of the very young and
inexperienced [as well as academics] that if they can CONCEPTUALIZE a
"LOGICAL" way that something must have happened then that is the way it DID
happen.

It saves them [both the young and inexperienced and the academics] of
actually having to do the hard work of gathering, sifting, winnowing and
UNDERSTANDING the FACTS...

As Tiglath has.

Pogue Gans, an academic, displays this same crippling failing -- in
abundance.

I shall be detailing more of Wood's CARDINAL ERRORS.

AFTER he answers Tiglath's quite apropos questions.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Deus Vult

"Ken Wood" <ken_woo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:1188446647.694883.310080@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com...

baldersnip


On Aug 29, 9:41 pm, "D. Spencer Hines" <pant...@excelsior.com> wrote:


It is certainly NOT a "phony question".

It is a completely valid and fair-minded question that needs to be answered
by Wood.

Tell us exactly what this question is, Hines, and it's relevancy.

LOL
The old fraud fears to even try.

Birds of a feather.

Have a nice day.

Tiglath

Re: The Long Knives Are Out For George Tenet

Legg inn av Tiglath » 30 aug 2007 14:30:24

On Aug 29, 11:46 pm, Ken Wood <ken_woo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Aug 29, 9:15 pm, Tiglath <te...@tiglath.net> wrote:


claims bests no one.

You are still running.

LOL. The evader and liar is the one running, Tigless ;-)


How can I be running if I am here still waiting for your answers?






Fine, list them, debate them, asks questions and let's see. Or are
you afraid?

I already have, in several cases.

All you have written is a jumble if inventions about what I wrote,
which you cannot substantiate.

It has exposed your dishonesty and your limited intelligence.

You need to take one thing at a time.

Please show the readers a SINGLE strawman I have used, and explain why
it is a strawman, in clear, concise language; and if you can do that
successfully you may regain some credibility.


Nowhere I made that absolute statement.

Setting up phony evasive arguments won't work Tigless, it won't work.


I answered you in full. What else do you want to know?

I ask again, where did I write the statement you attribute to me that
strong cockpit doors are useless in preventing assaults to the
cockpit?

Claiming that statement and what I actually wrote -- and you quoted --
that pilots may open the door to avoid a massacre are equivalent,
informs readers of your room temperature I.Q. and little else.

Tiglath

Re: The Long Knives Are Out For George Tenet

Legg inn av Tiglath » 30 aug 2007 14:53:17

On Aug 30, 12:31 am, Ken Wood <ken_woo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
You would say that, but claiming victory and victory are not the same
thing. A man who RUNS from relevant and fair questions about his
claims bests no one.

You are still running.

LOL. Am I?




Yes you are. You refuse to answer simple, harmless questions
pertinent to the issues at hand, yet you remain in the thread but only
to throw spitballs and avoiding the risk you obviously think you run
by anwering questions.

That is "running" from the discussion. A cowardly tactic from people
in rhetorical trouble.

The nervous laughter can't conceal it.




You are also UNABLE to quote me writing any of the claims you
attribute to me. That's not the hallmark of debate winners either.

Tigless::::

Wrong again.

What happens when you fire a gun inside an airplane? Did you ever
see
Goldfinger?


So? You quote several of my points and then call me names.

When in fact what you should do is to adress each point separately and
say what is wrong with it.

Your lack of clarity is also affecting other readers who don't know
who wrote what.

Please use punctuation to separate the text you write and the text you
quote. If you don't know how, ask any educated adult near you, if
any, how to quote properly.

So what is wrong and what do you understand I meant by this?

"What happens when you fire a gun inside an airplane? Did you ever
see Goldfinger?"



Doors were not strengthened in the 70s because were useless against
the threat presented. The threat was to kill passengers and crew,
which happened to be on the wrong side of the cockpit.


And that?




If you forget 9/11, what pilot would have remained unflinching behind
a secure door while the slaughter of hundreds of passengers
proceeded,
knowing by precedent that he could avoid it by flying the hijackers
to
Cuba or wherever they demanded to go.


Ditto. Why is that one not true, apparently?

And so son. You get the idea, I hope.

Learn how to debate. Saying that I am wrong after you quote me is
gratuitous.

You need to explain WHY and HOW it is wrong, with facts and a
rationale.

Is that too hard for you?




End Tigless quotes

How can I be a coward I am here, and you are the one who cut from the
discussion and went directly to give himself a standing ovation of
one. You look silly.

See above, Tigless&less

See what? From where in what you quote follows than I am a coward?

Your arbitrary connections out of the blue explain only the level of
confusion in your mind, you can neither understand moderately
difficult concepts nor express them.

Maybe you are a great painter, but here you suck donkey cock. Are
you autistic?

Ken Wood

Re: The Long Knives Are Out For George Tenet

Legg inn av Ken Wood » 30 aug 2007 15:06:50

Tigless, quit your running and ducking by posing inane questions
like:

"" not answered whether you would like to sit next to a
window that shatters in a plane at 35,000 feet.

What makes you so afraid of RELEVANT, and simple questions? ""

LOL. It's a ridiculous question designed to divert attention from
the real argument and lessen your embarrasment over being shown up for
thinking the Goldfinger movie showed realistic catastrophic results of
firning a gun inside a pressurized cabin.

Here's a very real and relevant question that I posed yesterday and
that you have been too cowardly to answer.

Tigless, after all your ridiculous antics and reversals, why don't you
tell us if you now agree or disagree with my original statement in
this thread that began all this. that is:

" First, the only viable large casualty method open to terrorists at
that time was a large airplane "kamikaze" attack of the the type they
did. It could have been foreseen, thwarted or precluded merely by
fortified cockpit doors and an in-plane camera system for monitoring
activity in the passenger compartment. It was systematic stupidity
from the airlines, the government, insurers and re-insurers that none
of that was done years before. "

According to your own reversal upthread, you may now agree with my
above statement, but for all we can tell, you may have since reversed
your reversal. ;-)))

In all seriousness, it is an actual relevant question, unlike the
disingenuous ones you plant, and your answer may allow us to terminate
this dispute.

Have a wonderful day, Tigless LOL

Ken Wood

Re: The Long Knives Are Out For George Tenet

Legg inn av Ken Wood » 30 aug 2007 15:08:14

Tigless, quit your running and ducking by posing inane questions
like:

"" not answered whether you would like to sit next to a
window that shatters in a plane at 35,000 feet.

What makes you so afraid of RELEVANT, and simple questions? ""

LOL. It's a ridiculous question designed to divert attention from
the real argument and lessen your embarrasment over being shown up for
thinking the Goldfinger movie showed realistic catastrophic results of
firning a gun inside a pressurized cabin.

Here's a very real and relevant question that I posed yesterday and
that you have been too cowardly to answer.

Tigless, after all your ridiculous antics and reversals, why don't you
tell us if you now agree or disagree with my original statement in
this thread that began all this. that is:

" First, the only viable large casualty method open to terrorists at
that time was a large airplane "kamikaze" attack of the the type they
did. It could have been foreseen, thwarted or precluded merely by
fortified cockpit doors and an in-plane camera system for monitoring
activity in the passenger compartment. It was systematic stupidity
from the airlines, the government, insurers and re-insurers that none
of that was done years before. "

According to your own reversal upthread, you may now agree with my
above statement, but for all we can tell, you may have since reversed
your reversal. ;-)))

In all seriousness, it is an actual relevant question, unlike the
disingenuous ones you plant, and your answer may allow us to terminate
this dispute.

Have a wonderful day, Tigless LOL

Ken Wood

Re: The Long Knives Are Out For George Tenet

Legg inn av Ken Wood » 30 aug 2007 15:08:39

Tigless, quit your running and ducking by posing inane questions
like:

"" not answered whether you would like to sit next to a
window that shatters in a plane at 35,000 feet.

What makes you so afraid of RELEVANT, and simple questions? ""

LOL. It's a ridiculous question designed to divert attention from
the real argument and lessen your embarrasment over being shown up for
thinking the Goldfinger movie showed realistic catastrophic results of
firning a gun inside a pressurized cabin.

Here's a very real and relevant question that I posed yesterday and
that you have been too cowardly to answer.

Tigless, after all your ridiculous antics and reversals, why don't you
tell us if you now agree or disagree with my original statement in
this thread that began all this. that is:

" First, the only viable large casualty method open to terrorists at
that time was a large airplane "kamikaze" attack of the the type they
did. It could have been foreseen, thwarted or precluded merely by
fortified cockpit doors and an in-plane camera system for monitoring
activity in the passenger compartment. It was systematic stupidity
from the airlines, the government, insurers and re-insurers that none
of that was done years before. "

According to your own reversal upthread, you may now agree with my
above statement, but for all we can tell, you may have since reversed
your reversal. ;-)))

In all seriousness, it is an actual relevant question, unlike the
disingenuous ones you plant, and your answer may allow us to terminate
this dispute.

Have a wonderful day, Tigless LOL

Ken Wood

Re: The Long Knives Are Out For George Tenet

Legg inn av Ken Wood » 30 aug 2007 15:09:11

Tigless, quit your running and ducking by posing inane questions
like:

"" not answered whether you would like to sit next to a
window that shatters in a plane at 35,000 feet.

What makes you so afraid of RELEVANT, and simple questions? ""

LOL. It's a ridiculous question designed to divert attention from
the real argument and lessen your embarrasment over being shown up for
thinking the Goldfinger movie showed realistic catastrophic results of
firning a gun inside a pressurized cabin.

Here's a very real and relevant question that I posed yesterday and
that you have been too cowardly to answer.

Tigless, after all your ridiculous antics and reversals, why don't you
tell us if you now agree or disagree with my original statement in
this thread that began all this. that is:

" First, the only viable large casualty method open to terrorists at
that time was a large airplane "kamikaze" attack of the the type they
did. It could have been foreseen, thwarted or precluded merely by
fortified cockpit doors and an in-plane camera system for monitoring
activity in the passenger compartment. It was systematic stupidity
from the airlines, the government, insurers and re-insurers that none
of that was done years before. "

According to your own reversal upthread, you may now agree with my
above statement, but for all we can tell, you may have since reversed
your reversal. ;-)))

In all seriousness, it is an actual relevant question, unlike the
disingenuous ones you plant, and your answer may allow us to terminate
this dispute.

Have a wonderful day, Tigless LOL

Ken Wood

Re: The Long Knives Are Out For George Tenet

Legg inn av Ken Wood » 30 aug 2007 16:21:02

Tigless, quit your running and ducking by posing inane strawman
questions
like:

"" not answered whether you would like to sit next to a
window that shatters in a plane at 35,000 feet.

What makes you so afraid of RELEVANT, and simple questions? ""


LOL. It's a ridiculous question designed to divert attention from
the real argument and lessen your embarrasment over being shown up
for
thinking the Goldfinger movie showed realistic catastrophic results
of
firning a gun inside a pressurized cabin.


Here's a very real and relevant question that I posed yesterday and
that you have been too cowardly to answer.


Tigless, after all your ridiculous antics and reversals, why don't
you
tell us if you now agree or disagree with my original statement in
this thread that began all this. that is:


" First, the only viable large casualty method open to terrorists at
that time was a large airplane "kamikaze" attack of the the type they
did. It could have been foreseen, thwarted or precluded merely by
fortified cockpit doors and an in-plane camera system for monitoring
activity in the passenger compartment. It was systematic stupidity
from the airlines, the government, insurers and re-insurers that none
of that was done years before. "


According to your own reversal upthread, you may now agree with my
above statement, but for all we can tell, you may have since reversed
your reversal. ;-)))


In all seriousness, it is an actual relevant question, unlike the
disingenuous ones you plant, and your answer may allow us to
terminate
this dispute.


Have a wonderful day, Tigless LOL

Tiglath

Re: The Long Knives Are Out For George Tenet

Legg inn av Tiglath » 30 aug 2007 16:47:40

On Aug 30, 12:04 am, Ken Wood <ken_woo...@yahoo.com> wrote:


The example aims to CONTRAST how things were before 9/11, and after
9/11. BEFORE 9/11 a pilot may well have chosen to open the cockpit
fortified or not to save his crew and passengers from harm, because
9/11 type of situations had not yet occurred and were not expected.
AFTER 9/11 pilots know dangers they didn't know before, so they may
well choose to keep the cockpit locked no matter what.

Moron, we long ago went over the point that fortified doors and camera
observation should have been systematicly put on airliners long before
911. That's were this argument started. And you keeping harpng as
though the risks could not have been foreseen or acted against.


You need to upgrade your RAM, Ken. You forget things as recent as a
week ago.

You have FAILED to show that 9/11 situations were a clear and present
danger before 9/11.

The fact that other non-aviation acts of terrorism were going on, and
that 30 years ago there used to be plane hijackings in NO WAY point to
an imminent "9/11 type of situation."

Aviation was SAFE from those threats.

Therefore to say, as your general argument goes, that the concerned
parties should have expected that people armed with boxcutters or
similar would get so immensely lucky as to pull a 9/11, is lame, lame,
lame, and a disgusting abuse of hindsight.

Shame on you.

Further interaction with you has only confirmed what such a blatant
abuse of hindsight suggested: that you are just another yesterday
prophet. A silly man who after he knows how things turned out wants
to appear smarter than he is by criticizing people who didn't know and
reasonably could not have expected to anticipate what the future
held.





The whole point is that security measures should have been implemented
well before 911 becasue the risk was becoming more apparent all
through the '80s and '90s.


What risk? The threat of boxcutters?

Your verbal diarrhea continues. Without boxcutters or similar tiny
weapons, there would not have been 9/11. Did YOU think of that
threat before September 11?

Tell us, Ken. Did you?

Tiglath

Re: The Long Knives Are Out For George Tenet

Legg inn av Tiglath » 30 aug 2007 17:03:37

On Aug 30, 12:17 am, Ken Wood <ken_woo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
This is FUN. My summary stands and your running and ducking can't
alter that.

It's so much fun you are planning to leave already.

Ken pastes the shitload of his summary where he is supposed to show
the very things he claims in his summary are true.

Spray and pray.

It is not working.

Ken is wasting bandwith like the frustrated cuckhold who trashes his
own home because he can't get at who is screwing him.

Woody writes less and less and pastes more and more, because each time
he writes something new a 2x4 appears and smacks him right in the
temple.

As it just happened when Ken went to our first post and a
"catastrophic result" ensued, showing in all clarity the kind liar he
is.

Ken is barely above sea level but pressure is building in his cabin.

D. Spencer Hines

Re: The Long Knives Are Out For George Tenet

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 30 aug 2007 17:33:59

Yes, lots of nervous laughter -- posts peppered with LOL's.

He's clearly nothing more than a Pimply-Faced Kid [PFK] masturbating on the
Internet...

That's one major reason why he can't make a connection, can't actually
engage in a genuine dialogue.

For him it's always a solo performance.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

"Tiglath" <temp5@tiglath.net> wrote in message
news:1188481997.382307.226600@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...

On Aug 30, 12:31 am, Ken Wood <ken_woo...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Yes you are. You refuse to answer simple, harmless questions
pertinent to the issues at hand, yet you remain in the thread but only
to throw spitballs and avoiding the risk you obviously think you run
by anwering questions.

That is "running" from the discussion. A cowardly tactic from people
in rhetorical trouble.

The nervous laughter can't conceal it.

D. Spencer Hines

Re: The Long Knives Are Out For George Tenet

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 30 aug 2007 18:35:57

"Ken Wood" <ken_wood56@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1188487262.860006.306300@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...

"First, the only viable large casualty method open to terrorists at
that time was a large airplane "kamikaze" attack of the the [sic] type
they did. It could have been foreseen, thwarted or precluded merely
by fortified cockpit doors and an in-plane camera system for
monitoring activity in the passenger compartment. It was systematic
stupidity from [sic] the airlines, the government, insurers and
re-insurers that none of that was done years before." [sic]

------------Cordon Sanitaire-------------------------------------------

Certainly NOT "the only viable large casualty method open to terrorists at
that time ." Tunnel Vision.

He also stutters and gets his prepositions and negatives confused.

DSH
--------------------------------------------------------

Here's a second EXCELLENT example of a CARDINAL ERROR made by young,
inexperienced, not-very-intelligent, pimply-faced kids -- and mediocre
academics, often cut from the same cloth -- because they spend a good deal
of time interacting with each other...

And their weaknesses rub off on each other.

Wood falls in the PFK Category...

They think that if someone simply calls attention to a threat by talking
loosely about it or even writing an article in _The Atlantic_ or _Harper's_
or _The New York Times Magazine_ or some such, that everyone who is NOT
"systematically stupid" should immediately see said threat as a clear and
present danger and spend millions/billions of dollars and tens of
thousands/hundreds of thousands of man-hours countering it -- although it is
NOT seen as a CLEAR & PRESENT DANGER by the majority.

Never Happen...

BECAUSE they are inexperienced pimply-faced kids and/or mediocre academics
they probably have never DONE anything -- have not fought hard to get
endorsements, backing and funding for their pet project, assumed the burden
of failure if they screw the pooch and worked 80-hour weeks for several
years, making it all happen.

So, they wallow in hindsight and self-adoration -- intellectual masturbators
writ large.

We were similarly unprepared to face the threat before the Attack on Pearl
Harbor because enough of the American People could not be convinced of the
threat from Fascist Japan, as well as Fascist Germany and Italy, to fund,
recruit and man an adequate Army and Navy to counter the threats.

PFK's and mediocre academics often simply don't understand that in the
American System of Democratic Government PEOPLE must DIE -- in LARGE
NUMBERS -- before any radical, EXPENSIVE change can take effect.

In effect, the American People have to be hit upside the head several times
with a well-seasoned, strongly-wielded 2 by 4 -- blows which were
administered at Pearl Harbor and on 9/11

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Veni, Vidi, Calcitravi Asinum

Ken Wood

Re: The Long Knives Are Out For George Tenet

Legg inn av Ken Wood » 30 aug 2007 19:21:25

On Aug 30, 9:47 am, Tiglath <te...@tiglath.net> wrote:
On Aug 30, 12:04 am, Ken Wood <ken_woo...@yahoo.com> wrote:

The example aims to CONTRAST how things were before 9/11, and after
9/11. BEFORE 9/11 a pilot may well have chosen to open the cockpit
fortified or not to save his crew and passengers from harm, because
9/11 type of situations had not yet occurred and were not expected.
AFTER 9/11 pilots know dangers they didn't know before, so they may
well choose to keep the cockpit locked no matter what.

Moron, we long ago went over the point that fortified doors and camera
observation should have been systematicly put on airliners long before
911. That's were this argument started. And you keeping harpng as
though the risks could not have been foreseen or acted against.

You need to upgrade your RAM, Ken. You forget things as recent as a
week ago.

You have FAILED to show that 9/11 situations were a clear and present
danger before 9/11.

Tigless has reversed his position on fortified cockpit doors. He
initially said they were "useless, irrelevant" - now he admits they
would have stopped the 911 attacks. Or, at least that was his positin
in a nearby post. Who knows where run off to next?

He's in retreat.

He now takes up a new losing position on how nobody could foresee the
need to install the doors, even though Israel used them a long time
before.

We've been over this before, of course, but this guy is n a mind
numbing panic and he's not remembering or thinking straight.

Here Tigless, calm your panic and re-read this.

Tigless expounded at length on how no one (including even
people paid to assess such risk) could have predicted a 911 type
attack and the airlines would be crazy to spend money on fortified
doors, they would go bankrupt, etc.


His stupidity in making this argument was shown by pointing out the
prevalence of Islamic terrorist highjackings, the growing prevalence
of Islamic terrorist suicide bombings in the '80s and '90s, the
vehicle bombings aimed at destroying whole buildings (including the
WTC in 1993), the mass murder bombings on busses etc. And, I
responded
with an article published 17 months before the 911 attack discussed a
number of cockpit intrusions by drunks and crazies and mentioned the
risk of "kamikazes" taking over the flight controls. [see just below,
article in entirety]


Obviously, these factors should have warned people responsible for
airline security that cockpits were way too insecure. I pointed that
out to Tigless early on that in addition to the airlines, insurers,
re-
insures, and Federal Govt. security people (especially FAA) all
should
have recognized these risk factors and imposed remedies. Tigless was
astounded - it was over his head.

ARTICLE on....

Cockpit assault [published 17 months before 911, disussing cockpit
invasions back to 1997]

Since July 1997, over a dozen passengers have attempted to breach
cockpit doors during commercial airline flights. We've been lucky so
far.
- - - - - - - - - - - -
By Elliott Neal Hester

On March 16, aboard Alaska Airlines flight 259 from Puerto Vallarta,
Mexico, to San Francisco, a man did something that angry, frightened,
deranged and intoxicated passengers are doing with alarming frequency
these days: He broke through the cockpit door and attacked the
pilots.
Provoked (or so his attorney claims) by a bad reaction to blood-
pressure medicine, Peter Bradley, 39, shouted, "I'm going to kill
you," and lunged for the controls.


Having been alerted of the impending attack, the co-pilot was armed
with an ax. He fought with Bradley, suffering a cut to his hand that
would require eight stitches. Struggling to fly the plane during this
tight-quartered assault, the pilot made an urgent plea for help over
the intercom. At least seven passengers responded. The 6-foot-2, 250-
pound assailant was snatched from the cockpit, wrestled to the
ground,
bound hand and foot with plastic restraints and taken into custody by
federal authorities upon landing in San Francisco. A potential
airplane disaster was averted. But what might have happened if no one
had responded to the captain's plea? Or what if the response had been
too little or too late?


Eleven days later, on March 27, an airplane cockpit was the scene of
yet another in-flight battle. This time the results were even
scarier.
A German man broke into the flight deck during a Germania charter
flight from Berlin to the Canary Islands. The man, believed by
authorities to have been under the influence of alcohol, forced his
way into the cockpit while the plane was over Spanish airspace. Once
inside, reports say, he threatened the pilots and told them the plane
was under assault by "terrorists." He then proceeded to punch, kick
and choke the 59-year-old pilot.


At some point the attacker managed to grab the controls. The aircraft
veered from its flight path and lost altitude briefly, but the co-
pilot managed to stabilize it. "Help, we need strong men, we need
strong men!" the co-pilot reportedly announced. Four passengers from
Sweden, Russia and Germany, along with flight attendants, responded
to
his plea and managed to subdue the attacker. A spokesman for
Germania,
a charter company operated by LTU, said "There was no real danger at
any point for the passengers." This statement is a crock of public-
relations bullshit, pungent enough to wrinkle noses on both sides of
the Atlantic. Everyone aboard the aircraft was in danger, all 143
passengers and crew. Why else would the co-pilot be screaming for
help?


During the past few years, passenger attacks against flight
attendants
have been well documented by the media. Cabin personnel have been
slammed against bulkheads, put into headlocks, punched, kicked, spat
at, urinated upon, hit over the head with beer bottles and threatened
with their lives. These in-flight assaults are extremely rare, yet
more and more air ragers find themselves traveling to that final
destination behind bars. Horrible though it may be, when a flight
attendant is attacked, the safety of an aircraft and its passengers
is
not always at issue. When someone breaks through the cockpit door,
however, when someone poses a physical threat to the only two people
qualified to keep an aircraft aloft, the potential for disaster makes
it everybody's issue.


The cockpit door is the only barrier between a kamikaze passenger and
an unsuspecting pilot. It is a marginal defense, built for ease of
crew entry and as an emergency escape, not as a fortification against
determined intruders. The Alaska Airlines ordeal prompted five
popular
airlines (Alaska, American, Delta, Northwest and TWA) to announce,
just one week after the incident, that they are seeking ways to
fortify bifold cockpit doors -- standard on MD-83 aircraft -- like
the
one Bradley was able to break through. "The one thing you can't do is
put a bank vault door on the cockpit," said Alaska Airlines spokesman
Jack Evans. "The door needs to be secure, but it also needs to be an
emergency exit as well."


Paradoxically, some international carriers allow the cockpit door to
remain unlocked during a flight. Any passenger can walk right in,
even
those who might mistake the cockpit for the lavatory. U.S. airlines
adopt a quite different policy, however. They require that the
cockpit
door remain locked at all times during flight, except, of course,
while crew members are entering and exiting. In this respect, pilots
and flight attendants carry cockpit keys as standard equipment. But
in
one particularly appalling incident, a cockpit key gave a deranged
passenger access to the flight deck and the consequences were fatal.


On July 23, as All Nippon Airways flight 61 ascended from Tokyo's
Haneda Airport on its way to Sapporo, Yuji Nishizawa, 28, got up from
his seat, pulled an 8-inch knife on a female flight attendant and
forced her to unlock the cockpit door. It's not certain how he
managed
to smuggle a deadly weapon through airport security. But what he did
next is crystal clear. He ordered the co-pilot out of the cockpit and
demanded that the pilot fly to a U.S. military base west of Tokyo.
When the pilot refused, Nishizawa stabbed him in the neck and took
control of the aircraft.


With the deranged man behind the yoke, the Boeing 747, packed with
503
passengers and a crew of 14, plunged to within 300 meters (984 feet)
of the ground. Moments before what might have been the airline
industry's worst-ever disaster, the deposed co-pilot and an off-duty
pilot stormed the cockpit, tied up the assailant and resumed control
of the aircraft, which they managed to land safely in Tokyo. Despite
the efforts of an onboard physician, the injured pilot bled to death.


Later, when police questioned Nishizawa about his motive, he
expressed
a fondness for flight simulation games, which had apparently ceased
to
capture his imagination. "I wanted to soar through the air," he
reportedly told police.


In the All Nippon Airways case, a hijacker forced his way past the
cockpit door in a planned attack. But unplanned break-in attempts by
disturbed passengers add a whole new wrinkle to the withering face of
in-flight tranquillity. Since July 1997, there have been at least 14
instances where an unauthorized person attempted to breach the
cockpit
door during a commercial airline flight, including the two described
above. Of these, eight were successful. The result: Three physical
attacks on pilots (all in March), at least five flight diversions and
more than two dozen pilots who were forced to shift their attention
from the controls to a potentially violent intruder. Here's how the
incidents played out:


July 14, 1997: After Thomas Kasper poured hot coffee on a flight
attendant (inflicting second- and third-degree burns), his traveling
companion, Susan Callihan, kicked a hole in the cockpit door.
Witnesses on the Continental Airlines flight from Houston to Los
Angeles said Callihan then told the flight crew there were bombs and
guns on the airplane, though none were found. In addition to this,
Kasper nearly opened an emergency door when the plane landed. Both
were arrested and convicted of interfering with a flight crew. The
couple received his-and-hers prison sentences of three and two years
respectively.


July 27, 1997: A woman traveling with her young son tried to enter
the
cockpit aboard a Northwest Airlink flight from Iowa to the
Minneapolis-
St.Paul airport. When the pilot closed the door, the woman --
described by one passenger as a white-knuckle flier in the midst of a
panic attack -- became hysterical. She kicked open the cockpit door.
Passengers said the pilots chose to return to Fort Dodge Regional
Airport because they could no longer concentrate.


Nov. 25, 1997: As the pilots of a Cathay Pacific aircraft prepared to
land in Bangkok, Thailand, a drunken Burmese passenger stormed the
cockpit. He was removed by passengers and crew, handcuffed and turned
over to Bangkok police upon landing. At the time of the incident,
Cathay Pacific's policy allowed cockpit doors to remain unlocked
during flight. The policy, an airline spokesman claimed, facilitates
better communication between pilots and cabin crew.


Dec. 16, 1997: Dean Trammel, a muscular, 200-pound college football
player, suffered a "psychotic break" aboard U.S. Airways flight 38
bound for Baltimore from Los Angeles. After wandering up the aisle
and
claiming to be Jesus Christ, he tried to get into the cockpit. Flight
attendants blocked access, but Trammel threw one of them over three
rows of seats. She slammed into a bulkhead. Passengers and off-duty
U.S. Airways pilots wrestled Trammel to the ground. He was tied with
seat-belt extensions at his wrists, elbows, ankles, knees and legs.
The plane landed with the two off-duty pilots sitting on top of him.


Sept. 23, 1998: The FBI charged Titan Tibor Sallai with intimidating
a
flight crew by allegedly attempting to enter the cockpit of a United
Airlines ...

zzzzzzzzz end article


The fact that other non-aviation acts of terrorism were going on, and
that 30 years ago there used to be plane hijackings in NO WAY point to
an imminent "9/11 type of situation."

Aviation was SAFE from those threats.

Therefore to say, as your general argument goes, that the concerned
parties should have expected that people armed with boxcutters or
similar would get so immensely lucky as to pull a 9/11, is lame, lame,
lame, and a disgusting abuse of hindsight.

Shame on you.

Absurd. Shame on YOU.



Further interaction with you has only confirmed what such a blatant
abuse of hindsight suggested: that you are just another yesterday
prophet. A silly man who after he knows how things turned out wants
to appear smarter than he is by criticizing people who didn't know and
reasonably could not have expected to anticipate what the future
held.



The whole point is that security measures should have been implemented
well before 911 becasue the risk was becoming more apparent all
through the '80s and '90s.

What risk? The threat of boxcutters?

Your verbal diarrhea continues.

In his panic, Tigless demeans himself by trying to demean others.


Without boxcutters or similar tiny
weapons, there would not have been 9/11. Did YOU think of that
threat before September 11?

Tell us, Ken. Did you?

You paniced fool.

I wasn't invovled in airline security or in airline risk assessment.
So what difference would it make what I thought? Others were trained
and paid for that.


Calm yourself and take a break.

Ken Wood

Re: The Long Knives Are Out For George Tenet

Legg inn av Ken Wood » 30 aug 2007 19:32:11

On Aug 30, 10:03 am, Tiglath <te...@tiglath.net> wrote:
On Aug 30, 12:17 am, Ken Wood <ken_woo...@yahoo.com> wrote:



This is FUN. My summary stands and your running and ducking can't
alter that.

It's so much fun you are planning to leave already.

Am I?

You're in a panic Tigless and you reversal n the fortified doors and
the mistakes you're making about gorund already well covered shows it.

Ken pastes the shitload of his summary where he is supposed to show
the very things he claims in his summary are true.


Spray and pray.

It is not working.

Ken is wasting bandwith like the frustrated cuckhold who trashes his
own home because he can't get at who is screwing him.

More cowardly abuse from a loser in a panic.

I think you're the one who who should run along. It's you who is
resorting to garbage language and who is being cuckolded by his own
panic and inability to mount honest cogent argument.

I'm just here enjoying watching.

You already gave up on the door. Give up on the "how could anybody
know the danger was there".

That will make it complete.

Woody writes less and less and pastes more and more, because each time
he writes something new a 2x4 appears and smacks him right in the
temple.

It is you who has had a 2x4 put across his head, retreat boy.

It is you who got hit hard enough that he reversed his position on the
fortified cockpit door.

You can run, but you can't hide, especially from your own words
posted in this thread.

;-))



As it just happened when Ken went to our first post and a
"catastrophic result" ensued, showing in all clarity the kind liar he
is.

Ken is barely above sea level but pressure is building in his cabin.

Here liar, is again the expert article on guns gired in pressurized
cabins. You lose, tigless.

DEBUNKING THE MYTHS OF GUNS ON PLANES
One objection that Senate offices may throw at you is this supposed
idea that a bullet hole in an airplane's hull can cause catastrophic
depressurization or cause the ship to crash. First, one should note
that such an argument against pilots carrying guns would also apply
to
Federal Air Marshals. But the fact is, pre-fragmented ammo can
minimize the supposed risks of a bullet puncturing a plane's hull.

Having said that, writer David Kopel (along with author and pilot,
Captain David Petteys) notes that the risks related to the hull being
punctured are greatly exaggerated. In a recent National Review Online
article dated September 16, they state, "There is only one known
instance in which a bullet hole in an aircraft frame yanked objects
across the plane, expanded, and sucked a person out into the sky.
That
was the James Bond movie Goldfinger. The movie was not intended to
teach real-life lessons about physics." (Go to
http://www.nationalreview.com/kopel/kopel091401.shtml to read the
entire article.)


Aircraft engineers have likewise downplayed the ability of a few
bullets to depressurize a plane. "If one round, or two or three for
that matter pierce the skin [of a plane]," says Dan Todd, a licensed
aircraft engineer for 20 years, "it's not necessarily catastrophic."
Todd says that in such a case, "air will go whistling out the hole,
and the outflow valve will close a little further to maintain the
desired cabin pressure." Another engineer notes that "a Boeing 747
can
lose five cabin windows and maintain cabin pressure." (Go to
https://www.keepandbeararms.com/informa ... sp?ID=2474
for articles dispelling myths relating to guns & planes.)

Ken Wood

Re: The Long Knives Are Out For George Tenet

Legg inn av Ken Wood » 30 aug 2007 19:40:49

On Aug 30, 10:33 am, "D. Spencer Hines" <pant...@excelsior.com> wrote:
Yes, lots of nervous laughter -- posts peppered with LOL's.

He's clearly nothing more than a Pimply-Faced Kid [PFK] masturbating on the
Internet...

LOL

You always know that they know they're losing when they try to
disparage the poster instead of the argument.

Loser. ;-))

Ken Wood

Re: The Long Knives Are Out For George Tenet

Legg inn av Ken Wood » 30 aug 2007 19:45:14

On Aug 30, 11:35 am, "D. Spencer Hines" <pant...@excelsior.com> wrote:
"Ken Wood" <ken_woo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:1188487262.860006.306300@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...

"First, the only viable large casualty method open to terrorists at
that time was a large airplane "kamikaze" attack of the the [sic] type
they did. It could have been foreseen, thwarted or precluded merely
by fortified cockpit doors and an in-plane camera system for
monitoring activity in the passenger compartment. It was systematic
stupidity from [sic] the airlines, the government, insurers and
re-insurers that none of that was done years before." [sic]

------------Cordon Sanitaire-------------------------------------------

Certainly NOT "the only viable large casualty method open to terrorists at
that time ." Tunnel Vision.

Hmmm. Why don't you tell us what other methods they had open to them
that could produce thousands of dead, quickly?

Also, tell us why they haven't used them.


He also stutters

I don't stutter at all.


and gets his prepositions and negatives confused.

;-)) LOL

Svar

Gå tilbake til «soc.genealogy.medieval»