Are you kidding? John Clark had the precisely right idea of how to deal with the sort of bad guys in that novel.
Former conspiracy believer here
- Thread starter Diagoras
- Start date
-
- Tags
- ex-truther
Are you kidding? John Clark had the precisely right idea of how to deal with the sort of bad guys in that novel.
Here's another flawed system you might want to look into:
In 2001 there were 42,196 road deaths in the U.S.
That's over a 9/11 worth of casualties every month of the year, with two extra 9/11s thrown in. (And a disproportionately much larger number of debilitating injuries.)
Most of these deaths could be prevented by reasonable and eminently technically feasible measures, such as reducing the maximum allowable speed limit to 30 mph on all U.S. roads and highways, enforced with mandatory speed limiting devices installed in all vehicles, with inspections and on-the-road spot checks to verify them. Since a large loaded semi trailer can do a lot of damage even at 30mph, it would also be prudent to reduce commercial vehicle weight limits to 20% of the current limits.
Despite large government organizations devoted to roads and transportation, these sensible measures were not taken in 2001. The inevitable result: 43,005 road deaths in the U.S. in 2002.
Surely, though, they learned their lesson then, and put radical preventive measures into place! Surely after another fourteen 9/11s, the government did something! Surely the American people stormed government offices and demanded as one that the carnage be ended, even at the cost of significant economic expense and reductions in personal freedom. (Driving, we're frequently told, is a privilege and not a right; surely the right to drive over 30mph is even more of a privilege that few would mind giving up in order to save so many lives.)
But no. 2003: 42,884 deaths. And so it goes. As it has been going on, decade after decade. By now the terrorists are looking kind of pathetic by comparison. They're going to have to nuke a couple of major U.S. cities just to catch up with the body count racked up back in the 20th century by Your Father's Oldsmobile.
So, I ask, who is responsible? Who is incompetent in their jobs, at the Federal Highway Administration or the D.O.T. or in law enforcement? Who's been fired over this? Who's been criminally prosecuted? Where's the fault-finding investigation?
And why is anyone wasting time demanding firings, prosecutions, investigations over 9/11 when this much larger, much more obvious, much more predictable, much more preventable threat has loomed unchecked for decades with no one in the government prosecuted for it?
And I wonder how many of the people whining, "Why wasn't I protected? Why wasn't combat air cover circling constantly over my precious vulnerable head? And when bad guys do find a crack, someone better hang for it pour encourager les autres!" -- are the same ones who enthusiastically put their lives (and mine) in jeopardy every day to exercise their God-given right to weave across traffic lanes in their 4-ton SUVs at 20mph over the speed limit to reach the red light faster.
A dash of perspective, anyone? (I know it hasn't been a popular seasoning over the past six years, but maybe it's time to try it out a little?)
Respectfully,
Myriad
In 2001 there were 42,196 road deaths in the U.S.
That's over a 9/11 worth of casualties every month of the year, with two extra 9/11s thrown in. (And a disproportionately much larger number of debilitating injuries.)
Most of these deaths could be prevented by reasonable and eminently technically feasible measures, such as reducing the maximum allowable speed limit to 30 mph on all U.S. roads and highways, enforced with mandatory speed limiting devices installed in all vehicles, with inspections and on-the-road spot checks to verify them. Since a large loaded semi trailer can do a lot of damage even at 30mph, it would also be prudent to reduce commercial vehicle weight limits to 20% of the current limits.
Despite large government organizations devoted to roads and transportation, these sensible measures were not taken in 2001. The inevitable result: 43,005 road deaths in the U.S. in 2002.
Surely, though, they learned their lesson then, and put radical preventive measures into place! Surely after another fourteen 9/11s, the government did something! Surely the American people stormed government offices and demanded as one that the carnage be ended, even at the cost of significant economic expense and reductions in personal freedom. (Driving, we're frequently told, is a privilege and not a right; surely the right to drive over 30mph is even more of a privilege that few would mind giving up in order to save so many lives.)
But no. 2003: 42,884 deaths. And so it goes. As it has been going on, decade after decade. By now the terrorists are looking kind of pathetic by comparison. They're going to have to nuke a couple of major U.S. cities just to catch up with the body count racked up back in the 20th century by Your Father's Oldsmobile.
So, I ask, who is responsible? Who is incompetent in their jobs, at the Federal Highway Administration or the D.O.T. or in law enforcement? Who's been fired over this? Who's been criminally prosecuted? Where's the fault-finding investigation?
And why is anyone wasting time demanding firings, prosecutions, investigations over 9/11 when this much larger, much more obvious, much more predictable, much more preventable threat has loomed unchecked for decades with no one in the government prosecuted for it?
And I wonder how many of the people whining, "Why wasn't I protected? Why wasn't combat air cover circling constantly over my precious vulnerable head? And when bad guys do find a crack, someone better hang for it pour encourager les autres!" -- are the same ones who enthusiastically put their lives (and mine) in jeopardy every day to exercise their God-given right to weave across traffic lanes in their 4-ton SUVs at 20mph over the speed limit to reach the red light faster.
A dash of perspective, anyone? (I know it hasn't been a popular seasoning over the past six years, but maybe it's time to try it out a little?)
Respectfully,
Myriad
I'm confused as to why the OP wants to protect DC against any attack right away.
I'm not trying to be flippant, but other then for the "OMG, they blew up the White House" shock value, why would you divert resources to protect a non strategic target? Surely the POTAS would be somewhere 'safe', and would that place really be the Oval Office?
DC might be the least safe place to be during a terrorist attack with a unknown target, because you can't protect everyone in the country all the time without fail. The Armed Forces and other protection agencies have to make snap judgements of what actions will save the most people and give the best response to the situation.
They are not always going to be right and expecting them to be is, to me, a complete fantasy.
I welcome any explanations I might have missed.
I'm not trying to be flippant, but other then for the "OMG, they blew up the White House" shock value, why would you divert resources to protect a non strategic target? Surely the POTAS would be somewhere 'safe', and would that place really be the Oval Office?
DC might be the least safe place to be during a terrorist attack with a unknown target, because you can't protect everyone in the country all the time without fail. The Armed Forces and other protection agencies have to make snap judgements of what actions will save the most people and give the best response to the situation.
They are not always going to be right and expecting them to be is, to me, a complete fantasy.
I welcome any explanations I might have missed.
Adjusting for population size, road death figures for the UK were similar but many years ago
These days though things are much better - by a factor of four...
In the UK, road deaths are down to around 3000 a year for our population of 60 million. Applying this to the US population would mean only 15,000 road deaths per year instead of 45,000 !
The authorities in the UK have achieved this, so why can't you do it in the USA?
Holy...it's been good actually.
You posed some interesting questions...questions I never asked much less tried to think out or research the answers to.
I just generalised and thought the whole shooting down the planes thing wasn't practical or possible at the time.
The answers to your scenarios and questions gave me some interesting stuff to read over the past few days. For that, I'm grateful.
Cheers
You posed some interesting questions...questions I never asked much less tried to think out or research the answers to.
I just generalised and thought the whole shooting down the planes thing wasn't practical or possible at the time.
The answers to your scenarios and questions gave me some interesting stuff to read over the past few days. For that, I'm grateful.
Cheers
Sabrina
Wicked Lovely
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2007
- Messages
- 9,810
Holy, I for one don't think you should leave, and I hope you come back. While I don't feel you have much evidence to support your position, I do respect that it is your position and am simply trying to offer what I know in order to allow you to adjust your position if you are so inclined once some facts are presented. I have to admit that while I believe funk and beachnut are more correct in their positions, they could have perhaps phrased their objections in a less hostile tone. Funk, beach, please don't take that the wrong way; I feel you both are more correct, but I do feel that you both took a bit of a hostile approach with holy from the start for no reason that I could see. Now, perhaps that's just my perception of the situation; I'm fully aware that what I'm seeing might not be what you intended, but I have to be honest and say that you both did seem to come across that way from the start.
Once again, just my two cents.
rwguinn
Penultimate Amazing
Because the entire UK would fit inside the borders of New Mexico with room left over? And that's just 1 State. We have 48 between Canada and Mexico.
It takes 6 hours to fly from Denver (West and North of the Middle) to Seattle (NW corner) At 500Kt.
It takes 22 Hours to drive from Kansas City, MO, to Washington, DC, at 70 MPH. If you don't stop.
Any more questions?
Hokulele
Deleterious Slab of Damnation
The most recent count of registered vehicles in the USA I could find was 247,421,120.
http://www.bts.gov/publications/national_transportation_statistics/html/table_01_11.html
I couldn't find anything official on UK stats, but this page makes a vague reference to 25 million vehicles.
http://www.dvla.gov.uk/media/pdf/corp_docs/dvla_millenium.pdf
I think this would be a better way of comparing road deaths than general population.
http://www.bts.gov/publications/national_transportation_statistics/html/table_01_11.html
I couldn't find anything official on UK stats, but this page makes a vague reference to 25 million vehicles.
http://www.dvla.gov.uk/media/pdf/corp_docs/dvla_millenium.pdf
I think this would be a better way of comparing road deaths than general population.
Gravy
Downsitting Citizen
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2006
- Messages
- 17,078
psst! ahem!
gumboot
lorcutus.tolere
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2006
- Messages
- 25,327
Not at all. You had some bad misconceptions about 9/11 and the military when you started posted here, but you have demonstrated a willingness to take our information on board and amend your view of that day accordingly. That's a good sign.
I think you'll find just about everyone will agree the system was very badly flawed.
You could only legitimately hold the "system" accountable if someone had been negligent. In order to be negligent, one must know of a flaw, and fail to address it in a reasonable time frame. If you are unaware of the flaw you cannot, by definition, be held accountable.
No one knew the system was flawed, because no one knew the 9/11 scenario was a possibility.
If it makes you feel any better, many, many people have had many sleepless nights since 9/11 thinking about how they might have slipped up. The folk at NEADS, FAA controllers, airline staff, and so on. I believe one of the airport security staff even felt so guilty they committed suicide. Major Nasypany broke down and cried during his interview with Vanity Fair. These people were not rewarded for failing to stop the attacks.
I don't think it makes you naive, perhaps a little idealistic. It's easy to say what "should" have been done. Napoleon should have sent Marshall Ney after the Prussians and kept Marshall Grouchy with him at Waterloo.
Leave "should" to the historians.The real trick is to take a step back in time, put yourself in the shoes of the people on the front line, forget what you've learned since 9/11 and then ask yourself what you would and could do.
You're judging the system and the people in it on September 12th terms. On those terms, certainly someone was at "fault". But try, just for a moment, to judge them on September 10th terms.
-Gumboot
Six hours from Denver to Seattle? Is that via Florida or something? I've flown from Columbus to San Jose in less time that that.
rwguinn
Penultimate Amazing
Ok. So maybe being treated like cattle and stuck on an airplane with 18" of legroom and the usual 300 lb idiots around me made 3 hours seem like 6.Six hours from Denver to Seattle? Is that via Florida or something? I've flown from Columbus to San Jose in less time that that.
My bad. It was a long time ago...
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2007
- Messages
- 21,203
and that is putting it mildly.
This because it was a "it works on paper" solution.....
This I'd disagree with. Many people knew that the senario was possible, the problem was that they were the ones with their feet on the ground and doing the hard yakka. Those that actually made policy and put the systems in place refused to believe them when they were told it was possible. It was a managerial failure, not an imagination failure. Heck the FBI agent that interviewed Massoui wrote in the file "This is the sort of person that would hijack a plane and fly it into the WTC." Others worked on senarios for planes being hired or hijacked and flown into potential targets, including the Pentagon. They were generally told, don't be stupid, who'd do that? Rick Rescorla's team determined after '93 that the next attacks would be with "a explosives ladened plane flown into the building." (They had also predicted that the first attack would be with a truck bomb in the parking area.) The senario was certainly out there, just no-one that counted was willing to believe that it could actually happen.
Cheap Shot, one of the people most involved at Boston and a poster here, reports just this.
While there may have been others, the one I know of was the woman that worked the AA check-in at Boston. She checked through Atta and his team onto Flight 11.
This is the standard trick of the CT. Use 20-20 hindsight to say how people should have reacted. We see it all the time, including claiming things like that the controllers should have recognised the switching off of the transponders as a hijack signal. on the 10th Sept, 2001, this simply wasn't considered such, it was more likely associated with an electronics equipment failure.
gumboot
lorcutus.tolere
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2006
- Messages
- 25,327
I should clarify I was specifically talking about the air defense system. NORAD Air Defense Sectors had run their own local exercises which contained suicide hijacked airliners from overseas, but NORAD central command had never introduced such a scenario into a NORAD-wide exercise because they were considered unrealistic. Most importantly, no NORAD unit had ever exercised a domestic airliner in a suicide hijacking scenario.
-Gumboot
Belz...
Fiend God
Well, I'm sorry. I'm not used to people who don't understand analogies. I'll be more careful next time.
Nope. It's a way of life we chose. With it comes a weaker security, and we paid for it.
Okay, now you've lost me.
Belz...
Fiend God
Yeah, that's a fiction book, Holy. It's not a historical treatise.
Yeah, we're talking about reality. Not fiction.
In fiction, you have monolithic governments with thousands of employees all working together to suppress the truth from the common folk.
That's not reality.
Pilots don't sleep in their cockpits.
Belz...
Fiend God
holycanoli said:
That sounds suspiciously like hindsight, to me.
You mean you'll "run" away ?
Facts are annoying, aren't they ?
defaultdotxbe
Drunken Shikigami
- Joined
- Jul 30, 2006
- Messages
- 7,474
another better comparison is how much time people spend on the road, averag UK daily commute is 8.5 miles (longest average commute in europe, BTW)
average american daily commute is nearly double that, at 16 miles
so not only do we seem to have 10 times more cars, they spend an average of twice as much time on the road, US accident death stats are starting to look pretty good compared to the UK, lol
[/end pushing derail even further off the tracks]
Hi SDC,
I think we just come a bit from different places on the notion of world synarchy. I am not convinced it exists. I simply think it is a valid concern. As I have said repeatedly, other explanations for sure exist. I am not trying to convince anyone that any one worldview is necessarily accurate, rather that there is adequate circumstantial evidence of synarchy for concern. I am fine with the idea that there is no synarchy. Very much so. I am fine with the idea that there is. Certainly if there is it is not all-powerful. Many things happening in the world I think are very positive.
This is why I'm interested in this stuff. Because if it transpires that there are "evil plots" afoot then forewarned is forearmed.
Personally, I think the best is that sufficient people believe the CT that a basic level of internal investigation and clear out takes place.
Nick
BTW, thanks to someone else for posting about the Ecstasy ban in the UK. I looked it up and you are quite correct, it was actually scheduled a lot earlier. I was wrong about that.
PixyMisa
Persnickety Insect
This is fundamentally wrong.
No-one needs to believe in these things at all. Scientists don't need to believe in their own hypotheses. They just need to make sure the hypothesis is well-formed, formulate a test, and carry out the experiment. If the hypothesis holds up when tested, then you can start believing it.
Your NWO is, as I noted earlier, incompetent in all things except for maintaining its own secrecy. This means that it is indistinguishable from no NWO. So your hypothesis is not well-formed, and should be discarded.