Merged Continuation - 9/11 CT subforum General Discussion Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
The adamance with which it is agreed that because the object was not on " a no no list" the carrier would not have been questioned and the box cutter confiscated is telling. It proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that trusters don't bother to think things through and are slaves to authority.

Again, Clayton, how old are you? It seems like you never took a flight pre-9/11.

In the late 90s, I travelled quite a bit by plane, commuted between Düsseldorf and Berlin many many times. Most of the time, I carried on my small backpack that I still wear every day. At all times, I had a Swiss army knife in the top pocket of that backpack, hardly concealed at all. Never, not even once in at least 50 distinct flights and security checks, did anyone at security even mention it. It was 100% OKAY to bring a folding knife into the cabin!

The first couple of times I flew after 9/11, I remembered at the lastpossible moment to take that knife out of m carry-on bag and put it into the checked baggage. The third time, I only had my trusty backpack, and checked it in. After that, I removed the army knife from it, and never put it back in.

Do you understand what this tale means, Clayton?

It means that on 9/11, having small knives in your carry-on bags was not a problem.

Maybe you can't imagine that if you took your first flight, maybe as a teenager, years after 9/11. That's why I am asking you: How old are you, Clayton?
 
Again, Clayton, how old are you? It seems like you never took a flight pre-9/11.

In the late 90s, I travelled quite a bit by plane, commuted between Düsseldorf and Berlin many many times. Most of the time, I carried on my small backpack that I still wear every day. At all times, I had a Swiss army knife in the top pocket of that backpack, hardly concealed at all. Never, not even once in at least 50 distinct flights and security checks, did anyone at security even mention it. It was 100% OKAY to bring a folding knife into the cabin!

The first couple of times I flew after 9/11, I remembered at the lastpossible moment to take that knife out of m carry-on bag and put it into the checked baggage. The third time, I only had my trusty backpack, and checked it in. After that, I removed the army knife from it, and never put it back in.

Do you understand what this tale means, Clayton?

It means that on 9/11, having small knives in your carry-on bags was not a problem.

Maybe you can't imagine that if you took your first flight, maybe as a teenager, years after 9/11. That's why I am asking you: How old are you, Clayton?

And to further this idiotic fallacy that simple knives and boxcutters (and remember we have audio tapes of them saying they had a bomb) could not get through security pre-9/11:

9 years later...
"TSA Misses Loaded .40 Caliber Handgun" http://www.boingboing.net/2010/12/17/tsa-misses-enormous.html

"TSA Misses Man with THREE Boxcutters" http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/queens/tsa_staff_jet_blew_it_Y7NcXScFd0oS2HNvkypthP

"TSA Failure Rate at 70%": http://blog.tsa.gov/2010/12/70-detection-failure-rate-being.html

So, since 9/11, and all the hightened security, and all the "illegal searches" as Clayton would like to put, still those efforst fail. And he thinks it would be harder pre 9/11? He finds it funny? Sheer ignorance.
 
Last edited:
And to further this idiotic fallacy that simple knives and boxcutters (and remember we have audio tapes of them saying they had a bomb) could not get through security pre-9/11:
... So, since 9/11, and all the hightened security, and all the "illegal searches" as Clayton would like to put, still those efforst fail. And he thinks it would be harder pre 9/11? He finds it funny? Sheer ignorance.
They did not have bombs, that was BS from the terrorists.

The adamance with which it is agreed that because the object was not on " a no no list" the carrier would not have been questioned and the box cutter confiscated is telling. It proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that trusters don't bother to think things through and are slaves to authority.
What are you talking about?
 
Ah that classic philosophical conundrum: "If a tree falls in a forest, and someone hears it but doesn't tell anyone else, was it an inside job?"

All the inside job traitors might have already been tried and hanged for treason for faking 9/11, if that action was simply not reported. Is that sufficient to convince RedIbis that justice has been done?

Respectfully,
Myriad

It shouldn't have to be a conundrum. Simply a call for precision.
 
The adamance with which it is agreed that because the object was not on " a no no list" the carrier would not have been questioned and the box cutter confiscated is telling. It proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that trusters don't bother to think things through and are slaves to authority.

Lemme ask you something -

Why do you suppose the terrorists chose boxcutters and small knifes?

On or about April of 2001, UPS delivered the FAA regulations to the caves they were in so they could read up on it.

OMG!!elevnety!11
UPS was in on it!
 
They did not have bombs, that was BS from the terrorists.

Whether they did or didn't wasn't the point. Clayton obviously was refering to the "cavemen with boxcutters" meme which is what I was targeting with that remark.
 
It shouldn't have to be a conundrum. Simply a call for precision.

Please explain how this makes any difference at all towards the topic at hand, which is arguing whether or not explosives were used to destroy the towers!

I would submit that focussing on reports would be misleading as well, since sometimes things are reported that have NOT been observed. The observation is what counts. Or more precisely, the reported observation. In this best wording, "observation" is the noun, the operatiive word, while "reported" is secondary, a qualifier.
 
Not sure it's possible to derail a General Discussion thread, but here goes...

Can anyone help me with a link to a slideshow of pictures of debris & human remains recovered from Flight 93? I think the pics were taken by one of the agents on the ground at the time, or one of the pathologists.

I know I saw it in a thread a year or two ago, but I'm not having any luck with the search function.
 
You can't figure it out yourself? Not a surprise, you can't figure out 911 or the Holocaust, you prefer to spread lies and delusions.
You said fire can't destroy the strength of steel, yet you offer no numbers, zero evidence, you make up moronic lies and other nonsense, and failed to comprehend 911 given over 9 years. Do you have any clue what you post?

Steel in fire, fails, you can't comprehend this due to ignorance or what?

Originally Posted by Clayton Moore View Post
What is the picture of? Is it associated with 9/11?
 
Not sure it's possible to derail a General Discussion thread, but here goes...

Can anyone help me with a link to a slideshow of pictures of debris & human remains recovered from Flight 93? I think the pics were taken by one of the agents on the ground at the time, or one of the pathologists.

I know I saw it in a thread a year or two ago, but I'm not having any luck with the search function.

The prosecution exhibits from the Moussaoui trial?

http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/prosecution.html
 
Last edited:
Thanks, but no, it's not them.

I remember in particular two photos in the slideshow. One was of a dumpster full of airplane parts, and another was a large white bucket full of body parts. :(

Check Gravy's Flight 93 pics. Once you locate them, you'll see the dumpster is about a third full, and it's debatable whether those are plane parts.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom