Kuro5hin.org: technology and culture, from the trenches
create account | help/FAQ | contact | links | search | IRC | site news
[ Everything | Diaries | Technology | Science | Culture | Politics | Media | News | Internet | Op-Ed | Fiction | Meta | MLP ]
We need your support: buy an ad | premium membership

[P]
Two Planes Crash Into The World Trade Center.

By Defect in News
Tue Sep 11, 2001 at 08:44:05 AM EST
Tags: Politics (all tags)
Politics

Within a span of twenty minutes (with some reports being closer to ten) two planes have crashed into the World Trade Center in New York, USA.

CNN, ABCNEWS, and MSNBC are next to impossible to get to right now, reports on television are reporting this as a likely terrorist attack. The first crash was a two engine jet, and shortly thereafter a plane said to be around the size of a 747 crashed into the second tower.

Update [2001-9-11 10:10:49 by Driph]: Both towers have collapsed. All US flights are grounded until further notice. Eyewitnesses are reporting that a commercial plane has hit the pentagon as well. The Pentagon, White House, Capitol Building, Sears Tower and others have all been evacuated.

Reports are coming in now that an additional 767 has gone down southeast of Pittsburgh, Penn.

Update [2001-9-11 12:55:46 by cp]: Jelerial has put pictures up here.

Update [2001-9-11 14:18:39 by rusty]: Summary info at http://www.kuro5hin.org/pages/wtc/wtc.txt.


Update [2001-9-11 19:22:1 by Driph]:If you are familiar with irc and wish to obtain news of the WTC attack and related events as it comes in, log in to kuro5hin.ircnetwork.net and join the moderated channel #coverage. Please msg any news you have to a channel operator and they will relay it to the channel. Open discussion is taking place in both #kuro5hin and #slashdot.

Also of interest is a recent K5 article covering the background of Osama bin Laden.

Sponsors

Voxel dot net
o Managed Hosting
o VoxCAST Content Delivery
o Raw Infrastructure

Login

Related Links
o Slashdot
o Kuro5hin
o here
o http://www .kuro5hin.org/pages/wtc/wtc.txt
o kuro5hin.i rcnetwork.net
o recent K5 article
o Also by Defect


Display: Sort:
Two Planes Crash Into The World Trade Center. | 298 comments (295 topical, 3 editorial, 0 hidden)
Try ITN (3.80 / 5) (#2)
by AndrewH on Tue Sep 11, 2001 at 08:50:09 AM EST

http://www.itn.co.uk/news/20010911/world/07tower.shtml
John Wilkes Booth, Lee Harvey Oswald, John Hinckley Jr — where are you now that we need you?
How wide are the towers? (3.75 / 4) (#3)
by DesiredUsername on Tue Sep 11, 2001 at 08:50:10 AM EST

The second crash caused a huge fireball, but didn't even span the width of the tower. Unless my rough guess of the width of the tower is WAY off, that was no 747.

Play 囲碁
They're saying it's a 757 or and A320 [nt] (4.00 / 2) (#6)
by Anonymous 6522 on Tue Sep 11, 2001 at 09:02:34 AM EST



[ Parent ]

My opinion is a 737 or a smaller Airbus (A320/310) (3.00 / 1) (#35)
by Zarniwoop on Tue Sep 11, 2001 at 10:43:16 AM EST

There is no way the aircraft was a 747. If it had been a 747, it would have been a much larger aircraft, with four engines and a hump.

My personal opinion is that it was a 737. Airbus aircraft aren't that prevalent in the US (though they are getting moreso). Also, it seemed slightly more of an oblong shape than than the A320 -- the A3xx series looks more tubular than the Boeing jet. Of course I'm just speculating.

[ Parent ]

I don't think there's was any doubt... (3.83 / 6) (#4)
by Anonymous 6522 on Tue Sep 11, 2001 at 08:59:28 AM EST

...that this was a terrorist attack after the second plane crashed. It also appears that one of the planes was hijacked from Boston before the attack, I hope there weren't passengers on board.

BTW, does anyone have any clue as to what this will do to the structural integrity of the towers?

***A bomb just went off at the Pentagon's heliport, and a thrid plane crashed into the Pentagon!***

Seriously, the people responsible for this (and they can't all be dead) need to be made dead, soon.

Now reporting a collapse (4.50 / 2) (#30)
by hardburn on Tue Sep 11, 2001 at 10:21:14 AM EST

As you probably have noticed from other posts, one of the buildings collapsed. I have been told that the World Trade Center was designed to withstand an aircraft crashing into it, which implies that the terrorists knew just where to hit it or they set up a second explosion somewhere else in the building.


----
while($story = K5::Story->new()) { $story->vote(-1) if($story->section() == $POLITICS); }


[ Parent ]
Both towers are down (nt) (4.50 / 2) (#62)
by codepoet on Tue Sep 11, 2001 at 11:32:57 AM EST



"It's sleazy," Hatch said. "This is not a company that appears to be bothered by ethical boundaries." --Minnesota Attorney General Mike Hatch on Mi
[ Parent ]
Only a 707. (5.00 / 1) (#130)
by Anonymous 6522 on Tue Sep 11, 2001 at 04:04:31 PM EST

The towers were only designed to withstand a 707 impact. These planes were much larger.

[ Parent ]
BBC has streaming news available (4.00 / 4) (#5)
by Anatta on Tue Sep 11, 2001 at 09:01:07 AM EST

for those of you at work...

Here is the link.

A third building, either the treasury or the pentagon, in Washington, has been hit as well, possibly from a plane hijacked in Boston (according to CNN).
My Music

One of the Towers collapsed! [nt] (3.40 / 5) (#7)
by Anonymous 6522 on Tue Sep 11, 2001 at 09:13:50 AM EST



News site still working (1.41 / 12) (#10)
by gcmillwood on Tue Sep 11, 2001 at 09:33:14 AM EST

Since most of the popular news sites are impossible to access at the moment - try Ananova.

Sorry (3.00 / 1) (#28)
by gcmillwood on Tue Sep 11, 2001 at 10:19:36 AM EST

As the author of the parent comment, please mod it into oblivion. The link doesn't work, and a correct version appears further up the page.

[ Parent ]
Report from MSNBC (3.55 / 9) (#11)
by forgey on Tue Sep 11, 2001 at 09:34:09 AM EST

From: MSNC

NEW YORK, Sept. 11

Two aircraft slammed into the twin towers of the World Trade Center on Tuesday, causing one to collapse, while another aircraft hit part of the Pentagon. The Pentagon, the West Wing of the White House and the Capitol building were being evacuated. In addition, the FAA grounded all civilian aircraft nationwide. President Bush called the tragedies an apparent terrorist attack on our country.

NBC'S JIM MIKLASEWSKI, reporting from the Pentagon, said an official told him a bomb was apparently detonated at the Pentagon's heliport, which lies beyond the building's tight security. Other reports said the blast could have been caused by yet another aircraft.

In New York, the aircraft struck minutes apart, starting fires and sending smoke billowing out of the skyscrapers. The first crash happened shortly before 9 a.m. ET. MSNBC.com reporter Martin Wolk, who was inside one of the towers, said the lights flickered and then a loud bang was heard. People panicked and started to flee the building.

When they reached the lobby, smoke started to fill the building and people could see debris falling and many cars outside were damaged. It was sheer pandemonium, people were screaming and crying, afraid to go outside because of the falling debris, Wolk said. We looked up and it looked like the top 20 floors were in flames.

Another bystander described a barrage of debris raining down on the sidewalk below.

Shortly after 9 a.m., a second aircraft was seen crashing into the other tower. Broadcast cameras already watching the scene filmed the second plane as it slammed into the tower and exploded in a huge fireball.

A half hour later, President Bush made a brief statement to reporters, calling the disaster a national tragedy and attributing it to terrorists. He did not cite any specific terrorist groups.

In the wake of the crashes, New York airports and the Lincoln Tunnel were closed as precautionary measures. The stock exchanges in New York also did not open.

Large holes were visible in sides of the 110-story buildings. The tops of the twin towers were obscured by the smoke.

Thousands of pieces of what appeared to be office paper came drifting over Brooklyn, about three miles from the tower, one witness said.

In an earlier terrorist attack, the center was bombed on Feb. 26, 1993, killing six people and injured more than 1,000 others.

The FBI said it was investigating reports of a hijacking. A United Airlines employee said he had heard reports that an American Airlines jet had been hijacked and was one of the two aircraft that flew into the center.

Sources told NBC's Andrea Mitchell that the jet was flying from Boston to Los Angeles when it apparently was hijacked.

Traffic entering New York City from New Jersey was at a standstill approaching the Holland Tunnel as motorists stood outside their cars watching the fire.

This is a breaking story and will be updated.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

News site still working (3.71 / 7) (#12)
by gcmillwood on Tue Sep 11, 2001 at 09:36:18 AM EST

Since most of the popular news sites are impossible to access at the moment - try Ananova.

Report from MSNBC (3.44 / 9) (#13)
by forgey on Tue Sep 11, 2001 at 09:38:10 AM EST

From: MSNC

NEW YORK, Sept. 11

Two aircraft slammed into the twin towers of the World Trade Center on Tuesday, causing one to collapse, while another aircraft hit part of the Pentagon. The Pentagon, the West Wing of the White House and the Capitol building were being evacuated. In addition, the FAA grounded all civilian aircraft nationwide. President Bush called the tragedies an apparent terrorist attack on our country.

NBC'S JIM MIKLASEWSKI, reporting from the Pentagon, said an official told him a bomb was apparently detonated at the Pentagon's heliport, which lies beyond the building's tight security. Other reports said the blast could have been caused by yet another aircraft.

In New York, the aircraft struck minutes apart, starting fires and sending smoke billowing out of the skyscrapers. The first crash happened shortly before 9 a.m. ET. MSNBC.com reporter Martin Wolk, who was inside one of the towers, said the lights flickered and then a loud bang was heard. People panicked and started to flee the building.

When they reached the lobby, smoke started to fill the building and people could see debris falling and many cars outside were damaged. It was sheer pandemonium, people were screaming and crying, afraid to go outside because of the falling debris, Wolk said. We looked up and it looked like the top 20 floors were in flames.

Another bystander described a barrage of debris raining down on the sidewalk below.

Shortly after 9 a.m., a second aircraft was seen crashing into the other tower. Broadcast cameras already watching the scene filmed the second plane as it slammed into the tower and exploded in a huge fireball.

A half hour later, President Bush made a brief statement to reporters, calling the disaster a national tragedy and attributing it to terrorists. He did not cite any specific terrorist groups.

In the wake of the crashes, New York airports and the Lincoln Tunnel were closed as precautionary measures. The stock exchanges in New York also did not open.

Large holes were visible in sides of the 110-story buildings. The tops of the twin towers were obscured by the smoke.

Thousands of pieces of what appeared to be office paper came drifting over Brooklyn, about three miles from the tower, one witness said.

In an earlier terrorist attack, the center was bombed on Feb. 26, 1993, killing six people and injured more than 1,000 others.

The FBI said it was investigating reports of a hijacking. A United Airlines employee said he had heard reports that an American Airlines jet had been hijacked and was one of the two aircraft that flew into the center.

Sources told NBC's Andrea Mitchell that the jet was flying from Boston to Los Angeles when it apparently was hijacked.

Traffic entering New York City from New Jersey was at a standstill approaching the Holland Tunnel as motorists stood outside their cars watching the fire.

This is a breaking story and will be updated.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Text of Bush Statement (4.00 / 3) (#14)
by alprazolam on Tue Sep 11, 2001 at 09:42:58 AM EST

"Two airplanes have crashed into the World Trade Center in an apparent terrorist attack on our country."

White House evacuated.

Report from FoxNews (3.40 / 10) (#15)
by forgey on Tue Sep 11, 2001 at 09:43:23 AM EST

From Fox News

NEW YORK

One of the World Trade Center's Twin Towers has collapsed after two airplanes crashed into the New York City landmark in what President Bush called "an apparent terrorist attack on our country."

An airplane also clipped the Pentagon, setting a plume of smoke rising above Washington, D.C.

The crashes into New York's 110-story Twin Towers ignited huge blazes in the world's third tallest buildings in the heart of New York City. Flames can be seen pouring out of the upper-floor windows of each of the buildings, and smoke is billowing from both roofs. Large holes are visible in the sides of each building.

An Associated Press reporter saw the tail-end of a large airliner plunge into the Pentagon. Smoke can be seen billowing out of the building. The Pentagon was being evacuated.

The White House was evacuated after the Secret Service received credible threat of a terrorist act against the presidential mansion and residence.

The Federal Aviation Administration has shut down all aircraft takeoffs nationwide.

Abu Dhabi TV was quoted as saying in a broadcast heard from London that "The Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine (DFLP) claimed responsibility for the attack."

The FBI is investigating reports of a plane hijacking before the twin crashes into the 110-story Twin Towers.

Law enforcement sources said they believe the first plane was an American Airlines Boeing 767 that took off from Logan Airport in Boston.

The second plane was believed to be a Boeing 737, but there was no immediate report of its origin.

All Hudson River bridges and tunnels between New Jersey and New York were closed as a precaution in the wake of the apparent attack.

There was no immediate word on injuries or fatalities in the World Trade Center disasters, which happened shortly before 9 a.m. and then right around 9 a.m.

A senior government official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the FBI is pursuing reports that one or both of the planes were hijacked and that the crashes may have been the result of a suicide mission.

The source stressed that the reports are preliminary and officials do not know the cause of the crashes.

"It certainly doesn't look like an accident," said a second government official, also speaking on condition of anonymity.

"The plane was coming in low and ... it looked like it hit at a slight angle," said Sean Murtagh, a CNN vice president, the network reported.

"I was watching TV and heard a sonic boom ...," witness Jeanne Yurman told CNN. "The side of the World Trade Center exploded. Debris is falling like leaflets. I hear ambulances. The northern tower seems to be on fire."

Thousands of pieces of what appeared to be office paper came drifting over Brooklyn, about three miles from the tower, one witness said.

In Sarasota, Fla., President Bush was reading to children in a classroom at 9:05 a.m. when his chief of staff, Andrew Card, whispered into his ear. The president briefly turned somber before he resumed reading.

At 9:30 a.m. EDT, Bush canceled his appearance and planned to return to Washington.

Bush said he "would hunt down those folks" responsible for the attack. He said "terrorism against our nation will not stand."

The towers were struck by car-bombers on Feb. 26, 1993, killing six people and injuring more than 1,000.

More than 40,000 people work at the World Trade Center. The downtown Manhattan complex comprises two buildings, with more than 400 firms from over 25 countries. The complex is so big, it requires two postal zip codes.

More than 100,000 business and leisure visitors come to New York's Twin Towers each day.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Update from FoxNews (2.83 / 6) (#33)
by forgey on Tue Sep 11, 2001 at 10:29:34 AM EST

From: FoxNews

The Twin Towers of New York's World Trade Center have collapsed and a portion of the Pentagon has collapsed in Washington in what President Bush called "an apparent terrorist attack on our country."

The World Trade Center disaster occurred after two hijacked airplanes crashed at around 9 a.m. into the 110-story Twin Towers, igniting huge blazes in the world's third tallest buildings in the heart of New York City.

At least one plane crashed into the Pentagon, and a car bomb went off outside the State Department.

In New York, soon after the 9 a.m. airplane crashes, flames could be seen pouring out of the upper-floor windows of each of the Twin Towers, and smoke was billowing from both roofs. Large holes were visible in the sides of each building. Soon after, the top of the southern tower collapsed. About an hour later, the northern tower crashed to the ground.

In Washington, the White House was evacuated after the Secret Service received credible threat of a terrorist act against the presidential mansion and residence.

The Federal Aviation Administration shut down all aircraft takeoffs nationwide.

The Capitol Building and the State Department were evacuated.

A large plane crashed in western Pennsylvania outside Pittsburgh, officials at Somerset County Airport confirmed.

Abu Dhabi TV was quoted as saying in a broadcast heard from London that "The Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine (DFLP) claimed responsibility for the attack."

The FBI was investigating reports of a plane hijacking before the twin crashes into the 110-story Twin Towers.

American Airlines confirmed that its Flight 11, scheduled to fly from Boston to Los Angeles, had been hijacked and crashed into the World Trade Center.

The second plane that hit the Twin Towers was believed to be a Boeing 737, but there was no immediate report of its origin.

All Hudson River bridges and tunnels between New Jersey and New York were closed as a precaution in the wake of the apparent attack.

There was no immediate word on injuries or fatalities in the World Trade Center disasters, which happened shortly before 9 a.m. and then right around 9 a.m. There were reports that people were jumping out of windows in the 110-story office comlex.

A senior government official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the FBI was pursuing reports of hijacked planes and that the crashes may have been the result of a suicide mission.

"The plane was coming in low and ... it looked like it hit at a slight angle," said Sean Murtagh, a CNN vice president, who witnessed the first New York crash.

"I was watching TV and heard a sonic boom ...," witness Jeanne Yurman told CNN. "The side of the World Trade Center exploded. Debris is falling like leaflets. I hear ambulances. The northern tower seems to be on fire."

Thousands of pieces of what appeared to be office paper came drifting over Brooklyn, about three miles from the tower, one witness said.

In Sarasota, Fla., President Bush was reading to children in a classroom at 9:05 a.m. when his chief of staff, Andrew Card, whispered into his ear. The president briefly turned somber before he resumed reading.

At 9:30 a.m. EDT, Bush canceled his appearance and planned to return to Washington.

Bush said he "would hunt down those folks" responsible for the attack. He said "terrorism against our nation will not stand."

The towers were struck by car-bombers on Feb. 26, 1993, killing six people and injuring more than 1,000.

More than 40,000 people work at the World Trade Center. The downtown Manhattan complex comprises two buildings, with more than 400 firms from over 25 countries. The complex is so big, it requires two postal zip codes.

More than 100,000 business and leisure visitors come to New York's Twin Towers each day.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

[ Parent ]

Another Update from FoxNews (2.83 / 6) (#42)
by forgey on Tue Sep 11, 2001 at 11:02:21 AM EST

From: FoxNews, who seem to update the most.

The Twin Towers of New York's landmark World Trade Center came crashing to the ground Tuesday morning after terrorists crashed two airplanes into the buildings as part of an organized attack on America.

An airplane crashed into the Pentagon, collapsing a portion of the five-sided building, and an explosion rocked the State Department.

A large aircraft also went down outside Pittsburgh.

CBS reported that intelligence sources told them that a total of eight planes have been hijacked, five are still in the air, and only three have carried out their mission so far the two at the World Trade Center and the one at the Pentagon

There was no immediate word of the fate of those at the World Trade Center. Authorities had been trying to evacuate the 50,000 people who work in the Twin Towers, but many were thought to be trapped.

President Bush ordered a full-scale investigation to "hunt down the folks who committed this act."

Within an hour of the 9 a.m. twin crashes into the World Trade Center, an aircraft crashed on a helicopter landing pad near the Pentagon, a car bomb exploded outside the State Department, and the West Wing of the White House was evacuated amid threats of terrorism. And another explosion rocked New York about an hour after the crash.

Authorities went on alert from coast to coast, halting all air traffic, evacuating high-profile buildings and tightening security at strategic installations.

Evacuations were ordered at the United Nations in New York and at the Sears Tower in Chicago. Los Angeles mobilized its anti-terrorism division, and security was intensified around the naval facilities in Hampton Roads, Va.

One of the planes that crashed into the Trade Center was American Airlines Flight 11, hijacked after takeoff from Boston en route to Los Angeles, the airline said.

The planes blasted fiery, gaping holes in the upper floors of the twin towers. A witness said he saw bodies falling and people jumping out. About an hour later, the southern tower collapsed with a roar and a huge cloud of smoke; the other tower fell about a half-hour after that.

Firefighters trapped in the rubble radioed for help.

"Today we've had a national tragedy," Bush said in Sarasota, Fla. "Two airplanes have crashed into the World Trade Center in an apparent terrorist attack on our country." He said he would be returning immediately to Washington.

The crashes at the World Trade Center happened minutes apart, beginning just before 9 a.m.

Heavy black smoke billowed into the sky above one of New York City's most famous landmarks, and debris rained down on the street, one of the city's busiest work areas. When the second plane hit, a fireball of flame and smoke erupted, leaving a huge hole in the glass and steel tower.

John Axisa, who was getting off a commuter train to the World Trade Center, said he saw "bodies falling out" of the building. He said he ran outside, and watched people jump out of the first building. Then there was a second explosion, and he felt heat on the back of neck.

WCBS-TV, citing an FBI agent, said five or six people jumped out of the windows. Witnesses on the street screamed every time another person leaped.

People ran down the stairs in panic and fled the building. Thousands of pieces of what appeared to be office paper drifted over Brooklyn, about three miles away.

Several subway lines were immediately shut down. Trading on Wall Street was suspended. New York's mayoral primary election was postponed. All bridges and tunnels into Manhattan were closed down.

David Reck was handing out literature for a candidate for public advocate a few blocks away when he saw a jet come in "very low, and then it made a slight twist and dove into the building."

Terrorist bombers struck the World Trade Center in February 1993, killing six people and injuring more than 1,000 others.

"A second occurrence is just beyond belief," said Ira Furber, former National Transportation Safety Board spokesman.

"It's just sick. It just shows how vulnerable we really are," said Keith Meyers, 39, of Ohio. "It kind of makes you want to go home and spend time with your family. It puts everything in perspective," Meyers said. He said he called to check in with his wife. They have two young children.

In New York, "we heard a large boom and then we saw all this debris just falling," said Harriet Grimm, who was inside a bookstore on the World Trade Center's first floor when the first explosion rocked the building.

In Florida, Bush was reading to children in a classroom at 9:05 a.m. when his chief of staff, Andrew Card, whispered into his ear. The president briefly turned somber before he resumed reading. He addressed the tragedy about a half-hour later.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

[ Parent ]

the word thus far (3.66 / 6) (#16)
by superflex on Tue Sep 11, 2001 at 09:45:20 AM EST

so... i'm at work. _Every_ news site on the net is in the throes of agony as hundreds of millions of people try to find out what the hell is going on.

If any of these stories are factual, feel free to tell us...

(1) The WTC towers have both been hit by airplanes, and tower #2 has collapsed. Oh, sh*t. Just heard on the radio that both towers have collapsed. Somebody knew where to hit them. (Or there was additional damage inflicted elsewhere in the structure. I seem to recall that the WTC towers were designed to withstand aircraft impacts..)

(2) The pentagon has been bombed and/or hit by an airplane, and is on fire.

(3) The Mall in D.C. is on fire, the white house has been evacuated, and all air traffic in the U.S. has been suspended with violating aircraft risking being shot down.

Comments? Additional info?

Regarding aircraft impacts (3.00 / 1) (#31)
by msbrauer on Tue Sep 11, 2001 at 10:25:07 AM EST

(Or there was additional damage inflicted elsewhere in the structure. I seem to recall that the WTC towers were designed to withstand aircraft impacts..)

Indeed. The NY police commissioner, in an interview on CNN, mentioned that while he was the fire commissioner he spoke with an engineer who helped design the towers. Topic shifted to such and the engineer mentioned that he designed the towers to withstand a 707 impact. Interview replied "Obviously not."

[ Parent ]

thus far (3.00 / 2) (#32)
by Defect on Tue Sep 11, 2001 at 10:27:49 AM EST

Part of the pentagon has collapsed, one of the planes that crashed in the WTC was a two engine jet, the other was a 767 (american airlines, hijacked coming out of logan airport, boston MA). A plane has gone down in pennsylvania, though whether or not it's related to the terrorist attack is still being determined, and there is a potential hijacked commuter airplane in the air right now (came out of DC, don't know any more info), but whether or not it is actually compromised is unsure right now.

Non essential government employees have been sent home in several major cities, construction has been stopped as well to allow for emergency and police vehicles. School systems in massachusetts are sending students home right now (i can only imagine the same for other states), many college classes have been cancelled, and people are being encouraged to stay off the roads unless necessary.

A huge amount of fuckage.
defect - jso - joseth || a link
[ Parent ]
This puts everyting into perspective (2.72 / 11) (#17)
by Neuromancer on Tue Sep 11, 2001 at 09:49:02 AM EST

This is an outrage. I know that often I speak int'l politics. I generally support the actual actions of the US government, rather than the irrational decisions that people just say "oh, the US would do this." The US is actually more than fair with these groups, and gives them a wide berth. Why would these assholes want to launch attacks against us? If the call goes out. I'll gladly take up arms along side my American brethren against whoever did this.

Report from the Washington Post (4.00 / 6) (#18)
by forgey on Tue Sep 11, 2001 at 09:51:45 AM EST

From: The Washington Post

Minutes after two airplanes crashed into New York City's World Trade Center towers this morning in a what appears to be the gravest terrorist attack ever in America, a large explosion and fire took place at the Pentagon. Witnesses said it, too, was caused by an airplane.

At about 10 a.m., one of the 110-story World Trade Center towers collapsed.

The tragedies stunned the nation and prompted officials, fearing still more attacks, to evacuate the Capitol, the White House, State Department and other federal buildings. Flights were canceled at all major airports in the nation.

Shortly before the Pentagon fire ignited, President Bush called the New York disasters "an apparent terrorist attack on our country." He hastily departed from Florida, where he had scheduled an education speech, and returned to Washington. Early details were sketchy, but the New York attacks seemed certain to cause heavy losses of life and many injuries.

There were reports that an American Airlines 767 had been hijacked earlier today on a scheduled flight from Boston to Los Angeles, and apparently was one of the planes flown into the giant towers that dominate lower Manhattan's skyline. The second crash, which touched off a giant fireball in one of the tower's upper floors shortly after 9 a.m. EDT, took place as many Americans watched live on television.

New York's airports were quickly closed, the New York Stock Exchange was evacuated, and millions of Americans watched in horror and disbelief as news of the Pentagon fire soon followed.

In Florida, Bush pledged to use the full resources of the federal government government to help the victims and their families" and to hunt down and find those folks who committed these acts."

2000 The Associated Press

Here's what has happened: (3.71 / 7) (#19)
by Mad Goose on Tue Sep 11, 2001 at 09:55:48 AM EST

I've been keeping tabs on this.

The twin towers of the WTC got hit by sizable airplanes. It was a perfectly clear day, so the chance of pilot error is almost nil. There are reports that one of the planes was hijacked, so that would explain it. Both towers have collapsed to the ground below.

The pentagon is on fire. They don't know whether it was a bomb, a plane crash, or a helicopter.

There was just a report that there has been a plane crash in pennsylvania. No details yet.

A carbomb has gone off right outside the state department. No details yet.

Rumors that another plane has been hijacked in the Eastern Corridor.

Air traffic has been stopped, The White House, World Bank, Senate, Capitol Building have all been evacuated. The Sears Tower in Chicago has also been evacuated.

I'll update this as details develop.




-------------------------------------------
How do you know this post isn't the result of a drunken bet?

Discworld "Map":
"There are no maps. You can't map a sense of humor."
-Terry Pratchett
News from DC (4.00 / 2) (#73)
by Happy Monkey on Tue Sep 11, 2001 at 12:01:18 PM EST

A DC Police airplane has been hijacked and is currently heading towards DC.

I actually saw the Pentagon fire. I was listening to the radio news on my way to work. They were reporting on the World Trade Center, and said that there may be events elsewhere in the USA. I then turned a corner, and saw a huge white mushroom cloud over the horizon. (There was no flash, so I knew it wasn't a nuke.) Two or three minutes later, the radio mentioned the Pentagon attack.

Wow.
___
Length 17, Width 3
[ Parent ]

News from DC (3.00 / 1) (#76)
by Happy Monkey on Tue Sep 11, 2001 at 12:07:12 PM EST

A DC Police airplane has been hijacked and is currently heading towards DC.

I actually saw the Pentagon fire. I was listening to the radio news on my way to work. They were reporting on the World Trade Center, and said that there may be events elsewhere in the USA. I then turned a corner, and saw a huge white mushroom cloud over the horizon. (There was no flash, so I knew it wasn't a nuke.) Two or three minutes later, the radio mentioned the Pentagon attack.

Wow.
___
Length 17, Width 3
[ Parent ]

Whoops. (none / 0) (#198)
by Happy Monkey on Tue Sep 11, 2001 at 09:57:36 PM EST

Sorry for the duplicate post. The network was a bit wonky today.
___
Length 17, Width 3
[ Parent ]
Plane crash in Pittsburgh, both towers collapsed (4.00 / 6) (#20)
by georgeha on Tue Sep 11, 2001 at 09:56:30 AM EST

The latest from the Guardian.

Staff and agencies Tuesday September 11, 2001

Smoke pours from the World Trade Centre buildings in New York

3.30pm LATEST: Both towers of the World Trade Centre in New York and part of the Pentagon in Washington DC have collapsed after attacks in a concerted terrorist onslaught in the two cities. A large aircraft has crashed in western Pennsylvania.

Plane in Pennsylvania shot down by military (2.50 / 2) (#58)
by alprazolam on Tue Sep 11, 2001 at 11:25:40 AM EST

Most likely if it was headed towards DC. It should have only been about 30 minutes away I think.

[ Parent ]
lse (3.60 / 5) (#21)
by dammitallgoodnamesgone on Tue Sep 11, 2001 at 10:03:28 AM EST

the london stock exchange has also been hit by a fire (okay, probably a coincidence) and Israel is evacuating it's diplomats from the US. According to reports there is a 4th plane presumed hijacked. also, I hear that the mobile/long distance phone networks are down in the US (cannot confirm from here) but I havent heard a reason (all from BBC News 24 seeing as how the streaming site seems to be down)

Phones... (3.00 / 2) (#53)
by physicsgod on Tue Sep 11, 2001 at 11:20:10 AM EST

Cell phone service is down in New York city because the antennas are^H^H^Hwere on top of the WTC towers. Long distance circuits are probably jammed with people calling loved ones for assurance/information.

--- "Those not wearing body armor are hereby advised to keep their arguments on-topic" Schlock Mercenary
[ Parent ]
pictures (4.37 / 8) (#22)
by codemonkey_uk on Tue Sep 11, 2001 at 10:04:25 AM EST

They will be remembered as 18 minutes that shook the world. The 110-storey World Trade Center was struck by two planes as horrified onlookers watched.

The first impact on the West Tower left a gaping hole with clouds of smoke billowing high into the sky.

As emergency services were arriving after the first impact, a second plane wheeled in and struck the south tower causing a massive explosion.

Here are the tragic moments in pictures.

BBC pictures mirrored: thad.notagoth.org/terror.zip

(Mirror will be removed at a later date)
---
Thad
"The most savage controversies are those about matters as to which there is no good evidence either way." - Bertrand Russell

Declare war? (2.76 / 13) (#23)
by Rasvar on Tue Sep 11, 2001 at 10:06:09 AM EST

While reports are still coming in, if, as suspected it is Bin Laden behind this:

The US should demand Bin Laden's immediate turnover from Afghanistan or the US will issue a declaration of war against them.


It is really time to screw the pussy footing politics and use some of our toys to send a message.

Calm down!!! (none / 0) (#237)
by bil on Wed Sep 12, 2001 at 06:20:16 AM EST

I doubt Afghanistan is that scared of the US, after all they have already beaten one superpower (two if you go back to the 19th Century when they fought the British Empire) and that one had a land border and therefore didnt have to much trouble suppling its troops, have an army of (CIA trained) fanatical soldiers who have spent the last 20 years learning their trade in a permanent civil war, and if they are die? Well, they get to die in a Holy War in defense of Islam and therefore go straight to paradise. In the mean time America gets to destroy all hopes of peacfull relations with any Muslim state (they may not like the Taliban but invading is going waaaaaaaay too far), and provokes a whole new generation of young Muslims to go out and die in defence of Islam and Allah.

None of which will do anything except satisfy a knee jerk reaction that will last right up to the point were American servicemen and women come home in body bags on a scale not seen since Vietnam.

Go outside take several deep breaths and come back when you are in a calmer frame of mind.

bil


bil
Where you stand depends on where you sit...
[ Parent ]

Third person experience (4.33 / 12) (#24)
by duxup on Tue Sep 11, 2001 at 10:08:15 AM EST

I'm sure there will be lots of stories like this.

I and a coworker were working with a customer at two sites, one at The World Trade Center this morning another at a site nearby.

While working on a problem the man at the WTC said "I have to go now, there's a fire here." He hung up.

The others could see the building said "Holy **** that thing is sure burning." They then hung up too. Then we lost contact with all our equipment in NY.

This is unsettling (4.36 / 11) (#25)
by fluffy grue on Tue Sep 11, 2001 at 10:09:35 AM EST

I just woke up half an hour ago to NPR on my clock radio. It seems very surreal... out of nowhere, the world trade center completely destroyed, injuring and killing hundreds, a massive, apparently coordinated attack going on...

I've never heard NPR's newscasters with so much unsteadiness in their voices. I can't help but think of the famous War of the Worlds broadcast, only this isn't a hoax.

With all the security that these buildings have, there is no way that they could have even conceivably planned against this. With all the security that the commercial airlines have, at least three were, within a short period of time, hijacked and used as really big bombs (likely with a paylod of innocent human bystanders)...

The world suddenly seems like a much more dangerous place.
--
"Is not a quine" is not a quine.
I have a master's degree in science!

[ Hug Your Trikuare ]

More to come... (3.60 / 5) (#26)
by codemonkey_uk on Tue Sep 11, 2001 at 10:10:18 AM EST

There was a car bomb at the State Department in D.C.

Rumours of another plane hijack south of D.C, heading into town.

AP report of a plane crash outside Pittsburgh (a 767).

Rumours of 8 planes hijacked in total (one crashed into a control tower)
---
Thad
"The most savage controversies are those about matters as to which there is no good evidence either way." - Bertrand Russell

Report from CNN (4.37 / 8) (#27)
by forgey on Tue Sep 11, 2001 at 10:16:28 AM EST

From: CNN

NEW YORK (CNN) -- Terrorists struck the United States Tuesday morning in harrowing, widespread attacks that included at least three commercial jet crashes into significant buildings.

  • In the first attack, a plane smashed into the north tower of the World Trade Center in Manhattan shortly before 9 a.m., followed by another plane into the second tower about 20 minutes later. Both towers later collapsed. Sources told CNN that one of the planes was an American Airlines Boeing 767 that had been hijacked after take-off from Boston.
  • About an hour later, a plane crashed into the Pentagon in Washington, part of which later collapsed.
  • Sources say a second plane was heading toward the Pentagon; F-16 jets were in the air monitoring it.
  • The Pentagon, the White House, the State Department, the Justice Department, the Capitol and all other government buildings in Washington evacuated.
  • The FAA shut down all airports in the country, and all international flights heading into D.C. and New York airports were diverted to Canada.
  • Israel has evacuated all its missions around the world.
  • President Bush cancelled an appearance in Florida to return to Washington, calling the crashes "apparent terrorist attacks" and "a national tragedy."
  • In Chicago, the Sears Tower was evacuated; United Nations in New York evacuated.
  • The New York Port Authority said it had closed all bridges and tunnels into the city.
  • New York's Bellevue Hospital was designated command central for handling the catastrophe. Several hospitals have already reported receiving victims with burns and head injuries.
  • Large plane crashed 80 miles south of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, but it was unknown if this crash was connected to terrorist attacks.


International Flights... (4.00 / 1) (#117)
by Elkor on Tue Sep 11, 2001 at 03:09:35 PM EST

It is my understanding that ALL international TransAtlantlic flights have been rerouted to Canada. This would include flights to Boston and Chicago as well as Atlanta and Florida (does FL have IN flights?)

Regards,
Elkor

"I won't tell you how to love God if you don't tell me how to love myself."
-Margo Eve
[ Parent ]
More info from various sources. (3.83 / 6) (#29)
by doormat on Tue Sep 11, 2001 at 10:20:31 AM EST

The fbi has been informed by the FAA that an united airlines fight #93 has crashed into the vincinity and/or at camp david.
|\
|/oormat

Source? (3.00 / 1) (#55)
by catseye on Tue Sep 11, 2001 at 11:21:04 AM EST

Where did you hear that?

[ Parent ]
Confirmation (?) (3.00 / 1) (#91)
by mrgoat on Tue Sep 11, 2001 at 01:02:49 PM EST

I heard this too, from several people at fort Natick, the military base that I work at. We went to threatcon alpha (meaning they're going to be checking all badges and tightening security for a while) and they closed the base to "Non-essential" personnel.

I don't know if another person with second hand evidence does it for ya, but I'm gonna go ahead and trust the people I work with about the plane crash next to camp david.

"I'm having sex right now?" - Joh3n
--Top Hat--
[ Parent ]

true? (3.00 / 1) (#90)
by westgeof on Tue Sep 11, 2001 at 01:00:47 PM EST

I heard this also from a few people and once on the radio, can you confirm this from an written news source? I've been listening for it on the radio, and I heven't heard anything since the first report. Maybe they someone important was there and they don't want us to know yet???


As a child, I wanted to know everything. Now I miss my ignorance
[ Parent ]
This is NOT true (3.00 / 1) (#110)
by BlckKnght on Tue Sep 11, 2001 at 02:22:45 PM EST

United Airlines flight 93 did not crash at Camp David. It is the plane that crashed in western Pennsylvania. The complete list of crashed planes:
  • United Airlines flight 175 - Boston to LA - presumed to be the plane that crashed into the Pentagon
  • United Airlines flight 93 - Newark to SF - crashed in Somerset County, PA, 80 miles SE of Pittsburgh
  • American Airlines flight 11 - Boston to LA - collided with World Trade Center tower (not sure which one)
  • American Airlines flight 77 - Washington DC to LA - collided with the other World Trade Center tower

My source for most of this is the #news channel on irc.undernet.org, this site, and this one.

-- 
Error: .signature: No such file or directory


[ Parent ]
Correction (3.00 / 1) (#141)
by BlckKnght on Tue Sep 11, 2001 at 05:31:04 PM EST

I got two of the planes backwards. Here's the correct list from this site:

-United Airlines-

  • Flight 175
    • Boeing 767
    • Boston to LAX
    • 56 passengers, 7 flight attendants, 2 pilots
    • crashed into the World Trade Center
  • Flight 93
    • Boeing 757
    • Newark to SF
    • 38 passengers, 5 flight attendants, 2 pilots
    • plane down - Pennsylvania - 80 miles SE of Pittsburgh, near Somerset County Airport
    • info from The Washington Post:
      plane crashed in western Pennsylvania north of the Somerset County Airport, near Jennerstown aviation officials speculate that they may have tried to steer plane to a Washington-area target but "encountered strong resistance from the flight crew"

    United Airlines total 110 victims

-American Airlines -

  • Flight 11
    • Boeing 767
    • Boston to Los Angeles
    • 81 passengers, 9 flight attendants, 2 pilots
    • plane down - crashed into the west side of the Pentagon (heliport) - Washington DC
  • Flight 77
    • Boeing 757
    • Washington Dulles to Los Angeles 58 passengers, 4 flight attendants, 2 pilots
    • crashed into the World Trade Center

    American Airlines total 156 victims

I've heard claim 20,000 people are currently considered "injured" in the WTC attacks and that is only the number that have been handled by emergency workers, not including people trapped in the wreckage, nor the many who are surely dead.

-- 
Error: .signature: No such file or directory


[ Parent ]
Chilean group responsible? (3.75 / 4) (#34)
by alprazolam on Tue Sep 11, 2001 at 10:32:54 AM EST

This day in history.

this day. (1.50 / 2) (#40)
by Defect on Tue Sep 11, 2001 at 10:58:22 AM EST

This day, numerically is 911, of the first year of the new millenium.

I'm not sure if it was intended to have that significance, but the coincidence still stands.
defect - jso - joseth || a link
[ Parent ]
WTO protests anyone? (3.00 / 1) (#48)
by axxeman on Tue Sep 11, 2001 at 11:10:54 AM EST

That's what immediately jumps to mind when you say S11.

lecturer (lkchr-r) n. Abbr. lectr: graduate unemployable outside the faculty.
[ Parent ]

Massachusetts and other info (4.12 / 8) (#36)
by Defect on Tue Sep 11, 2001 at 10:47:43 AM EST

The second plane to crash into the WTC (iirc) was a 767 (Flight 11, American Airlines) coming out of Logan Airport, Boston MA, it was carrying 164 people (that's the latest update, and may be a combined number for passengers on both planes), all of whom are believed dead.

Right now in massachusetts, students are being sent home on a city by city basis (at the discretion of schools), several colleges have cancelled classes. The tallest buildings in Boston have been evacuated (john hancock and others), barricades are being placed/have been placed around points of interest (historic sites, etc) and construction has stopped to allow for emergency and police vehicles. The mass pike is being flooded with people being sent home from work, and it is being requested that phone use is to be reserved for important calls only, as circuits are being more than overloaded.

I personally am unable to use my cel phone, and i work at the engineering headquarters for a very large communications company and can attest to the enormous amount of phone traffic today.

Also, there are going to be blood drives around the state as much of the reserve right now is going to new york to help out with their situation.
defect - jso - joseth || a link
Weapons of Mass Destruction? (2.28 / 14) (#37)
by lovelace on Tue Sep 11, 2001 at 10:48:47 AM EST

What I want to know is does this constitute an attack with "weapons of mass destruction"? Because, if it does, the US only has one response to that -- nuclear weapons.

Jackass (1.76 / 17) (#49)
by PhillipW on Tue Sep 11, 2001 at 11:13:59 AM EST

You are a fucking idiot. The response to a group killing people is not to take out the fucking nukes and kill more people who are as innocent as the original victims. Go to a doctor and get your fucking jerky knee fixed asshole.

-Phil
[ Parent ]
Hey dude, chill (4.28 / 7) (#66)
by aphrael on Tue Sep 11, 2001 at 11:41:55 AM EST

He wasn't *advocating* nuclear weapons. He was merely stating the obvious: official policy is to retaliate against WOMD attacks with nuclear weapons. Under current official policy, if we were attacked by (say) biological weapons, that is how we would respond.

That may or may not be a good thing. But it is policy, and that's all the original post was pointing out. :)

[ Parent ]

No... (1.30 / 10) (#77)
by PhillipW on Tue Sep 11, 2001 at 12:08:31 PM EST

That's not what he was saying at all. Don't pretend that you thought he meant that, because you know it isnt true.

-Phil
[ Parent ]
I do pretend... (none / 0) (#298)
by lovelace on Sat Mar 30, 2002 at 12:16:24 PM EST

Actually, that's exactly what I was saying. Don't you pretend to know what I'm thinking because you obviously have no clue.

[ Parent ]
No, they are not (4.00 / 6) (#54)
by netmouse on Tue Sep 11, 2001 at 11:20:54 AM EST

Though horrible, one building in new York destroyed by crashed domestic airplanes is not even the same magnetude of destruction as New York hit by nuclear weaponry.

Even as you add other events and the level of destruction and loss of life is quite large, the planes as weapons do not constitute weapons of mass destruction as that term is used in a military sense.

I feel I can say quite definitely that the United States will not be responding to this incident with nuclear weapons.

-netmouse

[ Parent ]

Mass destruction.... (2.00 / 4) (#82)
by SvnLyrBrto on Tue Sep 11, 2001 at 12:27:07 PM EST

According to the news, 40,000 people worked in the World Trade Center. Another 10,000 in the Pentagon.

Add to that, the people on the airliners, several hundred each... an airliner holds about 500 people, yes?

So we're up to about 52,000 now, without additional attacks or chem/bio agents in the planes that they crashed. That's in the same order of magnitude of the Nagasaki bomb, tho a bit short of Hiroshima.

And we know, generally, where to find the people responsible.

Fuck em, I say. Nukes or no, those people have to pay.


john

Imagine all the people...
[ Parent ]

possible numbers (none / 0) (#219)
by netmouse on Wed Sep 12, 2001 at 12:14:53 AM EST

According to the news, 40,000 people worked in the World Trade Center. Another 10,000 in the Pentagon.

I've heard estimates from 10,000 to 50,000 involved in the world trade center. A lot were evacuated but also a couple hundred firemen and other rescue workers went in and are lost.

Regarding the pentagon, luckily part of the building where it was hit had been evacuated for reconstruction. Some hundreds are known to be affected, but certainly not more than 20% of the building was involved in the initial crash.

Add to that, the people on the airliners, several hundred each... an airliner holds about 500 people, yes?

Though these airliners could hold almost 300 people they were unusually empty. Three had passenger lists below 70, the largest group of passengers was in the 90s.

So we're up to about 52,000 now, without additional attacks or chem/bio agents in the planes that they crashed. That's in the same order of magnitude of the Nagasaki bomb, tho a bit short of Hiroshima.

While it is on the order of Nagasaki, it is stil a couple orders of magnetude short of the smallest nuclear weaponry in the US arsenal today. I guess that might be considered counting straws; Sorry. Given the time period since the attack, it seems there were no chem/bio agents involved.

And we know, generally, where to find the people responsible.

Though there have been strong statements from the CIA regarding "people with ties to Osama Bin Laden," we do not know where to find the people responsible.

Those people do need to be stopped, and to be punished. But that can probably be done with conventional weapons and not the environmental devestation and loss of innocent life that would accompany deployment of our own nukes.

--netmouse

[ Parent ]

Of course not... (3.00 / 1) (#190)
by bgalehouse on Tue Sep 11, 2001 at 08:23:25 PM EST

A cruise missle, or similar conventional warhead, would drop just about any skyscraper on the planet, methinks. Nothing WMD at all about a plane crashing anywhere.

[ Parent ]
Report from ABC News (4.00 / 8) (#38)
by forgey on Tue Sep 11, 2001 at 10:50:48 AM EST

From: ABC News

WASHINGTON, Sept. 11

An explosion rocked the U.S. Capitol today even as plumes of smoke billowed from the Pentagon today after several eyewitnesses told ABCNEWS they saw a plane crash into the building.

As the Capitol was being evacuated, ABCNEWS' Linda Douglass reported that people dove for cover as a "big explosion of some kind" shook the grounds of the Capitol.

The leaders of Congress had already been removed from the Capitol and taken to an undisclosed secure location by security personel. Earlier, two planes had crashed into the two towers of the World Trade Center in New York, in what President Bush described as "an apparent terrorist attack on our country."

Steve Patterson, a civilian living near the Pentagon, said he watched what appeared to be a small private jet crash into a west wall of the Pentagon. Another eyewitness, Don Wright, said the plane had flown in from the south.

"I watched it come in very low over the trees," Wright said, "and it dipped down right into the Pentagon."

Defense Department staff were ordered to leave the burning building and every government building in Washington was being evacuated.

President Bush cancelled events in Florida and rushed back to Washington for national security briefings.

"Today we've had a national tragedy," Bush said

Following unconfirmed reports that a plane was circling over the White House, reporters on the scene saw ambulances and other emergency vehicles headed toward the building.

Heavily armed security officials cordoned off the neighborhood surrounding the White House and commandeered telephones at commercial buildings in the area.

As the president and his entourage boarded Air Force One in Florida, bomb-sniffing dogs rechecked baggage which is highly unusual.

Attack the economy first (3.50 / 2) (#68)
by hardburn on Tue Sep 11, 2001 at 11:51:17 AM EST

Steve Patterson, a civilian living near the Pentagon, said he watched what appeared to be a small private jet crash into a west wall of the Pentagon.

This is intresting. They send some very large planes into the World Trade Center (some major economic targets), while the Pentagon only gets a small private jet. Unless there is something else on board that small jet that hasn't been noticed (such as biochem weapons or a bomb that hasn't blown up yet), they attacked the economy first, and let the military go with a much smaller attack.

I would love to sit in on the government think tanks that are going on all over the US right now.


----
while($story = K5::Story->new()) { $story->vote(-1) if($story->section() == $POLITICS); }


[ Parent ]
Plane crash at the Pentagon (4.00 / 3) (#93)
by forgey on Tue Sep 11, 2001 at 01:08:41 PM EST

I heard later on the radio/tv that the plane that crashed into the Pentagon was a commercial passenger plane, ie: similar to the ones that crashed into the WTC. No real confirmation of that though I guess.

forgey

[ Parent ]
Alternate sites (3.88 / 9) (#39)
by calibraxis on Tue Sep 11, 2001 at 10:53:40 AM EST

Slashdot up.

Scripting.com up.

Careful with the knee-jerk commentary -- terrorists can calculate the results of their actions (especially these) and right now we do not know what their desired result is.

Also, it is not clear that good signals intelligence would have detected these attacks.

Some of the aircraft... (4.00 / 6) (#41)
by Zarniwoop on Tue Sep 11, 2001 at 11:02:17 AM EST

I just got word from my family -- my father works as a higher-up at United. United has two aircraft missing, which they think were the plane that crashed into the Pentagon and the one that went down near Pittsburg. They were Boeing 757 and 767 aircraft, I'm not sure which was which.

Following up (none / 0) (#127)
by Zarniwoop on Tue Sep 11, 2001 at 03:43:15 PM EST

The 757 crashed in PA (Flight 93). The 767 was the second jet into the World Trade Center (Flight 175).

[ Parent ]
to make sure history remember this... (3.00 / 13) (#43)
by gibichung on Tue Sep 11, 2001 at 11:04:28 AM EST

...let us see to it that this is the last time something like this ever happens in this country.

There is no historical precedent for a crime like this. We have to make the precedent our retaliation leaves last forever. This crisis can't afford the indecision of the American foreign (or even domestic be this the case) policy of old -- something has to be done, and it has to be done in a way that people will remember forever.

Frankly, I don't care what it's remembered for, efficiency will do just as well as brutality, but the magnitude of the response must permanently impress upon any group considering a follow up to this that any such attempt would doom their cause forever.

-----
"No man is above the law and no man is below it; nor do we ask any man's permission when we require him to obey it." -- Theodore Roosevelt

Afghanistan history (4.00 / 11) (#44)
by Yanna on Tue Sep 11, 2001 at 11:05:09 AM EST

Afghanistan : National Assembly Foundation Day (11th Spetember)

Coincidence? I performed a little search on Google to see what happened in history on another 11th September. My search results showed that on 11th September 1.964 Afghanistan declared their independence.

As everyone knows by now, Afghanistan is hosting Osama Bin Laden. Could this be a coincidence or a well planned date for the terrorist attack?

Look at this link for a bit of history.

I hope that freezes your'(sic) and Yanna's smiles into grinning super power morons for eternity. mami

Afghanistan (3.33 / 3) (#47)
by ambrosen on Tue Sep 11, 2001 at 11:08:54 AM EST

Afghanistan just issued a statement of "their strongest condemnation", according to Sky news. And Yasser Arafat, too.

--
Procrastination does not make you cool. Being cool makes you procrastinate. DesiredUsername.
[ Parent ]
This is too big to admit responsability (3.40 / 5) (#52)
by Yanna on Tue Sep 11, 2001 at 11:20:08 AM EST

I don't think any group/ country will admit it. It would be like begging to be bombed.

I hope that freezes your'(sic) and Yanna's smiles into grinning super power morons for eternity. mami
[ Parent ]

Stupidity (3.50 / 4) (#60)
by PhillipW on Tue Sep 11, 2001 at 11:30:36 AM EST

If you think that this was the act of a certain nation, then you need to remove the blinders from your eyes. This was commited by a rebel-type group of people. A group of people who feel that their lives are now extremely fucked up because of the actions of the nation in which we reside, and they feel so strongly that they are willing to die for vengance

-Phil
[ Parent ]
this day (2.66 / 3) (#50)
by Defect on Tue Sep 11, 2001 at 11:14:04 AM EST

(This is repeated in a comment i posted below)

This day, numerically, is 911 (the national phone number for emergency response), in the first year of the new millenium. Whether or not that was intended is up in the air of course, but it's a fairly significant coincidence.
defect - jso - joseth || a link
[ Parent ]
911 (none / 0) (#164)
by eric.t.f.bat on Tue Sep 11, 2001 at 06:56:02 PM EST

The month/day/year date format is pretty much limited to the US, and 911 is only the emergency number there, so I'd vote "coincidence" for that one. However, the association of S11 and the World Trade Organisation is quite chilling.

However, I think it's fairly obviously the work of a crazed supervillain. Where's Bruce Willis when you need him?

: Fruitbat :

[ Parent ]
but also (none / 0) (#203)
by pyramid termite on Tue Sep 11, 2001 at 10:08:26 PM EST

1922 - the British mandate of Palestine begins
On the Internet, anyone can accuse you of being a dog.
[ Parent ]
Situation elsewhere (3.85 / 7) (#45)
by sahib on Tue Sep 11, 2001 at 11:07:15 AM EST

Here in Athens, GA, the entire downtown area is in a tizzy. The Univeristy (UGA), which borders the downtown area has been effectively shut down. All classes have been cancelled, and faculty and staff will probably be sent home soon. Athens police found a suspected stolen car parked downtown on Hancock St. between the Athen-Clarke County Courthouse and the Federal buildings. Several surrounding blocks have been evacuated and the bomb squad has been called in. Meanwhile, paranoia runs wild in my office (across the street from the US Post Office and about 3 blocks from the suspicious car) as well as across the city.

What does Bush do? (2.90 / 11) (#46)
by MicroBerto on Tue Sep 11, 2001 at 11:08:08 AM EST

We've got all the news links here, but how about the discussion? What in the world are we/the Bush administration going to do?! I don't even know where to begin. I'm all for brute retaliation - to the point of torture to those who were involved, if they're ever known or caught.

Berto
- GAIM: MicroBerto
Bertoline - My comic strip
Sorry (4.00 / 4) (#51)
by kaatunut on Tue Sep 11, 2001 at 11:18:43 AM EST

I'm all for brute retaliation - to the point of torture to those who were involved,

Please don't be serious. Please don't represent majority opinion.

--
there's hole up in the sky from where the angels fall to sire children that grow up too tall, there's hole down in the ground where all the dead men go down purgatory's highways that gun their souls
[ Parent ]

Yes. (4.00 / 3) (#75)
by beergut on Tue Sep 11, 2001 at 12:04:56 PM EST

Unfortunately, one can never underestimate the power of stupid people in large numbers.

Considering this a "Pearl Harbor" in the minds of the American people is probably apt, and the fact that we've been completely brainwashed and desensitized to the idea that there are innocents in the Middle East, expect there to be a massive invasion of that area by U.S. troops.

Let me say it again. There will be retalliation. Unfortunately, many innocents will die. There may well be torture and other sorts of atrocities involved, much to the disgust of thinking people. The problem is, we've been punched in the gut, and we're no longer thinking people.

What frightens me, though, isn't the problem of terrorist attacks here. We can flatten whomever we find responsible for these attacks, and we likely will. The odds of myself being involved in, or injured by, a terrorist attack are vanishingly slim. The real problem is what we will do here in our own country, and what the government will do.

Given these events, most people in the U.S. will welcome martial law. Once a dictatorship here has been established, it will be very, very difficult to oust it. People will initially welcome such control with open arms, and then they will be fucked. And that's what scares me.

i don't see any nanorobots or jet engines or laser holography or orbiting death satellites.
i just see some orangutan throwing code-feces at a computer screen.

-- indubitable
[ Parent ]

Interesting reading re coming dictatorship (none / 0) (#121)
by Mitheral on Tue Sep 11, 2001 at 03:24:27 PM EST

Given these events, most people in the U.S. will welcome martial law. Once a dictatorship here has been established, it will be very, very difficult to oust it. People will initially welcome such control with open arms, and then they will be fucked. And that's what scares me.

Some people think america is well on it's way to a dictatorship forming. A well though out if paraniod series of essays can be found at Back Woods Home

[ Parent ]

but to whom (4.00 / 2) (#61)
by Tyberius Prime on Tue Sep 11, 2001 at 11:31:29 AM EST

I bet, every single person involved, if it indeed is a terrorist attack, has either suicided or been killed. Killing the remaining if we can find them? Sure. But torture is against everything america stands for. And not an option from my anarchist point-of-view anyway. I'd say, Bush will get funding for a "national aircraft defense system"(TM) Tyberius Prime

[ Parent ]
When dealing with fanatics... (4.36 / 11) (#56)
by Xeriar on Tue Sep 11, 2001 at 11:22:03 AM EST

Let us not become them ourselves. I have to wonder what any group could gain by doing this...

Something is clear, though - if it were at all possible for them to obtain nuclear weapons, we will hear about it shortly.



----
When I'm feeling blue, I start breathing again.

Reasons (3.75 / 4) (#80)
by daelstorm on Tue Sep 11, 2001 at 12:14:10 PM EST

Terrorists have no redeeming qualities. They do not care who or how many die as long as they scare people into submission. Once you agree to make a deal, they will continue to put pressure on you until their terms are met. If you do not agree to their terms the cycle repeats.

Unless you stop them, the death toll will mount higher and higher. How to stop them? Kill the propaganda, training facilities and hate at the core.

If you are taught that hate is "good" as a child, you too would become a monster. Find a way to stop hate in the family and everything falls apart.

[ Parent ]

An act of War (3.50 / 6) (#57)
by onyxruby on Tue Sep 11, 2001 at 11:22:17 AM EST

Whatever nation has harbored the terrorists that have done commited this act of terror have committed an act of war. The question is one of whether or not the nation that harbored the terrorists did so knowingly. More people will have died from this than will have been killed in Pearl Harbor. This is my generations Pearl Harbor.

The moon is covered with the results of astronomical odds.

But... (3.50 / 2) (#64)
by fluffy grue on Tue Sep 11, 2001 at 11:38:59 AM EST

What if it were Americans who are responsible?
--
"Is not a quine" is not a quine.
I have a master's degree in science!

[ Hug Your Trikuare ]
[ Parent ]

Then... (2.66 / 3) (#67)
by SDrifter on Tue Sep 11, 2001 at 11:50:04 AM EST

It probably was not a very good idea for the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine to take credit for the attack.
--
It burns!!!
It's loaded with wasabi!
[ Parent ]
But they didn't (4.00 / 2) (#98)
by fluffy grue on Tue Sep 11, 2001 at 01:27:23 PM EST

Later reports were that the person who claimed DFLP credit was either not a member or was a low-level member; a senior officer said that no, DFLP was not responsible.
--
"Is not a quine" is not a quine.
I have a master's degree in science!

[ Hug Your Trikuare ]
[ Parent ]

Speak for yourself (2.00 / 1) (#100)
by Wah on Tue Sep 11, 2001 at 01:37:39 PM EST

More people will have died from this than will have been killed in Pearl Harbor. This is my generations Pearl Harbor.

Not for me it isn't. Mainly because I don't want to see how World War III will begin, which is most likely where WWII ended, with nukes.

I see this as a response to the actions my country has been taking since the last major war. From people blinded by their own anger, driven mad by it. It's not a country we are fighting now, it's not a war of agression, but a war of terror and control. This is a war for freedom. Only now it's not our freedom, but the freedom of the Arab world. And the question is whether or not the U.S. wants to let them have it, or think it's more important to kill everyone, and just take take control of the area of the planet that used to be known as the cradle of life. Which happens to have a particular substance underground that our economoy depends on to thrive. And is next door to the only country still controlling enough to be called our ally.
--
Information wants to be free, wouldn't you? | Parent ]

WTF? (none / 0) (#224)
by onyxruby on Wed Sep 12, 2001 at 01:40:12 AM EST

I see this as a response to the actions my country has been taking since the last major war.
I see this as a cowardly terrorist attack by those that wish to force their will as American Foreign policy

From people blinded by their own anger, driven mad by it.
By "people" do you mean terrorists or are you spouting racial or nationalistic propoganda?

It's not a country we are fighting now, it's not a war of agression, but a war of terror and control. This is a war for freedom. Only now it's not our freedom, but the freedom of the Arab world.
You make this sound like Arab's are fighting for their freedom through terrorism. Despite a fraction of Palestinians that were dancing in the streets - most Arabs, including Arafat, quickly went on public record as condemming what happened. It's attitudes like this one that cause people to think that Arab's are terrorists. Your statement stands as a monument to a fallacy of logic.

And the question is whether or not the U.S. wants to let them have it, or think it's more important to kill everyone, and just take take control of the area of the planet that used to be known as the cradle of life.
Funny, I thought it was England and the UN that established modern day Isreal. And last I checked it was Africa, not the Middle East that was credited as being the cradle of life.

Which happens to have a particular substance underground that our economoy depends on to thrive. And is next door to the only country still controlling enough to be called our ally.
Really, what underground Arabic economy does the US depend on to survive?

And is next door to the only country still controlling enough to be called our ally.
Were you referring to Egypt, Isreal, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, or Jordan? Your comment is pure FUD, you can't even get basic facts straight here.

Why don't you head down to New York and offer your opinion to the victims or their families? Let them know how it's really the US that is killing people. Console them that this is an OK thing because people on the other side of the world don't like Isreal. I'm sure they'll be thrilled to hear that everything is fine and this was justified.

The moon is covered with the results of astronomical odds.
[ Parent ]

Like I said (none / 0) (#249)
by Wah on Wed Sep 12, 2001 at 01:31:42 PM EST

I don't like the Pearl Harbor reference because it's one that justifies a war. A war on terror. I don't think you can stop terror by creating more of it.

We have been taking the actions of war for a long time. I think it's along the lines of 10 years now. Now it has come home to us. This act is no more justified than we are in bombing people to keep oil cheap.

In fighting terror with terror we will have to come down to the level of terrorists, attacking civilian targets (more than we already have), and anybody associated with someone who might be associated with a terrorist.

Let them know how it's really the US that is killing people.

Not yesterday it wasn't. But we (the U.S.) needs to understand that we are not invulnerable, and it will cost us much of our remaining Freedom to seem so. Fix the problem, or we live in fear of reprisals for a long, long time. When our enemies use our own Freedom against us, how can we stop them? Everything is not fine, but this does not justify using the same tactics to combat the ones used against us. If we follow that road we will lose everything that we've created so far. But, I don't know who did this, and my statement about Arab freedom was only about the actions of Israel in that area. And the people fighting them have done exactly what President Bush promised to do last night, strike back with any means necessary at those practicing, harboring or financing such acts. We got a dose of our own medicine, and damn does it taste like shit.

Compromising on a solution will be harder now, but it's more important than ever. And I doubt the correct solution is more terror.
--
Information wants to be free, wouldn't you? | Parent ]

Dusting off... (3.25 / 8) (#59)
by beergut on Tue Sep 11, 2001 at 11:25:40 AM EST

... those plans from the '50s to institute martial law, and evaluating whether or not they should proceed.

This according to Dan Rather.

Arm yourselves, and gather plenty of ammunition. Whatever has already happened won't be shit compared to what this government will do if they decide to institute martial law.

Expect the middle east to be flattened shortly.

i don't see any nanorobots or jet engines or laser holography or orbiting death satellites.
i just see some orangutan throwing code-feces at a computer screen.

-- indubitable

Hacktavism (3.66 / 6) (#63)
by BloodmoonACK on Tue Sep 11, 2001 at 11:37:30 AM EST

Normally I wouldn't say something like this, but once we found out who it was that did this, I wouldn't be opposed to a little Hacktavism...

"It's like declaring a 'war on crime' and then claiming every (accused) thief is an 'enemy combatant'." - Hizonner

yeah (none / 0) (#193)
by A5triX on Tue Sep 11, 2001 at 08:36:30 PM EST

yeah then we should DDoS them. That would be so 31337.
Brendon M. Maragia
[ Parent ]
Violence begets violence (4.20 / 5) (#65)
by flex_fc on Tue Sep 11, 2001 at 11:39:41 AM EST

I don't think that massive retaliatory action will solve the terrorist problem in the long run. One needs to garner help and support from allies then work out a preventitive measure. What that is I cannot say but I do believe using violence in response is not the answer.
-- You are not the contents of your wallet - Tyler Durden
as a temporary public service (4.50 / 4) (#69)
by dnuoforp on Tue Sep 11, 2001 at 11:54:25 AM EST

mirrors of major news sites

GOOGLE MIRRORS (4.66 / 3) (#151)
by lonesmurf on Tue Sep 11, 2001 at 05:59:20 PM EST

For those of you that havn't noticed, google.com has set up some extensive mirrors of all the major news sites.


Rami

I am not a jolly man. Remove the mirth from my email to send.


[ Parent ]
What a disaster (4.00 / 5) (#70)
by ronin212 on Tue Sep 11, 2001 at 11:59:32 AM EST

How can something like this be carried out successfuly? Isn't there constant monitoring of the planes and their positions? How can a plane be allowed to continue on a course toward downtown? What about the SECOND plane, after the first one had already crashed??

I went to the hospital a bit ago to see what I could do to help. The line to donate blood was over a hundred people long! Looks like that got that taken care of. There doesn't seem to be anything left to volunteer for, or anything to do but sit here...


--
Now is the time... get on the right side! You'll be godlike.
well (4.50 / 2) (#97)
by Delirium on Tue Sep 11, 2001 at 01:24:52 PM EST

They did know the planes were hijacked - rumors are that the FBI was investigating a plane hijacking 20 minutes before the WTC crash. They certainly didn't expect it to crash into an office building, but there's not much they could do even if they did - it had been hijacked, so was beyond their control. It's not a matter of "allowing" it to continue on its course towards downtown - the hijackers flying the plane took it on its course, so there's not much that could be done short of shooting it down, which it happened much too quickly to do.

[ Parent ]
True. (3.00 / 1) (#180)
by Sax Maniac on Tue Sep 11, 2001 at 07:57:50 PM EST

Planes are equipped with transponders that can transmit special hijack codes, sort of like banks with special distress buttons.

It's quite likely that control knew it was hijacked. But at a few hundred miles per hour, they probably didn't have much time to do anything.
Stop screwing around with printf and gdb and get a debugger that doesn't suck.
[ Parent ]

hijackings (4.00 / 1) (#210)
by Delirium on Tue Sep 11, 2001 at 10:52:13 PM EST

Well, if they really knew that it was aimed for the WTC, they probably could've scrambled some jets and shot it down, but I'm pretty sure nobody expected anything remotely like that. Usually hijackings are done for ransom demands (either money or the release of jailed comrades), so the authorities probably assumed this was a similar case, in which shooting down the plane would be completely out of the question, since the goal is to negotiate for the safe release of the passengers.

[ Parent ]
Re: What a disaster (4.50 / 2) (#105)
by YesNoCancel on Tue Sep 11, 2001 at 01:55:06 PM EST

I think they were flying below radar levels for some time before crashing into the towers/pentagon, so the planes probably just disappeared from radar before anyone could see what direction they were taking.

It's quite amazing IMO that they even hit the buildings; the terrorist teams (I assume there was a team of several terrorists for each plane) must have had someone with them who was able to pilot these planes.

[ Parent ]

There is no "below radar" (3.00 / 1) (#179)
by Sax Maniac on Tue Sep 11, 2001 at 07:54:53 PM EST

You've watched too much TV. In major terminal areas, like in cities, terminal radar covers everything. And that's just the civilian radars we know of, there are plenty of militar radars with capabilities that would blow our mind. (I worked for a company that produces radars and air traffic control systems.) There is no "below radar" except maybe in the sticks. Not NY or DC.
Stop screwing around with printf and gdb and get a debugger that doesn't suck.
[ Parent ]
More From the BBC (4.00 / 5) (#71)
by BobaFatt on Tue Sep 11, 2001 at 11:59:41 AM EST

Apparently the US/Mexico and US/Canada borders are closed, however at least one US embasy is saying that the Canadian border is open.

(sorry, no links, getting this from R4/N24)
The Management apologise for any convenience caused.
San Diego (5.00 / 1) (#126)
by a humble lich on Tue Sep 11, 2001 at 03:37:57 PM EST

The radio here in San Diego said that at no time has the border been closed here. They are checking all vehicals entering the country and the port is closed to all comercial ships. They said that the wait at the border is at least two hours.

[ Parent ]
news sites that are still up (4.50 / 6) (#72)
by Delirium on Tue Sep 11, 2001 at 12:00:46 PM EST

Of the major US news sites, MSNBC seems to be the only one that is still working fine (they switched to a "high traffic" mode which removes all but the top story from the frontpage and removes all by the lowest-bandwidth video streams from the video page). So if you want news, that's a good place to go, though their video feeds are still a bit hard to get into.

C-Span's video feed (just a feed of their US cable channel) works as well, though it's spectacularly uninformative, mostly consisting of just people calling in with opinions (most of which are "why don't we round up all these damn foreigners/muslims and throw them out of our country").

Independent.co.uk is also up and fairly fast, with a summary of events.

bin Laden (3.25 / 4) (#74)
by Greyjack on Tue Sep 11, 2001 at 12:03:05 PM EST

This all makes dlacykuster's article on Osama bin Laden (and the ensuing discussion) all the more pertinent.

We are living in incredibly complex times.

--
Here is my philosophy: Everything changes (the word "everything" has just changed as the word "change" has: it now means "no change") --Ron Padgett


Palestinians celebrate UStragedy (2.76 / 13) (#78)
by Zukov on Tue Sep 11, 2001 at 12:12:54 PM EST

As it says in the subject:

http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_395919.html

Not surprising considering what the PLO did at the 1972 Munich Olympics.. Where Israel's athletes were massacred.

http://www.cnsnews.com/InDepth/archive/199905/IND19990505c.html

We are reaping the harvest sown by the previous administrations 8 years of kissing PLO ass.

ȶ H (^

Yes, I have just bumbled upon Gnome Character Map. Please ! me.

Wrongo (4.00 / 5) (#153)
by Robert Uhl on Tue Sep 11, 2001 at 06:01:14 PM EST

We are reaping the harvest sown by the previous administrations 8 years of kissing PLO ass.

No, we're reaping the harvest of a century of kissing Zionist ass, and fifty years of kissing Isræli ass. Face it: our support of Zionism is wrong and immoral, and has lead directly to the present tragedy. We have allowed Isræl to equate Zionism and Judaism, and anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism. We have been afraid to condemn Isræl for its war crimes. We have even allowed it to attack the USS Liberty in 1967, killing thirty four men.

Our support of that rogue state has lead directly to this obscenity. Our oppression of the Arabs has lead directly to this tragedy. Will we learn our lesson? I doubt it.

[ Parent ]

a third view, and maybe a question (none / 0) (#297)
by yesterdays children on Sun Sep 16, 2001 at 10:44:01 AM EST

I believe we are reaping the harvest of material success. Those who have not had this success are going to be resentful, and will reach for any rationalization to vent their hate for their own plight. Democracies do try to do the right thing, but as we all know, handing men power of any sort can invite corruption and wrongdoing, but still we should try. I just don't know of any other form of government that will work as well as what ours and others of a democratic nature try to approximate.

That said, I do check out links for evidence of our wrongdoings, and there is plenty. Sometimes I have to turn away from some of the evidence of mans corruption, but at least I try to absorb them dispassionately for informations sake.

In any case, the world trade center crime was not about politics, it is about the inevitability of chance that a small percentage of human beings will hate their very existence enough to do anything to end it in such away to achieve immortality of some sort, if only for infamy. People really do hate to die as insignificant statistics, and it is the nature of human lust to gain self importance in any way possible, hence the suicide bombers and their like, they at least achieve the admiration of fellow universe-haters and are able to get their egos subconciously stroked by having meaning attached to their pitiful lives by means of impacting history by their very existence. Bin Laden uses them to of course gain the fame and admiration he lusts for, as of course his actions further no political goal at all, nor does he make the world a better place by his actions, really, think of the good Bin Laden could have done for the world by nature of his lot and good fortune. Further proof that no matter how luxurious an environment you can be raised in, you can still end up a pathetic individual consumed by undisciplined lust for Godhood of some sort or another. Sad, really sad, but this is what happens when humans cannot stand to be without what they crave. Bin Laden is obviously the world standard for raising spoiled kids in the worst way possible. Now theres a lesson we can all learn.

Now for the question, as I believe in Israel's right to exist, why do you think they are a rogue state?

[ Parent ]

Second hand from an AA captain (2.81 / 11) (#79)
by ubu on Tue Sep 11, 2001 at 12:13:58 PM EST

I spoke this morning with a friend who is a 757 pilot for American Airlines. He is a highly-qualified captain and has been for many years.

He says that it is next to impossible to do what these hijacked planes have done. He claims that he could not have done it himself. You do not simply drive a plane into a building.

The avionics on a commercial passenger airplane are programmed to launch and land at commercial airports. In order to manually fly a passenger airliner into a building it would have been necessary to reprogram the avionics at a low level from scratch. The perpetrator would have had to know his target plane from front to back, have had experience actually performing the job, and would have had to do the whole job without any assistance from the crew. He would have had to specifically program the plane's onboard systems to hit the World Trade Center. There is no way to free-fly those planes into buildings.

The planes would have had to be disabled quickly. The captain and first officer would have known from the first that they were going to die, and consequently would have been able to twist the ailerons, breaking up the plane in midair to avert the disaster.

The list of people who could conceivably have done this is extremely short. The list of people who would have been willing to commit suicide in such a fashion is considerably shorter. It is nearly inconceivable that an independent terrorist cell organized this operation.

Ubu


--
This signature is a magical vanity summoner. (streetlawyer,Inoshiro,spiralx,alprazolam,eLuddite)
I'm sure the Captain and First Officer were killed (4.25 / 4) (#81)
by georgeha on Tue Sep 11, 2001 at 12:22:43 PM EST

first. They're almost always retired Air Force pilots, and would have ditched the plane in the water or into a hill before hitting a civilian building.

I'm not as sure about the avionics, they must be able to be bypassed fairly easily, for safety's reason. Think about it, you're about to land and you see a truck on the runway. You need to abort the landing in seconds to avoid a disaster, no time for lenghthy reprogramming of the avionics.

Though, I'm sure lots of low altitude alarma and such were going off.

[ Parent ]

Really, it's not like your last highway collision (2.60 / 5) (#86)
by ubu on Tue Sep 11, 2001 at 12:49:29 PM EST

Manual control can be used to avoid obstacles (like mountains - "Pull up, pull up!"). That's not what was done here: the planes were way out of altitude. They weren't even remotely within the flight cone reserved for airport traffic.

Manual control does not allow the pilot to independently point the plane at an urban center and hit a miniscule target like the World Trade Center. As I pointed out earlier, this is not like driving a bus into the Post Office. The planes would have been moving at roughly 300 miles per hour. According to this friend, steering by visual would have been ludicrous, and instrumentation would have been useless for a target like a skyscraper. Pilots don't even find airports without the use of radio transmissions and GPS.

As any pilot can verify, there's a whole lotta airspace up there. Coordinating two plane collisions with the WTC required sophisticated avionics reprogramming. That's the word from this AA captain.

Ubu


--
This signature is a magical vanity summoner. (streetlawyer,Inoshiro,spiralx,alprazolam,eLuddite)
[ Parent ]
So, uh, NASCAR and F1 use GPS? (3.66 / 6) (#94)
by georgeha on Tue Sep 11, 2001 at 01:11:19 PM EST

The planes would have been moving at roughly 300 miles per hour. According to this friend, steering by visual would have been ludicrous,

Granted, NASCAR, Formula 1 and IndyCars rarely exceed 200 mph, but they also drive within inches of each other, the walls, and the infield. If a quickly trained Kamikaze pilot can hit a pitching ship in a steep dive, a semi trained terrorist should be able to fly into a building at a similar speed.

I don't think a worldwide avionics/GPS reprogramming conspiracy is needed here, just some gun toting fanatics who know how to shut off all automatic controls and point the yoke at a building.

P.S., you'd make a lousy insurance agent, I've never had a highway collision.

[ Parent ]

Just in: monkeys flew Apollo 13 (2.50 / 2) (#99)
by ubu on Tue Sep 11, 2001 at 01:28:43 PM EST

Yes, the Blue Angels do such maneuvers, too. They do them in specially-equipped military-derivative aircraft designed for high-speed, high-stress maneuvers.

Likewise, F1 and NASCAR vehicles are -- to say the least -- custom hardware designed to race around an oval track over and over and over. Even under these predictable conditions it takes an outrageous amount of skill and experience to perform the act of simply driving a NASCAR track alone.

Your argument would be plausible if F1 cars were large, heavy passenger-comfort touring buses driving the Sahara desert at 300 mph, occasionally careering into randomly-placed stone obelisks from tens of miles away using eyeball steering. Fortunately, that is not the case.

Ubu


--
This signature is a magical vanity summoner. (streetlawyer,Inoshiro,spiralx,alprazolam,eLuddite)
[ Parent ]
Er, bad analogy, bad facts, too (3.50 / 2) (#115)
by trhurler on Tue Sep 11, 2001 at 02:48:52 PM EST

F1 is not an oval race format. Also, commercial jetliners are actually quite nimble; they're not the elephants they appear to be. You can do aerobatics in them, and people have. For safety reasons, they generally have a huge power reserve over what is normally used, and they're massively overbuilt in the chassis, so overall, they make decent stunt planes, if you're so inclined. Flying one into a large, fixed tower given advance knowledge of where it is wouldn't be hard at all.

By the way, the only hard thing about driving an oval track is getting faster times than all the other guys on the track. Just getting a car around an oval at a very high speed isn't all that hard; journalists with little or no real experience are given a chance to do it all the time. Sure, there are other useful skills, like getting control back after a spin, avoiding collisions, and so on, but quite frankly, while you could argue that F1, CART, GT, world rally and other drivers are good at those things, most NASCAR drivers are not. Your average NASCAR idiot couldn't race in a real racing format to save his life, whereas given time to get used to the differences, your average F1 driver could make NASCAR his bitch, if he was willing to take the absurd risk of dying that comes with that so-called "sport."

--
'God dammit, your posts make me hard.' --LilDebbie

[ Parent ]
Nope (4.80 / 5) (#101)
by FlightTest on Tue Sep 11, 2001 at 01:39:18 PM EST

Manual control can be used to avoid obstacles (like mountains - "Pull up, pull up!"). That's not what was done here: the planes were way out of altitude. They weren't even remotely within the flight cone reserved for airport traffic.

Nope. Turn off the autopilot and you can do anything. You can fly the airplane anywhere you want.

Manual control does not allow the pilot to independently point the plane at an urban center and hit a miniscule target like the World Trade Center. As I pointed out earlier, this is not like driving a bus into the Post Office. The planes would have been moving at roughly 300 miles per hour. According to this friend, steering by visual would have been ludicrous, and instrumentation would have been useless for a target like a skyscraper. Pilots don't even find airports without the use of radio transmissions and GPS.

*cough* BULLSHIT *cough* The WTC is very visable from the air, it is NOT a miniscule target. Commercial jetliners are controlable down to less than 200 mph clean. It ain't as fast as you think. Line up and keep it pointed at the big building. Last year, my boss and I flew across the country in a 220 mph turboprop airplane, largly visaully. We found most airports by LOOKING for them. Right now, I'm thinking you should ask your friend if really wants to stick to his story that he is a pilot. He's feeding you a lot of crap.

As any pilot can verify, there's a whole lotta airspace up there. Coordinating two plane collisions with the WTC required sophisticated avionics reprogramming.

Again, WRONG. Hitting an object as large as the WTC isn't much different than landing on a runway. Put the airplane at a specific point in space. It can easily be hand-flown.

Why did I flip? I got tired of coming up with last minute desparate solutions to impossible problems created by other fucking people.
[ Parent ]

Nope. (5.00 / 2) (#111)
by trhurler on Tue Sep 11, 2001 at 02:24:09 PM EST

Actually, my dad used to find airports regularly using nothing but a chart and some very, very trivial navigation aids.

As for hitting the buildings, their location is fixed and known in advance. If you're naive, you just steer the plane from a distance using its very accurate coordinate-based location systems until it is lined up with the building, then use the steering to fine tune as you approach. The towers would be visible from ten to twenty miles out on a reasonably clear day like today, and you're only covering roughly a mile every twelve seconds; that's plenty of time. These planes can do aerobatics - just because they're big doesn't mean they're clumsy. (Yes, they have been used for that a couple of times, just as demonstrations of ability.) Frankly, given a day's instruction, I could do the flying part. The part I couldn't do involves taking over the airplane. For that, you need trained terrorists. The only hard part about flying a plane is takeoff, landing, aerobatics and other precision techniques such as formation flying, and inclement weather; any fool with five minutes instruction can steer a plane around in circles in the sky.

--
'God dammit, your posts make me hard.' --LilDebbie

[ Parent ]
Don't forget long-distance navigation (none / 0) (#258)
by hardburn on Wed Sep 12, 2001 at 04:20:36 PM EST

The radar mock-up (which was apparently created by information from flightexplorer.com) shown on CNN showed that the plane made a great big turn while quite far from New York City (like on the other end of the state). You don't just say "lets point the plane over here", you have to know something about long distance navigation using instraments. This would only take a few hours of training, though.


----
while($story = K5::Story->new()) { $story->vote(-1) if($story->section() == $POLITICS); }


[ Parent ]
PA crash (3.00 / 1) (#96)
by pete on Tue Sep 11, 2001 at 01:22:35 PM EST

...and would have ditched the plane in the water or into a hill before hitting a civilian building...

I have a very good source that told me that's exactly what happened in the PA crash. The pilot had heard about the earlier attacks, got hijacked, and ditched the plane rather than allow it to be used in another attack.


--pete


[ Parent ]
"I have a very good source that told me...&qu (none / 0) (#212)
by ant on Tue Sep 11, 2001 at 11:01:18 PM EST

I have a very good source that told me that's exactly what happened in the PA crash. The pilot had heard about the earlier attacks, got hijacked, and ditched the plane rather than allow it to be used in another attack.

Unfortunately, this "good source" property isn't transitive to you :)

[ Parent ]

Hmm... (4.66 / 3) (#89)
by trhurler on Tue Sep 11, 2001 at 12:54:31 PM EST

I believe that he believes what he told you. However, I'd be more interested were he an airplane technician, because captains know what the plane will and won't do under normal circumstances, but not necessarily how that protection is implemented.

Every commercial aircraft flown in the world these days has systems to make accidents less likely, but they're not designed to foil serious tampering efforts, and they're required by FAA rules to be easy enough to disable should they malfunction for some reason that the crew will be able to do it given instructions. What makes you think terrorists can't do it, or that they couldn't learn how? Technical info on commercial jets isn't exactly classified, after all. As for "reprogramming the avionics," that just isn't true. Those aircraft can put down anywhere in the world in an emergency; the only key is knowing how to do it. They do so, too, if you watch the news:)

The real question is how they coordinated all of this; the logistics are far more formidable than any aircraft control system.

--
'God dammit, your posts make me hard.' --LilDebbie

[ Parent ]
WRONG! (4.66 / 6) (#92)
by FlightTest on Tue Sep 11, 2001 at 01:07:42 PM EST

He says that it is next to impossible to do what these hijacked planes have done. He claims that he could not have done it himself. You do not simply drive a plane into a building.

So impossible, in fact, it was done not once, not twice, but THREE times today. Yes, you do simply drive an airplane into a building, as events have shown.

The avionics on a commercial passenger airplane are programmed to launch and land at commercial airports. In order to manually fly a passenger airliner into a building it would have been necessary to reprogram the avionics at a low level from scratch.

Virtually all takeoffs and landings are hand-flown. The autopilots are used only for enroute navigation. All you need to know how to do is turn off the autopilot. Then it's pretty much just like flying Flight Simulator. Sure, you have to take into consideration flight dynamics, such as turn radius, but it wouldn't take THAT MUCH training. No reprograming of avionics would be necessary.

without any assistance from the crew. He would have had to specifically program the plane's onboard systems to hit the World Trade Center. There is no way to free-fly those planes into buildings.

See above. Turn off the autopilot and hand fly it.

The planes would have had to be disabled quickly. The captain and first officer would have known from the first that they were going to die, and consequently would have been able to twist the ailerons, breaking up the plane in midair to avert the disaster.

No, the terrorists either killed the crew right off (probably) or told them to fly to New York where they would make thier demands. The crew had no idea what was going to happen. You don't just destroy an aircraft during a hijack, as most hijacks don't end like this. Once near New York, the crew was probably killed, then the hijackers took over.

I'm sorry to respond so strenuously to this, but I can't let this kind of misinformation stand. It is not difficult to hand-fly even a jetliner. No avionics programming is necessary, you just turn off all the magic. That's why there's a yoke and throttles in the cockpit.

Why did I flip? I got tired of coming up with last minute desparate solutions to impossible problems created by other fucking people.
[ Parent ]

not that easy (4.00 / 1) (#108)
by Delirium on Tue Sep 11, 2001 at 02:17:04 PM EST

Sure, you have to take into consideration flight dynamics, such as turn radius, but it wouldn't take THAT MUCH training.

I think it would take quite a trained pilot to be able to pull off such a feat - this isn't just landing a plane manually, but ramming it into a rather narrow skyscraper, a fairly pinpoint sort of operation, undertaken with a plane that's not exactly very agile.

[ Parent ]

you've never flown a plane (4.50 / 4) (#116)
by Ender Ryan on Tue Sep 11, 2001 at 02:59:15 PM EST

Obviously, you have never flown a plane. I have, it's certainly been a while, but the hardest part of flying is landing. Really, landing is the only thing that requires pinpoint accuracy.

There is no such thing as simply landing a plane manually. There are constand changes in wind speed, gusts of wind, etc. that quickly push the plane in different directions and you have to constantly make adjustments, and do that with extreme accuracy or you clip a wing or landing gear on the runway and kill yourself. This is probably all the more true of such a large plane.

These planes did nothing near as difficult as landing, they simply flew straight into a very tall, very wide structure, which is not difficult by any means. If landing were as easy as pointing the plane down towards the runway, there'd be a lot more pilots, and many fewer accidents.


-
Exposing vast conspiracies! Experts at everything even outside our expertise! Liberators of the world from the oppression of the evil USian Empire!

We are Kuro5hin!


[ Parent ]

Runways are narrow (4.00 / 1) (#134)
by FlightTest on Tue Sep 11, 2001 at 04:24:51 PM EST

I think it would take quite a trained pilot to be able to pull off such a feat - this isn't just landing a plane manually, but ramming it into a rather narrow skyscraper, a fairly pinpoint sort of operation, undertaken with a plane that's not exactly very agile.

Three of Los Angles International's runways are 150 feet wide. The fourth is 200 feet wide. All of JFK's runways are 150 feet wide. 150 feet is a pretty standard runway width. Due to landing gear width, that doesn't leave much wiggle room side to side on larger aircraft. So a runways isn't as large a thing to hit as you might think.

The hardest thing is accounting for turn radius in a large aircraft, but even jetliners can fly relatively slowly (less than 200 mph) clean (gear and flaps up). I'm not saying the people that did this had no training, but I'm sure it was a pretty minimal amount.

I'd say this was signifcantly EASIER than landing an airplane. And jets are more maneuverable than you think. Sluggish compared to your average light plane to be sure, but the controls are hydraulically boosted, and they do have to be able to handle changing crosswinds, etc, on landing.

Why did I flip? I got tired of coming up with last minute desparate solutions to impossible problems created by other fucking people.
[ Parent ]

Manual flight (none / 0) (#178)
by sigwinch on Tue Sep 11, 2001 at 07:52:06 PM EST

So impossible, in fact, it was done not once, not twice, but THREE times today. Yes, you do simply drive an airplane into a building, as events have shown.
And unless I'm mistaken, one of the major rocket burns during the Apollo 13 lunar mission was done entirely by hand. No gyroscopic aiming, no automatic timing control, no nothing. They flew a spaceship home by the seat of their pants.
Virtually all takeoffs and landings are hand-flown.
Damn right. I'm not a pilot, but from what I've heard the hardest thing about landing is bring it down at the right rate so that you reach the ground just as the landing strip comes underneath. Too fast and you hurt the plane, too slow and you run out of strip (which happens fast at 200 mph). Keeping horizontal alignment takes much less skill. And then there's carrier landings, which make regular landings look like a piece of cake.
No, the terrorists either killed the crew right off (probably) or told them to fly to New York where they would make thier demands.
Yet another armchair theory: the terrorists could have brought a device on board, told the pilots it was an EMP-optimized nuke that could wipe out 90% of the electronics on the eastern seaboard, and said "But we don't want to destroy the entire US economy. The nuke can only be set off manually, and we will not set it off if you fly this plane into the building. We want to make a statement, but we are not total monsters." I think that theory is unlikely, but it does show that there are circumstances where the pilots would cooperate, even to the extent of flying the plane into the building themselves.

--
I don't want the world, I just want your half.
[ Parent ]

funny you mention Flight Simulator (none / 0) (#225)
by Lupus Rufus on Wed Sep 12, 2001 at 02:14:24 AM EST

I remember many times flying a plane (probably not a 757) into the World Trade Center in an old version of Flight Simulator. I don't remember thinking about the ramifications of this happening in real life; it just seemed like pilots were smarter than that. I guess I hadn't really swallowed the implications of suicidal terrorism at the time, hm.

We believe in nothing, Lebowski, nothing.
[ Parent ]

Origins of evil (3.57 / 7) (#83)
by decaf_dude on Tue Sep 11, 2001 at 12:29:04 PM EST

It's all too easy to condemn the terrorists for the evil work they do, indeed it's only a natural reaction to the unspeakable acts of terror committed. However, terrorism is usually a symptom of much deeper-reaching problems as perceived by those who perpetrate these acts.

One must look into the history of any given terrorist organisation to try and understand the twisted reasoning behind its actions. Spanish government denies Basques independence, they fight back any way they can. Britain maintains illogical occupation of part of an island with iron military control, the local population fights back. USA is the key supporter of the state of Israel and is in fact providing upto 1/3 of Israel's GNP through foreign aid in cash, loans, and weaponry. I will not go into what Israel did and is doing to its neighbours, but it's only natural to expect reaction from the peoples oppressed and/or occupied by this deadly duo.

Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. Sounds familiar? This is the third of Sir Isaac Newton's laws of physics.

Last but not least, my thoughts and prayers go to the innocent people who were killed and injured, their families and friends. Despite everything, I cannot under any circumstances condone killing of the innocents, but then I haven't experienced what those folks have.

--
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=89158&cid=7713039


Argh (4.75 / 4) (#95)
by fluffy grue on Tue Sep 11, 2001 at 01:21:07 PM EST

Please do NOT apply the third law of motion to the notion of karma. Newton was talking about the motion of physical bodies, not spiritualism, and I can't stand when people misapply the observed laws of physics like that.
--
"Is not a quine" is not a quine.
I have a master's degree in science!

[ Hug Your Trikuare ]
[ Parent ]

Live view of the Pentagon (4.33 / 3) (#84)
by duxup on Tue Sep 11, 2001 at 12:39:09 PM EST

Pentagon WebCam

Hollings is gonna have a field day with this (1.81 / 11) (#85)
by Bernie Fsckinner on Tue Sep 11, 2001 at 12:47:21 PM EST

He'll use it as a justification for the SSSCA. The word 'security' in the title will probably get a lot more votes than it would have yesterday.

Donate Blood! (4.90 / 10) (#87)
by Stereo on Tue Sep 11, 2001 at 12:50:59 PM EST

If you live in Bay Ridge brooklyn - carpool @ 91st and 3rd avenue to give blood

kuro5hin - Artes technicae et humaniores, a fossis


Give blood (4.25 / 4) (#163)
by ZanThrax on Tue Sep 11, 2001 at 06:54:58 PM EST

regardless of where you are. The Red Cross is almost certainly going to be having to pull supplies from across the continent for New York. Call your local health authority or Red Cross to find out where you can give blood, I expect that proper blood drives will be set up tomorrow, but there's no reason to wait until then. (note for Canadians: remember that the Red Cross doesn't collect blood here anymore, so just call your Health Authority. note for Edmontonians: right now, you need to go the University to donate)


No witty sig today. Even I have respect for the dead.


[ Parent ]
Who's behind this? (4.25 / 8) (#88)
by Best Ace on Tue Sep 11, 2001 at 12:53:06 PM EST

Maybe we shouldn't just assume that Bin Laden or other Arab terrorists are behind these incidents. People thought they were to blame immediately after the Oklahoma bombing...

I've been trying to think who would have the capability to pull off such a major operation with such military precision. To hijack 4 or 5 aircraft at the same time - questions have to be asked about airport security.

bA

Decoding the message (3.66 / 3) (#102)
by slaytanic killer on Tue Sep 11, 2001 at 01:45:11 PM EST

This was a message that cost many thousands of lives. Perhaps cost me more than I am aware of right now. I think it is on us to decode it, because it was very expensive for them and for us.

I just brainstormed some motivations, and reality may be a combination of these:

- warning: nukes/bioweapons next
This may escalate.

- enlightenment
Now do you know how many thousands of us die?

- protest
Simplest of all reasons.

- pushing an issue to logical extreme
There is some situation somewhere that needed to be precipitated. It was up in the air for too long.

- profit
Someone stands to gain in these situations.

- US political change towards conservatism, xenophobia
No one likes a foreigner during these times. Polarizing events unite the nation.

- framing
Pin the blame.

- havoc with US economy
Wartime economies may no longer work the same as they once did. Unrest will exacerbate a bad situation.


More motivations (4.00 / 1) (#107)
by slaytanic killer on Tue Sep 11, 2001 at 02:02:34 PM EST

- distraction
Big boom, while the left hand is elsewhere.

- lure
Push the US to a foolish position; commit it to a precarious state of affairs.

- weakening
US infrastructure was destroyed, though better targets exist.

- decoy
Only one objective was useful.

- insanity
Last resort explanation.

[ Parent ]
Profit (none / 0) (#181)
by sigwinch on Tue Sep 11, 2001 at 07:58:02 PM EST

- profit
Someone stands to gain in these situations.
Hate to say it, but this is a good kick in the seat of the pants for the Pentagon, where the career brass has been concentrating far too many of our best people and our logistics infrastructure in a single target.

Hopefully the rear echelon mother fuckers will distribute the operation geographically before somebody repeats this trick with a nuke instead of an airplane.

--
I don't want the world, I just want your half.
[ Parent ]

Media Gallery (3.50 / 4) (#103)
by Wolfbaine on Tue Sep 11, 2001 at 01:49:12 PM EST

Ive been putting together a mirror of much of the available media, along with a time line (which is currently far from completed). These are available here



This is a real life Tom Clancy novel... (3.75 / 4) (#104)
by SvnLyrBrto on Tue Sep 11, 2001 at 01:50:37 PM EST

Ever read Debt of Honor?

The events of today parallel the novel to a creepy degree. Debt of Honor, for those of you who have not read it, tells of a fictional war between the US and Japan.

First, you cripple the target's economy. The World Trade Center was a vital part of our economy, who knows what the long-term effects will be. Hell, the stock market IS shut down, and we're ALREADY in a recession. In the book, Japan attacked the US economy with a malicious hacker in the Wall Street tradeing computers, causing a shut down of the stock market.

Then you decapitate your target's leadership. The pentagon contained much of the upper echelons of our military. Plus, there was an attack on Camp David, and a car bomb attack on the Capitol. Guess how Japan decapitates the US leadership in the book... They kamakazie a 747 into Capitol hill while the president is addressing a joint session of congress!!!

This isn't just terror, this is war.


john

Imagine all the people...

You're getting the book wrong. (none / 0) (#128)
by hansel on Tue Sep 11, 2001 at 03:45:50 PM EST

The kamikaze attack takes place at the end of the book, and is the sole action of a disgruntled Japanese airline pilot who lost his brother and son in the war.

The Japanese war against the U.S. starts with a hacker who stops the recording of all stock transactions at 12:00 pm, Friday, with half a day of trading to go; after that half day, with no recorded transactions, no one knew who owned how much of what, at what price.

Destroying the WTC will have far less impact on the US economy than the abovementioned action, and was done for symbolic value (destroying the best symbol of American financial power), not practical effect. All the blood on it now is icing on the cake.

[ Parent ]
WWIII (4.38 / 13) (#106)
by Lord13 on Tue Sep 11, 2001 at 01:56:37 PM EST

Could this be the start of World War 3?

There is no question that the US will respond with force. Will that trigger yet another attack, which calls for another response? When will it end? I'm seriously wondering, not if, but how far this is going to escalate.

I'm been listening to the radio, watching tv and listening to my coworkers. I'm amazed that the reactions are generally expressed as "I can't believe it" followed by "They (whoever they are) are going to pay". I guess I feel the same way, but I keep asking myself 'What will be the headling in a month, two months or by christmas?'

Man this is spooky. I feel like one of biggest pivotal moments during this time just occured and it's just the beginning.

I guess I'm just really spooked. I think it's time to go to the bar.

Growing half a tree, water it everyday.
dammit (3.00 / 4) (#150)
by lonesmurf on Tue Sep 11, 2001 at 05:56:53 PM EST

If it is the start of world war 3, boy did I pick a day to quit my job. Living in Israel, I probably won't live out the week anyway.

Hmmph. This is just terrible. I can't believe this, it just doesn't seem real.


Rami

I am not a jolly man. Remove the mirth from my email to send.


[ Parent ]
I've been thinking... (4.33 / 3) (#169)
by Mad Hughagi on Tue Sep 11, 2001 at 07:09:27 PM EST

about this quite a bit today. Since this morning I've had to pretty much come to grasps with the fact that we now live in an age where mass terrorism exists even in our relatively safe western enclave.

Will this be WWIII?

I surely hope not. I hope the US can deal with this in a fashion representative of the country that it is supposed to embody. Justice should be served, but instead of razing a pathetic undeveloped country in retaliation I say we send in the troops, hunt the fuckers down and if they don't kill themselves first we put them on trial. McVeigh style. Then we put a bullet in their head and call it a day.

I also doubt it will result in a world war because almost every country has made it clear that they are behind the US and that they want to help quash this danger to all humans.

Then the world will see that the US isn't going to stoop to their level.

However, if this was initiated by a large enough organization it will be considered an act of war and it will probably lead to a short and very destructive deconstruction of said organization

I'm getting really sick of the whole "America is so evil, they really had this coming" mentality that I've been hearing.

This was not an attack on the US. It was an attack on civilization and humanity as a whole. If it was just an attack on capitalism and what the US stood for then they would have done it at night and not have killed all these civilians. It takes something pretty serious to make a grown man cry... I just hope we can salvage something for the future of humanity out of this situation.


HUGHAGI INDUSTRIES

We don't make the products you like, we make you like the products we make.
[ Parent ]

Thoughts after time for reflection (4.50 / 2) (#201)
by Lord13 on Tue Sep 11, 2001 at 10:05:52 PM EST

Will this be WWIII?

I'm going to remain edgy on this, but I hope like hell that most of the world, including our enemies, will realize that this type of statement, is really, just a self-incriminating display of insanity. The party responsible should be held accountable with support from no less then 100% of the world, which will bring me to another point in a moment.

I'm a not a big fan of the US sometimes, but nothing imaginable can justify this.

This was not an attack on the US. It was an attack on civilization and humanity as a whole.

I agree. I've been a fence sitter on the Israeli-Palestine conflict, but not anymore. I saw the images of Palestinians cheering in the street that the "evil supporter of Israel took a hit".

I don't fucking care who you are and what your fucking beef is, killing civilian's en mass is WRONG. The Palestinians have proved, by celebrating the deaths of complete innocents, they deserve no less then complete disregard in respect to the current crisis there.

I've heard, Iraq played video of the incident accompanied with the songs hailing for the "Death of America". If true, I feel the same for them. This isn't political anymore, it's insanity. Embrace it and expose your own insanity.

Growing half a tree, water it everyday.
[ Parent ]
footage of people celebrating in Palestine (4.66 / 3) (#209)
by netmouse on Tue Sep 11, 2001 at 10:49:33 PM EST

I have seen footage of only a few people waving flags and looking happy. A few people do not represent a whole nation group. Please keep in mind that the people showing this footage have a political agenda. They also have an economic agenda -to get you to watch their news agency. This is why every day the news is filled with trumped-up tragedies and scandals while countless daily justices and achievements get no press. There are no doubt hundreds of palestinians who are as shocked and enraged as many of us. Consider how scared many of them must be, that the U.S. might blindly retaliate against them.

--netmouse

[ Parent ]

Take these reports with a grain of salt... (4.50 / 2) (#217)
by Anatta on Tue Sep 11, 2001 at 11:34:16 PM EST

Celebrations in Lebanon and Egypt.

There's no question in my mind that most arabic people are looking at this attack in horror, however there are clearly some who support it.

On a side note, the Wall St. Journal pointed here, to an extreme right-wing American group who also takes sick pleasure in the murder of innocents...
My Music
[ Parent ]

Observations (4.50 / 8) (#109)
by jrh on Tue Sep 11, 2001 at 02:20:01 PM EST

My opinions on the attack:

Osama bin Laden was probably not behind this. If he was, then the CIA and NSA are overwhelmingly incompetent. Bin Laden's has to be the most monitored terrorist organization, and we aren't yet aware of any intelligence concerning these attacks (though there likely is some we don't know about yet--in fact, I wouldn't be shocked if the CIA/FBI/NSA already suspect where the attacks are from).

Was it domestic terrorism? Almost certainly not. The World Trade Center has previously been the target of Islamic terrorists; it's not a logical domestic target (not being a government building). And I don't know of any large-scale domestic terrorist organizations that could have carried out such an attack, or that rely on suicide bombers.

This is far beyond the scale of any previous attack. If it was this easy to hijack multiple airplanes, why hasn't it been done before? Furthermore, the hijacking probably required multiple teams: someone well-trained to pilot the planes, and at least one armed person to guard his back and keep the passengers in line. Let's face it: US airport security is pretty terrible, and the US and other nations can expect to see copycat hijackings unless further security measures are taken--an armed soldier on every plane, perhaps?

I actually hope that more attacks were planned and were foiled. If someone were caught in another attempt, then we likely won't know about it for days. If not, that means that US airports are even more insecure than it seems: how could several teams of terrorsts stage coordinated successful hijackings against adequate security?

So how many people died? If my memory is correct, the first plane hit higher on Two World Trade Center (and collapsed second), and the second plane hit lower on One World Trade Center (and collapsed first). According to this article, people in One World Trade Center got out safely to at least the 81st floor, of 110 floors. So let's say that 80% get out alive. I haven't found anything giving further information about One World Trade Center, but probably more people died. Full, the buildings housed 50,000 people (I'm assuming this is combined); suppose they were full and evenly distributed over floors, with an 80% survival rate that's 10,000 dead--and almost certainly more. Throw in a few hundred from the Pentagon and the airplanes. I hope there is something very wrong with my assumptions...

As soon as a suspect organization or nation is blamed for the attacks (assuming the culprit doesn't remain elusive), we'll get to witness violent retribution by the US government. Hopefully it will be against the correct target, have minimal civilian casualties, and target those responsible for the attacks at the highest levels. Unfortunately, none of this is really very likely to be the case.

Re:observations (3.25 / 4) (#129)
by Best Ace on Tue Sep 11, 2001 at 04:00:42 PM EST

If he was, then the CIA and NSA are overwhelmingly incompetent

And also every other intelligence service in the western world, who I'm sure talk to each other about threats of this magnitude. It takes a huge amount of planning to coordinate the hijacking and collision of four or five aircraft within such a short space of time; yet they still managed to keep their plans secret from everyone.

I agree that the attacks originated from outside the USA. The targets were chosen very carefully: one being the symbol of American capitalism and economic might, the other being the symbol of American might and military strength. I am surprised there was not also an attempt on the White House or the Capitol - symbols of American political dominance.

The terrorists seem to have targetted a weak spot in the system (airport security) and exploited it ruthlessly. You can bet there will be security swarming over every airport in America when they reopen! But I seem to remember a government report from seven or eight years ago (authored by Gore?) that called for tighter airport security. As I recall, the airlines voted that one down because it would cause too much havoc at airports - don't know why though, other countries seem to manage just fine.

If not Bin Laden or right wing extremists from within, then who??

bA

[ Parent ]

Plane crash in PA (3.50 / 2) (#191)
by Anon 20517 on Tue Sep 11, 2001 at 08:28:11 PM EST

"I am surprised there was not also an attempt on the White House or the Capitol - symbols of American political dominance."

I'm not so sure about that. The flight paths of the various planes were detailed on CNN earlier today. The one that crashed in Penn. appeared to be headed back for Washington. Knowing that the terrorists had already hit military and economic centers, I'm guessing that either the White House or Capitol Hill was the other target.

--Greg

[ Parent ]
Do not plagiarize (2.11 / 9) (#112)
by BlckKnght on Tue Sep 11, 2001 at 02:28:25 PM EST

Commenters: do not plagerize news stories. Write a summary, post a link, but don't include the entire article in your comment. I'm rating all plagiarizing comments 0. Don't do it!

-- 
Error: .signature: No such file or directory


Please don't mod 0s (5.00 / 5) (#113)
by slaytanic killer on Tue Sep 11, 2001 at 02:40:13 PM EST

I'm preemptively rating everything 5's, without regard to contents, because I don't want this information attacked. Plagiarism no longer means anything is this near-war state of affairs. More than at any time, this information needs to be mirrored and disseminated.

[ Parent ]
Mirrors (4.00 / 1) (#183)
by sigwinch on Tue Sep 11, 2001 at 08:02:01 PM EST

Also keep in mind that if this is just a prelude to a full-scale attack, many of the news sites are located in strategic targets and may not exist tomorrow. This is war: get the information out, copyright be damned.

--
I don't want the world, I just want your half.
[ Parent ]

7 hours ago many sites were down (4.75 / 4) (#120)
by georgeha on Tue Sep 11, 2001 at 03:17:02 PM EST

and the plaigerizers were doing us all a favor by cut and pasting what they found. A k5-cache, if you will.

[ Parent ]
SETTLE DOWN! (3.50 / 2) (#114)
by nigma999 on Tue Sep 11, 2001 at 02:45:09 PM EST

Listen, this is the kind of the psychological terrorism that they want to inflict after such a horrendous incident. Everyone, if you are on American soil, just calm down, by getting excited you do nothing more than gratify those who instigated this attack.

This is short: (2.00 / 3) (#118)
by misterluke on Tue Sep 11, 2001 at 03:09:45 PM EST

from the Globe & Mail website:

KAL jets escorted to Whitehorse landing Tuesday, September 11, 2001

By STEVEN CHASE
Globe and Mail Update
Origination unclear, but Canadian air force treats them with caution

Ottawa -- Two Korean Air Lines planes -- one of which is considered to be possibly under the control of highjackers -- have been diverted to land in Whitehorse under escort from what are believed to be both Canadian and U.S. fighter jets.

That's according to Yukon Premier Pat Duncan who spoke to the Globe and Mail today.

It is not clear where the aircraft came from or whether they are connected to the bombing attacks in New York or Washington.

Reports said the jet fighters that escorted the Korean planes were CF-18s [ Canadian fighters -ml ].

Nevermind - it was low fuel(nt - G&M has detai (2.00 / 1) (#122)
by misterluke on Tue Sep 11, 2001 at 03:26:45 PM EST



[ Parent ]
A few questions... (3.20 / 5) (#119)
by jforan on Tue Sep 11, 2001 at 03:15:39 PM EST

If anybody knows the answers:

I was under the impression that the world trade center was designed to withstand major jet plane crashes. The empire state building withstood a b-25 bomber crashing into its 72nd floor in ~1945. How come there is no engineer anywhere saying that the building could not have (or could have) fallen due to the plane crashes alone? It looked to me like explosions on ~80th floor well below the crash instigated the one tower to fall.

If so, then clearly the instigators of this tragedy could have cause more death than they did by detonating the towers to fall before 80%+ of the people escaped.

Another odd note:
when was the last time you traveled on a 767 accross the country with only 81 people on board? I thought they usually substituted smaller planes for that unbooked of a flight on a middle-of-the-week day.

opinion: To me, this is an instance of somebody wanting as much media attention as possible without causing an excessive amount of death. This would likely limit certain organizations who would prefer the maximum amount of death as well as the maximum amount of press.

On another note...
This could technically have been implemented with as few as 10 people - 2 per plane.

I don't really know where i am going with this comment, but these are some of the things I thought of that were definitely not mentioned yet in the media or on this page.

J
I hops to be barley workin'.
Best answers we've got (5.00 / 2) (#124)
by trhurler on Tue Sep 11, 2001 at 03:31:17 PM EST

Engineers are saying that probably the plane crashes didn't take the towers down; instead, burning jet fuel probably melted the buildings' support structures enough to let them collapse.

767s are smaller than you think. 747s are bigger. Often, a 767 might BE the substitute aircraft; you need something that can fly a long way for the routes in question, which is why all the hijacked flights were pretty much coast to coast or other long distance runs.

If they'd wanted to not cause lots of death, they could have picked flights that weren't immediately after everyone showed up for work.

The active crews were probably only 2-4 per plane, but you have to remember that in addition to those crews, you need some way to smuggle weapons onto the aircraft, you need logistics and support to do lots of work like finding out what flights to get at and where, you need people to covertly and safely move weapons around, and so on. There were probably 25-50 people involved directly, and more indirectly.

The one thing that is pretty clear is that someone with an established organization did this; the resources aren't that hard to get, but they're not the sort of thing you can just go down to the corner store and acquire on a lark - illegal weapons, suicide attackers(including pilots,) and so on. That suggests a foriegn opponent, but it doesn't really narrow it down as much as most people are suggesting.

--
'God dammit, your posts make me hard.' --LilDebbie

[ Parent ]
The planes. (4.00 / 1) (#143)
by Anonymous 6522 on Tue Sep 11, 2001 at 05:41:07 PM EST

CNN has been saying the towers were built to withstand the impact of a 707, I'm taking CNN's word that 757s & 767s are larger than 707s. They also had a structural engineer saying that after the impact, the fires probably weakened the building enough for it to collapse.

Someone told me once that, compared to current skyscrapers, the Empire State Building is built like a rock. Maybe we need to start building them like that agian.

opinion: To me, this is an instance of somebody wanting as much media attention as possible without causing an excessive amount of death.

This did cause an excessive amount of death. Estimates of the dead are running into the five figures. Yeah, it's not as much as you'd get by nuking New York, but it's still a lot.

[ Parent ]

WTC construction (none / 0) (#154)
by kapital on Tue Sep 11, 2001 at 06:07:49 PM EST

There's some information here about the construction of the World Trade Center (See the first quoted message). Apparently the bracing was a lattice all around the exterior walls, which made it less fault-tolerant than older buildings with internal bracing. This appears to be an example of the lattice. I'm not an architect, though, so I don't know how accurate this information is.

I can't find the story at the moment, but the architect who designed the buildings said they were built to withstand a Boeing 707 crashing into them.

I've also seen the reports that trhurler mentioned, that fire melted the support structure, along with speculation that the initial explosion may have damaged the sprinkler systems in the buildings.

[ Parent ]

Heat damage to WTC (none / 0) (#186)
by sigwinch on Tue Sep 11, 2001 at 08:09:56 PM EST

I've also seen the reports that trhurler mentioned, that fire melted the support structure,...
Doesn't even have to melt: hardened steel can be annealed, and thus made weaker, at surprisingly low temperatures. IIRC, concrete is easily damaged by heat too (and my experience with concrete blocks in bonfires backs this up). A fire doesn't even have to make things red hot to cause structural failure.

--
I don't want the world, I just want your half.
[ Parent ]

Empire State not comparable (none / 0) (#195)
by greenplato on Tue Sep 11, 2001 at 09:38:48 PM EST

This memory is a couple of years old, so I may be mistaken. In Why Buildings Fall Down a structural engineer calculated that the total force of the B25 impact was a fraction of the force that is usually applied to the Empire State Building by the wind.

The jets that hit these buildings are much larger than the B25, were traveling much faster, and were carrying more fuel. There is also a great difference between the construction of the Empire State building and modern skyscapers.

It's been said by others that the heat from the fire is the probably cause of the wtc collapse.

[ Parent ]

Airplanes are scheduled (none / 0) (#262)
by dfprovine on Wed Sep 12, 2001 at 05:20:15 PM EST

> when was the last time you traveled on a 767 accross the > country with only 81 people on board? I thought they usually > substituted smaller planes for that unbooked of a flight on a > middle-of-the-week day.

If the airline had a whole bunch of people in LA waiting to fly somewhere else, then they had to get the 767 to LA to pick them up. If they had to get the 767 to LA, they might as well put people on it.

It would be far too expensive to keep a bunch of spare planes sitting around; sometimes, you can switch planes if the needs on the other end are consistent with different sizes. As you might imagine, efficiently scheduling airplanes is pretty complex.

[ Parent ]

My tribute to the twin towers. (3.50 / 2) (#123)
by mrsam on Tue Sep 11, 2001 at 03:27:39 PM EST

Only a few weeks ago I walked a few times on the Manhattan and Brooklyn bridges, and took several pictures of the New York evening skyline. Amongst them were several shots of the twin towers. I just scanned them in, and put them up at the following link, my way of saying goodbye to the twin towers, and the souls that are no longer with us. God have mercy on their souls.

http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Peaks/5799/farewelltowtc/index.html

Please spread this link around.

Too sad... (3.00 / 1) (#133)
by flimflam on Tue Sep 11, 2001 at 04:22:59 PM EST

I have a big photo in my living room of the lower-Manhattan skyline, taken from Brooklyn Heights (I live in Park Slope). When I glanced at it this afternoon, I was overcome with sadness that I will never see that skyline again. I think it is symbolic of something... I feel that New York will never be the same. A lot of people I know are talking about leaving the city now. We'll see how many of them follow through, but I definitely think that some hard times are ahead for us New Yorkers.

(BTW -- unfortunately I couldn't get through to your pictures...)

-- I am always optimistic, but frankly there is no hope. --Hosni Mubarek
[ Parent ]
Probably not the end (4.00 / 1) (#167)
by physicsgod on Tue Sep 11, 2001 at 07:07:07 PM EST

I don't think it will be too long until something like the WTC is back in the skyline. Not only would it serve a psychological pupose, we're not going to let those cowards change our life, there's a strong economic reason, real estate is scarce in Manhattan. I predict there will be new towers under construction within a year. There will probably be some modifications, the towers will definatly be stronger, possibly taller, and there will be some kind of memorial. Well that's my try at psychic readings.

--- "Those not wearing body armor are hereby advised to keep their arguments on-topic" Schlock Mercenary
[ Parent ]
Blood Donations & Commentary (4.25 / 4) (#125)
by Elkor on Tue Sep 11, 2001 at 03:36:40 PM EST

I (and I am sure most of the media outlets) want to encourage you to give blood within the next 2 weeks. Current supplies across the nation will be depleted as local supplies are routed to NYC and DC to help.

The red crosses national number is 1-800-GIVE-LIFE. or their web site at: redcross.org. Here in Hampton Roads they are setting up emergency donation centers in area Malls.

On two seperate notes:
It was commented that all the planes involved were en route to California. The insured that the planes would be loaded with the maximum amount of fuel.
Todays month and day are 911, the US emergency number. Whether this was a coincident or a cuel joke (some had mentioned Afghanistan's liberation anniversary) I don't know, but its irony doesn't escape me.

Still in shock,
Elkor


"I won't tell you how to love God if you don't tell me how to love myself."
-Margo Eve
Well Also International Day of Peace, and more (4.00 / 1) (#159)
by satch on Tue Sep 11, 2001 at 06:28:55 PM EST

The aniversary of camp david 1978 first meeting. Too many coincidencies

[ Parent ]
Terrorism (3.72 / 11) (#131)
by compsci guy 2000 on Tue Sep 11, 2001 at 04:08:11 PM EST

So why is it terrorism when america is attacked. But when thousands of civilians were murdered in Serbia by cluster bombs and DU it's honourable? It was done supposedly to defend Kosovars (which were also bombed by NATO). And yet nothing was done to stop stray Serbian soldiers from murdering 10,000 kosovars. For all the crimes that the american government has committed, this attack hardly comes as a surprise. That said, civilian deaths cannot be excused. Just because the US does it, does not give others the right to hurt ignorant US civilians.

More destruction (3.50 / 2) (#132)
by fluffy grue on Tue Sep 11, 2001 at 04:18:04 PM EST

According to the BBC, one of the buildings next to the WTC collapsed about 10 minutes ago (it being damaged by the WTC collapse, and was in a very tenuous state for the past few hours).
--
"Is not a quine" is not a quine.
I have a master's degree in science!

[ Hug Your Trikuare ]

Rumours.... (3.25 / 4) (#135)
by Lord INSERT NAME HERE on Tue Sep 11, 2001 at 04:30:34 PM EST

I can confirm that Arafat has condemned the attack, I saw him doing it on BBC TV... he looked as shocked and upset as everyone else.
--
Comics are good. Read mine. That's an order.
Well, (2.00 / 7) (#136)
by trhurler on Tue Sep 11, 2001 at 05:15:28 PM EST

Maybe it is true, and maybe not. The man has a proven track record for being a convincing liar, which is probably why he got along with Clinton so well.

--
'God dammit, your posts make me hard.' --LilDebbie

[ Parent ]
Arafat's worry (5.00 / 1) (#205)
by mmcc on Tue Sep 11, 2001 at 10:23:32 PM EST

I bet he's scared out of his wits. If there is any evidence at all, that there was any Palestinian involvement, there's going to be hell to pay for all Palestinians, innocent or otherwise. This would put the peace process in Israel in great danger, and give the US and Israel the moral high ground.

If i were Arafat, i'd be kissing US butt right now.



[ Parent ]

Possibly spurrious reports (4.42 / 7) (#137)
by weirdling on Tue Sep 11, 2001 at 05:24:53 PM EST

There is some sort of explosion and fire in Afghanistan, as reported by a CNN reporter that I read about on another weblog; definately heresay.

I'm not doing this again; last time no one believed it.
Ananova is now reporting this -N/T (2.66 / 3) (#139)
by weirdling on Tue Sep 11, 2001 at 05:28:01 PM EST


I'm not doing this again; last time no one believed it.
[ Parent ]
Indeed, Kabul is on fire (3.75 / 4) (#140)
by Yanna on Tue Sep 11, 2001 at 05:28:40 PM EST

It's being broadcasted on CNN: Kabul (capital of Afghanistan) is being bombed. Several explosions have been reported around the city.

I hope that freezes your'(sic) and Yanna's smiles into grinning super power morons for eternity. mami
[ Parent ]

Doesn't appear to be related (4.50 / 4) (#158)
by kapital on Tue Sep 11, 2001 at 06:27:55 PM EST

According to Reuters, this is probably a rocket attack by an Afghan opposition party.

[ Parent ]
US denies involvement (4.00 / 1) (#215)
by Delirium on Tue Sep 11, 2001 at 11:08:14 PM EST

In fact that's almost certainly the case, as US officials have strenuously denied US involvement in these explosions. While you might wonder about the veracity of US official spokespeople, I think this is one case in which it's likely they're telling the truth - if the US undertakes a retaliatory strike, they'll make damn well sure everyone knows about it, not cover it up.

[ Parent ]
What now? (3.71 / 7) (#138)
by Best Ace on Tue Sep 11, 2001 at 05:27:47 PM EST

We should probably not be surprised about the events of today, or if we are, then it is surprise matched by complacency. The US has a long history of sponsoring terrorism outside its borders, and it has gained a lot of enemies in the process.

Of course, this does not justify the attacks on New York and Washington (what's that Gandhi quote about an eye for an eye making everyone blind?), but I hope that these attacks will force the US government to make a serious appraisal of its aggressive (arrogant?) foreign policy. These deaths do not have to be in vain.

Somehow I doubt this will happen, and Dubya may confirm my fears by sending a few cruise missiles into Afghanistan. If this is the extent of his response, then he will have lost an opportunity.

bA

world, America. America, world. (4.00 / 6) (#173)
by eLuddite on Tue Sep 11, 2001 at 07:28:02 PM EST

The US has a long history of sponsoring terrorism outside its borders, and it has gained a lot of enemies in the process.

Just to clarify.

Four American airplanes were hijacked *in* America where everyone is safe, and where commerce has nothing to fear except low profit margins. Two of those planes flew into the airspace of the largest, most famous American city and slammed into the most visible, important symbol of American economic imperialism. One other plane was crashed into the heart of American militarism.

This isnt a "normal" tragedy. This is people with absolutely nothing to lose shoving it in your faces and destroying your equanimity.

The message is clear: America is no longer an inviolable, innocent player to be judged by Americans alone. This has been a proof of concept for terrorists who would rather debilitate American infrastructure -- literally shock it into immobility -- than set off bombs in miserable little nations where the only people who care are the people who die.

You have just become the most inspirational, attractive target in the world, and short of literally nuking all your enemies off the face of the Earth, your age of innocence is over.

---
God hates human rights.
[ Parent ]

So let's nuke... (2.00 / 1) (#204)
by rgrow on Tue Sep 11, 2001 at 10:10:35 PM EST

Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Libya. Can you think of any others?

[ Parent ]
I have a better idea. (4.00 / 1) (#208)
by eLuddite on Tue Sep 11, 2001 at 10:41:46 PM EST

Trade your terrorists for theirs.
The members of the International War Crimes Tribunal finds each of the named [The United States & President Bush] accused Guilty on the basis of the evidence against them and that each of the nineteen crimes alleged in the Initial Complaint, attached hereto, has been established to have been committed beyond a reasonable doubt.

The members believe that it is imperative if there is ever to be peace that power be accountable for its criminal acts and we condemn in the strongest possible terms those found guilty of the charges herein. We urge the Commission of Inquiry and all people to act on recommendations developed by the Commission to hold power accountable and to secure social justice on which lasting peace must be based.

[...]

The Members urge public action to prevent new aggressions by the United States threatened against Iraq, Libya, Cuba, Haiti, North Korea, Pakistan and other countries and the Palestine people; fullest condemnation of any threat or use of military technology against life, both civilian and military, as was used by the United States against the people of Iraq.

Despite the terrible tragedy today, some of the comments under this article fairly convince me, at least, that the majority of the world isnt about to be demote the US from its exalted position of -- to quote its arab friends -- the Great Satan. A lot of pathetic, jingoistic, uninformed, blindingly biased fools begging for more of what went down today is what I see. And having just heard Bush's flight of manipulative rhetoric, there appears to be no prospect for improvement in that regard.

---
God hates human rights.
[ Parent ]

Evil Bush launches attack against innocent iraqis? (none / 0) (#281)
by mattw on Fri Sep 14, 2001 at 12:17:53 AM EST

The "War Crimes Tribunal" wasn't one convened under international law to judge the questions proposed, but rather a group of leftist lawyers with an anti-Bush agenda. That alone makes the whole situation suspect. Additionally, if they want to convince someone who will look on such claims with skepticism, choosing rather to believe that Bush was not capable of cowing the whole civilized world into not convening an official UN inquiry, they should actually present the evidence, rather than just describing it.

Being provoked by Kuwait was insufficient reason to initiate an invasion of them, even if one believes that the U.S. set up the situation in order to launch an offensive against Iraq. Furthermore, if Iraq was actually only trying to "right" the economic "wrongs" committed by Kuwait, they didn't need to loot the country in the way they did. Most absurd is the "tribunal" citing the violation of OPEC rationing as U.S. manipulation, since even if that were encouraged by the U.S., it could just be that we would prefer oil on a free market rather than one being controlled by a cartel.

I think the case for war crimes is a lot stronger if you wanted to indict Saddam Hussein for his crimes.

Meanwhile, you're justifying the attacks on the WTC as justified by the actions of the U.S. (trading atrocity for atrocity), and yet you'd surely condemn the U.S. repaying the same by levelling Afghanistan.


[Scrapbooking Supplies]
[ Parent ]
please, spare me your sainted leaders (none / 0) (#285)
by eLuddite on Fri Sep 14, 2001 at 10:11:44 AM EST

The "War Crimes Tribunal" wasn't one convened under international law to judge the questions proposed,

No, that will obviously never happen. Nevertheless, the Commission of Inquiry for the International War Crimes Tribunal is convened under organs of international law to judge indictments.

I think the case for war crimes is a lot stronger if you wanted to indict Saddam Hussein

I dont care which criminals are honored in an exchange program of terrorist for terrorist.

they should actually present the evidence

Well they obviously did. You didnt follow any of the links beyond former Attn. General Ramsey Clark's 19-point indictment and whatever else I explicitly provided. The root document is at http://www.deoxy.org/wc/warcrime.htm. Not all the evidentiary information has been put on the web but there is a link labelled "Part Three: Testimony and Evidence."

Meanwhile, you're justifying the attacks on the WTC as justified by the actions of the U.S.

No, that isnt true. Meanwhile, God gave me my own tongue because mattw couldnt fit in my mouth.

---
God hates human rights.
[ Parent ]

correction (none / 0) (#286)
by eLuddite on Fri Sep 14, 2001 at 10:43:04 AM EST

the Commission of Inquiry for the International War Crimes Tribunal is convened under organs of international law to judge indictments.

The Commission presents evidence for indictments, it doesnt "judge indictments".

---
God hates human rights.
[ Parent ]

"I didn't mean that" (none / 0) (#288)
by mattw on Fri Sep 14, 2001 at 01:54:36 PM EST

Actually, I read the entire document. The evidence is presented in three sections, the first of which is irrelevent, the second of which is weakly supported, and the third of which is based solely on a single Washington Post article. That's not going to cut it for prosecuting people for war crimes, especially given the specious links between their citations and their conclusions.

Meanwhile, I still maintain you implied that the WTC trade center bombing was justified. There's not really any other way to infer meaning from your post. The original post suggesting bombing in retaliation to the WTC event, and you proceed to counter that by citing supposed atrocities against the Iraqis. Whether those are true or not, the only thing that can be inferred is that it isn't justified for us to retaliate since we were only being retaliated against.


[Scrapbooking Supplies]
[ Parent ]
disagree and disagree (none / 0) (#290)
by eLuddite on Fri Sep 14, 2001 at 03:01:36 PM EST

Regarding Bush and the Commission, your conclusion may be correct for all I know, but your casual dismissal of evidence isnt as convincing as the evidence itself. Regardless, Bush's future as a free man should not detract from Iraq's current and unnecessary dire straits because of persistent American policy and action. That policy is criminal, an opinion I share with a majority of the world.

Meanwhile, I still maintain you implied that the WTC trade center bombing was justified.

Then you dont know what justified means, or are intent to insinuate a defense of the nationalism I criticise onto a statement of historical perspective. You are free to create an "enemy" by having a discussion with yourself, of course, but point blank, your inference is rejected. Similiarly, now that your country has declared *war* instead of justice, the inexorable outcome will be to fabricate an enemy (if none can be identified) and destroy it. But, in fact, almost all the middle east is your enemy, and for every bin Laden you knock down, two others will spring up to replace him.

---
God hates human rights.
[ Parent ]

pfft (none / 0) (#291)
by mattw on Fri Sep 14, 2001 at 03:51:44 PM EST

Regarding Bush and the Commission, your conclusion may be correct for all I know, but your casual dismissal of evidence isnt as convincing as the evidence itself.

I'd hardly call careful evaluation of the presented material casual. Admittedly, a thorough investigation would review all their cited sources; but I don't think the origin of the material warrants that, especially given that their evidence, even if true and complete, would only prove a small fraction of their claims.

Regardless, Bush's future as a free man should not detract from Iraq's current and unnecessary dire straits because of persistent American policy and action. That policy is criminal, an opinion I share with a majority of the world.

I'd be surprised if you were sharing any opinion with a majority of the world, nor is your opinion at all relevent to the ethical concerns of the relations between Iraq and the United States. Iraq is in dire straits because it invaded another country, looted it, and was subsequently driven out by the U.S. , then followed up its aggression by refusing to admit U.N. weapons inspectors to many areas, ostensibly to cover up its continued attempts to produce weapons of mass destruction. I have no illusions about the motivations of the U.S., which have nothing to do with the interests of the Kuwaiti people, but Iraq is a military dictatorship ruled by fear and force of arms alone, with an aggressive past, which should be unsurprising, since that's what happens when you put the military in charge of a country. That's what the majority of the world thinks, not that it really matters.

Then you dont know what justified means, or are intent to insinuate a defense of the nationalism I criticise onto a statement of historical perspective. You are free to create an "enemy" by having a discussion with yourself, of course, but point blank, your inference is rejected. Similiarly, now that your country has declared *war* instead of justice, the inexorable outcome will be to fabricate an enemy (if none can be identified) and destroy it. But, in fact, almost all the middle east is your enemy, and for every bin Laden you knock down, two others will spring up to replace him.

You picked the language. You can disagree with my inference if you like. If you want to reject my inference, then consider it a critique, as I said, on the way you phrased the comment, because your self-righteous critique of the average American's jingoistic view of the events read like a justification for terrorism.

As for your assertions about the middle east, you may be right; the U.S. has made a host of enemies, mostly in the name of keeping the oil supply up, and some ethically murky landgrabbing for Israel. Hopefully the situation won't simply continue to escalate.


[Scrapbooking Supplies]
[ Parent ]
i dont think you understand (none / 0) (#292)
by eLuddite on Fri Sep 14, 2001 at 04:35:36 PM EST

I'd be surprised if you were sharing any opinion with a majority of the world, nor is your opinion at all relevent to the ethical concerns of the relations between Iraq and the United States.

You keep telling yourself that but a widely held opinion which is politically inconvenient to your beliefs isnt the same as an invalid opinion.

Iraq is in dire straits because it invaded another country

That happened a long time ago. You cannot punish a people because of your persistent failure to find the weapons you seek.

You can disagree with my inference if you like.

I'm afraid I have you at a disadvantage here. I know what justify means, I know what perspective means, and I'm in the unique position of correcting your overarching, tendentious misunderstanding of *my* words.

---
God hates human rights.
[ Parent ]

Ok, here's a nickel (none / 0) (#293)
by mattw on Fri Sep 14, 2001 at 04:47:46 PM EST

You keep telling yourself that but a widely held opinion which is politically inconvenient to your beliefs isnt the same as an invalid opinion.

And an opinion you imagine is widely held because it would be politically convenient to your beliefs isn't the same as a valid opinion or a widely held opinion.

That happened a long time ago. You cannot punish a people because of your persistent failure to find the weapons you seek.

If you're looking and don't find them, that's one thing. If you're trying to look and being thwarted because you are constantly denied access to facilities, you should assume the worst of a country recently coming off a spate of aggressive behavior.

I'm afraid I have you at a disadvantage here. I know what justify means, I know what perspective means, and I'm in the unique position of correcting your overarching, tendentious misunderstanding of *my* words.

Ok, I'm clearly outclassed. I had to go look up the word tendentious (that's a nice word), so clearly you must be right. However, I stated it was my opinion that my inferrence from your post was 'justified', in the sense that justify means, 'To demonstrate or prove to be just, right, or valid'. In other words, I inferred it, and I think I was right to infer it from your language, even if your phrasing implied something you didn't mean. But again, congratulations on tendentious. I'll send the nickel by mail.


[Scrapbooking Supplies]
[ Parent ]
what, no adjustment for inflation? (none / 0) (#294)
by eLuddite on Fri Sep 14, 2001 at 05:15:07 PM EST

in the sense that justify means, 'To demonstrate or prove to be just, right, or valid'. In other words, I inferred it, and I think I was right to infer it from your language,

But the question of whether your *inference* is justified is not the same as whether I think US foreign policy justifies planes slamming into the WTC. I dont think any such thing and I dont see how you can infer such a thing from my criticisms of American foreign policy in global and historical perspective. Similiarly, I dont believe in honor amongst thieves.

And it has been *independently* verified that you are not being thwarted from finding weapons. The evidence for my opinion is compelling despite the fact that it isnt fabricated at the state department.

(Incidentally, I dont think the US is worse than the Taliban or Hussein, they clearly are not. I do, however, think the US is in a position to do right by the world instead of pursuing its own narrow and ultimately counterproductive interests.)

---
God hates human rights.
[ Parent ]

Someone turn the thermostat back up in hell (none / 0) (#296)
by mattw on Sat Sep 15, 2001 at 03:30:40 PM EST

And it has been *independently* verified that you are not being thwarted from finding weapons. The evidence for my opinion is compelling despite the fact that it isnt fabricated at the state department.

I'm not up on the latest and greatest with Iraq. But just post gulf-war, U.N. (not US) inspector teams were consistently denied access to facilities they suspected contained nuclear or biological/chemical weapons labs. Given Hussein's aggression, it was reasonable to expect him to submit to UN inspections. Whether he eventually allowed access to everything I don't know, nor do I care if he was really only hiding his porn collection from inspectors. They should have had an all-areas pass.

(Incidentally, I dont think the US is worse than the Taliban or Hussein, they clearly are not. I do, however, think the US is in a position to do right by the world instead of pursuing its own narrow and ultimately counterproductive interests.)

And I wholeheartedly agree. I'm not worshipping at the altar of U.S. foreign policy, and I'm not particularly happy with a lot of things done, and if the U.S. tried to pick the most effective path rather than the path which most politically stirred the population in their favor, we'd probably be in less trouble overall. Let's hope an incursion into Afghanistan doesn't start WW3.


[Scrapbooking Supplies]
[ Parent ]
Flight number info (3.50 / 2) (#142)
by BlckKnght on Tue Sep 11, 2001 at 05:33:39 PM EST

I got two of the planes backwards. Here's the correct list from this site:

-United Airlines-

  • Flight 175
    • Boeing 767
    • Boston to LAX
    • 56 passengers, 7 flight attendants, 2 pilots
    • crashed into the World Trade Center
  • Flight 93
    • Boeing 757
    • Newark to SF
    • 38 passengers, 5 flight attendants, 2 pilots
    • plane down - Pennsylvania - 80 miles SE of Pittsburgh, near Somerset County Airport
    • info from The Washington Post:
      plane crashed in western Pennsylvania north of the Somerset County Airport, near Jennerstown aviation officials speculate that they may have tried to steer plane to a Washington-area target but "encountered strong resistance from the flight crew"

    United Airlines total 110 victims

-American Airlines -

  • Flight 11
    • Boeing 767
    • Boston to Los Angeles
    • 81 passengers, 9 flight attendants, 2 pilots
    • plane down - crashed into the west side of the Pentagon (heliport) - Washington DC
  • Flight 77
    • Boeing 757
    • Washington Dulles to Los Angeles 58 passengers, 4 flight attendants, 2 pilots
    • crashed into the World Trade Center

    American Airlines total 156 victims

I've heard claim 20,000 people are currently considered "injured" in the WTC attacks and that is only the number that have been handled by emergency workers, not including people trapped in the wreckage, nor the many who are surely dead.

This was previously posted as a reply to another comment, but it deserves it's own thread.

-- 
Error: .signature: No such file or directory


bin Laden statement (4.33 / 3) (#144)
by alprazolam on Tue Sep 11, 2001 at 05:47:12 PM EST

"I am not involved in this actions in New York and Washington, but I support these actions. I see them as a reaction against the oppressor," he said in a written statement. It went on to add: "When the innocent people were killed in Palestine, why were the people of America silent?" - cnn.com

not sure those are bin laden's... (4.00 / 2) (#172)
by rebelcool on Tue Sep 11, 2001 at 07:16:23 PM EST

the article is somewhat vague, but i think the 'he said' refers to the editor of the pakistani newspaper.

COG. Build your own community. Free, easy, powerful. Demo site
[ Parent ]

MBTA (4.20 / 5) (#145)
by J'raxis on Tue Sep 11, 2001 at 05:47:32 PM EST

The Boston MBTA is not closed today. In fact, service is free, most likely to get everyone out of the evacuated buildings. I just rode it home, so I know the page is accurate.

— The (T) Raxis

[ J’raxis·Com | Liberty in your lifetime ]

We must be rational. (4.60 / 10) (#146)
by rebelcool on Tue Sep 11, 2001 at 05:51:27 PM EST

We should not destroy villages in afghanistan or any other country in the hunt for who is responsible. To do so would put us at the level of the terrorists themselves.

We must find out specifically who orchestrated these attacks, and deal with them on an individual level. It may take months, or even years. That is the price of civility.

COG. Build your own community. Free, easy, powerful. Demo site

Let us make an example, however (3.16 / 6) (#152)
by weirdling on Tue Sep 11, 2001 at 06:01:07 PM EST

If any country will knowingly harbor a terrorist that is capable of this kind of atrocity, they are not innocent. If Bin Laden is responsible, then so is the Taliban for failing to deliver him to trial.

These people feel no Western person has any right to live and killing Westerners is a way to get into heaven. I don't think rational response will work. Eliminating the areas in which this sentiment has been allowed to foment into action is the only response that will provide an increase in security. Hunting down individuals will just waste our time. We need to make it absolutely clear that no country can knowingly harbor international terrorists and expect to survive as a country.

I'm not doing this again; last time no one believed it.
[ Parent ]
This is madness! (4.33 / 6) (#155)
by Best Ace on Tue Sep 11, 2001 at 06:13:37 PM EST

So are you suggesting we flatten Afghanistan in retaliation? Do you seriously believe this is a constructive way of moving forward. Surely to 'eliminate these areas' is stooping to the level of the terrorists, and will kill even more innocent civilians. Moreover, this will not prevent anti-American sentiment from festering as you think, it will do quite the opposite.

You claim that a rational approach will not work. Are you therefore suggesting an irrational approach, like the attacks in New York and Washington? This is absolute madness that will end with frightning consequences. I hope George Bush can show more restraint (although I doubt it)

bA

[ Parent ]
My vote is for flattening. (1.63 / 11) (#156)
by acronos on Tue Sep 11, 2001 at 06:18:55 PM EST



[ Parent ]
That's because you're an ignorant fuck :) (1.14 / 7) (#165)
by PhillipW on Tue Sep 11, 2001 at 07:01:08 PM EST



-Phil
[ Parent ]
If all you can do is resort to name calling... (3.00 / 1) (#207)
by acronos on Tue Sep 11, 2001 at 10:29:39 PM EST

Then I would say you are the one displaying ignorance.

To clarify - I did not intend a nuclear strike by the term "flattening." I meant that if the US government decides that the most appropriate response is war with Afghanistan, then I will support it. Any country that would harbor such a murderer is very guilty. The US is truly guilty of many things. I am sure in your demented mind we also are guilty of deliberate murder of civilians. There is no way I can defend against such an accusation other than to say that it display's your bias just as my statements display mine. I am proud to live in the greatest country in the world, and I would die defending it. This attack was really stupid. All it will do is further unite the US and make us stronger. This attack is not the end. They have threatened the strongest military force and economy on the planet. All other attacks have not been on US soil against US civilians. This attack will not be allowed to just slip by and be forgotten as the other attacks have. This one will be to the death. Either bin laden dies or the US dies if we find that he is guilty. It will be a cold day in hell before bin laden will actually win a war against the entire might of the United States of America.

You think I am ignorant. I know my country. We will rally behind this cause like no other cause since World War II. If that means World War III then so be it. Look around at the comments being made by Americans if you don't believe it. You are the one who is ignorant.

[ Parent ]
cool heads, proportionate reaction (5.00 / 1) (#239)
by Best Ace on Wed Sep 12, 2001 at 06:55:32 AM EST

Perhaps it would have been better if you had put your clarifications in your original post. It would also be worthwhile finding out what would push anyone to carrying out attacks like these. You clearly have to have one hell of a grievance with the US to do this, and the acts of the US over the last century have most definitely been outrageous enough to cause this - Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Vietnam, overt support of genocidal dictators in South America, Africa, Asia, the middle east. I mention these not to justify the New York/Washington attacks, but merely to try and understand their causes. As Einstein said, 'peace cannot be achieved through violence, it can only be attained through understanding'. Your talk of world war 3 and fighting 'to the death' chills me, because I know that so many Americans like you (including maybe Dubya) feel the same way. Please Please find out some more about the terrorism your government has perpetrated over the years. It goes a long way to explaining and understanding (but still not justifying). bA

[ Parent ]
Unbelievable stupidity... (3.00 / 3) (#241)
by compsci guy 2000 on Wed Sep 12, 2001 at 07:14:56 AM EST

You sound about as stupid as most of the reporters I've seen on tv.
In fact, I've had to watch the canadian channels (I live in toronto) because the american channels we get were all showing their regular crap. Not news of the terror in their neighbourhood. And you think it requires a demented mind to see that the US is guilty of murdering innocent civilians?
What happened yesterday is nothing compared to what the US did in vietnam. Or for that matter iraq and serbia. Dropping bombs on civilians, farms and infrastructure. Destroying as many resources of these nations as possible. And when it's over, not even a hope of helping rebuild.
Just because ignorant assholes like you can't see it on CNN, doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

[ Parent ]
I'm sick of this... (1.20 / 5) (#272)
by acronos on Thu Sep 13, 2001 at 01:25:20 AM EST

Anyone who advocates a response other than roll over and die is called stupid by stupid people here. Fuck YOU!!! If all you can understand because you are so stupid is name calling then FUCK YOU!!!!

I am quite educated. I am not ignorant. I constantly read and learn from both mainstream and alternative sources of information about almost everything I can get my hands on. I have read and even believe many of the conspiracy theories about the United States. I am very aware of the point of view of the Arabic nations. I disagree with much of that point of view. Not only do I read in places other than Kuro5hin, I also have read every post in all of the numerous threads here about the middle east that have been posted in the last six months or so. FUCK YOU!!

[ Parent ]
Be careful what you wish for... (4.00 / 1) (#243)
by bil on Wed Sep 12, 2001 at 07:57:52 AM EST

All it will do is further unite the US and make us stronger. This attack is not the end. They have threatened the strongest military force and economy on the planet.

A military force and economy that was humiliated by Vietnam.

Do not ever think that because you have superior technology and resources you will win every war by Right Of God.

If you attempt to fight the Afghans in Afghanistan you will learn just how they managed to humiliate the Soviet Union. You will learn just what it means to fight a war of survival, a rightous Holy War, and not from the right side. You might win. You might lose. You will certainly have many many casualties.

Be certain, before you try war, that you are willing to pay the butchers bill.

bil


bil
Where you stand depends on where you sit...
[ Parent ]

Check your history (2.00 / 1) (#255)
by physicsgod on Wed Sep 12, 2001 at 03:37:58 PM EST

If you define winning as the completion of the stated objectives we were winning Vietnam. While we were involved the government of South Vietnam existed. In fact the South Vietnamese were able to fend off a communist attack in 1972 with only american advisors and air support. The vietnamese did not beat us, we lacked the will to either risk nuclear war in winning the conflict or continue a holding action indefinatly.

--- "Those not wearing body armor are hereby advised to keep their arguments on-topic" Schlock Mercenary
[ Parent ]
Ok... So lets talk (3.00 / 1) (#254)
by PhillipW on Wed Sep 12, 2001 at 03:05:48 PM EST

And let's talk about MURDER. Let's talk about ATROCITY. When a bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, thousands upon thousands of CIVILIANS were MURDERED. And when we saw the devastation we didn't stop. We MURDERED more CIVILIANS in Nagasaki.

I won't shame you by discussing Vietnam.

-Phil
[ Parent ]
War is ugly (4.00 / 1) (#268)
by acronos on Wed Sep 12, 2001 at 08:24:32 PM EST

War is always ugly. In a fist fight, if one player is fighting with a strong sense of honor and will not attack knees or throat, then that person is at a significant disadvantage against someone without that sense of honor. Look at the atrocities of our enemies in WWII. Germany was daily bombing civilian cities in Britain. The Japanese were taking over islands and forcing the people to work as slaves. War is ugly. I am glad that American did what it took to win that war. I would really dislike to live under Hitler's Germany or the rule of the Japanese as they were at the end of WWII. We left Japan a better country than when we took it. Their economy is one of the biggest in the world now. Their citizens live with one of the highest standards of living. The bombs brought the war to a quick conclusion. This is one decision that I think was right. Yes civilians died. Civilians always die in war. Yes our enemies can use the same argument. We as Americans have only two options. We fight or we die. The whole world would like to see us taken down a notch or two. Many would like to see us destroyed. This is a normal reaction from the underdog. In such a situation whoever takes our place would be just as hated no matter how "righteous" they were.

The things we really did wrong were: the Japanese concentration camps in America, the way we treated the black slaves in America, the way we treated the American Indians. These are the biggest atrocities of America.

Overall, America is a good country. We want freedom for ourselves and everyone else. While we have fought many battles to contain communism, we have also sent humanitarian food dropped from planes to starving people for no economic gain for ourselves. While we have attempted to position our economy to be protected from the Arabic oil monopoly, we are horrified and outraged by atrocities committed against any people including Arabic and we are one of the few countries on the planet that are actually willing to do anything about it. While we support the right for Israel to exist, we do not support their right to take over all the neighboring Arabic states. Without our restraint, Israel would be a much larger country. The world could have a much worse leader than the US. Would you have really wanted the USSR to win the cold war? Do you really think the world would be a better place? They kept the countries that they conquered; we set ours free. We created an organization called the UN. This organization has significantly reduced war on earth with the notable exception of its creation of Israel. We are a peace loving people who fight viciously when driven into a corner.

This is a pointless discussion. You are not going to convince me a country I know is good is evil. I am not going to convince you either. I don't know why I bothered to respond.


[ Parent ]
Okay... (4.00 / 1) (#271)
by PhillipW on Wed Sep 12, 2001 at 11:53:21 PM EST

The fact that we left Japan better than it was does not change the fact that innocents died. I would like to add to the list of atrocities:

1. The bombing of a factory that produced medicine in the Sudan
-amd-
2. The crushing of the revolution by Vietnamese to remove french imperialists from their homeland.

Now, I am going to agree with you that America is not evil. But I will not say that America is good, because it ain't. This is not a black and white question. I am trying to get across the point that America is not without blame for a great many things. The only problem is that we, as a country, never want to take responsibility for the mistakes we've made.

-Phil
[ Parent ]
Madness? Yes. (3.25 / 4) (#171)
by physicsgod on Tue Sep 11, 2001 at 07:16:12 PM EST

But they started it. These are people who feel that violence is acceptable to acheive their aims, not only that they reject every contstraint the civilised world has placed on violence. Those who planned this are not innocent, those that harbor the guilty are not innocent, those who know about the guilty but do nothing are NOT innocent.

That said I believe we should do everything possible to minimize the number of innocent dead. It is foolish to think that we can avoid killing the innocent, but we do need to make the effort.

What is to come will probably be ugly, but they started it.

--- "Those not wearing body armor are hereby advised to keep their arguments on-topic" Schlock Mercenary
[ Parent ]

They started it? (4.00 / 5) (#189)
by Danse on Tue Sep 11, 2001 at 08:21:51 PM EST

So you think they just destroyed these buildings for the hell of it? We did nothing to deserve it? Damn. You're seriously naive. We bully and fuck with most every country in the world. We throw our weight around all the time. You think we're innocent? I think you're just ignorant.




An honest debate between Bush and Kerry
[ Parent ]
Not like this. (2.50 / 2) (#222)
by physicsgod on Wed Sep 12, 2001 at 01:06:41 AM EST

The US aren't saints, but we also don't go around killing thousands of innocent people without warning. These people have upped the ante. There are only two ways I see of keeping something like this from happening agian, either we become a police state or we find whoever did this and use them as an example that if you attack the US you will be tracked down and destroyed, regardless of how many innocents you hid behind.

--- "Those not wearing body armor are hereby advised to keep their arguments on-topic" Schlock Mercenary
[ Parent ]
Actually, the US DOES (4.00 / 2) (#228)
by greenrd on Wed Sep 12, 2001 at 03:41:09 AM EST

The US aren't saints, but we also don't go around killing thousands of innocent people without warning.

You just demonstrated your ignorance of history. Hiroshima. Nagasaki. Vietnam. etc. etc.

No specific evacuation warnings there from the US. Declarations of war, yes, in some cases, not all - but terrorist groups also provide non-specific warnings.

Have a look at http://www.zmag.org/ - you might learn something.


"Capitalism is the absurd belief that the worst of men, for the worst of reasons, will somehow work for the benefit of us all." -- John Maynard Keynes
[ Parent ]

they did not start it. (4.25 / 4) (#197)
by rebelcool on Tue Sep 11, 2001 at 09:49:48 PM EST

here is a short summary of why middle easterners hate america (as told to me by several middle eastern students in a class...ah, the wonders of going to a university with thousands of foreign students):

Iraqi Sanctions - kills mostly the innocent and poor.

Israel support. Israel does lots of dirty things to people.

Constant meddling with internal politics. Supporting one filthy regime over another.

It mainly has to do with the political meddling that goes on, because thats what affects the everyday lives of people in their respective countries.

COG. Build your own community. Free, easy, powerful. Demo site
[ Parent ]

Heres a story about it (none / 0) (#276)
by pallex on Thu Sep 13, 2001 at 05:20:00 AM EST

from the UK daily newspaper `The Guardian"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,551036,00.html

[ Parent ]
Retaliation is rational (3.25 / 4) (#194)
by rgrow on Tue Sep 11, 2001 at 08:38:29 PM EST

The rational response to violence is to respond in kind, first to destroy the threat and second to discourage future threats. If somebody punches you in the face, you don't try to talk him down. The time for talking has past. You punch back.

If it is true that Osama bin Laden is responsible for this, he and all of his followers should be hunted down and killed. This is not a matter for the courts. This is a war.

He wouldn't be able to do what he has done without the complicity of the Taliban, so they should go, too. It's hard to know what to do with Afghanistan then, since the place is such a mess, but putting in any kind of an America-friendly regime is fine with me.

While we're at it, why don't we clean up all the states of the Middle East that harbor terrorists: Syria, Sudan, Iran, Iraq, Libya?



[ Parent ]
Then you agree with what happened. (3.61 / 13) (#160)
by compsci guy 2000 on Tue Sep 11, 2001 at 06:31:15 PM EST

You think countries that harbour and promote terrorists should be destroyed?
Then I guess you think the attack on new york and DC was a good thing...
The US has promoted terrorism for over a century. In fact almost since it's inception, the US government has wanted nothing more than to gain power and influence through violence and terror.
The easiest example of this is Cuba. A country that the US government and military has been terrorizing for 100yrs. In fact in the late 40's, cuba was under bombardment by the US. And this was well before any 'communist threat'.
It's dumbass' like you that are the real problem. People who want to kill anyone whom they believe deserves it, without ever thinking about justice.
You're no better than the people that hijacked that plane... It's people like you that think innocent american people should pay for the crimes of their government. Despicable

[ Parent ]
I'll agree with you to some extend... (3.00 / 1) (#275)
by IriseLenoir on Thu Sep 13, 2001 at 04:58:05 AM EST

"It's people like you that think innocent american people should pay for the crimes of their government."

No, I don't think usians should be killed for the crimes of their government. But the fact is your governement claims to represent you, and as long as you don't take a stand against imperlialism and do something about it, you are, in a great extend, responsible for their actions. And hatered against americans is going to keep raising. And shit like this will only keep hapening. And getting worst.
"liberty is the mother of order, not its daughter" - Pierre-Joseph Proudhon
[ Parent ]

Let's not jump to conclusions (4.50 / 2) (#166)
by jrh on Tue Sep 11, 2001 at 07:06:03 PM EST

It's not at all clear if bin Laden was behind the attacks. If he was, he's clearly incredibly dangerous, and it would be logical to kill him and as many of his followers as possible, and destroy his organization, either through bombings or assassinations (although the latter is currently prohibited by executive order IIRC).

The Taliban probably wouldn't obstruct the US; they know what they would face otherwise. Unless Afganistan's government was directly involved, in which case the Taliban are an enormous threat and need to be destroyed, it would probably be counterproductive to bomb Afganistan back to the stone age. Do you really want to deal with the additional suicide bombers who'd rush to avenge the Great Satan's bombings?

The most important step that needs to be taken is greater security at airports. This will do more for American security than nuking half the Middle East.

There's no question that either a perpetrator or a scapegoat will be found and punished. The magnitude of the attack, an order of magnitude larger than any terrorist attack in history, is too great to pass without vengeance. I'm tired of hearing the phrase "act of war", but it really is on the scale of warfare, not an ordinary terrorist attack.

[ Parent ]

Come on... (3.00 / 2) (#174)
by John Miles on Tue Sep 11, 2001 at 07:30:49 PM EST

The most important step that needs to be taken is greater security at airports. Dude, at least four planes were hijacked. At once. That tells me that our whole concept of airport security is a joke... not just its current implementation. Life is going to be very, very annoying for the flying public from this point forward. I'm thinking it's time to invest in companies that produce those Total Recall-style full-body X-ray scanners.
For so long as men do as they are told, there will be war.
[ Parent ]
disagree (4.00 / 2) (#187)
by jrh on Tue Sep 11, 2001 at 08:15:34 PM EST

The best information we have at this point is that the planes were hijacked by several people armed with knives, apparently just razor blades from box cutters. I'd imagine that they found and carefully confirmed this vulnerability long before. If this is the case (and it may prove not to be) then I don't see how we have a truly systematic problem. The terrorists discovered a flaw in the system and got some small razor blades through. This seems to me more like patching a security hole rather than requiring a fundamental redisign by...how? What are you suggesting as an alternative to our flawed concept of security at airports, anyway?

I'd imagine a single armed guard on the plane would have been able to stop some if not all of the hijackings; this is apparently done on El Al. Short of inspecting every single piece of baggage, which is impractical to say the least, I can't think of a more effective measure.

Of course, until we know what happened it's going to be hard to assess our vulnerabilities. It's possible, for example, that a group had guns or real knives that were planted by complicit airport employees.

[ Parent ]

A few conclusions (2.50 / 2) (#188)
by The Great Satan on Tue Sep 11, 2001 at 08:18:54 PM EST

FWIW, Bin Laden is behind various other terrorist attacks and is in fact incredibly dangerous, whether he is responsible for this particular attack or not. He needs to be taken out, as do many other terrorist cells, period.

The Taliban has already obstucted U.S. efforts to extradite Bin Laden. The U.S. has been working on it for years, but has only gotten the promise from the Taliban that Li'l Osamu will play nice from now on.

You're right, it will probably be counter productive to bomb Afghanistan back into the stone age. Things will escalate. If Osamu is behind this though, and the Taliban doesn't promptly hand him over, the U.S. will retaliate against Afghanistan. Too bad for all.


Check out my comic at www.shizit.net/alpha. Or take care of your post hardcore music needs at www.shizit.net. Or ignore this lame self-promotional spam.
[ Parent ]
The executive order (3.00 / 1) (#199)
by wiredog on Tue Sep 11, 2001 at 10:00:35 PM EST

An executive order is not a law. It's a president saying "don't do this". I imagine that the executive order now reads "except in this case..."

The idea of a global village is wrong, it's more like a gazillion pub bars.
Phage
[ Parent ]

Harbor terrorists / criminal wars. (3.66 / 3) (#176)
by urgan on Tue Sep 11, 2001 at 07:38:13 PM EST

You had to bomb the entire South America and even US in some extent then. There are people living there who are not taliban and even hate them.

[ Parent ]
Gaddafi calls for Muslims to help the US (4.42 / 7) (#147)
by weirdling on Tue Sep 11, 2001 at 05:52:00 PM EST

Ananova.com is reporting that Gaddafi has called for Muslims to unite in helping the US to find the perpetrators of this tragedy:

He said that aid should come "regardless of political considerations or differences between America and the peoples of the world".

Arafat has already indicated he will comply with the US in locating the perpetrators.

This can't all be protecting one's backside. I think that the fundamentalists that apparently committed this atrocity erred in exactly the way Clancy said they would: killing mass numbers of American citizens would cause the Sunis and even other, less rabid sects than Shi'ite, to join forces with the US against terrorism. What a massive miscalculation...


I'm not doing this again; last time no one believed it.

Let us not forget (4.66 / 3) (#162)
by h3lldr0p on Tue Sep 11, 2001 at 06:53:32 PM EST

Just who it was that was attacked. Common, work-a-day people. People that had nothing to do with whomever's cause. People, that for the better or the worse, have far, far more to loose in situation like this than those perpretrating these events.

It's simple. This is not the group of people you want to piss off. These are the people that make up the "silent majority" of this country. For the better or the worse of it, this is the group of people that the US revolves around. And once you have made them angry, you haven't left to live for.

Even in victory, there is no beauty
And who calls it beautiful
Is one who delights in slaughter
[ Parent ]

Common, work-a-day people (1.00 / 3) (#274)
by core10k on Thu Sep 13, 2001 at 03:54:57 AM EST

In the WTC? Are you smoking crack? Can't you see the dollar signs in Bush' eyes over the inheritance taxes that will certainly result from the deaths of several 'high flyers'.

[ Parent ]
My hope (3.50 / 2) (#200)
by kapital on Tue Sep 11, 2001 at 10:01:46 PM EST

is that they are sincere, and that Bush doesn't do anything rash to fuck that up.

[ Parent ]
News update: US denies involvement (3.50 / 2) (#148)
by i on Tue Sep 11, 2001 at 05:53:28 PM EST

in Kabul bombings (from local TV)

and we have a contradicton according to our assumptions and the factor theorem

whats left of the resistance (none / 0) (#168)
by Sikpup on Tue Sep 11, 2001 at 07:07:13 PM EST

The group (can't remember the name) that still holds a small corner of Afganistan free of the Taliban has claimed responsibility. (From CNN news)


[ Parent ]
Bin Laden Background (3.50 / 2) (#149)
by Lounge on Tue Sep 11, 2001 at 05:54:40 PM EST

remembered reading this a while back and thought i would share... http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2001/6/28/161618/294

Images from Brooklyn (4.00 / 2) (#157)
by The Cunctator on Tue Sep 11, 2001 at 06:20:39 PM EST

Photographs from downtown Brooklyn of people leaving Manhattan over the Brooklyn and Manhattan Bridges, the smoke billowing over the skyline and occluding the sun.

High-resolution images are available on request.

http://www.kband.com/photo/

Inside Job (2.75 / 4) (#161)
by the other anonymous on Tue Sep 11, 2001 at 06:43:38 PM EST

No where have I heard any mention of the high-jackers' nationality. That is a main point of identification, and those people on the cell phones in the planes would've mentioned it, and the people they called would've passed it on to the police/reporters, who would be screaming it at the top of their lungs...

Apparently, they didn't stand out in this regard, suggesting that this may have been a domestic attack. (We are at war with drugs, y'know?)

Since Nostradamus seems to have predicted this as being WW3, I'd like to suggest that the war will be the citizens against an oppressive, global military state.



Questions for non-US citizens (4.00 / 2) (#170)
by Skippy on Tue Sep 11, 2001 at 07:13:30 PM EST

Why the World Trade Center? This is the second major terrorist attack on the same building in the United States. Does the WTC have some significance outside the United that we who are citizens don't understand? I've been thinking all day that the Statue of Liberty would have made a bigger psychological effect on most Americans.
# I am now finished talking out my ass about things that I am not qualified to discuss. #
Capitalism (4.00 / 1) (#175)
by Dlugar on Tue Sep 11, 2001 at 07:38:00 PM EST

The WTC is basically the symbol of capitalism in the United States. The Statue of Liberty might be bigger psychologically if the attackers were against freedom and liberty, which is what the Statue represents (and I don't think that any group, no matter how harsh and cruel, would say they are against freedom and liberty.) Even I, however, can see how people would hate and resent the US for its big, pushy corporations--and that's what the towers stand for.

What I can't understand is that if it's a group that hates capitalism, why did they go after the Pentagon? And if they're a group that hates the US Government [Tim McVeigh-style], why would they go after the WTC? My dad's suggestion is simply because the towers are "an easy target to hit". But then again, to hit both of them and apparently enough to ensure their total demise?

It all seems very strange and surreal to me. I hope some real facts come forth quickly regarding this matter.

Dlugar

[ Parent ]
Liberty = Capitalism (2.00 / 1) (#182)
by rgrow on Tue Sep 11, 2001 at 07:59:00 PM EST

The WTC was a symbol of capitalism, and 50,000 people worked there. So, you get to destroy a symbol, and you get to murder tens of thousands of people at the same time. That has a hell of a lot larger psychological impact than blowing up the Statue of Liberty would because there you would only kill a few hundred tourists.

Unfortunately for them, the fact that they made a psychological impact will bring about their destruction.

They hit both the World Trade Center and the Pentagon because they hate both the U.S. govt. and the what gives the U.S. power- our hard-working economy.

You can't separate freedom from capitalism, anyway. Freedom is the political condition that makes the economic system, capitalism, possible.

By the way, Islamic terrorists are clearly against freedom and liberty. Their ideals are piety and obedience and, apparently, the murder of innocent non-believers.

Randy

[ Parent ]
Please don't jump to conclusions (3.00 / 1) (#196)
by bruckie on Tue Sep 11, 2001 at 09:41:29 PM EST

By the way, Islamic terrorists are clearly against freedom and liberty. Their ideals are piety and obedience and, apparently, the murder of innocent non-believers.

Islamic terrorists? You appear to be implying that they're responsible for the attacks. However, it's too early for anyone to really know what happened.

Also, how do you know what their ideals are? Are you Islamic? Have you studied them extensively? Did you read something written by someone who has? I'm genuinely curious to learn more about basic Islamic beliefs.



[ Parent ]
Islam (none / 0) (#220)
by Dlugar on Wed Sep 12, 2001 at 12:19:48 AM EST

Also, how do you know what their ideals are? Are you Islamic? Have you studied them extensively? Did you read something written by someone who has? I'm genuinely curious to learn more about basic Islamic beliefs.
I wasn't going to reply to the above poster, since saying something as blanket as "Islamic terrorists are clearly against freedom and liberty" is to me, like saying, "Capitalists are clearly against freedom and liberty since they allow corporations to crush freedom and liberty at every turn in order to make a profit." Both, in my eyes, are false.

I knew a few Arabs and they gave me many good reasons why there seems to be such ill-feelings towards the United States in the Middle East. I understand that point of view considerably better now. I believe that Osama bin Laden has many good points--but I strongly believe that violence is a horrible way to achieve those goals, and that violence against innocent citizens is evil.

However, saying "Islamic terrorists" is like saying "Christian terrorists" or "atheist terrorists". The majority of Muslims abhor war and I'm certain are mourning over this tragedy, just the same as Christians and atheists. As a quick intro to Islamic beliefs, they believe in the same God as Christians and Jews ["allah" in Arabic], they believe in the Bible, and they believe that Adam, Moses, Jacob, Jesus, and so forth were all prophets. (They don't, however, believe that Jesus was the son of God--just a mortal prophet.) I'm certain a quick Google search would 'net more detailed responses, but that's a quick intro for you.



[ Parent ]
Arab beefs (none / 0) (#232)
by rgrow on Wed Sep 12, 2001 at 04:03:52 AM EST

As I said above, the content of the Islamic religion isn't really the problem (though any irrational creed is a problem). The real problem is the interpretation and the culture that has grown up around the religion and the encouragement of zealotry.

I'd be interested in hearing what your friends have claimed as slights by the U.S.

A big part of Osama bin Laden's anger seems to stem from wanting to remove infidels (us) from the Saudi Arabian peninsula. How enlightened and tolerant of him.

Nobody gave a damn about the Middle East until oil was discovered there, so I suppose they hate us for disturbing their primitive, theocratic civilization with our desires to pump the black gold out from under them, thereby enriching them hugely.

And then there's Israel, I suppose. Israel is a mixed bag in its origins, but it's a civilized, democratic, industrialized nation surrounded by third-world theocratic tyrants, and we should do everything we can to protect it from these tyrants, or would-be tyrants, in the case of Arafat.

In other words, Arabs don't have any rational beefs against us. The only way to protect ourselves against irrational hatred that inspires violence is to answer with violence.

I can't wait until we do that.

[ Parent ]
Heh (none / 0) (#264)
by PhillipW on Wed Sep 12, 2001 at 07:22:03 PM EST

I find your one sided view of Israel, and refusal to even consider the fact that they aren't as civilized and rational as you think they are to be childish.

Israel is a mixed bag in its origins, but it's a civilized, democratic, industrialized nation surrounded by third-world theocratic tyrants, and we should do everything we can to protect it from these tyrants, or would-be tyrants, in the case of Arafat.

As if they are not an intolerant bunch themselves. If you want to say that they are not intolerant, then I advise you go check out the other thread in which this was discussed.

-Phil
[ Parent ]
Who's more intolerant? (none / 0) (#280)
by rgrow on Thu Sep 13, 2001 at 10:13:03 PM EST

As I said in the other thread, Israeli Arabs are equal before the law and some of them are serving in the Knesset. Is that the face of institutional intolerance?

I'm sure there's intolerance within the country. But I don't think it even compares with intolerance among the Palestinians.

[ Parent ]

We're both right (none / 0) (#230)
by rgrow on Wed Sep 12, 2001 at 03:52:26 AM EST

We don't know that Islamic terrorists did this. Agreed, though I think it's very likely.

But my statement stands either way. To claim that Islamic terrorists are advocates of liberty is to make oneself a laughingstock. Liberty means rights- the right to your life, the right to your property. Look at the Middle East. The governments are primarily despotic or theocratic, and civil liberties and human rights are not recognized.

You don't need a master's degree in Islamic studies to see this. Of course, if you will yourself blind, you will succeed.

Of course, Islam as a religion is really no better or worse than Christianity or Judaism- they're all irrational, mystical creeds. But each has had its own cultural development. At one time, Islam had a very benevolent view of the mind, and their civilization made great achievements. Unfortunately, that is many centuries past. Today, Moslems hate the West for precisely the reasons that the West is great- its use of the mind, productive economies, and free societies.



[ Parent ]
Probably (none / 0) (#184)
by urgan on Tue Sep 11, 2001 at 08:02:31 PM EST

they were more targets planned that failed, to soon to known now: maaybe they intended to hit the economic, military , political center and cultural centres.

[ Parent ]
Capitalism? How about a symbol of *evil*? (none / 0) (#206)
by jrh on Tue Sep 11, 2001 at 10:26:50 PM EST

Even I, however, can see how people would hate and resent the US for its big, pushy corporations--and that's what the towers stand for.
Assuming these were indeed radical Islamic terrorists, I don't think they give a flying fuck about capitalism per se. These are people who are going to heaven for their suicidal role in the holy war against the Great Satan, enemy of the Arab people. They hate our culture and our policies, not our economics and corporations.

I don't think the terrorists went to their deaths screaming, "DEATH TO MORGAN STANLEY!"

[ Parent ]

Good point (2.00 / 1) (#263)
by epepke on Wed Sep 12, 2001 at 06:31:21 PM EST

I don't buy the "capitalism" line. The NYSE would have been a far better target, and it was untouched.

I'm not sure that I buy the "symbolism" line, either. This was not one moron setting off a car bomb in the part of the building least likely to bring it down. These people were smart. These were not a bunch of medieval guys wanking. They have goals, even though nobody seems to know what they are.


The truth may be out there, but lies are inside your head.--Terry Pratchett


[ Parent ]
MA Congressional 9th District (4.00 / 1) (#177)
by FrankAllison on Tue Sep 11, 2001 at 07:50:10 PM EST

Voters continued to vote today in my town as well as others in the special primary election to replace MA Congressmen Joseph Moakley. Gov. Jane Swift made the press conference from a bunker where she also announced that additional state and local police will be present at the voting. She seemed to make it a point that Americans should not be intimidated out of their voting rights by the events this morning. But if this can be a "victory" for democracy remains to be seen. I suppose the intent of the terrorists plays a factor here as well...

Speculation... (3.50 / 2) (#185)
by Canar on Tue Sep 11, 2001 at 08:05:36 PM EST

My father seems to think this may be linked somehow to good ol' Saddam... Just wondering what everyone else thinks of this hypothesis.

I think it's certainly possible, but then, that's me, and I put a fair bit of creedence in my dad's speculation.

-=Canar=- --A Proud Daddy's Boy.

Doubt it. (none / 0) (#227)
by ajduk on Wed Sep 12, 2001 at 03:38:21 AM EST

Saddam may be a madman, but he's a calculating madman - if he were directly responsable, he knows it would be the end for him.

[ Parent ]
Terrorism, Blowback and the US (4.77 / 9) (#192)
by ocrow on Tue Sep 11, 2001 at 08:34:07 PM EST

A response to the 9/11/2001 World Trade center and Pentagon crashes

This morning the Pentagon and World Trade Center towers were bombed by hijacked planes. How will the United States react to this attack? How will the people of this country come to understand these events, and what will be done as a result?

The citizens and residents of this country have the responsibility to guide our leaders in how we respond. The tendency amongst our politicians and media will be knee-jerk retalitation. Please let us resist the temptation to cause more harm than has already been done. Those who took these actions are now all dead along with the victims. Others may also be found to be responsible and they should be bought to justice through the process of international law.

This, like all acts of terrorism, is abhorrent. But whenever discussing terrorism it is important to note that the majority of terrorist actions are carried out by nation states, although they are not labeled as such by the corporate media. These actions far outweigh the private, individual actions of terror that we are all assuming today's attack to be. This attack did not occur in a vacuum.

As of yet we have no idea who is responsible. We believe it to be a case of 'blowback'. Why? The pentagon is a symbol of military power. The trade center is a symbol of economic power. These institutions stand for and act to perpetuate U.S. global dominance. An attack on either of these institutions individually could be variously interpreted. The combined attack on both suggests a target of US global hegemony.

As Chalmers Johnson writes in his book Blowback (publ. 2000, Henry Holt): 'The term "blowback", which officials of the Central Intelligence Agency first invented for their own internal use, is starting to circulate among students of international relations. It refers to the unintended consequences of policies that were kept secret from the American people. What the daily press reports as the malign acts of "terrorists" or "drug lords" or "rogue states" or "illegal arms merchants" often turn out to be the blowback from earlier American operations.'

Chalmers catalogues a number of American policies that have given cause to a variety of peoples to resent America. Among those peoples that we have antognized over the past 50 years he sites (in no particular order) Libyans, Chinese, Japanese, Saudis, Kurds, Koreans (both north and south). To that we could add peoples of Serbia, Iraq, Indonesia, Vietnam, as well as nearly every country in africa and the americas.

From Johnson again: 'Terrorism by definition strikes at the innocent in order to draw attention to the invulnerable. The innocent of the twenty-first century are going to harvest unexpected blowback disasters from the imperialist escapades of recent decades. Although most Americans may be largely ignorant of what was, and still is, being done in their names, all are likely to pay a steep price--individually and collectively--for their nation's continued efforts to dominate the global scene.'

As we move forward from today's disaster, lets beware of nationalist responses of revenge which serve to continue the cycle of violence. Let us introduce the concept of 'blowback' to contextualize acts of international terrorism, even as we argue against them. Let us take this opportunity to rethink the global effects of our behavior and how they impact our future security.


Joseph Maurer (josephmaurer@hotmail.com)
Oliver Crow (ocrow@skymind.com)



Once one pays danegeld (4.00 / 1) (#202)
by wiredog on Tue Sep 11, 2001 at 10:07:51 PM EST

one never gets rid of the dane. Appeasement doesn't work. When attacked, we must respond, else we invite more attacks.

The idea of a global village is wrong, it's more like a gazillion pub bars.
Phage
[ Parent ]

Not Apeasement -- examination (5.00 / 1) (#234)
by ocrow on Wed Sep 12, 2001 at 04:07:46 AM EST

I do not advocate a policy of appeasement. I believe that such crimes should indeed be judged -by the sober analysis of a court of international law - and not by a show of military might.

The analogy to Hitler before WWII is I think a poor one. This attack was not a power play, but rather a method of revenge. For the US to vow revenge against revenge now simply escalates the cycle of violence. We must look instead for a way out.

We need to take a good long look in the mirror. Is what we see there a country free of blame? One which has worked hard to support peace and the rule of international law? One which has sought to de-escalate violent situations and to minimize the availability of arms to those who may use them for harm? One which has shown restraint in the deploying of its own military against those who may easily become our future enemies?



[ Parent ]
Something Ignored (4.00 / 1) (#253)
by PhillipW on Wed Sep 12, 2001 at 02:09:08 PM EST

We need to take a good long look in the mirror. Is what we see there a country free of blame?

I think this is a very good point, and is something that is quite often ignored. While it may not justify the crimes commited, it is important that, as a nation, we do not pretend we are angels, and ask ourselves why it had to happen to us, as though it isn't at all plausible that we've pissed people off.

-Phil
[ Parent ]
WHY? (1.50 / 2) (#229)
by Erbo on Wed Sep 12, 2001 at 03:42:35 AM EST

WHY must we not seek to exact the ultimate justice from the perpetrators of this unimaginably heinous crime against humanity? Why must it always be our turn to bleed?

Can anyone who's seen the events of today honestly say they have absolutely no desire for blood vengeance for these heinous acts that make Pearl Harbor look like a Sunday school picnic? If so, then somebody better damn well nominate them for sainthood.

You can bet your ass they have no compunctions about killing us; they've proven it by their actions today. In my opinion, they have thereby forfeited their right to live.

I fully expect that, during tomorrow's session of Congress, or soon thereafter, President Bush will ask for a declaration of war against Afghanistan. Fine by me; if Osama bin Laden and the Taliban both vanished from the Earth, I wouldn't mourn for even thirty seconds.

In fact, he should go further, and issue an ultimatum to all rogue nations that harbor international terrorists: Surrender them now, or we declare war and wipe you from the face of the Earth. These horrific criminals simply cannot be tolerated anywhere on this planet. With a policy like that, you can bet that no new international terrorists will replace the ones that are delivered up, tried for their crimes against humanity, and executed; the "formerly rogue" nations will see to that--or else!

Now's when we really need the services of President James Marshall (Air Force One, played by Harrison Ford), and his speech: "America will no longer be afraid. It's their turn to be afraid."

Eric
--
Electric Minds - virtual community since 1996. http://www.electricminds.org
[ Parent ]

Because ... (5.00 / 2) (#235)
by ocrow on Wed Sep 12, 2001 at 04:29:37 AM EST

We should certainly seek justice. Justice means the discovery of responsibility by an impartial party (a judge) and the application of appropriate punishment against those responsible. This is very different from an act of military violence against a foreign power.

Remember that it is an assumption that Osama bin Laden is responsible. Though plausible this has not yet been proven or even demonstrated.

You ask 'Why must it always be our turn to bleed?'

Would the US launching a massive counter attack heal our own wounds? Would we bleed any the less, if we cause others to bleed more? This attack may well have been revenge for earlier US actions in Saudi Arabia or in Afghanistan. Our military has very long arms. Our hands are not clean. How much more killing shall we do? Will we then be able to say that no one wants revenge against the US? Will we then be able to say that we are safe because everyone else lives in fear or is already dead?



[ Parent ]
Justice? Trials? This *is* a war (3.00 / 1) (#248)
by jrh on Wed Sep 12, 2001 at 01:31:40 PM EST

Justice means the discovery of responsibility by an impartial party (a judge) and the application of appropriate punishment against those responsible.
Please be serious. Two 110 story buildings were destroyed, killing thousands of people. The assault was extensively planned and meticulously executed; the magnitude of the event far exceeds any previous terrorist attack in history. It's possibly the bloodiest event on American territory since the Civil War.

The level of threat to the US mainland by any organization capable of carrying out this attack is tremendous. The appropriate response is their elimination. If the leaders can be brought to trial, fine, but this would likely be very difficult to accomplish.

Would the US launching a massive counter attack heal our own wounds? Would we bleed any the less, if we cause others to bleed more?
Possibly. If military action could destroy the organizations responsible, definitely.

Your sole worry seems to be that any military action would backfire. That is indeed a possibility--but it is a long-term concern, and frankly I don't see how even an invasion would enrage Islamic militants more than the attacks on Iraq or the presence of Israel. There is clearly a huge short-term threat by whatever group or nation that carried out the attacks, and this needs to be dealt with.

I also imagine that a meek response could encourage more nations to harbor terrorists (if indeed bin Laden's organization is responsible).

The appropriate measures depend on the culprits. To demand criminal justice procedures be carried out is ludicrous; do you try the pilot of an enemy fighter before you shoot him down? An extensive military action may well be in order.

I don't, by the way, support some of US and Israeli policy in the Middle East, but I don't think that's immediately relevant. Although to some extent the attacks were doubtless an indirect consequence of US actions, the immediate problem is what needs to be addressed. There's nothing the US can do in the near future about changing attitudes in the Middle East. If an organization or government is identified as responsible, military action will be warranted.

[ Parent ]

If I Have got what you are saying right... (3.00 / 1) (#252)
by PhillipW on Wed Sep 12, 2001 at 01:51:30 PM EST

Judging by your protest of the following quote:

Justice means the discovery of responsibility by an impartial party (a judge) and the application of appropriate punishment against those responsible.

I would think that you are against finding out who was responsible for this in a civil manner, and then punishing them. But rather, you would prefer we indiscriminantly kill people who we think might be responsible, as the terrorists have done in this case. Is this correct?

-Phil
[ Parent ]
illogic (3.00 / 1) (#256)
by jrh on Wed Sep 12, 2001 at 03:57:03 PM EST

I would think that you are against finding out who was responsible for this in a civil manner, and then punishing them.
If a nation or organization outside the power of the US or cooperating nations is responsible, as is almost certain, then punishing them via the criminal justice system is probably not possible. Isn't this obvious?

It's also rather inane to suggest a parallel between an attack designed to kill as many civilians as possible and one (such as I would support) designed to destroy an organization that would commit such an act, and has the capability to commit more. Again, whether such an attack is necessary isn't clear, but it isn't reasonable to suggest a trial as a method to determine if it is.

[ Parent ]

OK (4.00 / 1) (#260)
by PhillipW on Wed Sep 12, 2001 at 05:06:22 PM EST

I think that the best way to determine who did it is something like a trial. The accused doesn't have to be there if they so choose. But I think a public display of the evidence is kind of necessary before any action is taken. We want to avoid things like the October 98 bombings that ended up being a huge mistake.

-Phil
[ Parent ]
Re-logic (none / 0) (#279)
by ocrow on Thu Sep 13, 2001 at 03:15:58 PM EST

If a nation or organization outside the power of the US or cooperating nations is responsible, as is almost certain, then punishing them via the criminal justice system is probably not possible. Isn't this obvious?

No, this is not obvious, or even true. There is a system of international law that the United States is bound to by treaty as specified in the US constitution. That system provides for the extradition and trial of terrorists. It is a perfectly plausible scenario for the US to use negotiation and international pressure to bring terrorists to US soil and be tried under a US court. Indeed this is the only possible approach that will not result in an escalation of violence.



[ Parent ]
Please read what I actually wrote (none / 0) (#282)
by jrh on Fri Sep 14, 2001 at 01:57:53 AM EST

You respond:
It is a perfectly plausible scenario for the US to use negotiation and international pressure to bring terrorists to US soil and be tried under a US court.
But I wrote:
If a nation or organization outside the power of the US or cooperating nations is responsible, as is almost certain, then punishing them via the criminal justice system is probably not possible.
It is possible that the Taliban or Sadaam Hussein, for example, might become extremely cooperative with extraditions and investigations. I do not think it is particularly likely.

And the focus should not be on apprehending those responsible for trial, but on ensuring they can't perform similar deeds--whether this means more security in the US, assassination of key figures, cutting off laundered money, or disrupting or destroying their organizations.

Further, state support is very possibly behind the attacks, in providing funding and intelligence to assist the terrorists. In this case, what do you suggest? Asking them politely to extradite themselves?

[ Parent ]

Correction (3.00 / 1) (#261)
by PhillipW on Wed Sep 12, 2001 at 05:13:04 PM EST

That should be August 98, not October.

-Phil
[ Parent ]
I want my justice in blood. (2.00 / 1) (#211)
by JazzManJim on Tue Sep 11, 2001 at 10:58:18 PM EST

Here's the deal. This is what I want. I want my government to identify every single person involved in this act of war (and that's just what it is. It's about time we realized that. Bin Laden has been saying that for a long time). I want them dead - not by surgical missile strike, nor by aircraft strafing. I want men..my countrymen to find them and to kill then, face to face.

But I want this when we know who they are. I do not want indiscriminate action. I do not want retaliation against arabs, or Muslims. I want those responsible and I want them dead.

I saw video of the rubble from the WTC. This was NEW YORK CITY. This was Downtown Fucking Manhattan! This wasn't an isolated embassy in Africa or a Marine barracks in Beirut. This was our own living room and those terrorists came in there and killed my fellow Americans. I want them found and killed. Period.

Is this extreme? Not one little bit. If this is the way they want to play, then let's do it. Let's do it bigger, harsher, meaner, and more decisively then they could ever imagine. I could care less who thinks I'm extreme in these views. This is our war, brought to us in a way we can no longer pretend is too far away to fight. This is in our homes. To do anything less than I've suggested is to admit defeat and to surrender.


-Jimmie
"Hostility toward America is a religious duty, and we hope to be rewarded for it by God...I am confident that Muslims will be able to end the legend of the so-called superpower that is America."
(Osama bin Laden - 10 Jan 1999)
everyone loses in revenge (4.00 / 2) (#216)
by ant on Tue Sep 11, 2001 at 11:33:27 PM EST

Is this extreme? Not one little bit. If this is the way they want to play, then let's do it. Let's do it bigger, harsher, meaner, and more decisively then they could ever imagine. I could care less who thinks I'm extreme in these views. This is our war, brought to us in a way we can no longer pretend is too far away to fight. This is in our homes. To do anything less than I've suggested is to admit defeat and to surrender.

There's something called a positive feedback loop. It exists when the output is fed back to the input, with some amplification. The result is a runaway escalation of the signal.

What you outline above is likely the same plan used by those who planned these crashes. It's a negative-sum interaction overall, but when you look at just one half of an iteration, it looks like it's a win for the attacker.

Seems pretty pointless. "They hurt us. Let's hurt them, and do it bigger and better!". Except you're just an audience member who imagines that they are involved, as a justification for conditioned responses to these kinds of things.

Doesn't really matter anyway. The world is run by unconscious people taking revenge and defending their identification with material objects. This is just another excuse to do more of the same-old bullshit. Fortunately this cycle will eventually destroy the "materials" necessary to keep it going, either by causing events to wake people up, or by eliminating the people. The universe will let out a sigh of relief, being free of these humans who live in imaginary worlds all the time.

[ Parent ]

Oi! No! (none / 0) (#240)
by Khendon on Wed Sep 12, 2001 at 07:09:59 AM EST

Just bloody well stop it. You're not frigging my world up to satisfy your macho posturings. You think revenge will help? They'll just get angrier and more determined to fight back. Did America learn *nothing at all* from Vietnam?

[ Parent ]
So what would you do? (none / 0) (#246)
by JazzManJim on Wed Sep 12, 2001 at 12:04:27 PM EST

The extremists which are believed behind this have already framed the discussion. Simply put, there is no discussion. There is only escalation. They have said repeatedly that they will continue their attacks and their killing. Period. There is no dialogue - no negotiation. They hate and that's all they know.

They are rabid dogs and they should be put down. Now.

This isn't macho posturing. This is a fact of life, as it has been for many years. Now my country is waking up to it. I pray that they respond in the only language these beasts understand.


-Jimmie
"Hostility toward America is a religious duty, and we hope to be rewarded for it by God...I am confident that Muslims will be able to end the legend of the so-called superpower that is America."
(Osama bin Laden - 10 Jan 1999)
[ Parent ]
So what would you do? (4.00 / 1) (#247)
by JazzManJim on Wed Sep 12, 2001 at 12:15:12 PM EST

The extremists which are believed behind this have already framed the discussion. Simply put, there is no discussion. There is only escalation. They have said repeatedly that they will continue their attacks and their killing. Period. There is no dialogue - no negotiation. They hate and that's all they know.

They are rabid dogs and they should be put down. Now. Hell, this is even the sentiments that even notable "doves" like the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace are saying. Here are words from one of their spokesmen:
"One can only hope that America can respond to today's monstrous attack on American soil - an attack far more awful than Pearl Harbor - with the same moral clarity and courage as our grandfathers did. Not by asking what we have done to bring on the wrath of inhuman murderers. Not by figuring out ways to reason with, or try to appease those who have spilled our blood. Not by engaging in an extended legal effort to arraign, try and convict killers, as if they were criminals and not warriors. But by doing the only thing we now can do: Go to war with those who have launched this awful war against us."


This isn't macho posturing. This is a fact of life, as it has been for many years. This is war, plain and simple. The evidence could simply not be any clearer, from the lips of the alleged leader of this butchery. It's about time we got into the fight, and ended it.


-Jimmie
"Hostility toward America is a religious duty, and we hope to be rewarded for it by God...I am confident that Muslims will be able to end the legend of the so-called superpower that is America."
(Osama bin Laden - 10 Jan 1999)
[ Parent ]
Well... (none / 0) (#250)
by PhillipW on Wed Sep 12, 2001 at 01:40:54 PM EST

I would start off by using that little thing in my head called my brain. If we sue your logic, then violence will persist, and each successive attack, on both sides, will get progressively worse and more deadly. Perhaps you want to set the ball on human extinction and a battered Earth rolling. I do not.

-Phil
[ Parent ]
I can't comprehend your explanation. (none / 0) (#278)
by JazzManJim on Thu Sep 13, 2001 at 12:22:29 PM EST

What you're saying is to, essentially, do nothing.

Negotiations have, in the past, been tried and have failed. There is no capitulation possible, on either side - the sides are too at variance and at least the side of the terrorists have openly and with great conviction said that they will not stop until we (the US and our allies) are utterly defeated.

So, with negotiation and reasoning gone from the equation, killing them is the only active response left. Or, we could do nothing, as we truly have before, and let them kill our people and change our lives at their whim, with impugnity.

You may be willing to do this, but I am not. I am not saying that we should bomb countries and lay waste to the world. I am saying that we who have an interest in this should find these murderers and kill them. They, not us, have declared war and they, not us, have been fighting this war. We have not fought back thus far. Now it's time that we do so.

Find the guilty men and kill them - not with bombs and tanks, but directly, brutally, and personally. Let it be known that these are only an example. If terrorism rears its head again, we will react the same. If we develop evidence that world leaders are giving aid and comfort to these terrorists, we will do the same to them. That's simple, and the only response we have left to us.


-Jimmie
"Hostility toward America is a religious duty, and we hope to be rewarded for it by God...I am confident that Muslims will be able to end the legend of the so-called superpower that is America."
(Osama bin Laden - 10 Jan 1999)
[ Parent ]
prayers and sympathies. (4.00 / 1) (#213)
by unstable on Tue Sep 11, 2001 at 11:01:22 PM EST

I (like millions more) know people that work in the towers... I and my friends were lucky as my friends made it out alive.

to all those that do not know, my prayers are with you. and to those that have received bad news my sympathies.

this is a day that I and an entier nation will never be able to forget.





Reverend Unstable
all praise the almighty Bob
and be filled with slack

rumors of a wider partially-foiled plot (4.33 / 3) (#214)
by Delirium on Tue Sep 11, 2001 at 11:01:22 PM EST

It's pretty well-established that the plane that crashed in Pennsylvania was also meant to be crashed into a building, probably in Washington, D.C. (the news reports indicate it changed direction towards D.C. before crashing).

However, there are also some completely unsubstantiated rumors from people in Canada who have claimed to see two Korean Airlines 747s land at an airport (I forget which at the moment). Supposedly they taxied as far away from the terminal as possible, and after sitting for 20 minutes, the planes were boarded by what appeared to be law-enforcement officers, and a single male was brought out of one of the planes in handcuffs, after which the rest of the passengers were allowed to disembark safely.

Which indicates that perhaps the plan was to hit more major targets, though this is entirely rumor, and I'm not even sure where I heard it (Slashdot comment areas perhaps?) If that's the case, it seems we were rather unlucky (or the terrorists were lucky), and the biggest target in terms of population - the World Trade Center - was one of them that they succeeded in hitting.

how many planes? (3.00 / 1) (#218)
by brainsick on Wed Sep 12, 2001 at 12:06:13 AM EST

How many planes were actually hijacked? I've seen reports of both four and eight and that three are still unaccounted for? Just looking for some clarification.

At this point... (3.00 / 1) (#221)
by physicsgod on Wed Sep 12, 2001 at 12:34:43 AM EST

The US airspace has been shut down for 12 hours, every plane should be on the ground. Since NORAD knows about everything that flies over North America there shouldn't be any planes unaccounted for. They've either landed, crashed, or been shot down.

--- "Those not wearing body armor are hereby advised to keep their arguments on-topic" Schlock Mercenary
[ Parent ]
4 planes hijacked (4.00 / 1) (#251)
by Garc on Wed Sep 12, 2001 at 01:41:05 PM EST

1 -> WTC N
1 -> WTC S
1 -> Pentagon
1 -> PA

They got an emergency beacon from a korean plane flying over northern canada. The AF forced them to land, where they descovered that it was a low fuel warning that triggered the beacon, and there was nothing foul going on.

I've also heard rumors about plans by Seatlle and Cleveland. I know that the cleveland one was a Delta that did an emergency landing. Authorities did a search of the plane, and found nothing wrong with it.

Garc
--
Tomorrow is going to be wonderful because tonight I do not understand anything. -- Niels Bohr
[ Parent ]
Well (3.66 / 3) (#223)
by spacejack on Wed Sep 12, 2001 at 01:22:45 AM EST

What else are you going to do in Canada, except go down to the local bar with your friends and stare at the TV all night, and try to make sense of something that defies reason?

For what it's worth, people here in Toronto were totally shocked (as I'm sure the rest of you were). It was completely and utterly eerie to walk around the city today, with people staring at giant pixelboard newsfeeds. I heard no-one laughing out loud today, and I kept seeing people that were clearly freaked out about it. I don't know, the World Trade towers are a cornerstone of my mind; I still can't believe they no longer exist -- I've been there, as have many people I know. Most of us know someone living in Manhattan.



If there is one idea that sticks in my mind, it is that pilots in control of giant bombs should have a big fucking red button that immediately slams down an impenetrable barrier between the cockpit and the passenger area at a moment's notice; or hell, just separate them entirely. This might mean the end of Billy sitting in the cockpit with the captain, but I really don't think it'd be such a big loss.

They hacked the system badly. It needs to be fixed.

A story from Flight 93 (4.33 / 3) (#226)
by BlckKnght on Wed Sep 12, 2001 at 02:26:02 AM EST

I saved from #coverage on IRC a story that is (supposedly) from a relative of one of the passengers who died on United Flight 93 which crashed in Pennsylvania. I cannot vouch for it's authenticity, but what it relates is certainly possible. You judge:

<drdink> Account forwarded by Atlanta Astronomy Club member Tom Crowley:
<drdink> ********************************
<drdink> Today was a tragedy for all of America and to my family, a very personal
<drdink> one. Lynn and my Niece Liz's husband, Jeremy Glick was on United flight 93
<drdink> this morning. When the Hijackers took control of flight 93. Jeremy called my
<drdink> niece who in-turn conferenced him to 911. Jeremy relayed to the police what
<drdink> was happening as the hijacking unfolded. As our niece Liz listened, Jeremy
<drdink> told the police there were three Arab terrorists with knives and a large red
<drdink> box that they claimed contained a bomb. Jeremy tracked the second by second
<drdink> details and relayed them to the police by phone. After several minutes of
<drdink> describing the scene, Jeremy and several other passengers decided there
<drdink> nothing to lose by rushing the hijackers. Although United Flight 93 crashed
<drdink> outside of Pittsburgh, with the loss of all souls. Jeremy and the other
<drdink> patriotic heroes saved the lives of many people on the ground that would
<drdink> have died if the Arab terrorists had been able to complete their heinous
<drdink> mission.
<drdink> Please offer your prayers for all of those who perished or were injured in
<drdink> this tragic of all days and to our niece Liz Glick and her 2-month-old
<drdink> child, Emerson, who are left without their loving Husband and Father.
<drdink> May we remember Jeremy and the other brave souls as heroes, soldiers and
<drdink> Americans' on United flight 93 whom so gallantry gave their lives to save
<drdink> many others.
<drdink> Lynn, our four adult children and I are headed to New York to be with our
<drdink> family during this time of great sadness
<drdink> All of my best,;All of my best,
<drdink> Tom Crowley
Wow, CNN just started reporting a very similar story to this... Yikes. You can see the orignal (text) copy I saved before I did the HTML for this comment on my webpage.

-- 
Error: .signature: No such file or directory


words cannot describe (3.00 / 1) (#231)
by thePositron on Wed Sep 12, 2001 at 03:58:11 AM EST

What I was feeling yesterday and I have been feeling today.
If were to boil it down to 2 phrases they would be:
Unfucking believable and I think I am going to puke.

I literally felt so sick that I thought I was going to throw up. I could barely eat. I have lived through a couple of natural disasters that devestated the cities in which I lived in but I have never felt this shocked and disgusted in my life.


I know a few people who live in Manhattan. I felt astonished and shocked that this happened.
Thankfully they are alright but I truly feel sorrow and compassion for all those who have lost family and friends. Anyway I went to a church in silence for awhile and that helped a little bit.

Another thing I have been feeling is that we cannot let fear dominate our minds and guide our actions. Courage and compassion for those directly harmed by this attack and for those who need our emotional support are the sentiments that are needed the most at this moment right now.




If there is one thing that I hope for right now it is peace.



No (1.00 / 1) (#233)
by premier on Wed Sep 12, 2001 at 04:07:14 AM EST

No, Bin Laden said that.

An anti-capitalist's view (3.33 / 3) (#236)
by greenrd on Wed Sep 12, 2001 at 05:11:37 AM EST

Michael Albert just posted this to the ZMag.org updates list. Well worth reading (though it will undoubtedly incense many people):

Calamitous Perspective
By Michael Albert

Sending a commentary on a topic other than today?s horrific events has
seemed untenable. Addressing today?s events has also seemed untenable. That
our web and email server has been inaccessible all day, depriving us of
internet communications and of access to update ZNet hasn?t helped. It seems
web traffic was so great that it caused problems in Washington State, around
Seattle, where our servers are located.

A simple chronicle of the day?s events would be superfluous. Known facts are
displayed on every TV station. Reliable deductions are relatively obvious.
After routine take-offs four planes were commandeered by terror teams and
simultaneously flown on dramatically distorted trajectories to demolish
pre-selected targets. The devastation is not yet known, but is certainly
horrific. What can one conclude other than that devastating suicidal
terrorist attacks are eminently doable? Annihilating skyscrapers in the U.S.
or other developed countries is harder than the U.S. bombing cities in
targeted nations, but it is evidently far from impossible.

Good-hearted Americans will mourn these innocent and horrible deaths with
dignity and with respect. Media analysts and politicians, however, will soon
use pictures of the rubble to seek increased police and military spending
and greater state interventionary and surveillance powers. They will intone
that killing civilians is cowardly and warrants swift and merciless
punishment. They will however ignore having themselves supported the recent
assault on Yugoslavia that terrorized that country?s civilian population to
topple its despised government. They will also ignore that the U.S.-led
embargo of Iraq has caused hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths, again
to destabilize a hated government. Today?s terrorism was horrendously vile.
It arose in a terror-infected world.

People throughout the third world have long had their destiny held hostage
by distant rulers. First world diplomats and entrepreneurs year after year
pursue power and profit imposing nearly unimaginable third world calamity.
Due to our distance from the victims and the endless mass media obfuscation
of their plight, we first world citizens fail to realize that when a million
people starve because a poor country?s energies are commandeered to benefit
multinational capital, it is murder. But, it is murder, and so third world
populations have long endured near total dependence on choices made by
distant authoritative leaders who are callous to their futures.

The same abysmal condition has arrived, to a degree, for populations in
developed countries. Those who died in today?s attacks also suffered a
choice made by far away actors callous to the carnage they imposed. First
world populations may henceforth share not the degrading conditions and
daily poverty of the third world, but some of the fear of being held hostage
by others. To try to overcome this condition, but even more to enlarge their
already grotesquely bloated powers, first world leaders may in coming weeks
challenge decades of gains in civil and legal rights, trying to turn back
freedom's clock.

Can anything curtail the carnage of capital, the carnage of terrorism, and
the carnage of repressive reaction? Our best hope is to win institutional
change that reduces profit-seeking and political subordination, while also
reducing desires to lash out with mindless and inhumane terrorism.

In coming weeks we may suffer a kind of celebration in America, a
celebration of security and of power, a celebration of surreptitious
information retrieval, a celebration of arms growth, and perhaps of
assassination, all described as virtuous goals rather than uncivil
abominations, all touted as if the terror victims will be honored rather
than defiled by our preparing to entomb still more innocent people around
the world. Normal good-hearted Americans will weep for the suffering that
today?s events exacted and hope to create a world in which such hate and
callousness disappears. But I fear that America?s leaders will cynically
bulk up their ammo belts while seeking to make ubiquitous their listening
devices?trying to relegate public freedoms to an incinerator.

In this environment, people of good will must explain as often as necessary
that terrorism is horrific and insane, but so too is capitalist business as
usual. And we must not step back from dissent, but must instead work harder
to oppose all kinds of injustice with massive public demonstrations and
civil disobedience.

heh.. (2.00 / 1) (#265)
by rebelcool on Wed Sep 12, 2001 at 07:34:19 PM EST

typed on a computer, probably by a person wearing nike shoes and gap clothing, living in a rented apartment or house.

Yeah. Down with capitalism.

COG. Build your own community. Free, easy, powerful. Demo site
[ Parent ]

Take the thread elsewhere (3.00 / 1) (#266)
by Best Ace on Wed Sep 12, 2001 at 07:52:56 PM EST

This probably isn't the right story to start a thread on the merits of capitalism. Suffice to say if you did some research into the movement against globalization, then you wouldn't be making such flippant comments.

bA

[ Parent ]
Repost: Notes for NYers: (5.00 / 3) (#238)
by Puchitao on Wed Sep 12, 2001 at 06:48:19 AM EST

(In case cyclopatra's story doesn't make it through the queue, I want this information to be available. Further info can probably be found at www.nyredcross.org. And if you want a more detailed account of what I saw today, read my diary entry.)

If you're in the area, there's a lot more work to be done than medical and rescue work... which is rarely the sort of things they send volunteers to anyway. It doesn't matter what your skills are -- every possible specialty, including being a warm body, is needed.

I just went up to the Red Cross HQ and volunteered today (now yesterday), a couple hours after the attack. The first people they called forward (there were probably a thousand of us in a big high school auditorium) weren't people with paramedic skills or anything, but Human Resource professionals. Mobilizing thousands of volunteers is a logistical nightmare, and ANYONE who has these sort of skills is direly needed. Mental health professionals are also in very high demand, for obvious reasons.

But even if you aren't these things, there's mad work to be done. They said something to the effect of "If you're a computer geek, note that on your application. If you work at McDonalds, note it. If you speak Spanish, note it."

Rescuing people and giving them medical assistance isn't what you as a volunteer would do; everyone who can do that is already mobilized. But there's thousands of evacuees that have to be housed and fed, blood donors who need liquids and sugary snacks, and once the list of the dead starts to fill up, someone's gotta figure out whom the mental health professionals should contact with the bad news.

Nearly anything you can do, from data entry to flipping burgers, can be used to some good effect. Please help out; everyone (excluding felons I think) can be utilized. There is NOTHING, in my entire life, that has inspired me so much as the heroics and endless resolve of my fellow New Yorkers today.

Puchitao
(I do not speak for the Red Cross in any capacity; I am just an spontaneous volunteer who wandered in off the street yesterday morning -- still in my slippers -- to see what I could do. I'm pretty much just repeating what they told me, as well as I can recall. So any inaccuracies herein are entirly the fault of my very tired mind.)
Perhaps we can do *snappy fun* with you everytime! -- Orz

Large gallery at www.crystalflame.net (4.00 / 1) (#242)
by crysflame on Wed Sep 12, 2001 at 07:41:07 AM EST

www.crystalflame.net is hosting a large mirror of everything I can possibly find, and linking to those sites which aren't convenient to mirror.

Is this exploit self-patching? (3.50 / 2) (#244)
by redelm on Wed Sep 12, 2001 at 08:20:32 AM EST

I wonder what's going through the minds or airline pilots and their security chiefs in the aftermath of the WTC collapses.

Are they going to allow their planes to be seized by hijackers [cooperate for ransom], or are they simply going to put the helm over into a dive rather than surrender? Or try aggressive flying (barrel rolls) before that?

The whole matter is very macabre, but needs to be thought through. IMHO, the total tower pancake collapses was an unexpected payoff to terror. What are the odds? Is it better to deliberately crash than possibly be used as a kinetic/incendary projectile?



Better to crash? (3.00 / 1) (#270)
by triticale on Wed Sep 12, 2001 at 11:22:58 PM EST

The planning for this probably started with an engineering analysis. Remember that the original truck bombing failed because the driver obeyed a parking restriction at the critical spot. The planes were selected for maximum fuel load. Large steel structures have failed before when fierce enough reduced the strength. Structural steel starts losing strength around 1200 F and jet fuel burns around 1500 F. I'd say they at least hoped for the collapse.

As for the decision to take a sacrificial crash, check out the trucker legend of Phantom 309. There has been more than one report of a trucker making this choice since the song came out; one was supposedly saved by the last tree before the cliff.

[ Parent ]

smuggling in box cutters... (4.00 / 3) (#245)
by superflex on Wed Sep 12, 2001 at 08:45:49 AM EST

would be so easy to do, it's sickening. the ones that are most commonly used today are made entirely of plastic, with a replaceable metal blade.

all anyone would have to do (and this is assuming they're trying really hard to hide them) would be to remove the blades and carry them in the bottom of their steel toed boots, and carry the plastic body of the knives in their pockets.

so what if they set off the metal detectors? the guard whips out his/her hand-held metal detector and it squawks around the person's feet.

"oh, yeah, i'm wearing steel-toes."

"oh, ok. enjoy your flight, sir."

of course, i've read a few accounts on the net of people just walking through airport security with all kinds of knives, so it sounds like a scheme such as this would probably have not been necessary.

Celebrations in the US! (4.00 / 3) (#257)
by ronin212 on Wed Sep 12, 2001 at 04:14:39 PM EST

What about the footage of a Muslim community right across the river in Jersey City, NJ, celebrating and laughing, early this morning (or late last night, depending on how you look at it)?

I certainly understand that the vast majority of Muslims are not depraved, sick fucks like these. So what the hell is wrong with these people? They're not in the third world, or the middle-east. They're living in America and reaping the benefits, meanwhile they are overjoyed at the sight of thousands upon thousands of people being murdered! Sick.

Personally, if I had seen this in person, I would have gunned down as many of them as I could right in the street, and seen how funny they thought THAT was.

I am greatly dissatisfied with the actions, policies and implementation of our government, as I'm sure many others are. But does anyone consider this a praiseworthy revolutionary effort?! This is an unimaginably heinous act.

The sight of this kind of reaction disturbed me even more than the act itself...

--
Now is the time... get on the right side! You'll be godlike.
How to achieve peace (4.33 / 3) (#259)
by dennis on Wed Sep 12, 2001 at 05:05:15 PM EST

In the mid-80's, I was on an American campus in Germany while terrorists were bombing our military bases there. Every couple months there would be lines at the phones in the dorm stairwells, people calling home to see if their families were okay after the latest blast.

Then we dropped a bomb in Khadaffi's living room. All of us students thought the terrorist bombings would escalate. We were wrong. They stopped, utterly.

These people respond to force, and apparently only to force. By all evidence they laugh at forgiveness, and strike again. I want peace as much as anyone, but I think there's only one way to achieve it: to respond with such overwhelming force that no country dares harbor the people who do these things.

I don't like saying that--I try hard to turn the other cheek in my personal life, I hate seeing the "collateral damage" when we bomb people, and I don't want my brother in the military to get stuck in a war...but we may have lost about half as many people yesterday as we lost in the entire Vietnam War. We have to put an end to it.

I travel with a knife on every flight. (4.50 / 2) (#267)
by Lenny on Wed Sep 12, 2001 at 07:57:18 PM EST

My intent of this article is not to be callous, but to point out how easy it is to get a dangerous weapon onto a flight. I travel with a 4" Cold Steel Voyager knife. It has a tanto point and it is a lock-back knife. I put it in my fanny pack at the security terminal. I have been on approx. 12 flights in the last 18 months. I have never once been questioned about the knife by airport security. Who needs plastic boxcutters? I carry a tactical folding knife. I am not going to try to carry the knife on any flight for a while. Instead I will put it in my checked luggage.
"Hate the USA? Boycott everything American. Particularly its websites..."
-Me
Memorial to Tuesday's tragedy (4.00 / 1) (#269)
by mikecra on Wed Sep 12, 2001 at 09:28:01 PM EST

I have created a small page dedicated to the tragedy that occured on Tuesday.

It's at http://wtc.tuxnami.org

Anyone can contribute to this page, and I really do encourage it. Contribute anything you wish, stories, prayers, pictures, drawings, thoughts, music, or anything else.

The terrorism is awful, but the deaths... (1.50 / 6) (#273)
by TeeJay on Thu Sep 13, 2001 at 03:38:47 AM EST

More people die every year from alchohol-related car crashes. I don't see you grand-standers beating your chests over those deaths, or making memorial websites. Still - I guess it doesn't get huge exposure on CNN, so why would you care?

Whatever... (none / 0) (#277)
by Hefty on Thu Sep 13, 2001 at 11:38:47 AM EST

And even more people than that die every year from non-alcohol related car crashes. What are you suggesting, we declare war on alcohol? Better yet, declare war on automobiles.

[ Parent ]
Separate the issues (none / 0) (#284)
by TeeJay on Fri Sep 14, 2001 at 05:02:20 AM EST

I'm not talking about declaring war on anything. I'm pointing out that deaths due to terrorism are far fewer than deaths by other (preventable, tragic) causes. If your concern is number of deaths, money would be more effectively spent elsewhere to prevent a larger number of deaths. If it's terrorism that concerns you - stop your government being assholes overseas.

[ Parent ]
I'm Sympathetic. Slightly. (3.40 / 5) (#283)
by steven on Fri Sep 14, 2001 at 02:47:28 AM EST

Most likely, I'll get crucified for this. I don't blame you, I wouldn't like what I'm saying if I were from the United States, either. But it has to be said. The United States isn't as peace or freedom loving as they like to think they are.

I'm sympathetic to the friends and families and victims. However, I'm not sympathetic to the nation itself. If you're wondering why, take a look at the foreign policy of the United States over the last fifty or so years. I've heard estimates of forty thousand dead - you got off pretty lightly, considering the crimes against humanity perpetuated by your nation.

Let me explain myself. I'm talking about the US sanctioned trade embargos on Iraq, resulting in the deaths of thousands of innocent civillians. "BUT THEIR GOVERNMENT WAS MAKING WEAPONS TO BLOW US UP WITH!" I hear you say. So go after the government - not every hospital or school is a military base for you to bomb, and not all the Iraqi's on the street support their government. Most likely, they don't care less, so long as they have food and water and aren't "disappeared" for disapproving. Experts estimate half a million children dead alone - it was only a matter of time before someone thought "enough!" and wanted retribution.

Think also of Vietnam, where you couldn't let a country decide their own government system. So you bombed and defoliated the country, then got up and left when you had had enough. Think Afghanistan, where you helped the Taliban fight off the invading Russians, again because you didn't like Communism. The country is gripped by a civil war now - and guess who's to blame? That's right, the United States. You helped drive out the Communist invaders, and then didn't want to know about helping a stable government to power.

Think Palestine. You helped give Israel the Palestinian land, and are now unwilling to help stop the violence. Gee, it seems to me like you've been supplying weapons to Israel - a lot of which are used to help eradicate the Arabs who blow themselves up in an attempt to get their land back. Who can blame them, either?

Laos, Cambodia, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Chile, Korea... the list of countries which have suffered terribly because of the United States is endless. You may have been helping your allies, or trying to defeat the "evils of Communism," but you didn't have to kill millions of innocent people in the process.

I think you got off pretty lightly. Sure, it's a tradgedy - any death is a tradgedy. But it was only a matter of time before someone decided that they had had enough.

Think again before you claim that innocent civillians died. They certainly did - but the United States has killed and helped to kill far more innocent civillians than were killed by the guys who flew their planes into the World Trade Centre towers and the Pentagon.

Sympathy goes out to the victims and their family and friends. No sympathy, however, goes out to the nation as a whole. You deserved it.

--steven

Don't kick a nation while it's down. (2.00 / 1) (#287)
by Anonymous 6522 on Fri Sep 14, 2001 at 11:18:02 AM EST

I'm getting tired of this "Oh, I feel sorry for the dead, but you're still an arrogant evil bastard of a nation that doesn't exactly conform to my personal idea of what every nation should aspire too," shit.

Great, we know you think that the US sucks, I bet you've been saying it since the time you got here, but, somehow, trying to pound the idea that our nation is evil seems to me like 1 material given recent events.

If events had unfolded differently, I would probably be pointing out all the errors and exaggerations in your examples, and blasting you for the black and white nature of your commentary, but all I want to say right now is that you obviously didn't ever learn to express empathy correctly, if at all.

[ Parent ]

yeah yeah yeah (5.00 / 1) (#289)
by needless on Fri Sep 14, 2001 at 02:03:01 PM EST

... and we all know how trendy it is to diss the U.S. on K5. Yes, the U.S. is not perfect. Is any government? If so, please let me know so I can go live in this fantastical utopia. Any other country is just as guilty of injustices against its people and those of other countries. Just because any other countries influence does not cast as great a shadow does make them any less guilty. Stop and think what the world would be like if these countries "oppressed" by the U.S. were the world power themselves? I don't know about you, but I think things would be much worse.

[ Parent ]
Hmm. (none / 0) (#295)
by steven on Fri Sep 14, 2001 at 08:46:23 PM EST

I guess I didn't come across as I intended - let me clarify.

Sure, the rest of the world sucks, too. Most major powers are probably guilty of as much, if not more, nasty stuff than the United States. I wasn't trying to single out the US (though I guess I did), I was trying to explain why I don't blame someone for doing this. Any country who has persecuted people is just as vulnerable.

Then again, the Vietnamese haven't gone around flying planes into Paris, either - I guess the US just annoyed the fanatics.

--steven

[ Parent ]

Two Planes Crash Into The World Trade Center. | 298 comments (295 topical, 3 editorial, 0 hidden)
Display: Sort:

kuro5hin.org

[XML]
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. The Rest 2000 - Present Kuro5hin.org Inc.
See our legalese page for copyright policies. Please also read our Privacy Policy.
Kuro5hin.org is powered by Free Software, including Apache, Perl, and Linux, The Scoop Engine that runs this site is freely available, under the terms of the GPL.
Need some help? Email help@kuro5hin.org.
My heart's the long stairs.

Powered by Scoop create account | help/FAQ | mission | links | search | IRC | YOU choose the stories!