U.S. issues shoe-bomb terror alert
Oct 30, 2007, 3:43 pm
#61
Moderator: Coupon Connection & S.P.A.M
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Louisville, KY
Programs: Destination Unknown, TSA Disparager Diamond (LTDD)
Posts: 57,952
And, what part of "I don't know if it could or not" [take down the plane with 10 ounces of plastic explosive] do you not understand? I don't know if his 10 ounces of plastic explosive would have been enough. (Or if, for example, he would have needed 2 comrades with another 10 ounces each. Would 30 ounces of the stuff have been enough? 3 compatriots for a total of 40 ounces--is that enough? What do the "laws of science" -- and don't forget engineering! -- and "everything else" say about that? What is the magic number of hollowed out shoes full of plastic explosive that would have been necessary to take down an airliner? Is it airliner specific? How much do I need for a 757? 747? 777? 330? 380? (Or haven't they computed the 380 yet?)
Oh, I forgot, some people "know" (they assure us) but can't tell us. They don't want to educate us.
Fine.
At least I can offer that; I doubt the braintrust at the TSA could even come close to being able to conduct the research, much less answer your questions afterwards.
Oct 30, 2007, 3:58 pm
#62
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,095
Ah, the "I claim I can prove it but I choose not to" position. Well supported. I'll try that one on the judge next time I am in court.
So, to summarize: a person who accepts the government's position (which you claim lacks any "independently verified" "scientific demonstrations") is blindly prejudiced [and I will note again that I have no idea whether it could or not, and have not seen enough one way or the other], but a person should instead believe your "law of science" and "everything else supports" position? Because you say so. That's better than independently verified scientific demonstrations in my book any day of the week.
And, what part of "I don't know if it could or not" [take down the plane with 10 ounces of plastic explosive] do you not understand? I don't know if his 10 ounces of plastic explosive would have been enough. (Or if, for example, he would have needed 2 comrades with another 10 ounces each. Would 30 ounces of the stuff have been enough? 3 compatriots for a total of 40 ounces--is that enough? What do the "laws of science" -- and don't forget engineering! -- and "everything else" say about that? What is the magic number of hollowed out shoes full of plastic explosive that would have been necessary to take down an airliner? Is it airliner specific? How much do I need for a 757? 747? 777? 330? 380? (Or haven't they computed the 380 yet?)
Oh, I forgot, some people "know" (they assure us) but can't tell us. They don't want to educate us.
Fine.
So, to summarize: a person who accepts the government's position (which you claim lacks any "independently verified" "scientific demonstrations") is blindly prejudiced [and I will note again that I have no idea whether it could or not, and have not seen enough one way or the other], but a person should instead believe your "law of science" and "everything else supports" position? Because you say so. That's better than independently verified scientific demonstrations in my book any day of the week.
And, what part of "I don't know if it could or not" [take down the plane with 10 ounces of plastic explosive] do you not understand? I don't know if his 10 ounces of plastic explosive would have been enough. (Or if, for example, he would have needed 2 comrades with another 10 ounces each. Would 30 ounces of the stuff have been enough? 3 compatriots for a total of 40 ounces--is that enough? What do the "laws of science" -- and don't forget engineering! -- and "everything else" say about that? What is the magic number of hollowed out shoes full of plastic explosive that would have been necessary to take down an airliner? Is it airliner specific? How much do I need for a 757? 747? 777? 330? 380? (Or haven't they computed the 380 yet?)
Oh, I forgot, some people "know" (they assure us) but can't tell us. They don't want to educate us.
Fine.
There's quite a lot of engineering analysis -- that's covered by science -- when it comes to this area as well.
Oct 30, 2007, 5:23 pm
#63
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2007
Programs: AAdvantage, SkyMiles, USAir, Singapore, BA
Posts: 602
I believe Boeing's expertise was instrumental in determining the mode and manner of PA103's destruction.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Investi...nd_the_clothes
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pan_Am_...craft_break_up
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Investi...nd_the_clothes
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pan_Am_...craft_break_up
Oct 30, 2007, 6:59 pm
#64
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,095
I believe Boeing's expertise was instrumental in determining the mode and manner of PA103's destruction.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Investi...nd_the_clothes
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pan_Am_...craft_break_up
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Investi...nd_the_clothes
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pan_Am_...craft_break_up
If you want to take Wikipedia as gospel, that's your choice, not mine.
