Thank God we're not Russia

[gatt]

Something suspicious here?
http://www.smh.com.au/text/articles/2004/08/25/1093246621809.html

"The pilot of one of two Russian planes that crashed almost simultaneously
had sent a hijack alert,"...and, in the same story:

"FSB officials had not yet found evidence of a terrorist act or
explosion..."

Do the Russians really believe people are that stupid?

-c

[Maule Driver]

"gatt" > wrote in message
...
>
> "The pilot of one of two Russian planes that crashed almost simultaneously
> had sent a hijack alert,"...and, in the same story:
>
> "FSB officials had not yet found evidence of a terrorist act or
> explosion..."
>
> Do the Russians really believe people are that stupid?
>
No, but not acknowledging the obvious is effective worldwide. Think WMD.

[HECTOP]

gatt > wrote:
> "FSB officials had not yet found evidence of a terrorist act or
> explosion..."
> Do the Russians really believe people are that stupid?

They actually believe readers are intelligent enough to understand what
"had not yet found" means, sorry they misplaced their expecations.


--
HECTOP
PP-ASEL-IA
http://www.maxho.com
maxho_at_maxho.com

[CB]

"gatt" > wrote in message
...
>
> Something suspicious here?
> http://www.smh.com.au/text/articles/2004/08/25/1093246621809.html
>
> "The pilot of one of two Russian planes that crashed almost simultaneously
> had sent a hijack alert,"...and, in the same story:
>
> "FSB officials had not yet found evidence of a terrorist act or
> explosion..."
>
> Do the Russians really believe people are that stupid?

The Feds believe the American public is as stupid. Its the way of
governments with too much power and too little respect for their people.

[Geoffrey Barnes]

> Do the Russians really believe people are that stupid?

C'mon! You know how crash investigations work, and this one is no
exception. They need a bit more than 24 hours to come up with anything
remotely concrete. The probability of terrorism is very high in this case,
but it also isn't quite 100%.


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.742 / Virus Database: 495 - Release Date: 8/19/2004

[C J Campbell]

"HECTOP" > wrote in message
...
> gatt > wrote:
> > "FSB officials had not yet found evidence of a terrorist act or
> > explosion..."
> > Do the Russians really believe people are that stupid?
>
> They actually believe readers are intelligent enough to understand what
> "had not yet found" means, sorry they misplaced their expecations.

Near as I can tell, you and I are the only people who know what that means.

[David Brooks]

"Geoffrey Barnes" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> > Do the Russians really believe people are that stupid?
>
> C'mon! You know how crash investigations work, and this one is no
> exception. They need a bit more than 24 hours to come up with anything
> remotely concrete. The probability of terrorism is very high in this
case,
> but it also isn't quite 100%.

And remember jumping to the wrong conclusion, or at least pretending to,
about a terrorist act recently cost a certain government an election. OK,
that was about which terrorists, but the comparison still applies.

-- David Brooks

[HECTOP]

gatt > wrote:
> Right. The planes didn't explode.

Sure, neither did TWA800.

--
HECTOP
PP-ASEL-IA
http://www.maxho.com
maxho_at_maxho.com

[gatt]

"HECTOP" > wrote in message
...
> gatt > wrote:
> > "FSB officials had not yet found evidence of a terrorist act or
> > explosion..."
> > Do the Russians really believe people are that stupid?
>
> They actually believe readers are intelligent enough to understand what
> "had not yet found" means, sorry they misplaced their expecations.

Right. The planes didn't explode. I forgot.

-c

[gatt]

"Geoffrey Barnes" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> > Do the Russians really believe people are that stupid?
>
> C'mon! You know how crash investigations work, and this one is no
> exception. They need a bit more than 24 hours to come up with anything
> remotely concrete. The probability of terrorism is very high in this
case,
> but it also isn't quite 100%.

They didn't say it they didn't know if it was terrorism. They said they had
not yet found evidence. So I guess the HIJACK DISTRESS SIGNAL
(http://www.cnn.com) isn't "evidence," yeah?

-c

[gatt]

"gatt" > wrote in message
news:FhaXc.3192$2B4.2455@trnddc06...
>
> "Geoffrey Barnes" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
> > > Do the Russians really believe people are that stupid?
> >
> > C'mon! You know how crash investigations work, and this one is no
> > exception. They need a bit more than 24 hours to come up with anything
> > remotely concrete. The probability of terrorism is very high in this
> case, but it also isn't quite 100%.
>
> They didn't say it they didn't know if it was terrorism. They said they
had
> not yet found evidence. So I guess the HIJACK DISTRESS SIGNAL
> (http://www.cnn.com) isn't "evidence," yeah?

Oh, yeah...one more bit of evidence they don't have: "witnesses heard
explosions associated with the planes going down." Same story. But
wait...there's more:
"Other witnesses told Interfax they saw the plane explode before it
crashed." No evidence there either.

"Officials said the crew of the other plane gave no indication that anything
was wrong, but witnesses on the ground reported hearing a series of
explosions." http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040825/D84M9S800.html

-c

[Tom S.]

"CB" > wrote in message
...
>
> Its the way of
> governments with too much power and too little respect for their people.

That's redundant.

It's more the way of government that is no longer the servant, but now is
our MASTER. A government that no longer governs, but RULES.

[Rich Lemert]

gatt wrote:
> Something suspicious here?
> http://www.smh.com.au/text/articles/2004/08/25/1093246621809.html
>
> "The pilot of one of two Russian planes that crashed almost simultaneously
> had sent a hijack alert,"...and, in the same story:
>
> "FSB officials had not yet found evidence of a terrorist act or
> explosion..."
>
> Do the Russians really believe people are that stupid?
>

The only thing "suspicious" I see here is someone trying to make more
out of something than is justified.

The facts so far - two planes have crashed in Russia at almost exactly
the same time. That's it.

One of the two planes is _reported_ to have sent a hijack alert.
I don't know if that's been confirmed or not, but even if it has
it's still possible that the signal was sent accidentally.

Would you have been happier if officials had said they had not yet
found _independent_ _physical_ evidence of terrorism or an explosion?
Also, no one has ever said that lack of evidence for a theory is
automatically evidence against that theory.

I agree that the two crashes are very suspicious. However, believing
that they were caused by terrorists - based solely on the timing - is
far from proving that terrorists were the cause.

Rich Lemert

[Rich Lemert]

gatt wrote:

> "HECTOP" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>gatt > wrote:
>>
>>>"FSB officials had not yet found evidence of a terrorist act or
>>>explosion..."
>>>Do the Russians really believe people are that stupid?
>>
>>They actually believe readers are intelligent enough to understand what
>>"had not yet found" means, sorry they misplaced their expecations.
>
>
> Right. The planes didn't explode. I forgot.
>

Perhaps you can clue us in as to how you "know" that they exploded,
and how this "proves" that terrorists were involved. Personally, I'd
consider it a bad day if I couldn't think of at least a dozen reasons
for an explosion. As more _real_ evidence comes in, some of those ideas
will be proven wrong, but so far I haven't seen enough information to
start make any decisions.

Rich Lemert

[Rich Lemert]

gatt wrote:

>
>>not yet found evidence. So I guess the HIJACK DISTRESS SIGNAL
>>(http://www.cnn.com) isn't "evidence," yeah?

I remember something in some of my flight training material
that said be carefull of the sequence you use to set transponder
codes. The wrong sequence can inadvertently set off one of the
emergency codes.
>
>
> Oh, yeah...one more bit of evidence they don't have: "witnesses heard
> explosions associated with the planes going down." Same story. But
> wait...there's more:
> "Other witnesses told Interfax they saw the plane explode before it
> crashed." No evidence there either.

Evidence of what? All I see here, at most, is that there are
indications of an explosion. I don't see anything here that indicates
those explosions have to be tied to terrorists.

Rich Lemert

[Peter Duniho]

"gatt" > wrote in message
news:FhaXc.3192$2B4.2455@trnddc06...
> They didn't say it they didn't know if it was terrorism. They said they
had
> not yet found evidence. So I guess the HIJACK DISTRESS SIGNAL
> (http://www.cnn.com) isn't "evidence," yeah?

Not all hijackers are terrorists. Some actually just want a ride somewhere,
and any terror caused is an unfortunate side-effect.

Seriously...why are you so intent on interpreting a perfectly innocuous (and
accurate!) quote to imply that the agency believes "people are that stupid"?

Pete

[Cub Driver]

On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 04:55:41 GMT, Rich Lemert >
wrote:

> Evidence of what? All I see here, at most, is that there are
>indications of an explosion. I don't see anything here that indicates
>those explosions have to be tied to terrorists.

Especially since none of the 9/11 airliners exploded.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
Expedition sailboat charters www.expeditionsail.com

[Geoffrey Barnes]

> Oh, yeah...one more bit of evidence they don't have: "witnesses heard
> explosions associated with the planes going down." Same story. But
> wait...there's more:
>
> "Other witnesses told Interfax they saw the plane explode before it
> crashed." No evidence there either.
>
> "Officials said the crew of the other plane gave no indication that
anything
> was wrong, but witnesses on the ground reported hearing a series of
> explosions." http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040825/D84M9S800.html

Every single aviation accident since the Wright Bros. has had wintesses on
the ground who provide enormously inaccurate accounts of what they saw and
heard. This is especially true when the "testimony" is being collected by
members of the news media, all of whom are facing a deadline in a few hours
and are willing to use any quote by anyone who claims to have anything to
say.

All I'm saying is that any governement agency, in any country at all, is
going to respond in the way the Russians have. This is especially true in
the first 24 hours after the accident. They don't have anywhere near the
budget that the media do, they can't send their investigators out en masse
to troll the countryside with mini-cams and microphones, and they are a bit
more picky about who they choose to interview than the media are. It
doesn't even remotely imply that the Russian (or whatever) government thinks
the public is stupid. All it implies is that professional crash
investigators do not jump to accept the first assumption they are presented
with, that they don't rely on potentially inaccurate media reports to do
their job for them, and that any decent crash investigation takes time.


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.742 / Virus Database: 495 - Release Date: 8/19/2004

[James Robinson]

gatt wrote:
>
> Something suspicious here?
> http://www.smh.com.au/text/articles/2004/08/25/1093246621809.html
>
> "The pilot of one of two Russian planes that crashed almost simultaneously
> had sent a hijack alert,"...and, in the same story:
>
> "FSB officials had not yet found evidence of a terrorist act or
> explosion..."
>
> Do the Russians really believe people are that stupid?

I think something might be lost in translation. They have simply stated
that they hadn't yet found anything at the crash scenes that clearly
pointed to a terrorist attack. That might change as the investigation
continues. Further, there seems to be some confusion about what the
aircraft had transmitted, and whether it was clearly a "hijack alert".
The news reports say that they are looking at a number of things,
including the possibility of an attack.

Instead, in this country, we have a media that immediately blamed
"Arabs" after the Oklahoma City bombing, and had paranoid people calling
the police about anyone who looked like they were from the Middle East.
A couple were detained after flying out of the city shortly after the
bombings, and newspapers jumped to the conclusion that they were guilty.
Readers really are that stupid.

[Ace Pilot]

"gatt" > wrote in message >...
> Something suspicious here?
> http://www.smh.com.au/text/articles/2004/08/25/1093246621809.html
>
> "The pilot of one of two Russian planes that crashed almost simultaneously
> had sent a hijack alert,"...and, in the same story:
>
> "FSB officials had not yet found evidence of a terrorist act or
> explosion..."
>
> Do the Russians really believe people are that stupid?
>
> -c

Aren't you a journalist, gatt? I would have thought you would have
been the first to recognize some good journalism, where the reporter
reports the facts instead of jumping to conclusions and actually gives
investigators the time needed to investigate all the possibilities.

[gatt]

"Rich Lemert" > wrote in message
link.net...

> Perhaps you can clue us in as to how you "know" that they exploded,

Well, Rich, they've got witnesses on television networks worldwide
describing the explosions. The point of contention here is that the
officials had not yet found "evidence" of terrorism or explosion. Well,
when witnesses all over the place are describing explosions independently of
each other, that's called evidence.

Either that, or the value of multiple human eye witnesses in Russia (and
this forum, apparently) means nothing.

You get it yet? I didn't say anything about proof or what people "know."
The point is about evidence.
-c

[gatt]

"Rich Lemert" > wrote in message news:h3eXc.13049

> Evidence of what? All I see here, at most, is that there are
> indications of an explosion. I don't see anything here that indicates
> those explosions have to be tied to terrorists.

I did not assert that the explosions were tied to terrorists. I asserted
that they were full of crap saying that they had not yet found evidence of
explosions, when people all over the vicinity of at least one of them
reported hearing the explosion.


-c

[gatt]

"Geoffrey Barnes" > wrote in message news:8wjXc.13177

> >but witnesses on the ground reported hearing a series of
> > explosions." http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040825/D84M9S800.html
>
> Every single aviation accident since the Wright Bros. has had wintesses on
> the ground who provide enormously inaccurate accounts of what they saw and
> heard.

We're not talking about what was proven. THE ISSUE IS 'EVIDENCE'. MULTIPLE
PEOPLE INDEPENDENT OF EACH OTHER REPORTING AN EXPLOSION IS NOT PROOF, BUT
IT'S SURE AS HELL A GOOD PIECE OF EVIDENCE IF AN EYEWITNESS SAYS THEY SAW
SOMETHING HAPPEN.

Yeesh.


-c

[gatt]

"Rich Lemert" > wrote in message news:URdXc.13037$

> The facts so far - two planes have crashed in Russia at almost exactly
> the same time. That's it.

....And one dialed in a distress code. And witnesses have reported hearing
explosions.
THAT'S it.

You guys are right. I'm sorry. Yaaaaaay Russia! The paragon of freedom of
information and public disclosure. Yaaaaaaaaaay Russia!

> Would you have been happier if officials had said they had not yet
> found _independent_ _physical_ evidence of terrorism or an explosion?

Yep.

> I agree that the two crashes are very suspicious. However, believing
> that they were caused by terrorists - based solely on the timing - is
> far from proving that terrorists were the cause.

Now you're asserting that I "believe they were caused by terrorists." I
merely asserted that there was in fact evidence--didn't say proof; think it
through with me here--of terrorism and explosions.

-c

[gatt]

"Ace Pilot" > wrote in message

> Aren't you a journalist, gatt?

Where's my rec.aviation.piloting paycheck?

> where the reporter reports the facts instead of jumping to conclusions and
actually gives
> investigators the time needed to investigate all the possibilities.

The facts are witnesses reported explosions and the Russian officials say
there's no evidence of explosions.

And, again, I say: Thank God we're not in Russia. Let me amend this: Go
live there if you want, and have a ball. Thank God I'M not in Russia.

-c

[John Gaquin]

"gatt" > wrote in message
>
> We're not talking about what was proven. THE ISSUE IS 'EVIDENCE'.
MULTIPLE
> PEOPLE INDEPENDENT OF EACH OTHER REPORTING AN EXPLOSION IS NOT PROOF, BUT
> IT'S SURE AS HELL A GOOD PIECE OF EVIDENCE IF AN EYEWITNESS SAYS THEY SAW
> SOMETHING HAPPEN.

gatt....
1. There's no need to shout.
2. The word 'evidence', while by definition not absolutely denoting proof,
does, to most people and in the common vernacular, strongly imply hard fact.
This may account for your apparent semantic discomfort.
3. If you've been around aviation and paying attention for more than a
couple of weeks, you know that a) most eyewitnesses are worthless, and b)
investigators rarely if ever make hard statements until facts are
established.

[Corky Scott]

On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 12:11:40 GMT, James Robinson >
wrote:

>I think something might be lost in translation. They have simply stated
>that they hadn't yet found anything at the crash scenes that clearly
>pointed to a terrorist attack.

An additional data point: to date, no terrorist organization has
claimed responsibility for the crashes. It would be extremely unusual
for a terrorist group to have managed to bring about this very
difficult feat of downing two airliners nearly simultaneously, and not
claim to have done so. After all, publicity is extremely important to
their existance. People must know about them for them to cause
terror.

Corky Scott

[Allen]

"gatt" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Rich Lemert" > wrote in message
> link.net...
>
> > Perhaps you can clue us in as to how you "know" that they exploded,
>
> Well, Rich, they've got witnesses on television networks worldwide
> describing the explosions. The point of contention here is that the
> officials had not yet found "evidence" of terrorism or explosion. Well,
> when witnesses all over the place are describing explosions independently
of
> each other, that's called evidence.
>

That must have been a heck of an explosion if it was seen by witnesses on
television networks worldwide!

[Stefan]

John Gaquin wrote:

> gatt....
> 1.
....

And
4. The investigators are Russians. Who knows what they originally said
in Russian and how accurately it was translated.

Stefan

[gatt]

"John Gaquin" > wrote in message
> gatt....
> 1. There's no need to shout.

AAAUUUGGHH!! I'M FRIGGIN' CRAZY! STAY BACK! ;>

> 2. The word 'evidence', while by definition not absolutely denoting
proof,
> does, to most people and in the common vernacular, strongly imply hard
fact

Yep. When a bunch of people independently claim to have heard explosions,
that's evidence. And that's all we're talking about. Not hard fact.

> 3. If you've been around aviation and paying attention for more than a
> couple of weeks, you know that a) most eyewitnesses are worthless,

I disgree. Eyewitnesses are exactly how each and every one of us understands
9/11. Was your viewing of the planes crashing into the WTCs "worthless"?
Unless you saw it happen yourself (in which case your opinion would be
"worthless") the imagery you think of when you think of the WTC attacks is
based on eyewitnesses.

> investigators rarely if ever make hard statements until facts are
> established.

It's not a hard statement to say that witnesses reported explosions.
Regardless of whether the explosions were fact, the multiple accounts of it
are evidence, and we're talking about evidence here, not proof or fact.

-c

[gatt]

"Allen" > wrote in message news:JwoXc.6420$k%

> That must have been a heck of an explosion if it was seen by witnesses on
> television networks worldwide!

Cute!

By the logic in this thread, the FAA should not have admitted that there was
evidence of airplanes hitting the Pentagon and the WTC towers on 9/11 until
they investigated it themselves, because they didn't have physical evidence
that the events had happened.
I mean, all we knew on 9/11 was that four airliners had disappeared and,
well, eyewitnesses and media sources that reported it live are unreliable
for investigation purposes.

So I hope you all didn't watch CNN on 9/11 and believe your eyes.
Otherwise, you'd be jumping the conclusions like I'm being accused of doing.
-c

[gatt]

"Corky Scott" > wrote in message

> An additional data point: to date, no terrorist organization has
> claimed responsibility for the crashes. It would be extremely unusual
> for a terrorist group to have managed to bring about this very
> difficult feat of downing two airliners nearly simultaneously, and not
> claim to have done so.

It would be extremely unusual for it to be anything but terrorism in the
first place, but I agree with you. Do you know offhand how long it took
before anybody claimed the Lockerbie explosion?

I figure we're only days away from the conspiracy theories. The
Russians/Americans/Aliens shot 'em down, etc. BTW, ABCNews has an updated
article: http://abcnews.go.com/wire/World/ap20040826_890.html

-c

[Andrew Gideon]

gatt wrote:

> Either that, or the value of multiple human eye witnesses in Russia (and
> this forum, apparently) means nothing.

Witnesses are a terribly unreliable source of information. Many of the
quotes that made it into the newspapers for a local mid-air were in
complete disagreement with (1) the wreckage and (2) the RADAR "tape".

There was the lack of evidence of any fire combined with reports of "flaming
planes falling from the sky", the rather boring track of each aircraft on
RADAR as combined with "pilots fooling around at tree-top level", and so
on.

- Andrew

[Andrew Gideon]

gatt wrote:


> I disgree. Eyewitnesses are exactly how each and every one of us
> understands
> 9/11. Was your viewing of the planes crashing into the WTCs "worthless"?
> Unless you saw it happen yourself (in which case your opinion would be
> "worthless") the imagery you think of when you think of the WTC attacks is
> based on eyewitnesses.

If it were only witnesses that reported those attacks, we'd not believe in
the attacks. Think this through for a moment, and you'll see the
reasoning. Consider if there were no physical evidence...

It's the same as several witnesses reporting a crash in the Hudson a while
back. The witnesses all saw pretty much the same thing, and there was no
"connection" between the witnesses.

Yet they were all wrong. It was a flight checking on migratory birds, or
some such thing, and they'd flown rather low past the GW bridge. No crash.
No problem at all, in fact.

No evidence of problem either; just some witnesses.

- Andrew

[Allen]

"gatt" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Allen" > wrote in message news:JwoXc.6420$k%
>
> > That must have been a heck of an explosion if it was seen by witnesses
on
> > television networks worldwide!
>
> Cute!
>
> By the logic in this thread, the FAA should not have admitted that there
was
> evidence of airplanes hitting the Pentagon and the WTC towers on 9/11
until
> they investigated it themselves, because they didn't have physical
evidence
> that the events had happened.
> I mean, all we knew on 9/11 was that four airliners had disappeared and,
> well, eyewitnesses and media sources that reported it live are unreliable
> for investigation purposes.
>
> So I hope you all didn't watch CNN on 9/11 and believe your eyes.
> Otherwise, you'd be jumping the conclusions like I'm being accused of
doing.
> -c

Shortly after 9/11 (November 12th) there was another airliner crash on
departure, American Airlines Flight 587. A lot of witnesses saw explosions
on that flight also but it was the vertical stab that had failed from pilot
inputs to the rudder.

[gatt]

"Andrew Gideon" > wrote in message

> Witnesses are a terribly unreliable source of information. Many of the
> quotes that made it into the newspapers for a local mid-air were in
> complete disagreement ...

In that case, then, we should have disbelieved the attacks of 9/11 until the
NTSB investigation reports came out. I mean...how did we even know the
planes crashed at all until the government investigators told us it was
acceptable to think such a thing?

At some point you have to start trusting witnesses in terms of EVIDENCE, at
least, if not as fact.
-c

[gatt]

"Andrew Gideon" > wrote in message

>It's the same as several witnesses reporting a crash in the Hudson a while
>back. The witnesses all saw pretty much the same thing, and there was no
>"connection" between the witnesses.
.... No evidence of problem either; just some witnesses.

Well, in that case there's no point in believing the Russian jets crashed at
all. The investigation results aren't complete so at the notion that the
airplanes crashed is all hypothetical and speculative.

I mean, how do we know it just wasn't two flocks of birds?
No..wait...swamp gas. Meteorites! Yeah, that's it. Can't speculate though
until the Russian government -- the same folks that brought you the Kursk
submarine fiasco, which might just a rumor too as far as we should be
concerned since we only heard about it on the media -- says otherwise.

So two UFOs were seen crashing in Russia this week and two jetliners are
missing. Better wait until the investigation results to confirm that it
wasn't migratory birds.

-c

[Corky Scott]

On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 12:52:26 -0700, "gatt"
> wrote:

>In that case, then, we should have disbelieved the attacks of 9/11 until the
>NTSB investigation reports came out. I mean...how did we even know the
>planes crashed at all until the government investigators told us it was
>acceptable to think such a thing?

K'mon Gatt, you're getting to be kind of out there with this line. No
one is claiming there were no crashes, they're just saying wait a bit
for the evidence that the crashes were due to explosions. They got
the flight data recorders, perhaps there will be evidence enough from
them to tell.

As to the WTC, again k'mon. You know as well as everyone else that
the eye witness reports were backed up by extraordinary video footage
of the airplanes smacking into the buildings and exploding in a huge
fireball. Within hours the CIA and FBI had leads on the hijackers.

Three buildings hit, four airliners down, all flights within the US
grounded within hours... there's no comparison to what happened in
Russia. It may well be that terrorists managed to plant bombs in the
airliners and blow them up in flight. But aside from "witnesses"
there is no other evidence yet to say that. Be patient, there's no
reason for it not to come out.

Corky Scott

[G.R. Patterson III]

Corky Scott wrote:
>
> They got
> the flight data recorders, perhaps there will be evidence enough from
> them to tell.

NPR news this afternoon stated that the recorders contained nothing to indicate the
cause of the crashes. That seems awful fast work to me, though -- it usually takes
months for the NTSB to complete work with all the recorders of a typical airliner
crash. Perhaps they were referring to only the cockpit data recorders.

Yury? Do you know how many recorders the Tupolevs usually have?

George Patterson
If you want to know God's opinion of money, just look at the people
he gives it to.

[Ace Pilot]

"gatt" > wrote in message >...
> "Ace Pilot" > wrote in message
>
> > Aren't you a journalist, gatt?
>
> Where's my rec.aviation.piloting paycheck?

So, you can't apply your knowledge of journalism unless you get paid
for it??? Wow. I truly hope the same rules don't apply to your
recreational flying...

> > where the reporter reports the facts instead of jumping to conclusions and
> actually gives
> > investigators the time needed to investigate all the possibilities.
>
> The facts are witnesses reported explosions and the Russian officials say
> there's no evidence of explosions.

Actually, the facts pertaining to the article you quoted are that the
media reported witnesses heard explosions, as well as other events -
reported by the media. There was nothing in the news article
indicating what FSB officials had found out at that point, or were
even aware of, other than two aircraft had crashed. Are you suggesting
that FSB officials should just take media reports at face value
without independent confirmation?

[Jay Honeck]

> An additional data point: to date, no terrorist organization has
> claimed responsibility for the crashes. It would be extremely unusual
> for a terrorist group to have managed to bring about this very
> difficult feat of downing two airliners nearly simultaneously, and not
> claim to have done so. After all, publicity is extremely important to
> their existance. People must know about them for them to cause
> terror.

I thought this, too, but NPR did a piece yesterday in which they stated that
"most terrorist acts in Russia have occurred with no one claiming
responsibility."

This seems bizarre to me, as it makes a relatively pointless act COMPLETELY
pointless -- but whoever said terrorists were very bright?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[William W. Plummer]

Jay Honeck wrote:

>>An additional data point: to date, no terrorist organization has
>>claimed responsibility for the crashes. It would be extremely unusual
>>for a terrorist group to have managed to bring about this very
>>difficult feat of downing two airliners nearly simultaneously, and not
>>claim to have done so. After all, publicity is extremely important to
>>their existance. People must know about them for them to cause
>>terror.
>
>
> I thought this, too, but NPR did a piece yesterday in which they stated that
> "most terrorist acts in Russia have occurred with no one claiming
> responsibility."
>
> This seems bizarre to me, as it makes a relatively pointless act COMPLETELY
> pointless -- but whoever said terrorists were very bright?
NPR is heavy on opinion and light on facts.

[John Gaquin]

"gatt" > wrote in message
>
> ...there's no point in believing the Russian jets crashed at
> all... the notion that the
> airplanes crashed is all hypothetical and speculative.
>
> ...two flocks of birds?....swamp gas. Meteorites! Yeah, that's it.
Can't
> speculate though
> until the Russian government -- the same folks that brought you the Kursk
> submarine fiasco, which might just a rumor too as far as we should be
> concerned since we only heard about it on the media -- says otherwise.
>
> Better wait until the investigation results to confirm that it
> wasn't migratory birds.

>You guys are right. I'm sorry. Yaaaaaay Russia! The paragon of freedom
of
> information and public disclosure. Yaaaaaaaaaay Russia!

Don't quit your day job.

[Corky Scott]

On Fri, 27 Aug 2004 13:39:47 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
> wrote:

>I thought this, too, but NPR did a piece yesterday in which they stated that
>"most terrorist acts in Russia have occurred with no one claiming
>responsibility."
>
>This seems bizarre to me, as it makes a relatively pointless act COMPLETELY
>pointless -- but whoever said terrorists were very bright?

Well that was yesterday's news. Apparently a Chechnian group has now
claimed responsibility according to a blurb I heard this morning.

Corky Scott

[Paul Sengupta]

"gatt" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Ace Pilot" > wrote in message
> > where the reporter reports the facts instead of jumping to conclusions
and
> actually gives
> > investigators the time needed to investigate all the possibilities.
>
> The facts are witnesses reported explosions and the Russian officials say
> there's no evidence of explosions.
>
> And, again, I say: Thank God we're not in Russia. Let me amend this: Go
> live there if you want, and have a ball. Thank God I'M not in Russia.

Over a hundred people saw a missile go up and hit TWA800.

Take from that as you will.

Paul

[Paul Sengupta]

"gatt" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Rich Lemert" > wrote in message
> link.net...
>
> > Perhaps you can clue us in as to how you "know" that they exploded,
>
> Well, Rich, they've got witnesses on television networks worldwide
> describing the explosions. The point of contention here is that the
> officials had not yet found "evidence" of terrorism or explosion. Well,
> when witnesses all over the place are describing explosions independently
of
> each other, that's called evidence.
>
> Either that, or the value of multiple human eye witnesses in Russia (and
> this forum, apparently) means nothing.

Or in the US.
http://twa800.com/images/times-8-15-00.gif
http://twa800.com/index.htm#Eyewitness.
http://flight800.org/twa_sub.htm

I don't want to start up all the what did/didn't happen to TWA800
stuff again, but if you're talking about eyewitnesses and being believed
and proof, the situation is a lot of eyewitnesses said "We saw a missile",
and the authorities said "There's no evidence". That's all I'm saying, not
whether either were right or wrong. It's not just in Russia that this
happens.

> You get it yet? I didn't say anything about proof or what people "know."
> The point is about evidence.
> -c

Latest news is that evidence of explosives has been found:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3612150.stm

Paul

[gatt]

"John Gaquin" > wrote in message

> >You guys are right. I'm sorry. Yaaaaaay Russia! The paragon of freedom
> of information and public disclosure. Yaaaaaaaaaay Russia!
>
> Don't quit your day job.

Not sure what my day job has to do anything, but, tell me which one,
Comrade? Writing? Computers and newtorking? Performing music or building
battle robots for television and video games? What are you presuming my day
job to be, anyhow?

Oh, and look: The Russian officials finally figured out that that there
were explosions and terrorism. Golly, Wally, who'da thunk? The experts
finally figured out what the media knew immediately.

-c

[gatt]

"Corky Scott" > wrote in message
< No one is claiming there were no crashes, they're just saying wait a bit
> for the evidence that the crashes were due to explosions.

They are? Where? Quote, please.

> As to the WTC, again k'mon. You know as well as everyone else that
> the eye witness reports were backed up by extraordinary video footage
> of the airplanes smacking into the buildings and exploding in a huge
> fireball.

Yeah, but other than the few million witnesses, what did the NTSB really
have for proof that it was terrorism? Sounds like a ludicrous question,
huh? Kinda like arguing that there's no evidence that the two Russian jets
that crashed didn't explode, given, you know, all the witnesses saying they
exploded.

Forgive me for not being a Russian bureaucrat. I'm just not good at that
sort of thing.

-c

[gatt]

"Paul Sengupta" > wrote in message
news:ch1u25

> I don't want to start up all the what did/didn't happen to TWA800
> stuff again, but if you're talking about eyewitnesses and being believed
> and proof, the situation is a lot of eyewitnesses said "We saw a missile",
> and the authorities said "There's no evidence". That's all I'm saying, not
> whether either were right or wrong. It's not just in Russia that this
> happens.

This is valid and fair; but I don't recall the FAA/NTSB coming out and
saying there was no evidence of an explosion when people everywhere were
saying they saw an explosion. The issue is not whether they said for sure,
or that there was proof, but whether there was evidence.

> > The point is about evidence.

> Latest news is that evidence of explosives has been found:
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3612150.stm

Yep. Confirming what those incredible eyewitnesses said; the planes
exploded. Again I say I thank God we're not Russia and if my point isn't
clear, let me add that I thank God even more than I wasn't, say, a Russian
sailor lying at the bottom of the ocean in the Kursk when the Russian
government was too secretive and proud to allow for immediate help.

But, then again, like John Gaquin said, I probably shouldn't quit my day
job.

-c

[gatt]

"Ace Pilot" > wrote in message

> > > Aren't you a journalist, gatt?
> > Where's my rec.aviation.piloting paycheck?
> So, you can't apply your knowledge of journalism unless you get paid
> for it??? Wow. I truly hope the same rules don't apply to your
> recreational flying..

Tell you what, "Ace" (really?), you don't tell me how to do my "job" and I
won't tell you how to do yours. (I work in computers, write novels, play
music and build robots for television shows. Why you folks ASSume that I'm
a professional journalism speaks of somebody else's ignorance, not mine.)

But my knowledge and experience in journalism says that when witnesses all
report something virtually identical and the government officials wrap the
whole thing in red tape and then stonewall, the truth is going to lie
somewhere closer to the witnesses than it is to the bureaucrats. "Nothing
to see here. Move along." Remember the Kursk.

>There was nothing in the news article indicating what FSB officials had
found out at that >point, or were even aware of, other than two aircraft had
crashed. Are you suggesting
> that FSB officials should just take media reports at face value without
independent >confirmation?

Are you putting words in my mouth, "Ace"? Do you do this to ATC too? ("I
surely hope the same rules don't apply to your recreational flying") All
I said is, when witnesses report explosions...write this down or sound it
out...there is EVIDENCE OF EXPLOSIONS.
Not proof, not fact, not conclusive data. EVIDENCE. The point is that
there was evidence, the bureaucrats ignored it and then, gee, Comrade...they
found evidence of explosions and of terrorism. WOW! I mean, that's some
real Sherlock work, isn't it?

=c

[gatt]

"Paul Sengupta" > wrote in message

> > And, again, I say: Thank God we're not in Russia. Let me amend this:
Go
> > live there if you want, and have a ball. Thank God I'M not in Russia.
>
> Over a hundred people saw a missile go up and hit TWA800.

No evidence, huh?

http://www.twa800.com/index.htm

"The FBI was briefed by military missile experts in the Fall of 1996 that
Flight 800 was well within the range of a shoulder fired missile. The FBI
conducted a covert dredging operation for stinger missile parts between
November 1996 and April 1997. CDR. Donaldson brought this new evidence to
the House Aviation Subcommittee in testimony on May 6, 1999. Unfortunately,
the major media and the Congress are content to swallow the official line
without question. "

The website is "Associated Retired Aviation Professionals." But, I mean,
really...what do THOSE guys know about anything?

Nothing to see here. Move along.
-c

[gatt]

"William W. Plummer" > wrote in message

> > This seems bizarre to me, as it makes a relatively pointless act
COMPLETELY
> > pointless -- but whoever said terrorists were very bright?

> NPR is heavy on opinion and light on facts.

So, it appears, are you. With what do you support your opinion?

-c

[gatt]

"Corky Scott" > wrote in message

> Well that was yesterday's news. Apparently a Chechnian group has now
> claimed responsibility according to a blurb I heard this morning.

Again I say, Thank God we're not Russia.

BTW, kudos to Greece. Americans, Iraqis, Afghanistan and Jews competing at
the apex of human capacity, and except for a few screwballs in tutus or
skirts, (and some dubious judges) nobody managed to screw it up.

-c

[CB]

"gatt" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Paul Sengupta" > wrote in message
> news:ch1u25
>
>> I don't want to start up all the what did/didn't happen to TWA800
>> stuff again, but if you're talking about eyewitnesses and being believed
>> and proof, the situation is a lot of eyewitnesses said "We saw a
>> missile",
>> and the authorities said "There's no evidence". That's all I'm saying,
>> not
>> whether either were right or wrong. It's not just in Russia that this
>> happens.
>
> This is valid and fair; but I don't recall the FAA/NTSB coming out and
> saying there was no evidence of an explosion when people everywhere were
> saying they saw an explosion. The issue is not whether they said for
> sure,
> or that there was proof, but whether there was evidence.
>
>> > The point is about evidence.
>
>> Latest news is that evidence of explosives has been found:
>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3612150.stm
>
> Yep. Confirming what those incredible eyewitnesses said; the planes
> exploded. Again I say I thank God we're not Russia and if my point isn't
> clear, let me add that I thank God even more than I wasn't, say, a Russian
> sailor lying at the bottom of the ocean in the Kursk when the Russian
> government was too secretive and proud to allow for immediate help.
>

You mean like the FBI, CIA, NSA, AAA, all did squat about the terrorist
threat before 911 mainly because they did not want to talk to each other.

Russia and the US have more in common than you think, governments quite at
home lying to their people.

[Rich Lemert]

gatt wrote:

> Oh, and look: The Russian officials finally figured out that that there
> were explosions and terrorism. Golly, Wally, who'da thunk? The experts
> finally figured out what the media knew immediately.
>

The media did not _know_ a damn thing beyond the fact that two planes
crashed under highly suspicious circumstances, period! Hell, even the
people who planted the bombs didn't _know_ that they had brought the
planes down until there was corraborative evidence - the planes could
have crashed from a coincidental cause unrelated to their activities.
They certainly would have a good reason to _expect_ that their actions
were responsible, but this is not the same thing as _knowing_ that
they did.

Your lack of critical analysis, coupled with your unwillingness to
even attempt to understand the point others are making about your
pronouncements, have me fervently hoping that you are not now, have
never been, and never will be associated with any forensic activity
of any kind. Having already determined for yourself what consitutes
'truth', you are only too likely to make sure your investigation
supports the conclusion you've already reached.

Rich Lemert

[Ace Pilot]

"gatt" > wrote in message >...
> "Ace Pilot" > wrote in message
>
> > > > Aren't you a journalist, gatt?
> > > Where's my rec.aviation.piloting paycheck?
> > So, you can't apply your knowledge of journalism unless you get paid
> > for it??? Wow. I truly hope the same rules don't apply to your
> > recreational flying..
>
> Tell you what, "Ace" (really?), you don't tell me how to do my "job" and I
> won't tell you how to do yours. (I work in computers, write novels, play
> music and build robots for television shows. Why you folks ASSume that I'm
> a professional journalism speaks of somebody else's ignorance, not mine.)

Read carefully, gatt. I'll type slowly so you can keep up. I didn't
assume you were a journalist – I simply asked the question. And I
wasn't telling you how to do your job. Based on your statements, I do
know that you've had some training in journalism. I was using irony to
point out how absurd it is for you to use your knowledge and training
ONLY when you are getting paid for it.

> But my knowledge and experience in journalism says that when witnesses all
> report something virtually identical and the government officials wrap the
> whole thing in red tape and then stonewall, the truth is going to lie
> somewhere closer to the witnesses than it is to the bureaucrats. "Nothing
> to see here. Move along." Remember the Kursk.

If you want to rehash the Kursk example, start another thread since
that is a different matter.

> >There was nothing in the news article indicating what FSB officials had
> found out at that >point, or were even aware of, other than two aircraft had
> crashed. Are you suggesting
> > that FSB officials should just take media reports at face value without
> independent >confirmation?
>
> Are you putting words in my mouth, "Ace"? Do you do this to ATC too? ("I
> surely hope the same rules don't apply to your recreational flying")

No – just trying to clarify what you are trying to say.

> All I said is, when witnesses report explosions...write this down or sound it
> out...there is EVIDENCE OF EXPLOSIONS.

I agree that's what you said. But when someone else says someone else
said (in this case the media said that witnesses said) it is called
hearsay, not evidence.

> Not proof, not fact, not conclusive data. EVIDENCE. The point is that
> there was evidence, the bureaucrats ignored it and then, gee, Comrade...they
> found evidence of explosions and of terrorism. WOW! I mean, that's some
> real Sherlock work, isn't it?

Not really. It's called deliberate investigative work. Investigators
don't use hearsay as evidence (otherwise investigation would simply be
reading the newspaper). They use it to help find evidence and pursue
investigative theories. Look at the quote you used to start this
thread"

"FSB officials had not YET found evidence of a terrorist act or
explosion..." [my emphasis added]

The part of the quote you left off (conveniently) was "...but ruled
nothing out." Hardly what most people would call "stonewalling" as you
called it earlier, but you can believe whatever you choose to.

Getting back to my original point, the journalist that wrote that
original article did a fine job. He reported what he heard from
witnesses and gave government officials a chance to comment. The quote
he used showed that it was early in the investigation and that
government officials were keeping an open mind as to the cause.

[Jay Honeck]

> > Well that was yesterday's news. Apparently a Chechnian group has now
> > claimed responsibility according to a blurb I heard this morning.
>
> Again I say, Thank God we're not Russia.

I love the way American mainstream media is covering the wave of terrorism
hitting Russia. They keep referring to the terrorists as "Chechen rebels" --
as if these barbarians were some sort of heroes.

Only ONE media outlet -- Fox News -- has openly (at least, while I was
watching) mentioned the fact that these *******s are Muslim extremists, in
the same vein (and probably on the same payroll) as Osama and his lot. See
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/000238.php for some interesting
information on this "rebellion."

It's amazing. These people blow up subways full of innocents, take school
children hostage, and our warped media calls them "rebels."

And people wonder why Fox News is so popular. Gee, I wonder why?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"