Thank God we're not Russia

"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 mo
"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

"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.

gatt wrote:
Something suspicious here?
http://www.smh.com.au/text/articles/...246621809.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

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

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 mo
"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

"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

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

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 mo

"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

gatt wrote:

Something suspicious here?
http://www.smh.com.au/text/articles/...246621809.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.

"gatt" wrote in message ...
Something suspicious here?
http://www.smh.com.au/text/articles/...246621809.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.