11 September 2003
What You Think You Know About the 9/11 Hijackings Is Wrong
On this day of remembrance, in which the families of 9/11 victims remember their murdered loved ones(at the same time as they wonder why our president has done nothing about it except use it as an excuse to pursue only vaguely related foreign policy goals his people already planned, but lacked an excuse till 9/11, and also wonder why New York never saw any of the relief money it was promised), it might be pertinent to direct your attention to this Slate article detailing misconceptions about 9/11.
One link it directs you to is particularly interesting: are you aware(I wasn't) that the idea that the hijackers used box-cutters and plastic knives is completely anecdotal and probably wrong?
As it turns out, we don't really know how they did it. This was just an assumption by investigators based on spurious evidence which has been since accepted as gospel, most likely due to its poetic irony that such a massive attack could be perpetrated by such simple means.
The flight data recorders for three of the four flights(except the one that crashed in Pennsylvania) were completely destroyed. Calls made by passengers conflicted as to weapons: some said flight personnel were stabbed. Others said the terrorists said there was a bomb on board. Others said mace, or a similar sort of spray, was used. And one passenger reported another being shot, according to the FAA:
The American Airlines FAA Principal Security Inspector (PFI) was notified by Suzanne Clark of American airlines Corporate Headquarters that an on board flight attendant contacted American Airlines Operation Center and informed that a passenger located in seat 10B shot and killed a passenger in 9B at 9:20 am. The passenger killed was Daniel Lewin shot by Satam al-Suqama. One bullet was reported to have been fired.
The point of all this is that completely conventional weapons might have slipped past security--things that the security personnel are expecting and are supposed to look for.
Why cover this up? For a couple of reasons. Firstly, it gives an excuse to heighten security in some ways to absurd levels(though weapons still slip through security daily) by claiming any ordinary object could be used. Secondly, though, it releases the airlines, some of whom were major Bush contributors, from potential millions in liability to the families of the victims:
In this case, the function was diversion. This fictoid serves to divert public attentions from the responsibility, and legal liability, of the government and airlines to prevent major weapons— such as guns, bombs, chemical sprays and hunting knives from being carried aboard airplanes. If such illegal devices had been smuggled aboard the planes, the liability could amount to billions of dollars. If, , on the other hand, it could be disseminated that the hijackers had only used plastic knives, such as those provided by the airlines for meals, or box cutters, which were allowed on planes, neither the airlines, the screeners at the airport, or the FAA, which regulates the safety of airports, could be held legally responsible. Paul Pillar, who had headed the CIA's counter-terrorism, could thus explain that"the attack that killed almost 4,000 people used box cutters." This press accepted it as established fact. The New York Times, for example, reported "the hijackers did not use firearms, which would probably have been detected, but apparently wielded box-cutter knives of the type that were then allowed on board but are now banned."
So not only do the airlines avoid liability, but receive an enormous bailout(money that could have gone to NYC, or toward actual, constructive security improvement) which they then maximize by laying off mass amounts of their workers, and ensure that the executives will be the main recipients of this corporate welfare.
Just typical of how 9/11 has had petty advantage taken of it by the corporations and the government, while almost nothing has been done to actually protect Americans. Food for thought.
On this day of remembrance, in which the families of 9/11 victims remember their murdered loved ones(at the same time as they wonder why our president has done nothing about it except use it as an excuse to pursue only vaguely related foreign policy goals his people already planned, but lacked an excuse till 9/11, and also wonder why New York never saw any of the relief money it was promised), it might be pertinent to direct your attention to this Slate article detailing misconceptions about 9/11.
One link it directs you to is particularly interesting: are you aware(I wasn't) that the idea that the hijackers used box-cutters and plastic knives is completely anecdotal and probably wrong?
As it turns out, we don't really know how they did it. This was just an assumption by investigators based on spurious evidence which has been since accepted as gospel, most likely due to its poetic irony that such a massive attack could be perpetrated by such simple means.
The flight data recorders for three of the four flights(except the one that crashed in Pennsylvania) were completely destroyed. Calls made by passengers conflicted as to weapons: some said flight personnel were stabbed. Others said the terrorists said there was a bomb on board. Others said mace, or a similar sort of spray, was used. And one passenger reported another being shot, according to the FAA:
The American Airlines FAA Principal Security Inspector (PFI) was notified by Suzanne Clark of American airlines Corporate Headquarters that an on board flight attendant contacted American Airlines Operation Center and informed that a passenger located in seat 10B shot and killed a passenger in 9B at 9:20 am. The passenger killed was Daniel Lewin shot by Satam al-Suqama. One bullet was reported to have been fired.
The point of all this is that completely conventional weapons might have slipped past security--things that the security personnel are expecting and are supposed to look for.
Why cover this up? For a couple of reasons. Firstly, it gives an excuse to heighten security in some ways to absurd levels(though weapons still slip through security daily) by claiming any ordinary object could be used. Secondly, though, it releases the airlines, some of whom were major Bush contributors, from potential millions in liability to the families of the victims:
In this case, the function was diversion. This fictoid serves to divert public attentions from the responsibility, and legal liability, of the government and airlines to prevent major weapons— such as guns, bombs, chemical sprays and hunting knives from being carried aboard airplanes. If such illegal devices had been smuggled aboard the planes, the liability could amount to billions of dollars. If, , on the other hand, it could be disseminated that the hijackers had only used plastic knives, such as those provided by the airlines for meals, or box cutters, which were allowed on planes, neither the airlines, the screeners at the airport, or the FAA, which regulates the safety of airports, could be held legally responsible. Paul Pillar, who had headed the CIA's counter-terrorism, could thus explain that"the attack that killed almost 4,000 people used box cutters." This press accepted it as established fact. The New York Times, for example, reported "the hijackers did not use firearms, which would probably have been detected, but apparently wielded box-cutter knives of the type that were then allowed on board but are now banned."
So not only do the airlines avoid liability, but receive an enormous bailout(money that could have gone to NYC, or toward actual, constructive security improvement) which they then maximize by laying off mass amounts of their workers, and ensure that the executives will be the main recipients of this corporate welfare.
Just typical of how 9/11 has had petty advantage taken of it by the corporations and the government, while almost nothing has been done to actually protect Americans. Food for thought.
Labels: politics
¶ September 11, 2003
Post a Comment