Thank God we're not Russia

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

"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" 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

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

"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 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.

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

"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

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"

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.