babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


Post New Topic  Post A Reply
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » right brain babble   » humanities & science   » So if the Pentagon believes in evolution...

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: So if the Pentagon believes in evolution...
bittersweet
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2474

posted 26 November 2004 08:37 PM      Profile for bittersweet     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
The Pentagon is turning biologists' knowledge of evolution into a computer program to predict terrorist threats. Andrew Parker (In the Blink of an Eye) is helping them see the Cambrian explosion as an arms race.

Pity the poor fundies: Evolution is Patriotic. Is nothing sacred?

Click


From: land of the midnight lotus | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
Agent 204
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4668

posted 26 November 2004 08:47 PM      Profile for Agent 204   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
That's a pretty interesting story. It'd be cool to work on the project, though totally unethical of course.

It's interesting to see how scientists who lack political sophistication will behave in times like this. In Richard Feynman's autobiography he talks a lot about his days working on the Manhattan Project, and what's striking is that he doesn't really offer any opinion on the bomb, pro or anti. To him, it was just the most amazing research project he could have hoped for.

And of course we have Tom Lehrer's take on the subject:

quote:

Don't say that he's hypocritical
Say rather that he's apolitical
"Once the rockets are up, who cares where they come down
That's not my department," says Wernher von Braun


From: home of the Guess Who | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged
Papal Bull
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7050

posted 27 November 2004 01:16 AM      Profile for Papal Bull   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I'm not sure if I'm in awe at the brilliance of this or shaking in fear of the brilliance of this.
From: Vatican's best darned ranch | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
fuslim
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5546

posted 27 November 2004 01:51 AM      Profile for fuslim     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Ah yes, the evolution of terrorism...

In which 9/11 stands out like a Beethoven amongst a bunch of rock banging orangutans.

Moreover, a Beethoven with no parents...and no children.

I always wondered when someone would wonder how 9/11 evolved, and from what.

BTW, my apologies to Beethoven. It was just the first comparison that came to mind.


From: Vancouver BC | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
aRoused
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1962

posted 27 November 2004 09:11 AM      Profile for aRoused     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Having just watched a BBC2 documentary on the bombing of the King David hotel, I'm going to say it evolved from that.
From: The King's Royal Burgh of Eoforwich | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged
Rand McNally
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5297

posted 27 November 2004 02:48 PM      Profile for Rand McNally     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Having just watched a BBC2 documentary on the bombing of the King David hotel, I'm going to say it evolved from that.

Yes, like many great evils in history, terrorism can be traced back to Jewish origins. No political group had ever used terror tactics before 1946. Groups like the Black Hand and the Ku Klux Klan were just debate clubs.

The fact that one wing of the King David was used exclusive by British military and administrators does not matter, the fact that the Irgun called ahead to avoid casualties, not important. Many people on this board dislike it when people fighting the US in Iraq are referred to as terrorists when they are attacking military targets. I think the same logic holds here. The King David was primarily military target.

Also as an aside the program is not designed to look for the beginning of terrorism, it is meant to be a predictive tool.

[ 27 November 2004: Message edited by: Rand McNally ]


From: Manitoba | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
fuslim
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5546

posted 28 November 2004 06:39 AM      Profile for fuslim     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I think my point about 9/11 is that there is no parent 'crime'.

Up until 9/11, and ever since, all bombings have been the equivalent of rock throwing. Basically either strapping explosives to yourself or a vehicle and blowing yourself up.

This sort of terrorism requires not much other than access to explosives. Any dimwit can be taught to drive a car, or tie explosives to their body.

9/11 stands out as a crime requiring a high degree of technological knowledge and skill, as well as a high degree of intelligence (of the KGB or CIA kind).

Whoever had the 9/11 idea in the first place must have known the NORAD/USAF response time was about 18-20 mins. This has been public knowledge for a while. Certainly since Payne Stewart had his unfortunate accident in 1999.

They would also know that communications between ATC and aircraft take place on a very frequent basis, and that transcripts of those conversations are kept.

In the case of Payne Stewart, there were seven conversations between ATC and his flight between 9:19 and 9:27.

Knowing this, what would the planner do to avoid detection long enough to carry out the attacks?

This is a whole different kettle of fish than a car bomb.

And apparently they didn't learn anything from the 9/11 attacks, 'cause it hasn't happened since. No follow up attacks in a similar vein.

That's what I was talking about in reference to evolution...


From: Vancouver BC | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 28 November 2004 08:35 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I'm not sure that I agree, fuslim.

I can see that preparing for 9/11 required preparation of a different order. But actually carrying out the attacks was not so different from car-bombing or boat-bombing, both of which had been done many times before. A plane is just another kind of vehicle, after all.

The hardest part would have been getting operatives into the U.S. and then supporting them there. The articles on the 9/11 commish that I've read list an astonishing number of cases where operatives were ID'd, most of which were not acted on effectively because the U.S. intelligence agencies appear to have been so dysfunctional on so many levels, and also because the new Bush admin was so intent on rejecting the focus of the previous admin.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289

posted 28 November 2004 10:42 AM      Profile for remind     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Unreal, they spend all this money to develop a system that predicts counter measures for terrorists. When indeed the money could be used to halt the plight of those who become what some call terrorists because of things done to them.

Furthermore, it suggests there is really no willingness on the part of any governments involved in this project to stop warfare and aggression. In fact, it suggests otherwise.


From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
fuslim
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5546

posted 29 November 2004 02:30 AM      Profile for fuslim     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
A plane is just another kind of vehicle, after all.

The hardest part would have been getting operatives into the U.S. and then supporting them there.


I respectfully disagree. A commercial jetliner is not 'just another vehicle'. Jetliners are the highest degree of technology and automation outside of the space program.

Here's what Mohammed Atta's flight instructor (Rudi Dekkers) said in an interview. The interview was conducted by Jared Israel around noon, 13 September, 2001.

quote:
Israel: You're probably getting 3 million calls, right?

Dekkers: No, five million.

Israel: Ok, I'm going to keep you on for ten seconds. I just have a very quick question to ask you. Emperors-Clothes, we're a news Website. Do you train people on the actual planes that were used in that horrible thing in NY?

Dekkers: No sir. We train small single engine, small multi-engine airplanes. And they are good for four people; that's it. That's not turbine. Total different systems. Not capable to fly anything like that. I have learned yesterday from the media - you are talking to Rudi Dekkers.

Israel: Could you spell your name?

Dekkers: R-u-d-i D-e-k-k-e-r-s.

Israel: And you're talking to Jared Israel at Emperor's Clothes which is at www.tenc.net and is very skeptical about the story because it didn't make sense.

Dekkers: No, what happened was after the training they had here they went to another flight school in Pompano Beach and they had jet training there, simulator or big planes, but there is where they conducted the training to do what they had to do.

Israel: Are you sure of that?

Dekkers: Yeah we have heard that from several directions.

Israel: But even so, with the training you would get would you trust somebody to get in a plane and fly?

Dekkers: No, I fly 20 years in these kind of small planes and I would not do for a million dollars to take over that cockpit.

Israel: So it's still questionable, isn't it?

Dekkers: Oh, you bet. (Phone rings.) One second...(Off line) Larry, Larry keep on the line I have 30 seconds and then I am with you...(Back on line) 30 seconds.

Israel: Yes. You're very helpful. Your point is the more sophisticated training with the other place but that might give you a certificate but would you trust somebody to do the kind of sophisticated thing they did?

Dekkers: No they didn't have the certificate to do that. They only had only a multi-commercial license but not for commercial airlines. That is a different license. But these people didn't need a license, so that's another question.

Israel: But wouldn't what they did require sophistication?

Dekkers: Yeah, they want to that school, I have heard the name, they call it a jet center for simulator training, there is no way - this is not my opinion.

My opinion is I don't think it is possible. I have spoken to many captains from the airlines and they say there is no way what the planes did they could have done that.

They changed altitude. They changed speed. They changed direction. They had to know about the equipment to do what they had to do and there is no way that could have been done.


Or perhaps I should put this another way.

There is no way for 9/11 to work without participation from someone with access to Air Traffic Control.

Usually when I say that the listener assumes I mean American participation. I do not. I mean participation by persons unknown who had access to the central computers which contain all the flight plans and paths of all commercial aircraft in the US, and who had intelligence as to how NORAD monitors civilian flights.

The world of ATC is a virtual world. All information is fed to humans via computer. If someone could hack the central ATC computer, the rest of the scenario becomes almost simple.

Without the participation of persons unknown on the ground, the scenario is impossible.

I realize this is not the thread for this topic, but believe me, there are a million reasons why 9/11 could not have happened the way it did without someone on the ground coordinating events.

The real question is who?? and why??


From: Vancouver BC | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 29 November 2004 09:56 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Oh. Well, you've stopped me in my tracks, fuslim. I didn't know those things.
From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Panama Jack
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6478

posted 29 November 2004 10:42 AM      Profile for Panama Jack     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by fuslim:

The real question is who?? and why??


Answer: any and all who stand to benefit from an Orwellian perpetual war!

One particularly interesting site:

[/URL] [Not working right now....mmmm... hope it's just a temporary server problem]


It should be noted the [URL=http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1153513,00.html]Pentagon also believes in climate change's ability to wreck social chaos
and (mmm....) more war in the upcoming decades.


From: Vancouver | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
fuslim
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5546

posted 29 November 2004 06:35 PM      Profile for fuslim     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Oh. Well, you've stopped me in my tracks, fuslim. I didn't know those things.

Before I proceed, I should warn you that most people think I'm just plain crazy, so don't feel bad if you feel the same way...

The NTSB (National Transportation and Safety Board) report of the Payne Stewart crash makes very interesting reading.

Most important is that it occurred in 1999, two years prior to 9/11. Thus, the actions, and reactions, of ATC and the military were not coloured by post 9/11 vigilance.

Here's a website which has the links to that report (I would link directly to that report but this is slightly more convenient in that there are separate links for the summary and the full report).

http://www.airsafe.com/stewart.htm

One of the things that really stands out for me is the amount of communication between ATC and the aircraft, and the fact that there are recordings of those conversations.

That means that there are recordings of all the communications between ATC and the 9/11 flights.

Another interesting thing about 9/11, is that in at least one case (the last flight, which went down in Pennsylvania) the flight plan was 'refiled' while the plane was in the air, and shortly before it went down. This was reported on 9/12, in a variety of media.

I always wondered how (and why) the hijackers contacted ATC to refile the flight plan. I imagined this conversation.

"Hello, Mr Air Traffic Control? This is Wahleed. The regular pilot guy got sick and asked me to fly this thing. Could you tell me which way is Washington, please?"

This seems ridiculous on the face of it. Yet, if the official story is true, something like this must have happened.

On the other hand, someone with direct access to ATC could refile the flight plan no problem.

Refiling the flight plan could make the flight path 'official', which would remove it from suspicion, and remove it from NORAD's view.

What better way to avoid detection than just making whatever the aircraft does a part of the filed flight plan?

There is also the flight that hit the Pentagon, where only half of the flight path is known. According to the story, there was a 'software anomaly' which prevented the system from tracking it. Hmmmmm...

To return to the original point, air traffic around the world is subject to an extensive control system, and is tightly monitored at all times. Obviously, this control is tightest in the US, which has the bulk of the world's air traffic.

Air traffic is also subject to security concerns which do not exist for other forms of transport.

Some enemy is not going to invade the US via rail (pun intended), boat, or automobile.

In one conversation I had I asked why there had been no repeat of 9/11. They said, "Oh,they'll do it different next time."

My response was that after such unbelieveable success, why do something different? What are you going to do to top 9/11?

And yet, here we are, back to car bombs and people bombs.

9/11 was an evolutionary anomaly apparently.


From: Vancouver BC | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca