"Well international laws are merely ones that more than one nation has agreed to."
Well, I concede that international law does exist, but I assert that much of it has no teeth, and also that much of it probably should not exist.
For a good example, we need only look at the example we were already discussing: Iraq. And Afghanistan. There is little doubt that our invasion of Iraq was against international law. And there is little doubt that some of our more recent drone attacks, pretty much by definition, make Barack Obama, by International Law, a murderer and war criminal.
I'm not defending him. But I'd rather not discuss the latter any further. Suffice it to say that it's pretty definitely against international law.
At the same time, the UN is guilty of having committed a few atrocities of its own, and tries to throw its weight around in ways that are not part of its appropriate function anyway. For example, the UN has pressured governments to mandate registration and even confiscation of privately owned firearms, (Venezuela was one country which complied), but that is clearly an internal matter. I can understand them taking a stand against illegal arms trafficking, but private citizen self-defense is absolutely none of their damned business.
If I were in charge of the matter, I would block all United States funding for the UN, including the building, and kick all of the delegates the hell out. They have done (a few) good things, but the rest of the time they are no friends of mine.
I can also offer evidence for this. It is not proof of cause, but there is indisputable correlation:
The stronger our Federal Government has become, and the more it has tried to rule the country from On High and establish uniform National rules rather than let states decide for themselves, the worse our country has been economically. If you graph them on paper the similarity is uncanny; to a point that I think shocks most people.
The buying power of the dollar has been so closely -- but inversely -- related to the size and amount of economic intervention by Government that I think few people would argue with the idea that one must be causing the other. And I leave it as an exercise for the reader to decide for themselves which is which.
Well, I'm not so sure about "rules". Standards, informally agreed upon by much of the rest of the industrialized world, yes. But I would argue that not meeting those standards -- or having a different set of standards -- is not a good justification for war.
Institutionalized physical torture or abuse? I think an argument can be made for that being justification. And certain other things. But the societal roles of men, women, even children? Don't ask me to support war over that. Different cultures are... different. And have been for a very long time.
Just as the United States is a collection of 50+ separate "experiments" in law and justice, I argue that countries should similarly be allowed to set their own rules. One World Law, in my opinion, would be an utter disaster for humanity. Not immediately, perhaps, but eventually.
Just as monoculture crops almost invariably fail in the long run, brought down by a single new blight for which there is little resistance, I think a "monocultural" human society would also, eventually, fail. Diversity increases survivability.
"They were designed to stop the impact of a 707..."
Pardon me. You are correct. It was a 707, not a 727 as I originally stated. My mistake.
But the rest is hogwash. There was nothing about "lost in the fog" or "glancing blows" or "traveling at under maximum speed" in the engineering specifications. It was designed to withstand the impact of a 707. Period.
"The engineers design did take burning into account."
No? I suppose you'd have to ask them. But look up the combustion temperatures of aviation fuels, both types A and B. One is essentially naphtha (similar to gasoline) and the other is basically kerosene.
If you think you can bring down a modern concrete-and-carbon-steel skyscraper with any quantity of either one, I invite you to demonstrate how it's done. Because nobody else has ever managed to do it. Other than 9/11, it would be a world first. Many others have burned, at high temperatures, and some of them for days. But none collapsed.
I didn't write that the steel could not melt, I wrote that aviation fuel is not hot enough to melt it. It was the person to whom I was replying who first used the word "melt", not me. Stop berating me for replying to something someone else said.
In fact, stop berating me altogether. I repeat, one more time: I provided a link to a research paper. If you have a problem with that research paper, I suggest that you contact the authors, or better yet, write a better paper of your own. But arguing with *ME* will get you exactly nowhere. I did not write that paper.
And by the way: nobody so far has offered a single thing that refutes any of the evidence in that paper. Nobody. Not once. And I don't mean here on Slashdot, I mean anybody. Not the government, not even the NIST which was invited to reproduce the results using their own people and samples.
I am not "cherry picking" anything. I am repeating what was said by one of the authors of the paper. Which obviously you have not read. You read the summary? Good. Now read the actual paper and stop arguing with ME, which will get you nowhere.
You (and others here) have kept trying to shoot the messenger. Well guess what, bud? I didn't write the damned thing. And there is more to it than just the summary you read.
One last time: if you can refute the research paper, then do so. Until then, stop wasting everybody's time. I sure as hell won't reply to you anymore.
"Do you REALLY fucking "think" that burning jet fuel can't melt steel?
Ever hear of a profession that's been around for thousands of years called - get this - BLACKSMITH?
Yeah, fire can't melt steel.
YOU FUCKING IDIOT - YOU'RE TOO GOD DAMNED STUPID TO KNOW YOU'RE STUPID."
What a beautiful example of the Dunning-Kruger effect in real life.
No. Just no.
For one thing, blacksmiths did NOT make modern carbon steel. That took industrialization, fantastically hot furnaces, and the introduction of a thing called "coke". Look it up, dumbass.
For another: no, jet fuel does not burn anywhere near that hot. If you can melt a section of 12" steel I-beam with any quantity of jet fuel you want to use -- type A or B, I don't care -- I will personally lobby to get you the Nobel Prize.
"No. There isn't. Being an Alex Jones listener and reader of his site, I've perused nearly all the information of 9/11. NOBODY has produced a single crystallography scan that indicates thermite detection. Well maybe ONE person has, but in science one is not enough. There needs to be independent verification by multiple scientists. That does not exist."
Well, guess what? I am NOT an Alex Jones listener. I have never listened to his shows. Not one.
I provided a link to a research paper. If you can refute it, please do so. Until then, you have no argument to make. Arguing with ME about it is completely pointless.
And there isn't anything "clearly" about it. The 9/11 Commission report is nothing but a joke. The later NIST report ignores many important factors. But perhaps most important of all:
NIST has offered exactly zero evidence that anything about this paper is false. The only argument NIST has made is that the parties involved (reputable industry and university scientists) cannot "prove" that the samples came from where they claim. Which is about the most ridiculous of weak arguments that they could make. Nobody has shown that these people have an axe to grind. They simply found something interesting and studied it.
And when challenged to repeat the study using their own personnel and their own samples, NIST refused.
NOBODY -- not government, engineers, or scientists -- have even tried to offer a single shred of evidence in refutation. So the burden of evidence has so far been met.
And just by the way: the people who found this also found that nobody wanted to touch their story. Then they contacted Alex Jones for assistance. So his later involvement is anything but surprising. It is not exactly as if he had anything to do with it in the beginning.
"Hoax Article Accepted by 'Peer-Reviewed'; OA Bentham Journal"
Okay, smartass. But that wasn't THIS paper. Would you like me to look up and cite the many hoax articles that have been published in Nature and Science and New England Journal of Medicine?
(Hint: the list is very extensive.)
I repeat: if you can refute the actual paper, or show me where someone else has, then do so. But trying to shoot the messenger isn't going to wash.
"In fact, why don't you go over to your neighbors place and start rearranging their furniture to how you think it should be. "
Funny, in a way. This was almost exactly my own argument against invading Iraq. I heard a lot (and from women particularly!) "We should invade them even if they weren't involved in 9/11 because of the terrible way they treat women."
And my argument was: "What business is that of mine, or yours? It may be true by our standards, but how dare you make moral judgments for some other entire culture? What if they came and attacked us, because we don't make women wear burkhas? How would you feel then?"
Further:
"Karma is a bitch. I strongly urge you not to support war on the basis that you feel their culture is immoral. Right now, their women can only gain. YOU, on the other hand, have a lot to lose."
"Just as it was involved with Japan whether it wanted to be or not. (And in the case of Japan the US was far less involved than with Germany at that point)."
Agreed. And somewhat unlike Germany, prior to that attack Japan had made some serious effort to leave the U.S. out of it. It was a rather one-sided decision without much support from others (Yamamoto was dead-set against it, regardless of whether the "awakened a sleeping giant" quote is genuine).
My great concern about terrorism is that most Americans simply don't understand it. And perhaps justifiably, considering the mis-information and inappropriate action that has repeatedly flowed from government. Citizens are left without the information necessary to make any kind of reasonable risk assessment.
Although I might disagree about the specific of Pearl Harbor being debatable (the records are quite specific), nevertheless I believe we agree on most points here.
Analysts have said again and again that part of the terrorism problem was due to former antagonism by the U.S., and another large part due to simple failure of U.S. intelligence regarding the matter, over a decade or more.
I also highly recommend the 2008 doctoral thesis by Max Abrahms, entitled "What Terrorists Really Want". It is available for download with a bit of searching, and it is very enlightening. Abrahms did a meta-analysis of other studies, and his paper puts the lie to many popular assumptions about terrorists.
"I'm curious, what exactly is in the "high tech thermite" to distinguish it from the aluminium dust etc that you'd expect when a huge building collapses?"
I repeat: please see the link I provided above to the abstract of the research paper. Your answers are there.
But I can give you a summary: the microscopic structure of the particles was distinctive. They had at least 3 samples from 3 different sources of building dust, spaced widely apart.
As has been pointed out many times: burning jet fuel cannot "melt" structural steel. It's not even remotely hot enough. It's not even hot enough to seriously weaken it.
But don't take my word for it. Regarding the thermite: see my reply and the link I provided a few comments up. Unless you are qualified to refute reputable experts in the field, then the fact remains that it is well-established that not only thermite, but a particular BRAND of thermite, was present in quantity.
Which is pretty damned strange for an office building, even one with government offices.
Please see my reply and the link above. If you bother to read the research paper, and are qualified to refute it, then do so. Until then, I humbly suggest you STFU.
Abstract here, and there is a downloadable.pdf file.
Not only was it confirmed by other researchers, but by examination of its microscopic composition they narrowed it down to a particular commercial brand, normally available only to government and the military.
"Nonsense. All we have is someone CLAIMING there was thermite."
No, you are talking about the conspiracy-theorist bullshitters. I admit there are plenty of those.
But there is documented, solid and confirmed evidence, by university scientists, that not only was there thermite, it was of a particular, restricted commercial variety.
And not only was there no "1000-degree" fire, it takes at least 2000 degrees (F) to do what is claimed.
"Pilots can't simultaneously defend the cockpit and fly the plane. If somebody on the plane is going to be armed, it needs to be somebody who can spare enough attention to police the situation."
Complete bullshit. Not only are there 2 pilots, for some decades now there has been a little device called an "autopilot".
And autopilots are sophisticated enough that today, they can even land the plane without the pilot having to touch a control.
By the way: Pearl Harbor might be a good analogy, but probably not quite in the way you thought.
It is not conspiracy theory anymore: historical records clearly show that Pearl Harbor was not only anticipated well in advance, but was welcomed by U.S. and European politicians as an excuse to get the U.S. involved in the war.
FDR, in particular, is well-known to have wanted US involvement (despite disapproval of the idea by citizens and Congress). He is on record as having revealed in discussions that he wanted to be involved in the war so that he could be seen as a hero and have a say in dividing up the spoils when it was over.
"It's tricky. Terrorists are looking for soft targets."
It is tricky, in the way you meant, but not tricky in other ways. For example: the U.S. made airplanes even softer targets by disarming everyone else. They even took dull plastic knives off of airplanes, at least for a while!
You do not prevent someone from attacking or terrorizing a crowd of people by disarming all the other people in the crowd! That's not just misguided, it's downright stupid! Yet that is what our bonehead politicians did.
You don't stop violent attackers by preventing other people from defending themselves. That has been tried again and again for millennia, yet has never worked.
And contrary to popular belief (see one comment above), a bullet hole in the side of a modern airliner is no catastrophe. The air compressors are well able to handle such a situation, and a $2 can of insulating foam can seal the hole in a moment or two anyway.
Granted, there's nothing silly about taking terrorism seriously. But it must also be kept in perspective. As mentioned before, a typical American (even a frequent flyer) is far more likely to die from a lightning strike or a fall in the bathtub than become a victim of terrorists.
I think we agree that reasonable safety measures are in order, but that the current situation is ridiculously far from reasonable.
"The THEATER part is the problem, not the public or private part."
Unfortunately, the THEATER part is the whole reason for its existence. They never cared about your security. It was all about getting Americans used to taking orders from government.
"In the U.S. in trains we used to have several companies to choose from."
To be fair: passenger trains had almost entirely faded from existence in the U.S., which was the justification used to form Amtrak in the first place.
The development of (at the time) cheap travel by car and by air, both of which most people vastly preferred to train travel, was the cause of the demise. Not some nefarious government plan. Perhaps passenger rail would have come back on its own, perhaps not.
But regardless: as with most government projects, there is little doubt that Amtrak is an abomination that should have been eliminated long ago.
The Towers were actually designed to withstand a direct hit by a 727... the largest common aircraft at the time of their design.
Why they didn't is a matter of speculation for government-contracted (of course!) engineers and conspiracy theorists.
One thing working in the conspiracy theorists' favor is the fact (discovered by reputable scientists with expertise in the subject and no conflict of interest, and independently verified) that the dust from the buildings contained bits of high-tech thermite. Not your everyday garage variety, either, but real high-tech stuff that is usually only available to government and military.
"It was also legal for pilots to have guns with them."
It still is. The laws that temporarily took guns away from pilots were misguidedly attempting to somehow keep us "safe"... from the very people we were trusting with our lives when we stepped on the plane in the first place.
What a boneheaded, f*ed up thing to do.
Fortunately, some politicians who had at least a few working brain cells left got that situation reversed, and explicitly made it legal (again) for pilots to carry guns.
"The reason why Thunderbolt is so fast is that it doesn't have to worry about cable length."
That's not really an explanation, for a couple of reasons.
First, USB cables 10' and longer are perfectly viable and easily available. Cable length simply isn't an issue probably around 99.5% of the time. Which would mean Thunderbolt is a very expensive solution to a rather rare problem.
Second, the "active" components of Thunderbolt cables are at the ends, not in the middle. Except for a slight amount of signal degradation at the connector itself (I am aware that becomes more of an issue at high data rates but it can be minimized with good design), this still does not explain why those "active" components can't be moved to the other side of the connector. Which, as I mentioned before, makes the cable much cheaper.
Slashdot Mirror
"Well international laws are merely ones that more than one nation has agreed to."
Well, I concede that international law does exist, but I assert that much of it has no teeth, and also that much of it probably should not exist.
For a good example, we need only look at the example we were already discussing: Iraq. And Afghanistan. There is little doubt that our invasion of Iraq was against international law. And there is little doubt that some of our more recent drone attacks, pretty much by definition, make Barack Obama, by International Law, a murderer and war criminal.
I'm not defending him. But I'd rather not discuss the latter any further. Suffice it to say that it's pretty definitely against international law.
At the same time, the UN is guilty of having committed a few atrocities of its own, and tries to throw its weight around in ways that are not part of its appropriate function anyway. For example, the UN has pressured governments to mandate registration and even confiscation of privately owned firearms, (Venezuela was one country which complied), but that is clearly an internal matter. I can understand them taking a stand against illegal arms trafficking, but private citizen self-defense is absolutely none of their damned business.
If I were in charge of the matter, I would block all United States funding for the UN, including the building, and kick all of the delegates the hell out. They have done (a few) good things, but the rest of the time they are no friends of mine.
I can also offer evidence for this. It is not proof of cause, but there is indisputable correlation:
The stronger our Federal Government has become, and the more it has tried to rule the country from On High and establish uniform National rules rather than let states decide for themselves, the worse our country has been economically. If you graph them on paper the similarity is uncanny; to a point that I think shocks most people.
The buying power of the dollar has been so closely -- but inversely -- related to the size and amount of economic intervention by Government that I think few people would argue with the idea that one must be causing the other. And I leave it as an exercise for the reader to decide for themselves which is which.
Well, I'm not so sure about "rules". Standards, informally agreed upon by much of the rest of the industrialized world, yes. But I would argue that not meeting those standards -- or having a different set of standards -- is not a good justification for war.
Institutionalized physical torture or abuse? I think an argument can be made for that being justification. And certain other things. But the societal roles of men, women, even children? Don't ask me to support war over that. Different cultures are... different. And have been for a very long time.
Just as the United States is a collection of 50+ separate "experiments" in law and justice, I argue that countries should similarly be allowed to set their own rules. One World Law, in my opinion, would be an utter disaster for humanity. Not immediately, perhaps, but eventually.
Just as monoculture crops almost invariably fail in the long run, brought down by a single new blight for which there is little resistance, I think a "monocultural" human society would also, eventually, fail. Diversity increases survivability.
"They were designed to stop the impact of a 707..."
Pardon me. You are correct. It was a 707, not a 727 as I originally stated. My mistake.
But the rest is hogwash. There was nothing about "lost in the fog" or "glancing blows" or "traveling at under maximum speed" in the engineering specifications. It was designed to withstand the impact of a 707. Period.
"The engineers design did take burning into account."
No? I suppose you'd have to ask them. But look up the combustion temperatures of aviation fuels, both types A and B. One is essentially naphtha (similar to gasoline) and the other is basically kerosene.
If you think you can bring down a modern concrete-and-carbon-steel skyscraper with any quantity of either one, I invite you to demonstrate how it's done. Because nobody else has ever managed to do it. Other than 9/11, it would be a world first. Many others have burned, at high temperatures, and some of them for days. But none collapsed.
I didn't write that the steel could not melt, I wrote that aviation fuel is not hot enough to melt it. It was the person to whom I was replying who first used the word "melt", not me. Stop berating me for replying to something someone else said.
In fact, stop berating me altogether. I repeat, one more time: I provided a link to a research paper. If you have a problem with that research paper, I suggest that you contact the authors, or better yet, write a better paper of your own. But arguing with *ME* will get you exactly nowhere. I did not write that paper.
And by the way: nobody so far has offered a single thing that refutes any of the evidence in that paper. Nobody. Not once. And I don't mean here on Slashdot, I mean anybody. Not the government, not even the NIST which was invited to reproduce the results using their own people and samples.
I am not "cherry picking" anything. I am repeating what was said by one of the authors of the paper. Which obviously you have not read. You read the summary? Good. Now read the actual paper and stop arguing with ME, which will get you nowhere.
You (and others here) have kept trying to shoot the messenger. Well guess what, bud? I didn't write the damned thing. And there is more to it than just the summary you read.
One last time: if you can refute the research paper, then do so. Until then, stop wasting everybody's time. I sure as hell won't reply to you anymore.
I have no idea how that "steel" hangar was constructed, but typically they were wooden-framed quonsets, with steel skins. Hardly the same thing.
Just no. Prior to 9/11, * NO * modern steel office "skyscraper" in the world was known to have collapsed due to fire. None. Not a single one. Ever.
There were some that burned. Certainly. In fact some of them burned for days.
But they didn't collapse. None of them. Ever.
"Do you REALLY fucking "think" that burning jet fuel can't melt steel?
Ever hear of a profession that's been around for thousands of years called - get this - BLACKSMITH?
Yeah, fire can't melt steel.
YOU FUCKING IDIOT - YOU'RE TOO GOD DAMNED STUPID TO KNOW YOU'RE STUPID."
What a beautiful example of the Dunning-Kruger effect in real life.
No. Just no.
For one thing, blacksmiths did NOT make modern carbon steel. That took industrialization, fantastically hot furnaces, and the introduction of a thing called "coke". Look it up, dumbass.
For another: no, jet fuel does not burn anywhere near that hot. If you can melt a section of 12" steel I-beam with any quantity of jet fuel you want to use -- type A or B, I don't care -- I will personally lobby to get you the Nobel Prize.
"No. There isn't. Being an Alex Jones listener and reader of his site, I've perused nearly all the information of 9/11. NOBODY has produced a single crystallography scan that indicates thermite detection. Well maybe ONE person has, but in science one is not enough. There needs to be independent verification by multiple scientists. That does not exist."
Well, guess what? I am NOT an Alex Jones listener. I have never listened to his shows. Not one.
I provided a link to a research paper. If you can refute it, please do so. Until then, you have no argument to make. Arguing with ME about it is completely pointless.
And there isn't anything "clearly" about it. The 9/11 Commission report is nothing but a joke. The later NIST report ignores many important factors. But perhaps most important of all:
NIST has offered exactly zero evidence that anything about this paper is false. The only argument NIST has made is that the parties involved (reputable industry and university scientists) cannot "prove" that the samples came from where they claim. Which is about the most ridiculous of weak arguments that they could make. Nobody has shown that these people have an axe to grind. They simply found something interesting and studied it.
And when challenged to repeat the study using their own personnel and their own samples, NIST refused.
NOBODY -- not government, engineers, or scientists -- have even tried to offer a single shred of evidence in refutation. So the burden of evidence has so far been met.
And just by the way: the people who found this also found that nobody wanted to touch their story. Then they contacted Alex Jones for assistance. So his later involvement is anything but surprising. It is not exactly as if he had anything to do with it in the beginning.
"Hoax Article Accepted by 'Peer-Reviewed'; OA Bentham Journal"
Okay, smartass. But that wasn't THIS paper. Would you like me to look up and cite the many hoax articles that have been published in Nature and Science and New England Journal of Medicine?
(Hint: the list is very extensive.)
I repeat: if you can refute the actual paper, or show me where someone else has, then do so. But trying to shoot the messenger isn't going to wash.
"In fact, why don't you go over to your neighbors place and start rearranging their furniture to how you think it should be. "
Funny, in a way. This was almost exactly my own argument against invading Iraq. I heard a lot (and from women particularly!) "We should invade them even if they weren't involved in 9/11 because of the terrible way they treat women."
And my argument was: "What business is that of mine, or yours? It may be true by our standards, but how dare you make moral judgments for some other entire culture? What if they came and attacked us, because we don't make women wear burkhas? How would you feel then?"
Further:
"Karma is a bitch. I strongly urge you not to support war on the basis that you feel their culture is immoral. Right now, their women can only gain. YOU, on the other hand, have a lot to lose."
"Just as it was involved with Japan whether it wanted to be or not. (And in the case of Japan the US was far less involved than with Germany at that point)."
Agreed. And somewhat unlike Germany, prior to that attack Japan had made some serious effort to leave the U.S. out of it. It was a rather one-sided decision without much support from others (Yamamoto was dead-set against it, regardless of whether the "awakened a sleeping giant" quote is genuine).
My great concern about terrorism is that most Americans simply don't understand it. And perhaps justifiably, considering the mis-information and inappropriate action that has repeatedly flowed from government. Citizens are left without the information necessary to make any kind of reasonable risk assessment.
Although I might disagree about the specific of Pearl Harbor being debatable (the records are quite specific), nevertheless I believe we agree on most points here.
Analysts have said again and again that part of the terrorism problem was due to former antagonism by the U.S., and another large part due to simple failure of U.S. intelligence regarding the matter, over a decade or more.
I also highly recommend the 2008 doctoral thesis by Max Abrahms, entitled "What Terrorists Really Want". It is available for download with a bit of searching, and it is very enlightening. Abrahms did a meta-analysis of other studies, and his paper puts the lie to many popular assumptions about terrorists.
"I'm curious, what exactly is in the "high tech thermite" to distinguish it from the aluminium dust etc that you'd expect when a huge building collapses?"
I repeat: please see the link I provided above to the abstract of the research paper. Your answers are there.
But I can give you a summary: the microscopic structure of the particles was distinctive. They had at least 3 samples from 3 different sources of building dust, spaced widely apart.
As has been pointed out many times: burning jet fuel cannot "melt" structural steel. It's not even remotely hot enough. It's not even hot enough to seriously weaken it.
But don't take my word for it. Regarding the thermite: see my reply and the link I provided a few comments up. Unless you are qualified to refute reputable experts in the field, then the fact remains that it is well-established that not only thermite, but a particular BRAND of thermite, was present in quantity.
Which is pretty damned strange for an office building, even one with government offices.
Please see my reply and the link above. If you bother to read the research paper, and are qualified to refute it, then do so. Until then, I humbly suggest you STFU.
Abstract here, and there is a downloadable .pdf file.
Not only was it confirmed by other researchers, but by examination of its microscopic composition they narrowed it down to a particular commercial brand, normally available only to government and the military.
"Nonsense. All we have is someone CLAIMING there was thermite."
No, you are talking about the conspiracy-theorist bullshitters. I admit there are plenty of those.
But there is documented, solid and confirmed evidence, by university scientists, that not only was there thermite, it was of a particular, restricted commercial variety.
And not only was there no "1000-degree" fire, it takes at least 2000 degrees (F) to do what is claimed.
"Pilots can't simultaneously defend the cockpit and fly the plane. If somebody on the plane is going to be armed, it needs to be somebody who can spare enough attention to police the situation."
Complete bullshit. Not only are there 2 pilots, for some decades now there has been a little device called an "autopilot".
And autopilots are sophisticated enough that today, they can even land the plane without the pilot having to touch a control.
By the way: Pearl Harbor might be a good analogy, but probably not quite in the way you thought.
It is not conspiracy theory anymore: historical records clearly show that Pearl Harbor was not only anticipated well in advance, but was welcomed by U.S. and European politicians as an excuse to get the U.S. involved in the war.
FDR, in particular, is well-known to have wanted US involvement (despite disapproval of the idea by citizens and Congress). He is on record as having revealed in discussions that he wanted to be involved in the war so that he could be seen as a hero and have a say in dividing up the spoils when it was over.
"It's tricky. Terrorists are looking for soft targets."
It is tricky, in the way you meant, but not tricky in other ways. For example: the U.S. made airplanes even softer targets by disarming everyone else. They even took dull plastic knives off of airplanes, at least for a while!
You do not prevent someone from attacking or terrorizing a crowd of people by disarming all the other people in the crowd! That's not just misguided, it's downright stupid! Yet that is what our bonehead politicians did.
You don't stop violent attackers by preventing other people from defending themselves. That has been tried again and again for millennia, yet has never worked.
And contrary to popular belief (see one comment above), a bullet hole in the side of a modern airliner is no catastrophe. The air compressors are well able to handle such a situation, and a $2 can of insulating foam can seal the hole in a moment or two anyway.
Granted, there's nothing silly about taking terrorism seriously. But it must also be kept in perspective. As mentioned before, a typical American (even a frequent flyer) is far more likely to die from a lightning strike or a fall in the bathtub than become a victim of terrorists.
I think we agree that reasonable safety measures are in order, but that the current situation is ridiculously far from reasonable.
"The THEATER part is the problem, not the public or private part."
Unfortunately, the THEATER part is the whole reason for its existence. They never cared about your security. It was all about getting Americans used to taking orders from government.
"In the U.S. in trains we used to have several companies to choose from."
To be fair: passenger trains had almost entirely faded from existence in the U.S., which was the justification used to form Amtrak in the first place.
The development of (at the time) cheap travel by car and by air, both of which most people vastly preferred to train travel, was the cause of the demise. Not some nefarious government plan. Perhaps passenger rail would have come back on its own, perhaps not.
But regardless: as with most government projects, there is little doubt that Amtrak is an abomination that should have been eliminated long ago.
The Towers were actually designed to withstand a direct hit by a 727... the largest common aircraft at the time of their design.
Why they didn't is a matter of speculation for government-contracted (of course!) engineers and conspiracy theorists.
One thing working in the conspiracy theorists' favor is the fact (discovered by reputable scientists with expertise in the subject and no conflict of interest, and independently verified) that the dust from the buildings contained bits of high-tech thermite. Not your everyday garage variety, either, but real high-tech stuff that is usually only available to government and military.
"It was also legal for pilots to have guns with them."
It still is. The laws that temporarily took guns away from pilots were misguidedly attempting to somehow keep us "safe"... from the very people we were trusting with our lives when we stepped on the plane in the first place.
What a boneheaded, f*ed up thing to do.
Fortunately, some politicians who had at least a few working brain cells left got that situation reversed, and explicitly made it legal (again) for pilots to carry guns.
"The reason why Thunderbolt is so fast is that it doesn't have to worry about cable length."
That's not really an explanation, for a couple of reasons.
First, USB cables 10' and longer are perfectly viable and easily available. Cable length simply isn't an issue probably around 99.5% of the time. Which would mean Thunderbolt is a very expensive solution to a rather rare problem.
Second, the "active" components of Thunderbolt cables are at the ends, not in the middle. Except for a slight amount of signal degradation at the connector itself (I am aware that becomes more of an issue at high data rates but it can be minimized with good design), this still does not explain why those "active" components can't be moved to the other side of the connector. Which, as I mentioned before, makes the cable much cheaper.