I was a consultant for a company that banned the use of box cutters for all their employees after 2 incidents. I can't even imagine a work place incident involving one of these things.

At 0:26 you can see where his box cutters went through to the paper. I would have hated to see cuts on that guitar, the way he opened it.

>> ^xxovercastxx:

>> ^marbles:
The map is based on images from a 2002 study at MIT Lincoln Laboratory.
The notes in the study indicate that the map is based on NIMA/USGS data. This data is publicly (though not necessarily freely) available. This brings me back to my original comment on the map. If this is simply a projection based on topographic maps (as the notes from the study itself seem, to me, to imply), how is it honest for the video to say almost nobody could have known about the location of radar gaps?


You seem to be missing the point. Even if you were to somehow find out the location and range of the radar stations from NIMA/USGS, you still wouldn't know for sure where the gaps in coverage were. And you wouldn't know if there was other radar networks you were unaware of.

Even a so-called coverage map would only be an estimate. If my house was in a rural area, how would I know if I had cell phone service without actually having a cell phone to test it?

Seems like a lot of potentially fruitless work for a suicidal terrorist with box cutters to be planning for. Why bother messing with the transponder anyway? You've already succeeded if you actually managed to seize the plane using only box cutters. Seems like you wouldn't want to waste any extra time in the air and get to your target. But somehow the hijackers knew where the gaps were and coordinated the hijackings with precision.

I guess it's possible for air traffic controllers to be aware of locations where radar coverage is low and expect poor quality responses, but still this wouldn't necessarily be a consistent problem. And not something they would be focused on too much anyway as long as the plane was responding to commands.

The bottom line is none of this was investigated. So maybe the video is making a valid assumption based on what we do know. So how is it honest for you to say he's lying and hinge your whole criticism on one detail that you don't even know yourself to be false.

Unless you got something else?

>> ^MarineGunrock:

I know. Fuckin' box cutters. I allllmost want to say we deserved it for having a nation full of such pussies that they wouldn't stand up to some fuckin' morons with box cutters. I mean, they were going to die either way. Should have at least fucking TRIED. >> ^waynef100:
Anti-escalation policies allowed 9/11 to happen. They had box cutters right?>> ^MarineGunrock:
Anti-escalation policies can get people killed. Some robbers will just as easily shoot someone complying with their demands ans someone who tried to resist. I'd take the shot in a heartbeat.




and what exactly gives you the right to judge people in that situation? you of course would have gone full John McClane on them and save the day would you? It's an incredibly unsensitive thing to say something like that.

I know. Fuckin' box cutters. I allllmost want to say we deserved it for having a nation full of such pussies that they wouldn't stand up to some fuckin' morons with box cutters. I mean, they were going to die either way. Should have at least fucking TRIED. >> ^waynef100:

Anti-escalation policies allowed 9/11 to happen. They had box cutters right?>> ^MarineGunrock:
Anti-escalation policies can get people killed. Some robbers will just as easily shoot someone complying with their demands ans someone who tried to resist. I'd take the shot in a heartbeat.

Anti-escalation policies allowed 9/11 to happen. They had box cutters right?>> ^MarineGunrock:

Anti-escalation policies can get people killed. Some robbers will just as easily shoot someone complying with their demands ans someone who tried to resist. I'd take the shot in a heartbeat.

>> ^RadHazG:

The trouble with all the vehement argument against these old lady pat downs or wheelchair or baby or whatever is that if you were going to hid a small bomb or some kind of weapon, these would be the prospective ideal person to plant them on. Because nobody would think to check your child diaper for box cutter right? Surely not they'd be considered stupid. Right up until some nutjobs actually do just that. So as silly as it is, to today's security rabid airport this has some sense behind it.
Oh and Rhesus? You can go ahead and fight them if you want... but the reality is you either want to get on that plane or you don't. And one of those requires a pat down these days. Slightly silly? Sure. Still reality. Petition the airlines or something, arguing inside at the checkpoint is idiocy on a whole new scale that affects nothing.


security rabid airports have fucking zero sense behind em. the US airport security measures are ineffective in that the primary focus is searching out weapons and/or explosives, as opposed to searching out persons who would use weapons or explosives.

>> ^RadHazG:

The trouble with all the vehement argument against these old lady pat downs or wheelchair or baby or whatever is that if you were going to hid a small bomb or some kind of weapon, these would be the prospective ideal person to plant them on. Because nobody would think to check your child diaper for box cutter right? Surely not they'd be considered stupid. Right up until some nutjobs actually do just that. So as silly as it is, to today's security rabid airport this has some sense behind it.
Oh and Rhesus? You can go ahead and fight them if you want... but the reality is you either want to get on that plane or you don't. And one of those requires a pat down these days. Slightly silly? Sure. Still reality. Petition the airlines or something, arguing inside at the checkpoint is idiocy on a whole new scale that affects nothing.


That's right: if we don't finger the toddler, the terrorists win. You have an awful sense of how to effect change in this world. Petition the airline? And you call my idea idiotic?

The trouble with all the vehement argument against these old lady pat downs or wheelchair or baby or whatever is that if you were going to hid a small bomb or some kind of weapon, these would be the prospective ideal person to plant them on. Because nobody would think to check your child diaper for box cutter right? Surely not they'd be considered stupid. Right up until some nutjobs actually do just that. So as silly as it is, to today's security rabid airport this has some sense behind it.

Oh and Rhesus? You can go ahead and fight them if you want... but the reality is you either want to get on that plane or you don't. And one of those requires a pat down these days. Slightly silly? Sure. Still reality. Petition the airlines or something, arguing inside at the checkpoint is idiocy on a whole new scale that affects nothing.

>> ^Bruti79:

Derren Brown said it best: "Extra ordinary statements require extra ordinary proof to back it up."
Showing this guy built steel box cutters (which were impressive) to show how to make cuts, isn't extraordinary enough to prove that the US government took down their own buildings. You still need to find the answers to this things like: Why? How? When did they set it up? And if they're so logistically sound to plant explosives in three buildings and make it look like a terror attack, then why couldn't they plan a strategy for Iraq that matched it?
Jinx said it best: "Plane hit building. Building collapse."
Until someone recreates a Skyscraper in the desert, built the same way the WTC and flies a plane into it, and it doesn't fall. You're not going to convince people that it wasn't an inside job =\


I couldn't agree more. Until someone rebuilds the trade center exactly, and flies a plane into it, and it falls, I won't believe planes alone can bring down buildings.

Derren Brown said it best: "Extra ordinary statements require extra ordinary proof to back it up."

Showing this guy built steel box cutters (which were impressive) to show how to make cuts, isn't extraordinary enough to prove that the US government took down their own buildings. You still need to find the answers to this things like: Why? How? When did they set it up? And if they're so logistically sound to plant explosives in three buildings and make it look like a terror attack, then why couldn't they plan a strategy for Iraq that matched it?

Jinx said it best: "Plane hit building. Building collapse."

Until someone recreates a Skyscraper in the desert, built the same way the WTC and flies a plane into it, and it doesn't fall. You're not going to convince people that it wasn't an inside job =\

Only thing missing: Free Box Cutters at the door!
http://videosift.com/video/SNL-Black-Friday

Box cutter not recommended.

>> ^Lodurr:
Their goal isn't a Taliban-controlled world, but an Islamic theocratic-controlled one, and to further that goal they don't need an army or air force. All they needed were a few pilots and some box cutters to inch us closer to that "holy war."

The thing the Taliban wants most of all is for people to leave Afghanistan alone.

And "Al Qaeda" is really a little pipe-dream boogie man compliments of the CIA.

The middle east, probably more than anything, just wants a major reduction of western influence and interdiction in their countries.

Three countries needed 9/11 more than anything:

1) America, for a good reason to invade Iraq,
2) Saudi Arabia, for a good reason to get US troops off their soil, and
3) Israel, to provide a long-term buffer-zone of US troops and weaponry between them and Iran.

9/11 was an inside job, and the three countries above are the prime suspects.