logo Sign In

Gaffer Tape

User Group
Members
Join date
2-Jun-2005
Last activity
13-Nov-2019
Posts
7,996

Post History

Post
#440019
Topic
The Conspiracy Theories Thread(was: 911 Conspiracy theories)
Time

This is true.  Like I said, it was safer for them to just lie, but on this flight, with everything else working against them, it seemed like just killing them would be easier, especially considering they did grow grapefruit-sized balls and start fighting back.  They had a bit more than plastic knives, like Leather Mans and mace (although I don't know if they had mace on that plane).  I'm just wondering if we're thinking about it from a post-911 perspective.  Yeah, if anyone tried that shit today, I'm sure the entire contingent of the plane would be on them in a moment.  But the fact is that the hijackers DID use those limited resources to attack and kill members of the crew and cow the rest of the passengers into submission even though they were greatly outnumbered.  The plane was compartmentalized.  They could have divided the passengers into groups, bound and gagged them (under the threat of death), and executed them without any of the other groups knowing that anything was going on.  Of course, that's just my opinion, but since they seemed so easy to take control of in the first place, it doesn't seem like it'd be that hard to physically restrain them either, not to mention it would be quite a bit safer for the hijackers.  And according to what I read, one of the bodies pulled out of the wreckage of the WTC debris was a flight attendant who was bound with what seemed to be plastic handcuffs, meaning they could have had access to them AND that plastic handcuffs could have gotten through airport security (hell, a four-inch utility knife was found on one of the hijackers going through security, and that was apparently perfectly fine back in the day).

Post
#440010
Topic
The Conspiracy Theories Thread(was: 911 Conspiracy theories)
Time

Okay.  I just spent literally all night reading all the Wikipedia pages on the four planes involved in the 9/11 attacks, after which I immediately went to work, and came home.  So I've had no sleep in over 24 hours.  So if this is a total incoherent mess, please forgive me.  Also, I figured it would be better to put this in this thread, which is more about discussion, than Warb's thread, which is more about memorializing.  And let me preface with a disclaimer that the following is based on the logic I brought out of reading all of this, not something I condone.  Nor do I expect any kind of real answer because there's no way to know for sure.

So, anyway, here I go.  After I'd finished reading everything about all four flights, and I went in to work with no sleep, a question suddenly entered my mind:  Why didn't the hijackers, especially on Flight 93, just kill all the passengers from the getgo?  Obviously they weren't interested in hostages or prisoners, as they were eventually going to kill everyone anyway.  And it doesn't seem that they were interested in using them as bargaining chips in case they got caught, because, based on how Flight 93 ended, their plan was just to kill themselves if they failed.  Having flight crew and passengers on board was just a liability for them, particularly for Flight 93.

Think about it.  From the hijackers' perspective, the taking of Flight 93 met all kinds of unexpected resistance.  They were under a tight timeframe.  The plan was to get all the targets hit almost simultaneously before anyone was able to piece together what was happening.  But Flight 93's takeoff ended up being delayed by nearly 45 minutes.  By the time it actually took off, 11 and 75 were already being hijacked and about to be en route for their destinations.  Unbeknownst to the hijackers, the flight crew of 93 were soon being informed to be on the lookout for cockpit intruders.  It was already being pieced together, and their time was running out.

Then, for whatever reason, the hijackers waited another 45 minutes before attempting to take the plane, when Flight 11 only waited 15 minutes.  Why they waited so long is anyone's guess.  If I had to make a guess, I would say they were getting cold feet due to how far behind schedule they already were but they ultimately decided to go for it.

But this presents multiple problems for them.  When they hijacked the plane, they'd already passed through the entirety of Pennsylvania.  They had around an hour's travel back to their target.  That's an hour for their (apparently not very well guarded) captives to send and receive information, to band together, and plan a revolt.  Obviously the time lapse aided in that.  Passengers who were able to contact friends and family found out about the WTC and were able to piece things together.  And the long journey ensured they'd get a chance.  The passengers of Flight 11 had similarly prepared to retake the cockpit, even without all the puzzle pieces that the passengers of 93 had, and the outcome might have been the same, but they simply didn't have time to do so before they reached their destination.  Flight 93 did.

And as I earlier stated, it didn't seem that the captives were well-guarded if they were able to make unmonitored phone calls and plot a coup.  So that meant the "muscle" hijackers were pretty much standing around doing nothing for the half hour in between hijack and crash.

Obviously the motive for their cover story and lying to the passengers that they'd be alright was to avoid conflict.  If they knew they were going to die, they'd probably be a lot more willing to put their lives on the line to take back the plane.  But the hijackers on 93 didn't have that luxury.  All the odds were stacked against them, yet they left nearly 40 ticking time bombs in the back of the plane.  It seems it would have been in their best interest to find some way to bring them up into different parts of the plane and pick them off.

But they obviously lacked that kind of foresight, left the passengers to their own devices, and got exactly what they deserved.  I have always found it a shame that the heroes on Flight 93 weren't able to successfully retake the plane.  Well, I guess you can certainly call it a success simply in the fact that they caused the terrorists to fail and a brilliant stroke of luck that they crashed in an empty field rather than a populated area.  But it is a shame that they were unable to land safely, and that all of them still had to die.

Anyway, I don't know what the point of all that was.  It was just an idea that occurred to me.  I'm certainly not advocating killing anybody, and I hope that's not the impression I'm giving.  I'm just trying to think it through logically from the perspectives of the hijackers, and it seems they thankfully dropped the ball on that.

Post
#439840
Topic
911
Time

While I personally don't believe that discussing alternate theories is either "nonsense" or in any way disrespectful to those who died, I also concede that this is Warbler's thread, he's made it clear he doesn't want such talk in the thread that he made, and it's disrespectful to him to keep pushing it.

Post
#439801
Topic
Why we love the prequels @ SW.com
Time

Heh, yeah, that was the one that made me facepalm the most.  Even on those rare moments I can look past the obvious revisionisms and just look at it from a story perspective, I'm not thinking, "There's that little boy and how much grief and blah blah blah."  I'm thinking, "There's that idiot asshole who caused every damn problem in the universe.  Why do I have to see him again?"

Post
#439590
Topic
911
Time

I had to check back in my diary in order to get the exact details.  Turns out I hadn't really forgotten anything.

I was in 10th grade at the time, 15 years old.  Any other day.  As soon as my friend and I got off the bus that morning, another friend of ours ran up and told us that a plane had crashed into the WTC.  Just from hearing it that way, I immediately assumed it was an accident.

My first class was Algebra II, and it was soon interrupted.  We spent the entire time just watching the class TV of the live events.  I think I might have missed the first tower collapsing, but I distinctly remember the second falling.  It was weird.  Once we knew the first tower had gone, it just seemed like a foregone conclusion that, any minute now, the second would as well.  And the way Tom Brokaw stated it at the moment it happened seemed like he was holding the same frame of mind.  Like Warbler said earlier, it was eerie knowing that you were watching thousands of lives end on live television.

I can't recall if 1st period lasted longer than normal, if the schedule was thrown off at all, but we did eventually go to our other classes.  I can't recall any real work happening, though.  We continued to watch the TV and talk about it.  I remember all the rumors flying around.  Someone seemed to be under the impression that Pakistan had claimed responsibility for the attacks.

It wasn't until I got home from school that afternoon that I first heard the name Osama bin Laden.  And I pretty much just watched TV the rest of the evening.  And according to my diary, I felt some annoyance when I heard the local kids playing outside as if this was just some ordinary day.

Interestingly enough, I also accepted my first date that night.  A girl from another school had asked me to her homecoming dance a few weeks before, and, being the hopeless, scared loser around girls I was then, I put off giving her an answer until unprecedented human tragedy goaded me into growing some cajones.  Sadly, that didn't really go anywhere in terms of actual romance, but she remains one of my closest friends to this day, so that's good at least...

Post
#439420
Topic
Ackbar the Ole Miss Mascot?
Time

So my old college roommate just got wind to me that there was a recent push to make Admiral Ackbar the new mascot of The University of Mississippi.  The school retired Colonel Reb in 2003 for being supposedly "racist."  Sadly, it seems that Lucasfilm put the kibosh on Admiral... Colonel... Ackbar.  Quite a shame.  I swear if Ackbar had been the mascot, I might have been bothered to go to more football games.  Sigh.  I wish I was still in college.  Life didn't suck then.

http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DU7ljrGXktR4&h=9f6fc

Anyway, funny TV spot for the premise.  Can't believe I missed this.

Post
#439036
Topic
Who is Ignoring You, and Who are You Ignoring? (was: Who is Ignoring You? (was: Hello all, I'm back!))
Time

C3PX said:

Warbler said:

TV's Frink said:

Read Moth3r's quote again and see if you can figure it out.

I did it!

 

It has almost become a right of passage now, to have figured out how to ignore yourself with nothing more than Moth3r's hint.

Only three of us have managed this exciting feat so far.

You know, up until now I didn't care, but now I suddenly see it as a challenge.  As soon as the weight of oppressive laziness is lifted, I'll give it a shot.

Post
#438822
Topic
Last movie seen
Time

doubleofive said:

ChainsawAsh said:


However, every time I've watched it sense, I've liked it less, to the point where the last time I saw it, I hated it.  The story just seems so forced in order to fit with all the music.  Especially Prudence.  Her only purpose in the movie is for the characters to sing Dear Prudence at some point.
I felt like this the first time I watched it. I'm not a huge Beatles fan (not that I don't like them, I just don't have any albums), but I thought the whole thing felt forced.

I agree with these two.  I enjoy it but really as nothing more than good covers/collection of music videos.  I would probably only watch it again to just skip around to the songs.  I always felt the same way about Prudence.  Absolutely no purpose.  The story isn't much more than your basic '60s counter-culture, Vietnam hippie piece.  It's extremely amazing visually, and it's impressive how they're able to work that many songs into its plot (most of them seamlessly, as if they belonged there), but I have to say it's really a lot of style, not much substance.

Post
#438388
Topic
Gaffer Tape's YouTube Reviews of Awesome Candy-Creating Goodness! (The Facts of Life/Star Trek III Conspiracy!)
Time

Ahhh, I see what you did there.  Don't think for a second I missed it.  But some of us have to work with what we have, and, as a kid I always dressed up for Halloween as Batman, not Spider-Man (note the hyphen there).  Besides, it's supposed to make as little sense as possible.

Whoah.  Did I just pull a George Lucas there?  "It was intended to suck.  It was a deliberate creative decision."

Post
#438175
Topic
Reasonable posts thread (all posts must be reasonable, no visible pictures, no fink-isms)
Time

I'm on board with C3PX.  My simple philosophy is as follows:  Leave it the fuck alone!

It's been a couple of years since I last watched Ghostbusters, but there's really nothing effects-wise in that movie that doesn't hold up perfectly today.  But even if it didn't, there's really no point in going in and "fixing" it.  Same for Last Crusade too.  I know exactly which parts you're talking about because they do instantly spring to mind for being not perfect, but I just don't really see any point in doing so.  Like 3PX said, it's been over twenty years, and people have gotten along just fine with it so far.  I'm still bemoaning the loss of the reflected snake in Raiders.  Bah!

Post
#438156
Topic
Who is Ignoring You, and Who are You Ignoring? (was: Who is Ignoring You? (was: Hello all, I'm back!))
Time

Yoda Is Your Father said:

Hello all,

It's been a while since I posted (I'm always lurking though, so watch what you say!) but I was talking to a friend on the weekend and he told me something that blew my mind - he lives next door to 'Ewan McGregor's uncle who's also an actor'.

My friend lives next door to Wedge Antilles!

You sure it's Denis Lawson and not some other uncle of Ewan McGregor who's also an actor?