9-11 box cutters 11 september utility knives

[David Morris]

Really? Curcculear logic:
If we believe little things can be our doom, we give up all volition.
But if we realize how small the force of box cutter is to resist, as did
the 3rd flight, it is a small thing.  We are either helpless or fearless of
boxcutters.???

In other words WTF do you mean?

On Wednesday, November 20, 2013, Robert Mahnke wrote:

> "The box cutter-knives story isn't demonstrably false, but it serves to
> divert attention from the other weapons and to mask the fact that we don't
> have any idea how the hijackings happened."
>
> It's not about someone else trying to divert attention, it's about what we
> all want to believe.  We really want to believe that the next time we
> surrender our ordinary control over thing and place our lives in other
> people's hands by boarding an airplane, the plane won't be seized and flown
> into a building.  So we don't want to hear that we don't have any idea how
> the hijacking happened.  We want to hear that the hijackers were armed with
> puny weapons because this means that if we are faced with such hijackers,
> we can resist them and their box-cutters.  You don't need to hypothesize
> that someone else is trying to pull wool over our eyes -- we all do to
> ourselves that every time we get on a plane.
>
>
> On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 6:38 PM, Matt Ryan <matthew.ryan at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Slate piece that seems salient:
> http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/hey_wait_a_minute/2003/09/what_you_think_you_know_about_sept_11_.html
>
> 2.* The misconception*: *We know how the hijackers seized the planes. *Within
> days of Sept. 11, Americans believed they knew how the planes were grabbed:
> Terrorists had taken control by stabbing pilots, passengers, and flight
> attendants with box cutters and knives.
>
> *What's wrong with the story*: It's incomplete and misleading. We don't
> really know what happened on the planes. The cockpit voice recorder
> survived neither New York crash and was damaged beyond salvage in the
> Pentagon crash. The Flight 93 voice recorder doesn't start until several
> minutes after the hijackers took the plane. What little we know about
> tactics and weapons comes from phones calls made by passengers and flight
> attendants. As Edward Jay Epstein<http://edwardjayepstein.com/nether_fictoid9.htm> has
> pointed out, the evidence is incredibly paltry. No one on United Flight
> 175, which crashed into the World Trade Center, reported anything about
> weapons or tactics. One flight attendant on American Flight 11, which also
> crashed into the World Trade Center, said she was disabled by a chemical
> spray, while another flight attendant said a passenger was stabbed or shot.
> On the Pentagon plane, American Flight 77, Barbara Olson reported hijackers
> carrying knives and box cutters but did not describe how they took the
> cockpit. And on United Flight 93, passengers reported knives but also a
> hijacker threatening to explode a bomb. The box cutter-knives story isn't
> demonstrably false, but it serves to divert attention from the other
> weapons and to mask the fact that we don't have any idea how the hijackings
> happened.
>
>
> On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 6:33 PM, David Morris <fqmorris at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I agree w Ryan. " Box cutter" showed how pre-9/11 hijacker scenario
> strategy used minimal counter resistance from airline staff (or
> passegers) not thinking hijackers were on suicide missions.  The passengers
> on the third plane learned the new equation quickly and valiantly.
>
>
> On Tuesday, November 19, 2013, Matt Ryan wrote:
>
> For what it's worth, I have worked various jobs involving regular use of
> these blades and the terms "box cutters" and "utility knives" were always
> used interchangeably. Maybe it's a regional thing, I dunno.  As far as the
> media glomming onto the term box cutters, I'm guessing it has to do with
> the narrative they were trying to shape, i.e. "something as mundane as this
> ubiquitous little tool was used to carry out this hugely significant
> attack, oh the irony, etc."
>
>
> On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 5:21 PM, <malignd at aol.com> wrote:
>
> I may be misremembering, but didn't Popular Science or Popular Mechanics
> fully explain the collapse of WTC 7?
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://waste.org/pipermail/pynchon-l/attachments/20131120/030dbbef/attachment.html>