Air travel and security

[skeptik]

I think we might have a disagreement because we could have a different opinion of what the word ?conspiracy? means.

A conspiracy is where 2 or more people come together covertly to plan an illegal act.

Covert or 'private' planning is as much a normal part of human society as overt planning. You could make a good case that Humans are animals who plan beyond the immediately visible. ( yes I know chimps and other higher primates do this to a limited extent )

Covert planning takes many forms. A common form in capitalist society is labelled as 'commercial confidentiality' - covert corporate planning undertaken to get one step ahead of a competitor.

'Conspiracy' is simply the word used where the activity planned is illegal.

[biffvernon]

BA says that since the alert began some 10,000 bags have gone missing and that 5,000 bags still need to be returned.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4793281.stm

Apparently unusually small bags tend to fall off the conveyors and make them jam!

Can anyone actually explain how bottles of hydrogen peroxide and acetone in sufficient quantity to destroy an aircraft can be disguised as a bottle of baby milk? Have they all gone mad or am I missing somrthing?

[skeptik]

BA says that since the alert began some 10,000 bags have gone missing and that 5,000 bags still need to be returned.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4793281.stm

Apparently unusually small bags tend to fall off the conveyors and make them jam!

Can anyone actually explain how bottles of hydrogen peroxide and acetone in sufficient quantity to destroy an aircraft can be disguised as a bottle of baby milk? Have they all gone mad or am I missing somrthing?

No, you're not missing anything. I think you'd end up with something like a small incendiary device. Mainly flame smoke and mess. I dont think it would bring a plane down either.

Wht you really need to do is dry out the liquid to leave pure crystaline acetone peroxide. This is what the 7/7 bombers used. I wouldnt even think about it. V unstable. goes bang at the slightest provocation.

[Bozzio]

I think we might have a disagreement because we could have a different opinion of what the word ?conspiracy? means.

It appears to me that from your statement you consider any group, such as a government, conducting plans that they do not share with the public as formulating a conspiracy. Whereas I would only consider plans, conducted in secret, that attempt to bring about an end using illegal means a conspiracy.

No, I'd agree with you entirely here. A conspiracy is an illegal act plotted by 2 or more people. I don't quite know how you could have come to your assumption.

My point was that conspiracies by political figures (not accountants or bank managers) do affect history and do not always go wrong, as skeptic claimed, for the reasons I gave before. Quite simply, I do not subscribe to cock-up theory.

I do find it strange that here we are discussing the puzzling discrepencies of the latest terror plot such as liquid bombs being ineffective in bringing down jumbo jets and yet cock-up theory is being espoused. Clearly, despite the troubling irregularities in the evidence presented by the media, the wool remains firmly pulled over the eyes of most of the public which is what the conspirators were desperate to achieve. Looks like this conspiracy has been a great success, has changed the course of history and has not been a cock-up.

[skeptik]

My point was that conspiracies by political figures (not accountants or bank managers) do affect history and do not always go wrong, as skeptic claimed, for the reasons I gave before. Quite simply, I do not subscribe to cock-up theory.

Substitute 'generally' for 'always' and you have my view of things. Most plans which are not routine generally do not turn out as anticipated or have additional unanticipted consequences. Cock up is the rule rather than the exeception. The current Bush administration is a good example. As a consequence of their 'faith based' view of reality, arrogance, ignorance and stupidity everything they've touched has turned to dust.

[Bozzio]

The current Bush administration is a good example. As a consequence of their 'faith based' view of reality, arrogance, ignorance and stupidity everything they've touched has turned to dust.

And yet 9/11 remains one of the greatest fictional events of all time, an event that has changed the course of history for the entire world and continues to act as a catalyst for all the major terrorist propaganda today. If that was a cock-up then I'd hate to see the Bush administration make a real mistake.

[MacG]

The current Bush administration is a good example. As a consequence of their 'faith based' view of reality, arrogance, ignorance and stupidity everything they've touched has turned to dust.

And yet 9/11 remains one of the greatest fictional events of all time, an event that has changed the course of history for the entire world and continues to act as a catalyst for all the major terrorist propaganda today. If that was a cock-up then I'd hate to see the Bush administration make a real mistake.

My suggestion: Just wait a little longer. The situation dont look very "static" or "stable".

My gut feeling is that the US will crash. A crash of epic proportions. Population cut to 1/4 or less in a year or less. Widespread cannibalism and such.

What does some clever tricks with jetliners mean then?

[skeptik]

Bay of Pigs Invasion - A total cockup from start to finish! A classic! I rest my case.
Operation Northwoods - a stupid plan which came to light. Probably would have been a cock up if ever put into action.
Operation Ajax - cockup. Action and reaction. Democratic govt removed. Shah installed. then as a reaction to the excesses of the Shahs secret police we now ahve a fundamentalist Shia muslim regime. Would have been better if we'd never interferrerd in the first place. Cock up.
Operation Gladio -ultimately pointless and irrelevant.
The Iran Contra Affair - Reagan and Bush Senior get away with it, Oliver North ends up as a talk show host. Govt exposed yet agains as a bunch of lying toe rags. The drug dealers in and out of govt make millions.
The Lavon Affair
Operation PBSUCCESS - no idea about those 2

Why are the government so afraid of and wish to silence people like David Shayler and Richard Tomlinson?
Because they dont want their stupidity, incompetance, illegalities and cockups exposed to public view. They'd rather hide them under the blanket of 'National Security'

Bozzio said:
I can go on.
None of the above look like cock ups to me.

Skeptik said:
They do to me.

Bozzio said:
And as for 9/11.......anyone who adheres to the official story is clearly blind (sorry to be so blunt).

Skeptik said
9/11 - the perfect intersection of conspiracies and massive cockup - which then requires massive cover up to preserve the necks of those in charge.

Much like the assasination of JFK, I doubt we'll ever know exactly what went on on 9/11 (i.e. how much was willful treason and how much accidentally facillitated) , but numerous heads inside the US establishment , up to and including the Bush family, should have rolled, but never will.

The official story is, as you say, bollocks, as I'm sure all the 'hijackers' who had their identities stolen, living quiet and lawabiding lives in Saudi Arabia, would agree.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14320452/

Source: U.S., U.K. at odds over timing of arrests
British wanted to continue surveillance on terror suspects, official says

Excerpts:
"In contrast to previous reports, one senior British official suggested an attack was not imminent, saying the suspects had not yet purchased any airline tickets. In fact, some did not even have passports."

"The official shed light on other aspects of the case, saying that while the investigation into the bombing plot began "months ago," some suspects were known to the security services even before the London subway bombings last year."

my emphasis. Worth reading the whole article. Politically convenient popup Bin Laden wannabees, being held under surveillance for the politically advantageous moment... . Undoubtedly infiltrated, and possibly being 'run' by one or more intelligence agencies. More terrrerist bollocks.

[isenhand]

I think we might have a disagreement because we could have a different opinion of what the word ?conspiracy? means.

It appears to me that from your statement you consider any group, such as a government, conducting plans that they do not share with the public as formulating a conspiracy. Whereas I would only consider plans, conducted in secret, that attempt to bring about an end using illegal means a conspiracy.

No, I'd agree with you entirely here. A conspiracy is an illegal act plotted by 2 or more people. I don't quite know how you could have come to your assumption.

What I gave was my general under standing of the word, which skeptik also agrees with. But just to confirm, I looked it up on wiki and it says:

there is an agreement between two or more natural persons to break the law at some time in the future or to achieve a lawful aim by unlawful means.

from wiki

In the criminal law, a conspiracy is an agreement between two or more natural persons to break the law at some time in the future, and, in some cases, with at least one overt act in furtherance of that agreement.

from wiki

but just to confirm I looked it up in a number of other places:

con?spir?a?cy (k n-sp?r -s )
n. pl. con?spir?a?cies
1. An agreement to perform together an illegal, wrongful, or subversive act.
2. A group of conspirators.
3. Law An agreement between two or more persons to commit a crime or accomplish a legal purpose through illegal action.

from the free dictionary

CONSPIRACY - 18 U.S.C. 371 makes it a separate Federal crime or offense for anyone to conspire or agree with someone else to do something which, if actually carried out, would amount to another Federal crime or offense. So, under this law, a 'conspiracy' is an agreement or a kind of 'partnership' in criminal purposes in which each member becomes the agent or partner of every other member.

from lectlaw

An agreement, manifesting itself in words or deeds, by which two or more persons confederate to do an unlawful act, or to use unlawful to do an act which is lawful; confederacy.

from everything2

It appears to me that the plotting of an illegal act becomes the essential element for an agreement to have the classification a conspiracy. The actual plotting itself does not appear as being illegal as for it to become illegal the plotters need to take action.

Thus, you appear to have different definition of conspiracy to the generally accepted defintion.

[Bozzio]

No, I'd agree with you entirely here. A conspiracy is an illegal act plotted by 2 or more people.

isenhand,

Please read my reply carefully again. I am clearly agreeing with you, so why your desire to blast me with a long winded definition of something I accept?

[isenhand]

No, I'd agree with you entirely here. A conspiracy is an illegal act plotted by 2 or more people.

isenhand,

Please read my reply carefully again. I am clearly agreeing with you, so why your desire to blast me with a long winded definition of something I accept?

No, a conspiracy is not an illegal act plotted by 2 or more people. It has the definition of being the act of plotting an illegal act but the conspiracy itself does not have the classification of being an illegal act. A conspiracy becomes illegal when the plotters make steps to carry out their plot.

[Bozzio]

No, a conspiracy is not an illegal act plotted by 2 or more people. It has the definition of being the act of plotting an illegal act but the conspiracy itself does not have the classification of being an illegal act. A conspiracy becomes illegal when the plotters make steps to carry out their plot.

I think you are taking this too far and I don't see what relevance it has here.

What you are saying is that to conspire to do something is not in itself an illegal act but to carry out that act is illegal.

In which case I think you are now confused since you have just quoted from the free dictionary the following

CONSPIRACY - 18 U.S.C. 371 makes it a separate Federal crime or offense for anyone to conspire or agree with someone else to do something which, if actually carried out, would amount to another Federal crime or offense. So, under this law, a 'conspiracy' is an agreement or a kind of 'partnership' in criminal purposes in which each member becomes the agent or partner of every other member.

Clearly this states that any plan formulated by two or more people which if executed constituted an illegal act becomes illegal in itself. The word if is important here. Obviuosly it does not need to be carried out to be illegal, it just needs to be a plan in place created by two or more people that would involve executing an illegal event. Surely my definition still holds backed up by all the other definitions you have given as examples.

I still see fail to see what part this has to play in what I was saying earlier.

[enso]

...it does not need to be carried out to be illegal, it just needs to be a plan in place created by two or more people that would involve executing an illegal event.

This appears to be the definition our law enforcement agencies can operate with. You don't have to carry out a terrorist act to be arrested and charged, simply planning an operation is considered sufficient grounds. Seems fair enough to me.

[isenhand]

In which case I think you are now confused

Nope, I said make steps to carry out their plot, so talking about it would be ok but actual intending to do it would not.

I still see fail to see what part this has to play in what I was saying earlier.

Here:

The truth is that world events are often triggered by men in a boardroom making plans and often those plans lead to death and destruction and hardship, not by cock-up but by stealth.

I do believe that conspiracy theories play a greater part in shaping world events than we would care to think about.

Reads to me that you consider any plotting in secret as a conspiracy, which I do not consider as being the case. We can consider that a normal part of the function of governments of other originations as being to make plans and to carry them out. We can also consider that the some (perhaps most) of those plan will have been made in secrete and may also have been executed in secret. They could also have a great effect on history. However, unless they entail some illegal act those plans would not fall in to the classification of conspiracy. I suspect that we could not classify the majority of such plans as a conspiracies mainly because the plotters would find it difficult to continually carry out illegal actions on such a large scale. Most secrete plans would most likely involve legal actions and the minority illegal actions.

Additionally, we can find better explanations for conspiracy theories:

According to many psychologists, a person who believes in one conspiracy theory is often a believer in other conspiracy theories and conversely for a person who does not believe in one conspiracy theory there is a lower probability that he, or she, will believe in another one.

Psychologists believe that the search for meaningfulness features largely in conspiracism and the development of conspiracy theories. That desire alone may be powerful enough to lead to the initial formulation of the idea

Evolutionary psychology may also play a significant role. Paranoid tendencies are associated with an animal's ability to recognize danger. Higher animals attempt to construct mental models of the thought processes of both rivals and predators in order to read their hidden intentions and to predict their future behavior. Such an ability is extremely valuable in sensing and avoiding danger in an animal community. If this danger-sensing ability should begin making false predictions, or be triggered by benign evidence, or otherwise become pathological, the result is paranoid delusions.

all from wiki

[Bozzio]

Hi isenhand,

Again, I think you are reading between the lines too much here.

My reference to men in boardrooms was not a discussion about meetings between civil engineers but about politicians plotting illegal acts. All the examples I gave of major conspiracies were all illegal so I'm happy that I wasn't trying to confuse you. Not all of those conspiracies worked as skeptic rightly points out but the underlying fact is that they happened, did change the course of history and were clear examples of the role of string pullers using illegal means to influence power. To suggest that they are not influential is rather naive in my opinion - 9/11 being the classic example.