this morning NRP had a quick blurb on how 3 families from MA were heading to new york today to ask a judge to declassify documents related to the security at logan airport on 9/11, but the government is citing national security (blanket) as why they don't want to. any time that i hear someone blaming security at logan airport relating to 9/11, i get annoyed.
first, like many people, especially in the northeast, the events of 9/11 affected me deeply. but when details started coming out about how the events unfolded, everyone seems to forget one SIGNIFICANT detail. not all of the fucktards who were responsible for flying the planes into the towers started their day in boston.
at least 2 of the fucktards flew out of the airport in portland maine. they took a commuter flight from portland to boston. they then met up with the other fucktards who parked a car at logan airport and then boarded one of the two flights that ultimately took the towers down.
has it ever occured to ANYONE (aside from me thus prompting my annoyance) that the two fucktards who started in PORTLAND were the ones who carried the box cutters through security? the airport in portland is a small airport compared to logan, and the footage of the fucktards walking through security is everywhere. they BREEZED through security at a SMALL airport.
now, assuming that they breezed through security in portland, carrying the box cutters, they boarded their flight which landed in boston. when you are flying a multi-airport flight, once you have landed at the next airport (in this case logan), you DON'T HAVE TO GO THROUGH SECURITY. the assumption is that you were screened at your originating airport and anything questionable would have been stopped there.
THEREFORE, the fucktards originating in portland, breezing through security, carrying box cutters NEVER WENT THROUGH SECURITY IN BOSTON. how is this a failure of security at logan? based on my own experiences flying before the events of 9/11, security in logan was MUCH more restrictive than it was when i flew out of an airport that is probably comparible in size to portland. and do you know what? i've carried a leatherman type multitool on my belt for years. and i ALWAYS carried it through security when flying. i never packed it, even when i flew to and from ENGLAND.
and guess what? when i flew to atlanta on 9/9 (two days before the events of 9/11), i carried my leatherman through security at logan airport and they didn't say anything. as i had in the past, i took it out, placed it in the little plastic basket to be x-rayed, stepped through the metal detectors, retrieved my bag and plastic basket which contained my leatherman and headed towards the gate to wait for my flight.
i have done this in boston, new york, atlanta, chicago, washington DC, newburgh, memphis, charleston, albany, syracuse, manchester and london. and the only time i was stopped was when i had it in my backpack (not on my hip) flying out of london. and the security officer there took one look at it and handed it back to me without batting an eye.
so these three families want to blame security at logan? the problem isn't with the security arrangement at logan on the 11th, it was how security at ALL airports was handled (which is why i think the government is crying national security). they didn't have orders to prevent knives and sharp objects though security. they only stopped people who were carrying something that was larger than a pocket knife or illegal. and do you want to know something else? prior to 9/11, i have also breezed through security with a box cutter. no one every said anything to me about it. so even if the fucktards who flew to boston from portland didn't carry the box cutters through security, the fucktards in boston could have carried them through security without much difficulty (which is what i'm sure these families believe and why they have their panties in a twist).
i'm sorry you lost family members on 9/11. but you need to understand that the fucktards who orchestrated this took advantage of security at multiple airports. they preyed on the fact that airport security wouldn't question knives over a designated size and used that to their advantage.
what did we learn? a lot. i no longer fly with my leatherman (checked or otherwise). and if there is a chance i won't be checking anything, i won't even bring a pocket knife, even my little swiss army knife. going through security now is a pain in the ass, and i understand that. but the security measures that were implemented as a result of 9/11 should have been in place years prior. but look at where the airline industry was in 2001, where it was when it was regulated, what changed when it was de-regulated. taking all of this into account, security may have been relaxed in an attempt to encourage people to fly. no one likes going through security, and i'm sure a percentage of people would cite that as a reason for not flying. but if security is a breeze to get through, then why not fly?
in the end, it doesn't change anything. on 9/11, the fucktards struck a blow that affected us all. you lost family members. you aren't the only ones who lost family members. thousands of people were directly affected by the events, so what makes your claim any better than anyone elses? what do you want the government to say? they fucked up? the reality of the situation is they don't have all of the answers. and i doubt that any answers you think are in those documents will give you any solace. but your insistence on not looking at the reality of the situation, only validates their belief that they won that day.
you still lost. you still lose.
Read More......
.jpg){kind=avatar}
