And lastly, this one, created not by Subway, but by the Onion:
Showing posts with label 9/11. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 9/11. Show all posts
13 September 2013
9/11 promotions and advertisements gone wrong
Which one of these 9/11 promotions is the worst? Maybe all of them. Having a 9/11-themed promotion was the problem in the first place?!
11 September 2013
.jpg)
02 May 2011
Exploiting trust as an attack vector in social media
Earlier today I posted a tweet:
As you could tell if you followed the link above, it's just a message on my blog:
This experiment may or may not be "cheap," but if you clicked on the link, you could potentially have been pwned, cheap or not. In this sense, "cheap" is just another word for "not fair." The attacker obviously doesn't care about playing fair, nor does he care what you think about his methods; only that he wins.
bin Laden autopsy video: http://bit.ly/iXcSQ2 #oblBy now it should be obvious that there is no such video. I did it as a very short and simple experiment in exploiting trust. The news of Osama bin Laden's death has caused traffic to skyrocket on the Internet, and people want to learn anything they can about it. So I chose "autopsy video" although I could have "posted" a link to a video from the raid, the sea burial of his body, or any of a dozen other things. I also didn't take into account the timing of the tweet (to reach a broader audience), so again, just keeping it simple.
As you could tell if you followed the link above, it's just a message on my blog:
There is no bin Laden autopsy video here, but there could have been malware, and then you'd be pwned. You really shouldn't click on such links. :-)I linked to my blog because I wanted to track the hits, and they came in fast and furious. In barely two hours, it was re-tweeted a dozen times and I counted over 150 unique hits (that's well beyond what I see on a "normal" day even if I've posted a blog entry). Most of my followers are security-conscious folks. Most people got my point (for example, see here), a few didn't understand my point at all, and a few thought it was "cheap" because it was from a trusted source. And it's true: presumably, if you're a follower of mine, you'd place some measure of trust in the content I publish. On the other hand, this is precisely the point I am aiming at: trusted sources can be exploited, they're much more effective than a "random" source, and they're incredibly difficult to defend against. If someone were to hijack my Twitter account, they gain access to my Twitter data (which may or may not be all that valuable), but more importantly they gain access to trust in which my followers place in me. This is hugely important.
This experiment may or may not be "cheap," but if you clicked on the link, you could potentially have been pwned, cheap or not. In this sense, "cheap" is just another word for "not fair." The attacker obviously doesn't care about playing fair, nor does he care what you think about his methods; only that he wins.
Physical Security, OPSEC, and Killing Osama bin Laden
One of the primary goals of physical security is deterrence. By showing off visible signs of security, such as signs, fences, barbed wire and other such measures, the idea is to deter a breach by those who may be contemplating it by raising the risk of being caught. The compound in which Osama bin Laden was found and killed certainly exhibited some of the measures--it reportedly had 12-18 feet high fences with barbed wire, internal compartmentalization, only two access points, visible CCTVs, and generally stood out like a sore thumb in the neighborhood.
On the other hand, these very visible measures of security tend to conflict with the concept of operational security--a process by which actions observed by adversaries can be useful to them in gathering intelligence. The very presence of visible security measures in an otherwise non-descript area leads one to wonder what exactly is being protected there. That, together with other reported operational security issues (the burning of trash, no Internet or phone connection despite a presumably upscale compound, the women residents known to speak Arabic) add fuel to the fire.
Another article talked of these measures as "extremely elaborate operational security" but might better be termed "elaborate physical security" as the operational issues noted above were precisely some of the clues that led to bin Laden's discovery. Added to that, the belief that bin Laden had been staying in this compound for at least a year and potentially much longer lends one to believe that the idea of operational security was perhaps not as elaborate as initially supposed.
On the other hand, these very visible measures of security tend to conflict with the concept of operational security--a process by which actions observed by adversaries can be useful to them in gathering intelligence. The very presence of visible security measures in an otherwise non-descript area leads one to wonder what exactly is being protected there. That, together with other reported operational security issues (the burning of trash, no Internet or phone connection despite a presumably upscale compound, the women residents known to speak Arabic) add fuel to the fire.
Another article talked of these measures as "extremely elaborate operational security" but might better be termed "elaborate physical security" as the operational issues noted above were precisely some of the clues that led to bin Laden's discovery. Added to that, the belief that bin Laden had been staying in this compound for at least a year and potentially much longer lends one to believe that the idea of operational security was perhaps not as elaborate as initially supposed.
11 September 2010
Where were you?
I wrote this on 9/9/2006 while I was in Iraq, and posted it then on the Netstumbler forums:
On September 11, 2001, I was living in Oak Harbor, on Whidbey Island, a few hours north of Seattle, Washington. I had moved there in the spring and was in training at the EA-6B Prowler fleet replacement squadron, VAQ-129. I was also taking flying lessons at the time, and had progressed about 1/3 of the way through the private pilot license syllabus.
I don't recall the exact time, but it was very early, 6-something (Pacific time), when the phone rang. I remember it was early because it woke me up. It was my Dad. He told me that a plane had hit the World Trade Center. That was the extent of the news at the time. I thanked him for letting me know and hung up.
As I wiped the sleep from my eyes and walked toward the living room, the first thoughts that went through my mind were that it was probably a foggy or cloudy day, and some poor Cesna pilot got lost and flew into the World Trade Center. As I turned on the TV sometime after 6 o'clock, however, it became immediately clear that something very different was occurring. It seemed to be that both towers were on fire (the first plane hit the north tower at 8:46ET and the second plane hit the south tower at 9:02ET). In my mind, I want to say that I saw the second plane hit on TV, but in reality it seems that this is not possible, as I don't believe the second plane hitting the south tower was broadcast live (9/12/10: was it?)
I also remember thinking that, despite hitting the towers with such force, there were relatively few floors in flames, and I never really suspected the structural integrity of the building was at risk. My only thoughts were: get those people out as fast as possible!
I immediately woke up my roommate Tom and his then-girlfriend (now wife) to let them know what was going on. I think we probably all stared at the TV for who-knows-how-long without saying so much as a word. What I do remember vividly was watching both towers collapse (the south tower at 9:59ET and the north tower at 10:28ET). More silence. I tried to calculate in my mind how many people must have been killed, just like that.
Tom and I were both in classes at the time and eventually had to go into work. I don't recall what time we actually went in, but I do remember that it was not difficult to get onto the base. What helps me remember this is how difficult it was to get onto the base in the following days--literally hours to go a half a mile. On September 12th, every vehicle was being inspected at the gates. I seem to recall it taking over two and a half hours to get onto base on the 12th.
Going back to September 11th. We were in class. The flight schedule was immediately cancelled, which seemed obvious. What was less understandable was the fact that our academic classes were continuing. I had several squadron mates who were frantically calling "home" to families in the NYC area trying to find out something. Every break between classes was a rush to the TV or the telephones. Our pleas to cancel class were basically ignored.
We did not know at the time, but one of my classmates did lose a family member. My friend Dave Ganci lost his uncle, Peter J. Ganci, who was a New York Fire Department Chief. Sometime during the day we also learned of the attack on the Pentagon. The entire day was surreal and many of its details are burned into my memory.
That night, President Bush spoke to the nation:
The pictures of airplanes flying into buildings, fires burning, huge structures collapsing, have filled us with disbelief, terrible sadness, and a quiet, unyielding anger. These acts of mass murder were intended to frighten our nation into chaos and retreat. But they have failed; our country is strong.
A great people has been moved to defend a great nation. Terrorist attacks can shake the foundations of our biggest buildings, but they cannot touch the foundation of America. These acts shattered steel, but they cannot dent the steel of American resolve.
America was targeted for attack because we're the brightest beacon for freedom and opportunity in the world. And no one will keep that light from shining.
Today, our nation saw evil, the very worst of human nature. And we responded with the best of America -- with the daring of our rescue workers, with the caring for strangers and neighbors who came to give blood and help in any way they could.
As I alluded to before, the next few days were complete hell trying to get into work. Schedules were changed and shifted, and somehow we kept on with class. I don't recall when we started flying again ("we" meaning the squadron; I was not at that phase yet); but all VFR air traffic was suspended for at least a month, so my flying lessons came to a halt (and unfortunately never started up again, something I regret to this day).
Many months later, we flew missions over Afghanistan during Operation Enduring Freedom. Then it was over Iraq during Operation Iraqi Freedom. And now, of course, on the ground in Iraq. I did not lose a family member although my friends did. Yet my life was inextricably altered by the events of that day.
18 August 2010
Some thoughts about the "Ground Zero Mosque"
I have avoided posting anything about the "Ground Zero Mosque" on Twitter primarily for two reasons: 1) I feel as if I cannot express the breadth of my views in 140 characters, and while I could break it up into several tweets, they'll fall apart and potentially out of context; and 2) I recognize the fact that many of the people who follow me on Twitter do so for reasons other than politics and religion, and I respect that; while I do occasionally make political posts I try to keep to humorous things or lighthearted issues that don't inflame people's passions (there have been exceptions).
"Ground Zero Mosque"
So let's address a few issues right up front. I am going to refer to it as the "Ground Zero Mosque" (or GZM) or just "the mosque". I fully recognize that the mosque is not at Ground Zero, but two blocks away. I fully recognize that there are Burger Kings and Off Track Betting joints and all sorts of other things within a two block radius of GZ. So I'm not being inaccurate or insensitive to the issue when I say GZM, I'd rather just not say "the mosque two blocks from Ground Zero" every time. I also recognize that this structure is said to be a "community center," and not just a single house of worship. I think there is some significance to this, but I'll discuss this later on.
"Sacred ground"
I also recognize that this particular location has at least some significance to the 9/11 attacks. This building was the site of some damage on September 11th (landing gear from one of the planes hit the building), but I'm not going as far as to say this particular building is "sacred ground." I recognize that the damage to the building tends to extend what 9/11 families would consider sacred ground, but I just am unwilling to go that far. Did people die in this building? As far as I know, no one did.
Landmark status
I can only briefly comment on the issue of "landmark" status; while the building is said to be in the Italian Renaissance palazzo style, I don't think anyone who isn't well-versed in architectural history can really appreciate whether or not this building is deserving of a special status. So I am going to pass on this issue and say that if the Landmark Preservation Commission decided not to make this particular building a landmark, I think we should be willing to accept their decision.
Legality/Constitutionality
This, I think, is a no-brainer. Presuming that all the necessary permits and codes and so forth are met, there is no legal issue or constitutional issue that should prevent this mosque from being built. Freedom of religion is sacrosanct in my book, and laws like the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) were specifically written to make religious exercise easier, not harder.
End of story?
This is the end of the story for many people. Accepting the previous issues, they come to the reasonable conclusion that the mosque should be built. And I fully understand that view. I suspect that many of you who are reading this would agree with me on virtually all (if not all) of the previous points. The majority of Americans agree that the owners of the proposed mosque have a right to build it, even if they don't necessarily want it to be built. I agree with them; while I completely respect the right of the owners to build the mosque, I believe they just shouldn't build the mosque at that particular location. So now let me lay out my reasons why.
Córdoba
The names of the project are Park51 (the address is 45-51 Park Place) and Córdoba House. Córdoba probably doesn't set off any bells for most people, but perhaps it should. Córdoba is a city in southern Spain that was captured in 711 by the Muslims and soon became a provincial capital and later a full-fledged Caliphate. The Great Mosque of Córdoba was built there on the site of a Christian church (building mosques on the sites of conquered cities was not uncommon, see for example Jerusalem’s Temple Mount and Istanbul’s St. Sophia Basilica). While only the owners know the true reason why they chose the name Córdoba , to many it is a clear sign of Islamic triumphalism. You don't necessarily have to agree with this point, but you should at least understand that some people have issues with a mosque near Ground Zero that by name associates itself with a city and mosque whose name signifies such "conquest" issues (to be fair, the Christians later recaptured Córdoba and the building now houses the Cathedral of the diocese of Córdoba).
Community center
The GZM is not just a house of worship, but a $100 million, 13-story structure. I am truly torn about the issue of asking where the funding is coming from. On one hand, it's no one's business where the money comes from. Do we ask the source of the funding of every Catholic church or Mormon temple or Jewish tabernacle? Of course not. On the other hand, there seems to be legitimate concerns that Hamas and other organizations could be involved. Of all the issues, this is the one that I have trouble coming down on one side or another.
This mosque is said to be an Islamic community center, and there seems to be a concerted effort to references about inter-faith dialog. I also read one article (of which I can't find yet) that stated that anyone who paid the dues would have access to this facility. Well, parts of it, perhaps. There is some debate as to whether or not non-Muslims are allowed inside a mosque. I do know that non-Muslims cannot even enter the city of Mecca, and that some mosques are closed to non-Muslims, but it is said that mosques in Europe and the United States in particular may be more lax. Can anyone answer this question? Can a non-Muslim simply walk into a mosque as anyone could do in (most) Christian churches? Can a non-Muslim enter if permission is granted?
The larger issue to me is not so much the United States, but abroad. In Saudi Arabia, for example, there is no inter-faith dialog between Islam and other religions, because other religions can't build churches there. Religious freedom as we know it here in the United States does not exist in much of the Muslim world. I'm not suggesting that we should apply their standard to this situation, but I am suspect of the concept of inter-faith dialog from a religion that does not practice it when it is the majority religion.
There are also some issues surrounding Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf and some of the comments he has made:
Some Muslims have criticized the decision to build the mosque so close to Ground Zero as insensitive. While I am not an expert on Islam and the Koran, it is intriguing to me that, for example, Raheel Raza and Tarek Fatah, board members of the Muslim Canadian Congress, said:
Sensitivity
Lastly, to me the issue comes down to sensitivity, or perhaps the lack of it. This area is largely a commercial district. It's not as if this particular location is the epicenter of Islam in New York. But this area clearly has significance to New Yorkers, who by majorities who oppose the mosque, and by nearly all 9/11 families, to whom this area (if not this exact building) is sacred ground. Surely, the builders understand this issue, yet they continue to push to build at this site. I have clearly and unequivocally said they have ever right to do so. To me, the issue is not can they, but should they. If the owners were to decide to build elsewhere, this issue would disappear. But at the current location, I suspect there will be more discord than dialog.
Racism / Intolerance / Etc.
I hope from talking about these concerns that is it possible to understand that from my perspective, it is perfectly acceptable to be opposed to the GZM without being racist, or intolerant, or dismissive of Muslims' freedom of religion. Disagreeing with particular tenets of a religious group does not mean I am intolerant of their religion. Quite the opposite. I consider myself a non-denominational Christian, precisely because I have issues with various sects/denominations and their interpretations of Biblical issues. Likewise, I have issues with Catholicism, and Mormonism, and many other groups, but I respect their right to practice their religion as they see fit, just like I support people to practice no religion if they so choose.
Opposed
I stated early on that legally speaking, there appears to be nothing stopping the building of the GZM. And I have a difficult time imagining how any such legal opposition could be realistically mounted. On the other hand, many of the circumstances surrounding the mosque suggest to me that the owners decide to build elsewhere. If tolerance is a staple of Islam, the owners, on their own accord, ought to practice some sensitivity and show respect not only to the 9/11 families, but to public opinion in general and build the mosque elsewhere. As Peter Kirsanow of NRO has said: "Merely because I have a right to do something doesn’t mean it should be done. Neither does it mean that my exercise of the right must be insulated from dissuasion or criticism."(4)
There are so many issues surround the GZM and I know I have only touched on a few. But I hope I have been able to demonstrate why I think there is legitimate opposition to building it. You may not and don't have to agree with it, but I think you should be willing to accept that it is legitimate to oppose the mosque without being the subject of ridicule for being racist, bigoted, or intolerant.
In the end, if the owners decide to "say tough luck, we're building it anyway," then that's something we have to live with. And while I will disagree with it, I'll accept it.
"Ground Zero Mosque"
So let's address a few issues right up front. I am going to refer to it as the "Ground Zero Mosque" (or GZM) or just "the mosque". I fully recognize that the mosque is not at Ground Zero, but two blocks away. I fully recognize that there are Burger Kings and Off Track Betting joints and all sorts of other things within a two block radius of GZ. So I'm not being inaccurate or insensitive to the issue when I say GZM, I'd rather just not say "the mosque two blocks from Ground Zero" every time. I also recognize that this structure is said to be a "community center," and not just a single house of worship. I think there is some significance to this, but I'll discuss this later on.
"Sacred ground"
I also recognize that this particular location has at least some significance to the 9/11 attacks. This building was the site of some damage on September 11th (landing gear from one of the planes hit the building), but I'm not going as far as to say this particular building is "sacred ground." I recognize that the damage to the building tends to extend what 9/11 families would consider sacred ground, but I just am unwilling to go that far. Did people die in this building? As far as I know, no one did.
Landmark status
I can only briefly comment on the issue of "landmark" status; while the building is said to be in the Italian Renaissance palazzo style, I don't think anyone who isn't well-versed in architectural history can really appreciate whether or not this building is deserving of a special status. So I am going to pass on this issue and say that if the Landmark Preservation Commission decided not to make this particular building a landmark, I think we should be willing to accept their decision.
Legality/Constitutionality
This, I think, is a no-brainer. Presuming that all the necessary permits and codes and so forth are met, there is no legal issue or constitutional issue that should prevent this mosque from being built. Freedom of religion is sacrosanct in my book, and laws like the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) were specifically written to make religious exercise easier, not harder.
End of story?
This is the end of the story for many people. Accepting the previous issues, they come to the reasonable conclusion that the mosque should be built. And I fully understand that view. I suspect that many of you who are reading this would agree with me on virtually all (if not all) of the previous points. The majority of Americans agree that the owners of the proposed mosque have a right to build it, even if they don't necessarily want it to be built. I agree with them; while I completely respect the right of the owners to build the mosque, I believe they just shouldn't build the mosque at that particular location. So now let me lay out my reasons why.
Córdoba
The names of the project are Park51 (the address is 45-51 Park Place) and Córdoba House. Córdoba probably doesn't set off any bells for most people, but perhaps it should. Córdoba is a city in southern Spain that was captured in 711 by the Muslims and soon became a provincial capital and later a full-fledged Caliphate. The Great Mosque of Córdoba was built there on the site of a Christian church (building mosques on the sites of conquered cities was not uncommon, see for example Jerusalem’s Temple Mount and Istanbul’s St. Sophia Basilica). While only the owners know the true reason why they chose the name Córdoba , to many it is a clear sign of Islamic triumphalism. You don't necessarily have to agree with this point, but you should at least understand that some people have issues with a mosque near Ground Zero that by name associates itself with a city and mosque whose name signifies such "conquest" issues (to be fair, the Christians later recaptured Córdoba and the building now houses the Cathedral of the diocese of Córdoba).
Community center
The GZM is not just a house of worship, but a $100 million, 13-story structure. I am truly torn about the issue of asking where the funding is coming from. On one hand, it's no one's business where the money comes from. Do we ask the source of the funding of every Catholic church or Mormon temple or Jewish tabernacle? Of course not. On the other hand, there seems to be legitimate concerns that Hamas and other organizations could be involved. Of all the issues, this is the one that I have trouble coming down on one side or another.
This mosque is said to be an Islamic community center, and there seems to be a concerted effort to references about inter-faith dialog. I also read one article (of which I can't find yet) that stated that anyone who paid the dues would have access to this facility. Well, parts of it, perhaps. There is some debate as to whether or not non-Muslims are allowed inside a mosque. I do know that non-Muslims cannot even enter the city of Mecca, and that some mosques are closed to non-Muslims, but it is said that mosques in Europe and the United States in particular may be more lax. Can anyone answer this question? Can a non-Muslim simply walk into a mosque as anyone could do in (most) Christian churches? Can a non-Muslim enter if permission is granted?
The larger issue to me is not so much the United States, but abroad. In Saudi Arabia, for example, there is no inter-faith dialog between Islam and other religions, because other religions can't build churches there. Religious freedom as we know it here in the United States does not exist in much of the Muslim world. I'm not suggesting that we should apply their standard to this situation, but I am suspect of the concept of inter-faith dialog from a religion that does not practice it when it is the majority religion.
There are also some issues surrounding Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf and some of the comments he has made:
- he said that the United States was "an accessory to the crime" (in reference to 9/11);
- He has refused to say whether he agrees with the U.S. State Department's designation of Hamas as a terrorist organization
Some Muslims have criticized the decision to build the mosque so close to Ground Zero as insensitive. While I am not an expert on Islam and the Koran, it is intriguing to me that, for example, Raheel Raza and Tarek Fatah, board members of the Muslim Canadian Congress, said:
Is that argument not worth some weight in this debate? There are other such arguments as well. (2) and (3)We Muslims know the ... mosque is meant to be a deliberate provocation, to thumb our noses at the infidel. The proposal has been made in bad faith, ... as "Fitna," meaning "mischief-making" that is clearly forbidden in the Koran.... As Muslims we are dismayed that our co-religionists have such little consideration for their fellow citizens, and wish to rub salt in their wounds and pretend they are applying a balm to sooth the pain. (1)
Sensitivity
Lastly, to me the issue comes down to sensitivity, or perhaps the lack of it. This area is largely a commercial district. It's not as if this particular location is the epicenter of Islam in New York. But this area clearly has significance to New Yorkers, who by majorities who oppose the mosque, and by nearly all 9/11 families, to whom this area (if not this exact building) is sacred ground. Surely, the builders understand this issue, yet they continue to push to build at this site. I have clearly and unequivocally said they have ever right to do so. To me, the issue is not can they, but should they. If the owners were to decide to build elsewhere, this issue would disappear. But at the current location, I suspect there will be more discord than dialog.
Racism / Intolerance / Etc.
I hope from talking about these concerns that is it possible to understand that from my perspective, it is perfectly acceptable to be opposed to the GZM without being racist, or intolerant, or dismissive of Muslims' freedom of religion. Disagreeing with particular tenets of a religious group does not mean I am intolerant of their religion. Quite the opposite. I consider myself a non-denominational Christian, precisely because I have issues with various sects/denominations and their interpretations of Biblical issues. Likewise, I have issues with Catholicism, and Mormonism, and many other groups, but I respect their right to practice their religion as they see fit, just like I support people to practice no religion if they so choose.
Opposed
I stated early on that legally speaking, there appears to be nothing stopping the building of the GZM. And I have a difficult time imagining how any such legal opposition could be realistically mounted. On the other hand, many of the circumstances surrounding the mosque suggest to me that the owners decide to build elsewhere. If tolerance is a staple of Islam, the owners, on their own accord, ought to practice some sensitivity and show respect not only to the 9/11 families, but to public opinion in general and build the mosque elsewhere. As Peter Kirsanow of NRO has said: "Merely because I have a right to do something doesn’t mean it should be done. Neither does it mean that my exercise of the right must be insulated from dissuasion or criticism."(4)
There are so many issues surround the GZM and I know I have only touched on a few. But I hope I have been able to demonstrate why I think there is legitimate opposition to building it. You may not and don't have to agree with it, but I think you should be willing to accept that it is legitimate to oppose the mosque without being the subject of ridicule for being racist, bigoted, or intolerant.
In the end, if the owners decide to "say tough luck, we're building it anyway," then that's something we have to live with. And while I will disagree with it, I'll accept it.
28 December 2009
TSA closes the barn door after the horse has gone (again)
Not since December 2001 when Richard Reid tried to light an explosive in his shoe has the TSA so blatantly closed the barn door long after the horse has gone. Because of Reid we are now, even eight years later, more likely than not required to take off our shoes when going through security, even though there is no evidence to suggest that any idiot would follow this same course of action.
The new TSA policy is stated below:
Surely, there is someone among the higher-ups in the TSA who is shaking his or her head at the absurdity of these new policies. Also, these measures will only serve to allow the public to further alienate themselves from flying in general; the nameless figureheads at TSA will be subject to criticism from afar (as I have done here), but the flight attendants will unfortunately bear the brunt of it up close and personal.
By the way, the explosive used by both Richard Reid and Umar Abdulmutallab was PETN, which would not be detected by a magnetometer. Not in 2001, not in 2009. So keep taking off those shoes for the nice folks in the security line.
The new TSA policy is stated below:
TSA issued a directive for additional security measures to be implemented for last point of departure international flights to the United States. Passengers flying into the United States from abroad can expect to see additional security measures at international airports such as increased gate screening including pat-downs and bag searches. During flight, passengers will be asked to follow flight crew instructions, such as stowing personal items, turning off electronic equipment and remaining seated during certain portions of the flight.Based on the observations of people that have flown in the last few days, this has generally been perceived to mean that (at least for international flights inbound to the United States) during the last hour or so of the flight, passengers will be confined to their seats, with no access to the lavatories or their carry-on bags. Further, passengers will probably be prohibited from having anything on their laps or person--no pillows, blankets, laptops, etc. Apparently this because this is exactly what the suspect, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, allegedly did. Because as you know, the next terrorist will do the exact same thing.
Surely, there is someone among the higher-ups in the TSA who is shaking his or her head at the absurdity of these new policies. Also, these measures will only serve to allow the public to further alienate themselves from flying in general; the nameless figureheads at TSA will be subject to criticism from afar (as I have done here), but the flight attendants will unfortunately bear the brunt of it up close and personal.
By the way, the explosive used by both Richard Reid and Umar Abdulmutallab was PETN, which would not be detected by a magnetometer. Not in 2001, not in 2009. So keep taking off those shoes for the nice folks in the security line.
11 September 2009
Peter J. Ganci, Jr. (October 27, 1946 - September 11, 2001)
Eight years ago today, I was living in Oak Harbor, Washington, and awakened by a phone call by my dad that a plane had crashed into the World Trade Center. My immediate thought was that it was probably cloudy and some Cessna pilot had probably gotten lost and/or confused and flew into the tower. Turning on the TV, I couldn't have been more wrong.
After waking up my roommate and his (then girlfriend) wife, we watched in horror as the second plane crashed into the South Tower, and then saw both towers collapse soon thereafter.
It was almost an afterthought that we were currently in training at VAQ-129 (EA-6B Prowler Fleet Readiness Squadron, or "Rag"). We were in "ground school," meaning we were doing several weeks of academic training prior to flying.
Getting to the base (NAS Whidbey Island) was actually very easy on 9/11, probably due to the fact that things were still unfolding and it just wasn't very clear at that time what was going on (of course, 9/12 and beyond took hours and hours to get on base, and this is a small town on an island in a remote corner of the state).
As air traffic was shut down, the training flight schedule was also canceled. But ground school classes were not canceled. I remember sitting in class realizing no one was doing any learning, because everyone wanted to know what was going on. During every break, we would huddle around the TV in the front office, trying to find out any bit of news.
We had several people in our class who had relatives in New York City. Sadly, one of my fellow students, Dave Ganci, lost his uncle on 9/11: Peter J. Ganci, Jr., Chief of Department, the highest ranking uniformed fire officer in the NYFD. While we weren't especially close, Dave and I were friends, fellow NFOs and ECMOs, brothers in arms, and every 9/11 I think of the Ganci family and the loss they suffered that day.
After waking up my roommate and his (then girlfriend) wife, we watched in horror as the second plane crashed into the South Tower, and then saw both towers collapse soon thereafter.
It was almost an afterthought that we were currently in training at VAQ-129 (EA-6B Prowler Fleet Readiness Squadron, or "Rag"). We were in "ground school," meaning we were doing several weeks of academic training prior to flying.
Getting to the base (NAS Whidbey Island) was actually very easy on 9/11, probably due to the fact that things were still unfolding and it just wasn't very clear at that time what was going on (of course, 9/12 and beyond took hours and hours to get on base, and this is a small town on an island in a remote corner of the state).
As air traffic was shut down, the training flight schedule was also canceled. But ground school classes were not canceled. I remember sitting in class realizing no one was doing any learning, because everyone wanted to know what was going on. During every break, we would huddle around the TV in the front office, trying to find out any bit of news.
We had several people in our class who had relatives in New York City. Sadly, one of my fellow students, Dave Ganci, lost his uncle on 9/11: Peter J. Ganci, Jr., Chief of Department, the highest ranking uniformed fire officer in the NYFD. While we weren't especially close, Dave and I were friends, fellow NFOs and ECMOs, brothers in arms, and every 9/11 I think of the Ganci family and the loss they suffered that day.
11 October 2006
Fresh from the WTF file
From TwinCities.com:
A University of Wisconsin-Madison instructor who has come under scrutiny for saying that the U.S. government orchestrated the Sept. 11 attacks compares President Bush to Adolf Hitler in an essay that his students are being required to buy.And sometimes you wonder who is teaching your kids when they go off to college.
...
[Kevin] Barrett is active in a group called Scholars for 9/11 Truth, whose members say U.S. officials, not al-Qaida terrorists, were behind the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on Sept. 11, 2001.
...
But he did say in an interview: "Hitler had a good 20 to 30 IQ points on Bush so comparing Bush to Hitler would in many ways be an insult to Hitler."
11 September 2006
9/11: A search for her father
From Yahoo News:
ST. PAUL, Minn. - While searching for her birth parents two years ago, Mariah Mills found more than she bargained for: A hero of Sept. 11, 2001.
Mills' biological father, who had given Mills up for adoption when he and his then-girlfriend were in college, was Tom Burnett, a leader of a group that fought back on United Flight 93 before it crashed in Pennsylvania on Sept. 11, 2001.
Mills, 21, learned about her birth father in 2004 — after she turned 19, the legal age in Minnesota for requesting a birth certificate with names of birth parents — and subsequent DNA tests confirmed that Burnett was her father.
"Before I was even born, my birth dad made a brave decision — to give me a life," Mills told the St. Paul Pioneer Press in Sunday's editions. "It was a selfless act, just like his actions on Flight 93. And, as awful as it was that he died, and I never got to know him, there is good that came out of this."
Today, Mills has developed a relationship with Burnett's widow, Deena, her three daughters, husband and stepson, and other members of Burnett's family. She also celebrated her birthday with her birth mother, who lives in St. Paul with her husband and two children and asked not to be identified.
Mills transferred to the University of Minnesota and is entering her senior year. She will spend her first semester studying abroad. Her dream job, she said, would be writing about baseball and covering the Minnesota Twins.
Mills and her adoptive parents visited Jefferson High School in Bloomington during the spring of 2004 after Mariah found out about her birth parents. Mariah wanted to look up Tom Burnett in his senior yearbook. She found his photo and one of her birth mother, too.
"It was weird to finally look like somebody," Mills said. "I have her eyes, but mostly I look like a Burnett."
9/11: As it happened
Over at CNN.com, you can watch video from CNN's broadcast on 9/11/01 and watch history unfold as it happened.
10 September 2006
9/11: Why we are here
9/11: The sounds
From Peggy Noonan's article I Just Called to Say I Love You:
I think too about the sounds that came from within the buildings and within the planes--the phone calls and messages left on answering machines, all the last things said to whoever was home and picked up the phone. They awe me, those messages.
Something terrible had happened. Life was reduced to its essentials. Time was short. People said what counted, what mattered. It has been noted that there is no record of anyone calling to say, "I never liked you," or, "You hurt my feelings." No one negotiated past grievances or said, "Vote for Smith." Amazingly --or not--there is no record of anyone damning the terrorists or saying "I hate them."
No one said anything unneeded, extraneous or small. Crisis is a great editor. When you read the transcripts that have been released over the years it's all so clear.
Flight 93 flight attendant Ceecee Lyles, 33 years old, in an answering-machine message to her husband: "Please tell my children that I love them very much. I'm sorry, baby. I wish I could see your face again."
Thirty-one-year-old Melissa Harrington, a California-based trade consultant at a meeting in the towers, called her father to say she loved him. Minutes later she left a message on the answering machine as her new husband slept in their San Francisco home. "Sean, it's me, she said. "I just wanted to let you know I love you."
Capt. Walter Hynes of the New York Fire Department's Ladder 13 dialed home that morning as his rig left the firehouse at 85th Street and Lexington Avenue. He was on his way downtown, he said in his message, and things were bad. "I don't know if we'll make it out. I want to tell you that I love you and I love the kids."
Firemen don't become firemen because they're pessimists. Imagine being a guy who feels in his gut he's going to his death, and he calls on the way to say goodbye and make things clear. His widow later told the Associated Press she'd played his message hundreds of times and made copies for their kids. "He was thinking about us in those final moments."
Elizabeth Rivas saw it that way too. When her husband left for the World Trade Center that morning, she went to a laundromat, where she heard the news. She couldn't reach him by cell and rushed home. He'd called at 9:02 and reached her daughter. The child reported, "He say, mommy, he say he love you no matter what happens, he loves you." He never called again. Mrs. Rivas later said, "He tried to call me. He called me."
There was the amazing acceptance. I spoke this week with a medical doctor who told me she'd seen many people die, and many "with grace and acceptance." The people on the planes didn't have time to accept, to reflect, to think through; and yet so many showed the kind of grace you see in a hospice.
Peter Hanson, a passenger on United Airlines Flight 175 called his father. "I think they intend to go to Chicago or someplace and fly into a building," he said. "Don't worry, Dad--if it happens, it will be very fast." On the same flight, Brian Sweeney called his wife, got the answering machine, and told her they'd been hijacked. "Hopefully I'll talk to you again, but if not, have a good life. I know I'll see you again some day."
There was Tom Burnett's famous call from United Flight 93. "We're all going to die, but three of us are going to do something," he told his wife, Deena. "I love you, honey."
These were people saying, essentially, In spite of my imminent death, my thoughts are on you, and on love. I asked a psychiatrist the other day for his thoughts, and he said the people on the planes and in the towers were "accepting the inevitable" and taking care of "unfinished business." "At death's door people pass on a responsibility--'Tell Billy I never stopped loving him and forgave him long ago.' 'Take care of Mom.' 'Pray for me, Father. Pray for me, I haven't been very good.' " They address what needs doing.
This reminded me of that moment when Todd Beamer of United 93 wound up praying on the phone with a woman he'd never met before, a Verizon Airfone supervisor named Lisa Jefferson. She said later that his tone was calm. It seemed as if they were "old friends," she later wrote. They said the Lord's Prayer together. Then he said "Let's roll."
I think too about the sounds that came from within the buildings and within the planes--the phone calls and messages left on answering machines, all the last things said to whoever was home and picked up the phone. They awe me, those messages.
Something terrible had happened. Life was reduced to its essentials. Time was short. People said what counted, what mattered. It has been noted that there is no record of anyone calling to say, "I never liked you," or, "You hurt my feelings." No one negotiated past grievances or said, "Vote for Smith." Amazingly --or not--there is no record of anyone damning the terrorists or saying "I hate them."
No one said anything unneeded, extraneous or small. Crisis is a great editor. When you read the transcripts that have been released over the years it's all so clear.
Flight 93 flight attendant Ceecee Lyles, 33 years old, in an answering-machine message to her husband: "Please tell my children that I love them very much. I'm sorry, baby. I wish I could see your face again."
Thirty-one-year-old Melissa Harrington, a California-based trade consultant at a meeting in the towers, called her father to say she loved him. Minutes later she left a message on the answering machine as her new husband slept in their San Francisco home. "Sean, it's me, she said. "I just wanted to let you know I love you."
Capt. Walter Hynes of the New York Fire Department's Ladder 13 dialed home that morning as his rig left the firehouse at 85th Street and Lexington Avenue. He was on his way downtown, he said in his message, and things were bad. "I don't know if we'll make it out. I want to tell you that I love you and I love the kids."
Firemen don't become firemen because they're pessimists. Imagine being a guy who feels in his gut he's going to his death, and he calls on the way to say goodbye and make things clear. His widow later told the Associated Press she'd played his message hundreds of times and made copies for their kids. "He was thinking about us in those final moments."
Elizabeth Rivas saw it that way too. When her husband left for the World Trade Center that morning, she went to a laundromat, where she heard the news. She couldn't reach him by cell and rushed home. He'd called at 9:02 and reached her daughter. The child reported, "He say, mommy, he say he love you no matter what happens, he loves you." He never called again. Mrs. Rivas later said, "He tried to call me. He called me."
There was the amazing acceptance. I spoke this week with a medical doctor who told me she'd seen many people die, and many "with grace and acceptance." The people on the planes didn't have time to accept, to reflect, to think through; and yet so many showed the kind of grace you see in a hospice.
Peter Hanson, a passenger on United Airlines Flight 175 called his father. "I think they intend to go to Chicago or someplace and fly into a building," he said. "Don't worry, Dad--if it happens, it will be very fast." On the same flight, Brian Sweeney called his wife, got the answering machine, and told her they'd been hijacked. "Hopefully I'll talk to you again, but if not, have a good life. I know I'll see you again some day."
There was Tom Burnett's famous call from United Flight 93. "We're all going to die, but three of us are going to do something," he told his wife, Deena. "I love you, honey."
These were people saying, essentially, In spite of my imminent death, my thoughts are on you, and on love. I asked a psychiatrist the other day for his thoughts, and he said the people on the planes and in the towers were "accepting the inevitable" and taking care of "unfinished business." "At death's door people pass on a responsibility--'Tell Billy I never stopped loving him and forgave him long ago.' 'Take care of Mom.' 'Pray for me, Father. Pray for me, I haven't been very good.' " They address what needs doing.
This reminded me of that moment when Todd Beamer of United 93 wound up praying on the phone with a woman he'd never met before, a Verizon Airfone supervisor named Lisa Jefferson. She said later that his tone was calm. It seemed as if they were "old friends," she later wrote. They said the Lord's Prayer together. Then he said "Let's roll."
9/11: First amendment hypocrisy?
If you have been following the news, you probably have read about the controversy surrounding the ABC docu-drama scheduled to air tonight and tomorrow entitled The Path to 9/11. Most of the criticism has come from Clinton administration officials, none whom have actually seen this TV movie yet.
I will hold back any criticism of this drama on my part until I actually see it. However, most of the concerns are over scenes that never took place in real life.
More interesting, though, are the many calls by these very same liberals not to edit out a few objectionable scenes, but to pull the show entirely:
But more importantly, this is a free speech issue and amazingly enough for the Democrats, free speech isn't limited by facts or opinions. Within some reasonable restrictions (like yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater), you can say whatever you want, even if someone else doesn't believe it to be true. In fact, your free speech doesn't need to be backed by facts. That's why, as distasteful as it is, we allow people like Holocaust-deniers to have their revisionist history opinions. Standing up for free speech means standing up for those you disagree with, not just those on your side of the fence.
I thought Democrats and liberals were for free speech? In this case, it's apparently only when it fits their version of the facts.
I will hold back any criticism of this drama on my part until I actually see it. However, most of the concerns are over scenes that never took place in real life.
More interesting, though, are the many calls by these very same liberals not to edit out a few objectionable scenes, but to pull the show entirely:
The Democratic National Committee, for one, submitted a petition signed by 200,000 people calling for ABC to drop the "right-wing, factually inaccurate mocudrama."I do understand that Democrats may have conerns about the factuality of some scenes. However, ABC has clearly pointed out that this not a straight documentary presentation of facts. It is a drama based on the 9/11 Commission Report, and some scenes have been fictionalized. This isn't my opinion, this is what ABC has already said.
But more importantly, this is a free speech issue and amazingly enough for the Democrats, free speech isn't limited by facts or opinions. Within some reasonable restrictions (like yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater), you can say whatever you want, even if someone else doesn't believe it to be true. In fact, your free speech doesn't need to be backed by facts. That's why, as distasteful as it is, we allow people like Holocaust-deniers to have their revisionist history opinions. Standing up for free speech means standing up for those you disagree with, not just those on your side of the fence.
I thought Democrats and liberals were for free speech? In this case, it's apparently only when it fits their version of the facts.
09 September 2006
9/11
Monday is September 11th, or the fifth anniversary of what a whole nation remembers as "9/11." Rather than try to pack a whole bunch of stories into one day, I will take this weekend to post some of the things I've come across. I will start out with my own story. Feel free to post your stories in the comments section.
On September 11, 2001, I was living in Oak Harbor, on Whidbey Island, a few hours north of Seattle, Washington. I had moved there in the spring and was in training at the EA-6B Prowler fleet replacement squadron, VAQ-129. I was also taking flying lessons at the time, and had progressed about 1/3 of the way through the private pilot license syllabus.
I don't recall the exact time, but it was very early, 6-something (Pacific time), when the phone rang. I remember it was early because it woke me up. It was my Dad. He told me that a plane had hit the World Trade Center. That was the extent of the news at the time. I thanked him for letting me know and hung up.
As I wiped the sleep from my eyes and walked toward the living room, the first thoughts that went through my mind were that it was probably a foggy or cloudy day, and some poor Cesna pilot got lost and flew into the World Trade Center. As I turned on the TV sometime after 6 o'clock, however, it became immediately clear that something very different was occurring. It seemed to be that both towers were on fire (the first plane hit the north tower at 8:46ET and the second plane hit the south tower at 9:02ET). In my mind, I want to say that I saw the second plane hit on TV, but in reality it seems that this is not possible, as I don't believe the second plane hitting the south tower was broadcast live.
I also remember thinking that, despite hitting the towers with such force, there were relatively few floors in flames, and I never really suspected the structural integrity of the building was at risk. My only thoughts were: get those people out as fast as possible!
I immediately woke up my roommate Tom and his then-girlfriend (now wife) to let them know what was going on. I think we probably all stared at the TV for who-knows-how-long without saying so much as a word. What I do remember vividly was watching both towers collapse (the south tower at 9:59ET and the north tower at 10:28ET). More silence. I tried to calculate in my mind how many people must have been killed, just like that.
Tom and I were both in classes at the time and eventually had to go into work. I don't recall what time we actually went in, but I do remember that it was not difficult to get onto the base. What helps me remember this is how difficult it was to get onto the base in the following days--literally hours to go a half a mile. On September 12th, every vehicle was being inspected at the gates. I seem to recall it taking over two and a half hours to get onto base on the 12th.
Going back to September 11th. We were in class. The flight schedule was immediately cancelled, which seemed obvious. What was less understandable was the fact that our academic classes were continuing. I had several squadron mates who were frantically calling "home" to families in the NYC area trying to find out something. Every break between classes was a rush to the TV or the telephones. Our pleas to cancel class were basically ignored.
We did not know at the time, but one of my classmates did lose a family member. My friend Dave Ganci lost his uncle, Peter J. Ganci, who was a New York Fire Department Chief.
Sometime during the day we also learned of the attack on the Pentagon. The entire day was surreal and many of its details are burned into my memory.
That night, President Bush spoke to the nation:
Many months later, we flew missions over Afghanistan during Operation Enduring Freedom. Then it was over Iraq during Operation Iraqi Freedom. And now, of course, on the ground in Iraq. I did not lose a family member although my friends did. Yet my life was inextricably altered by the events of that day.
Please feel free to share your stories.
On September 11, 2001, I was living in Oak Harbor, on Whidbey Island, a few hours north of Seattle, Washington. I had moved there in the spring and was in training at the EA-6B Prowler fleet replacement squadron, VAQ-129. I was also taking flying lessons at the time, and had progressed about 1/3 of the way through the private pilot license syllabus.
I don't recall the exact time, but it was very early, 6-something (Pacific time), when the phone rang. I remember it was early because it woke me up. It was my Dad. He told me that a plane had hit the World Trade Center. That was the extent of the news at the time. I thanked him for letting me know and hung up.
As I wiped the sleep from my eyes and walked toward the living room, the first thoughts that went through my mind were that it was probably a foggy or cloudy day, and some poor Cesna pilot got lost and flew into the World Trade Center. As I turned on the TV sometime after 6 o'clock, however, it became immediately clear that something very different was occurring. It seemed to be that both towers were on fire (the first plane hit the north tower at 8:46ET and the second plane hit the south tower at 9:02ET). In my mind, I want to say that I saw the second plane hit on TV, but in reality it seems that this is not possible, as I don't believe the second plane hitting the south tower was broadcast live.
I also remember thinking that, despite hitting the towers with such force, there were relatively few floors in flames, and I never really suspected the structural integrity of the building was at risk. My only thoughts were: get those people out as fast as possible!
I immediately woke up my roommate Tom and his then-girlfriend (now wife) to let them know what was going on. I think we probably all stared at the TV for who-knows-how-long without saying so much as a word. What I do remember vividly was watching both towers collapse (the south tower at 9:59ET and the north tower at 10:28ET). More silence. I tried to calculate in my mind how many people must have been killed, just like that.
Tom and I were both in classes at the time and eventually had to go into work. I don't recall what time we actually went in, but I do remember that it was not difficult to get onto the base. What helps me remember this is how difficult it was to get onto the base in the following days--literally hours to go a half a mile. On September 12th, every vehicle was being inspected at the gates. I seem to recall it taking over two and a half hours to get onto base on the 12th.
Going back to September 11th. We were in class. The flight schedule was immediately cancelled, which seemed obvious. What was less understandable was the fact that our academic classes were continuing. I had several squadron mates who were frantically calling "home" to families in the NYC area trying to find out something. Every break between classes was a rush to the TV or the telephones. Our pleas to cancel class were basically ignored.
We did not know at the time, but one of my classmates did lose a family member. My friend Dave Ganci lost his uncle, Peter J. Ganci, who was a New York Fire Department Chief.
Sometime during the day we also learned of the attack on the Pentagon. The entire day was surreal and many of its details are burned into my memory.
That night, President Bush spoke to the nation:
The pictures of airplanes flying into buildings, fires burning, huge structures collapsing, have filled us with disbelief, terrible sadness, and a quiet, unyielding anger. These acts of mass murder were intended to frighten our nation into chaos and retreat. But they have failed; our country is strong.As I alluded to before, the next few days were complete hell trying to get into work. Schedules were changed and shifted, and somehow we kept on with class. I don't recall when we started flying again ("we" meaning the squadron; I was not at that phase yet); but all VFR air traffic was suspended for at least a month, so my flying lessons came to a halt (and unfortunately never started up again, something I regret to this day).
A great people has been moved to defend a great nation. Terrorist attacks can shake the foundations of our biggest buildings, but they cannot touch the foundation of America. These acts shattered steel, but they cannot dent the steel of American resolve.
America was targeted for attack because we're the brightest beacon for freedom and opportunity in the world. And no one will keep that light from shining.
Today, our nation saw evil, the very worst of human nature. And we responded with the best of America -- with the daring of our rescue workers, with the caring for strangers and neighbors who came to give blood and help in any way they could.
Many months later, we flew missions over Afghanistan during Operation Enduring Freedom. Then it was over Iraq during Operation Iraqi Freedom. And now, of course, on the ground in Iraq. I did not lose a family member although my friends did. Yet my life was inextricably altered by the events of that day.
Please feel free to share your stories.
30 April 2006
United 93
I spent my free afternoon at the movie theater and had decided for a while that I wanted to see the 9/11 film United 93. The guys I went to the mall with decided to see something else, feeling that the film was probably a little too heavy considering what we're doing over the next year (and after seeing the film I don't disagree with them).
There has been a lot said about United 93 and the other 9/11 movies coming out (among them Oliver Stone's World Trade Center), however, I'll stay away from all that. I simply wanted to see the movie for what it was.
While watching the movie I noticed immediate similarities to the A&E special Flight 93. In fact, the movie is pretty much just a dramatic, movie version of the A&E show. I say this as a fact, not as an attempt to diminish the message. There is no propaganda in this movie. There are no attempts as politics on either side. Just the story of the flight, with the other hijacked planes as the background story.
Of course, this one does not have the happy Hollywood ending. There have been and will be a lot of tears shed at this movie. But I do think it's very powerful reminder of what we're doing in Iraq and Afghanistan.
There has been a lot said about United 93 and the other 9/11 movies coming out (among them Oliver Stone's World Trade Center), however, I'll stay away from all that. I simply wanted to see the movie for what it was.
While watching the movie I noticed immediate similarities to the A&E special Flight 93. In fact, the movie is pretty much just a dramatic, movie version of the A&E show. I say this as a fact, not as an attempt to diminish the message. There is no propaganda in this movie. There are no attempts as politics on either side. Just the story of the flight, with the other hijacked planes as the background story.
Of course, this one does not have the happy Hollywood ending. There have been and will be a lot of tears shed at this movie. But I do think it's very powerful reminder of what we're doing in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)