Is anyone aware that 9/11 is VERY loosely in a S.King book? This is a very good post that shows that some Americans get that then in their "just" wars they will produce victims who do not feel it is just.
I knew about a few of those attempts which is why I say Conde Rice is either a lying sack of shit or an imbecile since she told a congressional hearing (I think it was) "no one would imagine terrorists flying planes into a building" I answer "except all those people who already tried it as wellas those 19 most recent terroroists. Imagine a cop saying "I would never imagine a man with a mask and a gun stealing money from a bank".
A similar book written by Bruce Schneier called Beyond Fear talks about how very strict and invasive security measures give ONLY the illusion of safety and really aren't worth the price. I like the point of "You can only reduce the chances of an event happening" because that's all you can ever realistically achieve. Look at prisons with strip searches and pat downs etc and they STILL have contra band coming in. So why people think these new measures are ok, I'll never understand.
Interesting that a YT vlogger can highlight these hijacking incidents with similar MO's and the trend that they seem to indicate, but Ive never seen this reported by the Mainstream Media. Nor that the FAA was aware of the trend WAY WAY WAY before 911. I guess it would use up too much valuable "airtime" needed for those important segments on "Teen Sexting", or "Internet Predators", or Palins daughter exhibiting all the "grace" of a Clydesdale on "Dancing with the Has-Beens"....: )
There's a very good video of a quick interview with an Israeli anti-terrorist. They use pre-flight interviews. They approach people in boarding lines, tell them the purpose of the interview and ask them questions, no hi-tec $150000 machines, no pat downs. Just a few friendly questions. And he stated that the US measures would not work.
You should reconsider your enthusiasm for de Becker. Most of his techniques are, like lie detector tests, modernized forms of divination. I've used his books before to show how pre-scientific ideas still have tremendous appeal, even to the educated in other fields (a case in point I'm sorry to say).
@HConstantine How would you say that lie dectector tests are modern forms of divination?
My understanding of them is that they rely on measuring heart rate fluctuations which according to the authorities (cops, prosecuting attorneys, etc) invariably (or at least almost invariably) increase when someone is lying.
Oh! and a follow up question: If lie dectection is divination and therefore non-scientific why is it admissable evidence in court in your opinion?
@WhirlingWolves No one has ever done a test that establishes any relationship between lying and changes in autonomic responses. Polygraphers have professional journals, but they make a point of never investigating that issue.
Lie detector tests are not admissible in court (in the US). Look that up since you are confused.
Police and corporations like them because they provide a sense of control.
@WhirlingWolves When someone is accused of murder in the Azande tribe in Africa, they try him by feeding poison to a chicken and watching its reaction. If the chicken throws it up and lives, he is innocent; if the chicken dies, he is guilty.
@WhirlingWolves Deciding innocence or guilt based on watching wavy lines on paper is no different.
At the most, the lines show you are nervous. If the police ask an innocent man if he is a murderer, he will be nervous. If they ask him if he is the king of France, he will not be. How does that test lying?
@HConstantine Thanks for the answer. I understand what divination is (as in your example of african chickens) I just did'nt understand how it applied to lie dectection.
Proably because I've always assumed it was scientific because I was misinformed about it's admissability in court. That and trash TV shows where polygraphers sing it's praises before they find who is or is not the father. YAY for being "NOT the father of your baby!" though. Hahaha!
@HConstantine I am sorry, but what specifically does he do that relies on any pre-scientific concepts? I have read several of his books, and haven't one shred of anything anti scientific, pseudo-scientific or 'divination' (modern or otherwise). Is it possible you are mixing him up with someone else? If it is him, please point to a specific claim so I can see for myself.
@LithodidMan He generally relies on inference from anecdotes.
What he does is a variation of 'profiling' which is like casting an astrological chart and has been thoroughly debunked by now. Look for yourself through his books (which I don;t have to hand) and see to what degree he cites peer reviewed research to support his analyses. If you dont mind I'll send you a PM.
@HConstantine Please send a PM if you wish. I for the life of me cannot think of anything he says that is remotely akin to casting an astrological chart. If thoroughly debunked, I would really appreciate a source. Searching online, I found that he was called "a bunch of hoo" by an editor of Guns for his suggestion that handguns could be made with better safety features (like fingerprint-detecting safeties). That same quote is repeated quite a bit, but I can find no other sources.
So many important points in this video. I can't thank you enough. I'm getting a little shit for pointing out that our government as well as others have contributed to the mess. FantasmaBAnco left some great comments on my video. Basically she listed things we could do to alleviate some of the problems. People want to deny it, but we are creating or at least contributing to the conditions that give rise to terrorism.
Is anyone aware that 9/11 is VERY loosely in a S.King book? This is a very good post that shows that some Americans get that then in their "just" wars they will produce victims who do not feel it is just.
Cade57 1 year ago
Is anyone aware that 9/11 is VERY loosely in a S.King book?
Cade57 1 year ago
I knew about a few of those attempts which is why I say Conde Rice is either a lying sack of shit or an imbecile since she told a congressional hearing (I think it was) "no one would imagine terrorists flying planes into a building" I answer "except all those people who already tried it as wellas those 19 most recent terroroists. Imagine a cop saying "I would never imagine a man with a mask and a gun stealing money from a bank".
prodigyat9 1 year ago
A similar book written by Bruce Schneier called Beyond Fear talks about how very strict and invasive security measures give ONLY the illusion of safety and really aren't worth the price. I like the point of "You can only reduce the chances of an event happening" because that's all you can ever realistically achieve. Look at prisons with strip searches and pat downs etc and they STILL have contra band coming in. So why people think these new measures are ok, I'll never understand.
OneMadBastard 1 year ago
Interesting that a YT vlogger can highlight these hijacking incidents with similar MO's and the trend that they seem to indicate, but Ive never seen this reported by the Mainstream Media. Nor that the FAA was aware of the trend WAY WAY WAY before 911. I guess it would use up too much valuable "airtime" needed for those important segments on "Teen Sexting", or "Internet Predators", or Palins daughter exhibiting all the "grace" of a Clydesdale on "Dancing with the Has-Beens"....: )
lstntn 1 year ago
There's a very good video of a quick interview with an Israeli anti-terrorist. They use pre-flight interviews. They approach people in boarding lines, tell them the purpose of the interview and ask them questions, no hi-tec $150000 machines, no pat downs. Just a few friendly questions. And he stated that the US measures would not work.
colourmegone 1 year ago
You should reconsider your enthusiasm for de Becker. Most of his techniques are, like lie detector tests, modernized forms of divination. I've used his books before to show how pre-scientific ideas still have tremendous appeal, even to the educated in other fields (a case in point I'm sorry to say).
HConstantine 1 year ago
@HConstantine How would you say that lie dectector tests are modern forms of divination?
My understanding of them is that they rely on measuring heart rate fluctuations which according to the authorities (cops, prosecuting attorneys, etc) invariably (or at least almost invariably) increase when someone is lying.
Oh! and a follow up question: If lie dectection is divination and therefore non-scientific why is it admissable evidence in court in your opinion?
WhirlingWolves 1 year ago
@WhirlingWolves No one has ever done a test that establishes any relationship between lying and changes in autonomic responses. Polygraphers have professional journals, but they make a point of never investigating that issue.
Lie detector tests are not admissible in court (in the US). Look that up since you are confused.
Police and corporations like them because they provide a sense of control.
HConstantine 1 year ago
@WhirlingWolves When someone is accused of murder in the Azande tribe in Africa, they try him by feeding poison to a chicken and watching its reaction. If the chicken throws it up and lives, he is innocent; if the chicken dies, he is guilty.
HConstantine 1 year ago
@WhirlingWolves Deciding innocence or guilt based on watching wavy lines on paper is no different.
At the most, the lines show you are nervous. If the police ask an innocent man if he is a murderer, he will be nervous. If they ask him if he is the king of France, he will not be. How does that test lying?
HConstantine 1 year ago
@HConstantine Thanks for the answer. I understand what divination is (as in your example of african chickens) I just did'nt understand how it applied to lie dectection.
Proably because I've always assumed it was scientific because I was misinformed about it's admissability in court. That and trash TV shows where polygraphers sing it's praises before they find who is or is not the father. YAY for being "NOT the father of your baby!" though. Hahaha!
WhirlingWolves 1 year ago
@WhirlingWolves oh wait nevermind that's DNA tests... err... nevermind... I meant the TV polygraph tests for cheating. I'm drunk.
WhirlingWolves 1 year ago
@HConstantine I am sorry, but what specifically does he do that relies on any pre-scientific concepts? I have read several of his books, and haven't one shred of anything anti scientific, pseudo-scientific or 'divination' (modern or otherwise). Is it possible you are mixing him up with someone else? If it is him, please point to a specific claim so I can see for myself.
LithodidMan 1 year ago
@LithodidMan He generally relies on inference from anecdotes.
What he does is a variation of 'profiling' which is like casting an astrological chart and has been thoroughly debunked by now. Look for yourself through his books (which I don;t have to hand) and see to what degree he cites peer reviewed research to support his analyses. If you dont mind I'll send you a PM.
HConstantine 1 year ago
@HConstantine Please send a PM if you wish. I for the life of me cannot think of anything he says that is remotely akin to casting an astrological chart. If thoroughly debunked, I would really appreciate a source. Searching online, I found that he was called "a bunch of hoo" by an editor of Guns for his suggestion that handguns could be made with better safety features (like fingerprint-detecting safeties). That same quote is repeated quite a bit, but I can find no other sources.
LithodidMan 1 year ago
So many important points in this video. I can't thank you enough. I'm getting a little shit for pointing out that our government as well as others have contributed to the mess. FantasmaBAnco left some great comments on my video. Basically she listed things we could do to alleviate some of the problems. People want to deny it, but we are creating or at least contributing to the conditions that give rise to terrorism.
tattooskin72 1 year ago