[QUOTE=Lute Skywatcher]
Then you’re not thinking enough:[list=#]The latest drop in the price of oil was blamed on fewer people flying.[li]Duhbya is an oil man and I’m sure still has friends in the business.Don’t forget the huge oil lobby.[/list]Do you really believe that Duhbya would turn his back on his friends and the oil lobby just to make points with the public?[/li][/QUOTE]
Oh, I’m thinking it through. It’s a matter of priorities. If there’s an effect on oil prices it’ll be negligable and just a blip…a temporary setback to already outrageously obscene profit margins. Bush, et al is feeling the heat politically. That’s the true crisis. Business partners can be appeased.
Of course they are, but there are models that will pinpoint unusual activity. In other words, if there’s a mathematically significant spike in trading absent a legitimate reason, such as earnings release, the filing of a class action lawsuit, or even a hurricane.
I’m not so sure that people weren’t caught post-9/11. I’m not saying that there were definitely arrests or the freezing of assets, but I can’t be certain that there weren’t either.
Using “thought to have” in an assertion completely discounts it in my view.
…ther’s also THIS case where only one man was killed and the plane suffered little damage.
Apparently liquid bombs are not an EXACT science.
He showed airplanes that had cargo door blown off due to improper latching, huge holes for some other reasons and they landed. Point is it is not that easy to bring one down. His claim was that it would have to hit something crucial in guidence of the gas tanks. A hole in the wall of a plane makes generally doesn’t bring them down.
It would be ugly but not l;ikely trade centerish. Ut was not me saying it. It was the ABC expert and pilot. It made sense to me.
If one plane had came down ,supposedly due to liquid bomb. and a bunch had landed with holes in fusilage , I am not in dispute.
What about the continuing rise in the price of oil before this was announced? That alone may have prompted an increase in shorting as the end of the summer travel season comes around.
Blair doesn’t seem to have a whole lot to gain from more Bush fellating, and Londoners took the subway bombings in stride (already being more acclimated to acts of terrorism than ourselves) so I can’t think of a good reason for the UK govt. to trump up something petty to score populist points in their own country.
What we do with it, here, well, that’s a whole 'nuther thang. My BS-o-meter is pretty much redundant now when it comes to the Bush Admin., as they have zero credibility with me. I take the developments in the UK as reasonable evidence officials here aren’t blowing smoke up our asses, though I expect our esteemed leaders to milk this to dessication as Nov. approaches.
I guess your answer is NO, you appear to be the only one to think this is bogus. I’m sure another anti-Bush thread will come along soon though 
Um no…my own BS meter is not going off over this. Perhaps your’s is a bit out of tune…or maybe it goes off reguardless? 
-XT
Yeah, but you also think Bush is doing a heckuva job and that the Iraq war is not an unmitigated fiasco, so your BS meter is clearly busted…
Um…cite? I’d like to see some quotes of me saying Bush is doing a heck of a job there rjung.
-XT
On this matter, my BS-o-meter is at dead zero. Firstly, the world does not revolove around the US election cycle. Secondly, if you wanted to time this in order to affect the midterm elections, this would be just about the worst time to pick. Thirdly, you can’t just nab a few suspects, as the OP suggests, and keep it out of the press.
Think about it: It does nothing to help Lieberman. We’ve known for weeks that he was in trouble and risked losing the primary, so if you wanted to do a little terror scare, then you’d release this info about 1 week before the primary, not 2-3 days after it. And if you wanted to influence the November elections, you’d wait until October when the campaigning was in full swing, and people were actually thinking about whom they would be voting for. As it is, this story will not be in the news come October. What we’ll be reading about then will be… the war in Iraq. And that that’s exaclty what the Pubs don’t want people to be thinking about as the election approaches.
Remember all the predictions in 2004 that Bush was going spring ObL at the last minute to wrap up the election? Never happened. Remember all the predictions that the terror alert would be raised a few days before the eelction? Never happened.
Here’s what I’d look out for in the next month or so, and what would set my BS-o-metter off: There is no sign of improvement in Iraq, but Bush announces to start bringing the troops home. Six months ago I thought this was a sure bet, but I’m beginning to think even that ploy won’t be tried-- things just too out of control for Bush to pull back now.
As for the idea that we should just grab these guys and keep it quiet-- how, exactly, do you do that? The police raid a Muslim neighborhood and arrest ~20 young, ethinc Pakistani men, and you think the press isn’t goning to figure out what it’s all about? No way you can keep a lid on this.
What’s the problem? It’s a perfectly accurate description.
My goof, sorry. I was thinking of Evil One. Or John Mace. Or Shodan. Or Starving Artist. Or Clothahump. Or… heck, it’s so hard to tell all you sheep apart… 
Now that some time has passed, the truth is coming out, and if it is not an outright fabrication, it is ceratainly an over-statement to say that the plotters were on the verge of inflicting a devastating attack upon America::
While it was ceratainly effective at whipping up enough hysteria to blow the Iraq civil war off the front pages for a few days, it now appears that this so called plot is being used for political effect with the intent of scaring the voters. And judging by the initial reaction to the OP, I would say that it worked rather well.
You, um, got all that out of the cite you posted? Granted there was some question over timing but no where do I see in your cite where they are saying there was no threat…only that the British wanted to let things roll on for a while longer while the US (the focus of the alleged attacks mind you) didn’t want to take the risk.
So, they wanted to try for another week…and you take this to mean there really was not threat, or that the threat was ‘an over-statement’?? How do you get that from your own cite? Are you able to read between the lines or something?
I assume from your post you think this is especially significant (for some reason):
But the next paragraph goes on (from the same source):
When you are getting to the ‘dry run’ stage you are pretty much ready to roll on a given plan. In addition, say things changed and they decided that instead of a ‘dry run’ they changed their mind and went live? Terrorists don’t HAVE to slavishly follow a given plan you know. 
Which would be wise as, from what I’ve read elsewhere, such a mixture would be highly unstable…and likely to blow up at a less than opportune moment.
I really don’t see your cite as clearly showing that there was no threat, or that the threat was ‘overstated’.
-XT
There’s an excellent analysis of this on the PBS New Hour today, and there are a few guys who explain the different policies of the US and Britain. A lot of it has to do with the different legal systems, but in a nutshell the US’s policy is to arrest the guys as soon as possible, while the Brits like to let things play out a bit more. The Brits can hold someone for something like 28 days w/o charging them while in the US you get 48 hours. I really recomend that anyone intersted watch this segment. You probably can access it over the web if you miss it on TV-- PBS is pretty good at archiving this stuff.
It’s downright scary how you guys see plots and conspiracies everywhere you look.