– posted by thehim
It has been achieved.
This entry was posted
on Monday, December 7th, 2009 at 12:24 pm and is filed under TheHim.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.
December 7th, 2009 at 1:19 pm
I just gotta say … come on. Why would you take AirTrans’ word? An airline, in conjunction with the U.S. govt, wouldn’t lie to cover up an incident that could spark violent outbursts in the future? Of course they would.
I don’t believe the story the NASA dude told either … he’s already apparently admitted some of it was wrong. But I won’t take AirTrans’ word that none of it is true.
December 7th, 2009 at 1:35 pm
Pudge, there’s nothing saying that there was a disturbance, or even that people were behaving badly, but calling it a “dry run”? Sorry, but this guy was caught in several lies, and even if it wasn’t… what brilliant terrorist decides to watch porn and mouth off to the flight attendants while on the ground?
I’m seriously beginning to believe that (u)SPers suck tremendously at both logic AND “satire”. It’s like self-parody performance art.
December 7th, 2009 at 1:48 pm
@1
Why would I take AirTran’s word? Because there was a whole plane full of passengers, plus a crew, who could easily point out any discrepancies. All you have is the word of one person, who apparently wasn’t even on the plane.
Utterly idiotic, Pudge.
December 7th, 2009 at 4:26 pm
I think it is the moon. And they’ve gone over it.
Whether it is ClimateGate, Birtherism, ACORN or an AirTran conspiracy to hide terrorists, et al - they all seem to be oblivious to Occam’s razor.
I’d say more, but I’m an accused murder plotter over at (u)SP.
No wingnut there.
December 7th, 2009 at 8:11 pm
I do like the idea that an airline would have an interest in helping terrorists. That’s beyond even a failure to use Okham’s Razor; that’s basic inability to understand elementary self-interest. (How many of such failures are also Ayn Rand groupies? The mind, it wobbles.)
But remember: Peak Wingnut can never be achieved, because it is always being achieved. Birtherism is belief, in the total absence of any supporting evidence; this AirTran+Terrorist garbage is belief in the presence of exclusively contrary evidence. They’ll find a new peak soon, like maybe belief based only on the possibility of totally imaginary evidence, with the usual vast conspiracy to make the rest of us believe in reality. Wobble away!
December 7th, 2009 at 10:41 pm
I’d say more, but I’m an accused murder plotter over at (u)SP.
Nothing inherently wrong with that, Mark — at least according to pudge. As long as you believe someone deserves to die, pudge says there’s nothing inherently wrong with killing him in cold blood. Just ask pudge — he got that from reading Thomas Jefferson!
Unfortunately, the wingnuts have not begun to peak….
December 7th, 2009 at 10:42 pm
Oops, I meant Mike…
December 8th, 2009 at 12:15 am
demo kid: there’s nothing saying that there was a disturbance, or even that people were behaving badly
You have only AirTrans’ word saying otherwise. Shrug.
this guy was caught in several lies
That’s beside the point I made.
what brilliant terrorist decides to watch porn and mouth off to the flight attendants while on the ground?
You missed his point, which is that they did these things in order to see how the airline would respond. So yes, they very well might act that in odd ways designed to get attention, if they were doing such a thing. Please pay attention, demo kid.
I’m seriously beginning to believe that (u)SPers suck tremendously at both logic …
Except that you’re attacking an argument you didn’t understand. Oops.
… AND “satire”.
That wasn’t satire. (And if a leftist had written it, you’d all think it was great.)
It’s like self-parody performance art.
How did that parody anything I’ve ever (seriously) said or done? (It doesn’t.)
Thehim: Why would I take AirTran’s word? Because there was a whole plane full of passengers, plus a crew, who could easily point out any discrepancies.
Oh please. So the absence of evidence against them is reason to believe them? You’re really making that insipid argument? That’s the same reasoning Schlussel uses.
All you have is the word of one person
If you mean to imply that I am arguing that AirTrans is wrong, then you are misrepresenting me. I am just asking why anyone should believe they are right, and have gotten no good answers. (A “good answer” would be something along the lines of actual evidence that the event didn’t happen, as AirTrans claims.)
MikeBS: they all seem to be oblivious to Occam’s razor
It actually does not apply to my comments. Please learn what it is before you try to use it. I am simply saying I don’t know what happened, and I would like to know what happened. Occam’s Razor can tell me what the most likely answer is, but I am not asking that question, because that is not how the left is framing it: they are claiming to know what happened. So Occam’s Razor is inapplicable here.
tensor: I do like the idea that an airline would have an interest in helping terrorists. That’s beyond even a failure to use Okham’s Razor …
Like demo kid, you misunderstand too. The idea is not that the airline would be helping terrorists, but aiding the U.S. government in covering up an incident for the purposes of INCREASING our security: if this DID happen and word got out, well, obviously the govt has some interest in keeping it quiet.
But remember: Peak Wingnut can never be achieved, because it is always being achieved.
As evidenced by many leftists, yes. Like Harry Reid today. And hell, nothing I’ve heard from the right about Obama meets what Michael Moore has said about Bush. (Apparently we are only in Afghanistan because of gas pipelines for Bush’s rich buddies, he says. Nothing to do with terrorism, oh no.)
this AirTran+Terrorist garbage is belief in the presence of exclusively contrary evidence
The evidence being … AirTrans’ word. That’s not serious evidence.
If I had to pick one story to believe, it would be AirTrans. But you all are acting like there’s proof that AirTrans is right, and there isn’t, from what I’ve seen. I figure if there was, someone would have pointed it out by now.
If this evidence does exist, fine: it answers my question as to why AirTrans should be believed: “because we have evidence, and here it is.” I have nothing to lose by such evidence being produced, obviously.
December 8th, 2009 at 7:05 am
You missed his point, which is that they did these things in order to see how the airline would respond. So yes, they very well might act that in odd ways designed to get attention, if they were doing such a thing. Please pay attention, demo kid.
Pudge, are you really dumb enough to believe this? Really?
Do you actually believe that there were “terrorists” on the plane conducting a “dry run” in order to prepare for some future attack?
If I had to pick one story to believe, it would be AirTrans. But you all are acting like there’s proof that AirTrans is right, and there isn’t, from what I’ve seen.
What reason do they have to lie? Part of being smart enough to see through bullshit is being able to figure out when people have a motivation to lie about things. AirTran has absolutely no reason at all to lie about something like that. Maybe if the incident showed their own company in a bad light, then maybe. But nothing that Petruna described would reasonably be seen as something that AirTran would have any interest in covering up.
Petruna, on the other hand, is just some random guy with a story that doesn’t appear to check out. If that’s the case, why would you put so much doubt on AirTrans story? Why would the account of a crazyperson cause you to doubt everyone else’s story? That doesn’t make any sense, and it’s amazing that you’re not smart enough to figure that out.
December 8th, 2009 at 8:26 am
@ December 8th, 2009 at 12:15 am pudge,
“You have only AirTrans’ word saying otherwise. Shrug.”
Sure pudge. That is all we have. Or maybe that is all pudge has? +1 WINGNUT.
“I am simply saying I don’t know what happened,”
Really? Cuz when I read and re-read your post I don’t find the words I don’t know at all. What I read is a wingnut’s doubt that maybe the airline and the guberment is in collusion to protect terrorists. +10 WINGNUT.
“The evidence being … AirTrans’ word. That’s not serious evidence. … But you all are acting like there’s proof that AirTrans is right,…”
Evidence of what, pudge? Proof of what, pudge?
Doesn’t even occur to you that AirTran doesn’t need to prove anything, does it pudge? WINGNUT +5.
“because that is not how the left is framing it: they are claiming to know what happened. So Occam’s Razor is inapplicable here.”
In your mind you know you’re right. WINGNUT +5.
December 8th, 2009 at 8:40 am
@ December 8th, 2009 at 12:15 am pudge,
“If I had to pick one story to believe, it would be AirTrans. ”
Well, of course, you don’t need to pick. Please tell us the priority of the investigations that need to be made: AirTrans Cover-up, Birth Certificate, ClimateGate, Marxists in the government, ACORN …
There are sooooooooo many stories to be investigated it is hard for WINGNUTS to pick, isn’t it pudge?
December 8th, 2009 at 8:51 am
FAA says the same as the airline.
QED
December 8th, 2009 at 9:08 am
And hell, nothing I’ve heard from the right about Obama meets what Michael Moore has said about Bush.
You’re right, it’s not like anyone’s accusing him of being a secret Muslim who was born in Kenya.
http://washingtonindependent.com/53396/how-many-southern-whites-believe-obama-was-born-in-america
Are you trying to be an idiot?
December 8th, 2009 at 12:30 pm
But, but, but…
There is a NEW conspiracy.
Apparently ACORN owns the Massachusetts Attorney General’s office.
“The videos that have been released appear to have been edited, in some cases substantially, including the insertion of a substitute voiceover for significant portions of Mr. O’Keefe’s and Ms. Giles’s comments, which makes it difficult to determine the questions to which ACORN employees are responding. A comparison of the publicly available transcripts to the released videos confirms that large portions of the original video have been omitted from the released versions.
December 8th, 2009 at 12:54 pm
Thank God we live in America, where any damn fool can believe any damn fool thing he wants to, otherwise we would have to pay taxes to institutionalize pudge and all of his loyal readers.
December 8th, 2009 at 1:23 pm
In the past, pudge, I’ve had grudging respect for you. Now I just think that you’re a goddamned idiot.
You have only AirTrans’ word saying otherwise. Shrug.
And you only have a “first-person” account from someone that wasn’t on the flight, and wasn’t privy to the discussions by Homeland Security.
this guy was caught in several lies
That’s beside the point I made.
WHAT? Seriously? The fact that the guy lied about the whole affair is irrelevant?
You missed his point, which is that they did these things in order to see how the airline would respond. So yes, they very well might act that in odd ways designed to get attention, if they were doing such a thing. Please pay attention, demo kid.
“How the airline would respond?” Shit yeah, pudge, now terrorists know that if you watch porn during a flight and you’re rude to the flight attendants, you might get interviewed by the TSA. Brilliant detective work.
Except that you’re attacking an argument you didn’t understand. Oops.
And you’re making an argument that makes NO sense.
That wasn’t satire. (And if a leftist had written it, you’d all think it was great.)
I’m more thinking of your idiotic post about the Mumbai attacks on (u)SP. As far from funny or interesting as someone can get.
How did that parody anything I’ve ever (seriously) said or done? (It doesn’t.)
The sheet insanity of those remarks, with the complete lack of evidence added in, and the usual far right wingnut touchstone of the fear of brown people dropped into the mix… yes, it’s getting to the point where even traditional conservatives probably have a hard time taking you seriously.
December 8th, 2009 at 5:36 pm
“How the airline would respond?” Shit yeah, pudge, now terrorists know that if you watch porn during a flight and you’re rude to the flight attendants, you might get interviewed by the TSA. Brilliant detective work.
That’s fucking hilarious. Thanks.
December 8th, 2009 at 7:11 pm
I am just asking why anyone should believe they are right, and have gotten no good answers.
OK, I’ll play along.
AirTrans claims they had to return a scheduled flight to the gate, because a passenger refused to obey the universal rules concerning personal electronic devices. Once back at the gate, some other passengers decided not to continue on that airplane, and a member of the crew (flight crew or cabin crew was not specified) had to be replaced. At no time was any security person from the TSA or local law enforcement aboard the airplane. Eventually, the airplane departed on the intended route.
None of that is in any way unusual, and no documentation contradicts AirTrans’ claims. The only reason we heard of this non-event was that some wingnut boarded the airplane after it had returned to the gate, heard some version of the above events, and composed a fable about how he was Jack Bauer, and how the un-cooperative passenger was part of a terrorist squad.
Zero documents support the wingnut story, and zero documents contradict Airtrans’ story. The wingnut has a reason to lie (delusions of heroism) and the airline has no reason to lie, or engage in any (unspecified) cover-up with the government. Clear enough yet?
…if this DID happen and word got out, well, obviously the govt has some interest in keeping it quiet.
And your evidence that “this DID happen” is the unsupported– no, contradicted — word of a guy who thinks he’s just like Jack Bauer.
The evidence being … AirTrans’ word. That’s not serious evidence.
The wingnut claimed to see TSA, and other law enforcement agents, aboard the airplane. No record exists of their presence. AirTrans’ logs, maintained in accordance with the company’s legal obligations, show the wingnut was not even aboard the airplane during the events he claimed to describe. To falsify those passenger logs, AirTrans would have to violate their operating certificate. Are you seriously claiming they risked their entire business to engage in a cover-up of a single, dubious incident?
But you all are acting like there’s proof that AirTrans is right, and there isn’t, from what I’ve seen. I figure if there was, someone would have pointed it out by now.
They’ve provided a plausible story, consistent with all known evidence, and consistent with their obligations as a carrier of passengers under federal law. Why do you question their story?
December 10th, 2009 at 11:21 am
There are now two alleged eyewitnesses on that flight. These other eyewitnesses have denied that the ‘terrorists’ were dressed in “traditional garb”, as Petruna claimed. This is not a minor flaw in Petruna’s story. You would think that other people on the flight would have noticed 11 men dressed in “traditional” Arabic “garb”, wouldn’t you?
Certainly, others would remember if Petruna and a “Texan” physically confronted (grabbed with both hands) men in “traditional” Arabic “garb” and told them that they WILL LEAVE the plane by force. Nobody else does, though. Weird.
Much of Petruna’s story relies on his intimate knowledge of these 11 men’s motives, thoughts, and conversations. For example, he “knows” that they were watching a pornographic video made the night before. Yet he ALSO CLAIMS that these men were speaking in Arabic the entire time. Are we to believe that Petruna is fluent in Arabic, because he certainly has never claimed that.
In order to believe Petruna, one must ask themselves “How confident are you that YOU would be able to distinguish Arabic from, let’s say, Turkish, Hebrew, Russian, or Amazigh?”
The entire “terrorist dry run” theory depends on these 11 men being Arabic, yet nothing supports that beyond Petruna’s inexpert assessment that this is the case. In fact, we merely have one guy’s story in which he brags at length about his own heroic action in an email that he admits was never intended for widespread consumption. Is that because it wouldn’t bear scrutiny? In fact, the entire premise rests on the story of one man whose story is implausible on the face. Yet Pudge asks that we believe we “dodged a bullet” somehow…and the “proof” is that AirTrans denies the man’s story.