There are a couple of things that don't add up. The suspect was burned with a fire that supposedly came from a device that he tried to ignite. Well, if the device was intended to be a bomb of some sort, the fact that it flamed would indicate that it was of some material that was not being compressed as it was ignited. The fact that a passenger was able to douse him with water would indicate whatever was burning needed air as fuel (not chemically independent.)

If the effect was not intended to be an explosion, then it makes sense that it was not packaged in some way to utilize compression for lethal volatility, and that it wasn't a high explosive. However it was meant to be used as an incendiary, it certainly wasn't very big. Even a larger fire, at even 30,000 feet, would be extinguished easily before serious injury to very many. The flight attendants and/or passengers could have doused the flames pretty easily with extinguishers, given that the flames needed air to burn.

If it really was an attempted attack planned by a group, it was very poorly planned. If it were a test by some group, what would they be wanting to find out? How quickly passengers will react to a burning crotch? Not very useful info. If they wanted to test security, they wouldn't have had to try to use any type of device. That they got through, and seated on the plane would have given them the answer.

So what would be the point of this? Maybe just a guy with a bad plan, and a bad attitude, maybe even some psych problems makes more sense to me.

Originally posted by Blender

So some random wacko that tries to light a FIREWORK onboard a train validates the "war on terror" that takes more innocent lives than it saves?

Just to bring into the here and now. It apparently was some sort of firework intended to set off a larger explosion. It was a plane (you know, they fly).

This one incident doesn't justify the war on terror. It is a reminder that we (Americans) remain a target for terrorism on our home soil.

It is not clear yet as to just who this individual is, but "random wacko" really doesn't seem to be the case. He claims association with al Qaeda and he was on the terror radar already.

Maybe he was a random wacko, but he could have taken down an plane full of Americans on Christmas day.

I don't think most Americans will scoff at this threat. Perhaps they will scoff at the would-be terrorist, but not at his intent.

Originally posted by Finalized

Stop paying attention to the "terrorists" and start paying attention to the treasonists.

Both threats are real and worthy of our collective attention.

Remember, November 2010.

Just to bring into the here and now. It apparently was some sort of firework intended to set off a larger explosion. It was a plane (you know, they fly).


I don't think most Americans will scoff at this threat. Perhaps they will scoff at the would-be terrorist, but not at his intent.

If a firework was being used as a detonator, it would have been using it's explosive impact to compress the secondary. It would explode, or it wouldn't. It wouldn't just start burning.

I fully agree with the latter part of your statement.

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott

Originally posted by Blender

So some random wacko that tries to light a FIREWORK onboard a train validates the "war on terror" that takes more innocent lives than it saves?

Just to bring into the here and now. It apparently was some sort of firework intended to set off a larger explosion. It was a plane (you know, they fly).

This one incident doesn't justify the war on terror. It is a reminder that we (Americans) remain a target for terrorism on our home soil.

It is not clear yet as to just who this individual is, but "random wacko" really doesn't seem to be the case. He claims association with al Qaeda and he was on the terror radar already.

Maybe he was a random wacko, but he could have taken down an plane full of Americans on Christmas day.

I don't think most Americans will scoff at this threat. Perhaps they will scoff at the would-be terrorist, but not at his intent.

Who said he attempted to bring down the plane? When did he attempt to light it? I thought it was while they were still on the ground. I'm not sure what the "explosive" was, but I heard on the news that it was a simple firework.

Originally posted by thedman
. . . .
Beggining to look like trial to see what could be smuggled on airline and if
could bring it down.

Despite what paranoid "false flag" nutcases are saying

The paranoid nutcases are the ones scared a terrorist is going to jump out from behind every corner, and enthusiastically supported a government depriving everyone of freedoms to combat these bogeymen.

Do you check under you bed for terrorists at night?

It's funny how these idiots who scoff at the idea of false flags never look at the proven false flags in history, and never ask of current "terrorism," qui bono?

The world is so short of terrorists America had to blame 9/11 onto a dead one, and produce a video of a fat brown "Bin Laden" fake with a short little nose to claim responsibility for it.

Perhaps that was an exercise to see how easily paranoid idiots are taken in.

I know thermite needs a high tempature flame to ignite it your normal lighter is not going to ignite it and make it burn. Thermite is not concidered a high explosive just a insinderary devive that will burn through metal. And a aluminum shell of a aircraft would melt like butter. Im not sure what type of protection the center fuel tank has which is pretty much sitting directly under where the guy was sitting in 19a but the burning thermite burning into a gas filled fuel tank because the tank would of been pretty much empty due to being the end of the flight also just entering the US as they said the piolit had just annouced they were begining to desend. And im sure everybody knows what happens when a flame hits gas fumes.

Well, after two terror attacks (Ft.Hood, now this) I'm just thankful this won't interfere with obama's vacation. Phew.
On a serious note, going to be interesting to see where the next "test" will take place.

Fard ayn, muslims using any means to kill non-muslims. There will be more incidents and attempts News Years Eve, maybe Time Square, probably Las Vegas, maybe monuments and infrastructure. This is far from over and 2010 starts a new phase.

This Richard Reid wannabe mixed chemicals and caused an explosion on an aircraft. That's terrorism, Islamic terrorism.

---

---

For all of those here who are willing to brush this off, I'd bet you be changing your tune if you were seated right behind this idiot on an airplane as it begins it's landing.

Originally posted by Heros_son
There are a couple of things that don't add up. The suspect was burned with a fire that supposedly came from a device that he tried to ignite. Well, if the device was intended to be a bomb of some sort, the fact that it flamed would indicate that it was of some material that was not being compressed as it was ignited. The fact that a passenger was able to douse him with water would indicate whatever was burning needed air as fuel (not chemically independent.)

If the effect was not intended to be an explosion, then it makes sense that it was not packaged in some way to utilize compression for lethal volatility, and that it wasn't a high explosive. However it was meant to be used as an incendiary, it certainly wasn't very big. Even a larger fire, at even 30,000 feet, would be extinguished easily before serious injury to very many. The flight attendants and/or passengers could have doused the flames pretty easily with extinguishers, given that the flames needed air to burn.

If it really was an attempted attack planned by a group, it was very poorly planned. If it were a test by some group, what would they be wanting to find out? How quickly passengers will react to a burning crotch? Not very useful info. If they wanted to test security, they wouldn't have had to try to use any type of device. That they got through, and seated on the plane would have given them the answer.

So what would be the point of this? Maybe just a guy with a bad plan, and a bad attitude, maybe even some psych problems makes more sense to me.

That's a good analysis. This guy probably has psychological problems. They're just calling it a "terrorist act" to scare us so they can take away more of our rights.

This is what happens when an uneducated person from a third-world country is fed disinformation (that originated from the NWO) through word of mouth or television, radio, Internet, etc.. They start thinking that the war on terror is solely about thought control.

This man probably watched a 90's movie where someone set off some explosives and crashed a plane, then he decided to try it because it seemed possible.

Way to go mainstream media and Hollywood movies!

Perhaps next they will try to smuggle snakes on a plane?
Or perhaps next they will try to use the GoldenEye satellite to destroy London?

[edit on 12/25/2009 by nightmarehalo]