Odd interaction with a road rager
So here's an odd one for the books. I was cycling from work today along a
one-way street with enough clearance to avoid opening car doors. The street was three lanes wide with one of the lanes reserved for buses at rush hour. The middle lane was free. A bus was slowing down to a stop in its lane and I was moving forward when I heard the ubiquitous blare of a horn from a car in the (clear) middle lane. Now the car had to pass between the bus and myself, but there was a whole lane for him to do so, so I wasn't sure what was up. I caught up to him at the next lights. The car was some souped-up muscle car and the driver looked pretty tough so I debated whether or not to ask him what was up. I thought "what the heck" and asked him if I could help him with something. He then yelled, very angrily I might add, that with me on one side and the bus on the other side he barely had room to pass, and that I should have been off to the side (riding over top of the parked cars I suppose). I was about to tell him that his whole lane was clear but the light turned green and he peeled rubber and took off like a bat out of hell. I caught up two lights later and was going to ask him why he thought an entire lane of traffic was not sufficient for him but he'd rolled up his window and was staring straight ahead. That intersection has an advance green for bikes and I left somewhat befuddled. Basically, and I hate to say it, he was acting like a big baby. Taking a fit when things weren't going his way and then sulking later. I doubt that I intimidated him, I'm don't look that imposing, but if I didn't know better I'd have thought he was scared. How much room does someone need anyway? Is one lane not enough for some people? -- Ron McKinnon rmckin spam at sympatico http://www.magma.ca/~ronmck dot ca |
"Ron McKinnon" wrote [snip] I caught up to him at the next lights. The car was some souped-up muscle car... and I caught up two lights later... That's what got to him...:) Pete |
"Ron McKinnon" wrote [snip] I caught up to him at the next lights. The car was some souped-up muscle car... and I caught up two lights later... That's what got to him...:) Pete |
Ron McKinnon wrote:
Basically, and I hate to say it, he was acting like a big baby. Taking a fit when things weren't going his way and then sulking later. I doubt that I intimidated him, I'm don't look that imposing, but if I didn't know better I'd have thought he was scared. &*^$ bicycle, riding in the left lane, and his souped car can't even outrun it (at least not permanently). Scary, very scary. You done disgrace to his manhood, and then confronted him (twice). His ego may never be the same. I'd have phoned his plate to the local drunk driver/road rager hotline, just to report general erratic and inept behavior behind the wheel. I wonder how much an armed cop would scare this clearly unbalanced chap. |
Ron McKinnon wrote:
Basically, and I hate to say it, he was acting like a big baby. Taking a fit when things weren't going his way and then sulking later. I doubt that I intimidated him, I'm don't look that imposing, but if I didn't know better I'd have thought he was scared. &*^$ bicycle, riding in the left lane, and his souped car can't even outrun it (at least not permanently). Scary, very scary. You done disgrace to his manhood, and then confronted him (twice). His ego may never be the same. I'd have phoned his plate to the local drunk driver/road rager hotline, just to report general erratic and inept behavior behind the wheel. I wonder how much an armed cop would scare this clearly unbalanced chap. |
"Mitch Haley" wrote in message ... Ron McKinnon wrote: Basically, and I hate to say it, he was acting like a big baby. Taking a fit when things weren't going his way and then sulking later. I doubt that I intimidated him, I'm don't look that imposing, but if I didn't know better I'd have thought he was scared. &*^$ bicycle, riding in the left lane, and his souped car can't even outrun it (at least not permanently). Scary, very scary. You done disgrace to his manhood, and then confronted him (twice). His ego may never be the same. I'd have phoned his plate to the local drunk driver/road rager hotline, just to report general erratic and inept behavior behind the wheel. I wonder how much an armed cop would scare this clearly unbalanced chap. Probably was a cop. |
"Mitch Haley" wrote in message ... Ron McKinnon wrote: Basically, and I hate to say it, he was acting like a big baby. Taking a fit when things weren't going his way and then sulking later. I doubt that I intimidated him, I'm don't look that imposing, but if I didn't know better I'd have thought he was scared. &*^$ bicycle, riding in the left lane, and his souped car can't even outrun it (at least not permanently). Scary, very scary. You done disgrace to his manhood, and then confronted him (twice). His ego may never be the same. I'd have phoned his plate to the local drunk driver/road rager hotline, just to report general erratic and inept behavior behind the wheel. I wonder how much an armed cop would scare this clearly unbalanced chap. Probably was a cop. |
"Ron McKinnon" wrote: (clip) I thought "what the heck" and asked him if I could help him with something. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ See, you didn't play by his "rules." He thought he was protected from confrontation, which made him very "brave." But you faced him, and forced him to justify his irrational behavior--which he could not do. What would it do to your self-image to declare that you can't drive your car down a standard lane? I'd say you won that bout. |
"Ron McKinnon" wrote: (clip) I thought "what the heck" and asked him if I could help him with something. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ See, you didn't play by his "rules." He thought he was protected from confrontation, which made him very "brave." But you faced him, and forced him to justify his irrational behavior--which he could not do. What would it do to your self-image to declare that you can't drive your car down a standard lane? I'd say you won that bout. |
Ron McKinnon wrote:
road rage incident snipped Basically, and I hate to say it, he was acting like a big baby. Taking a fit when things weren't going his way and then sulking later. All road ragers are acting like babies. "I don't want things the way they are, and I'm going to blame you!" is written into each road rager's personality. Things like forgiveness and flexibility are not there. I doubt that I intimidated him, I'm don't look that imposing, but if I didn't know better I'd have thought he was scared. An immature person having a temper tantrum may in fact rely on him intimidating you. When that didn't work, he may have felt like his "big one" was taken away. How much room does someone need anyway? Is one lane not enough for some people? Judging by the number of cars I see in the ditch, especially in winter, I'd say entire roads aren't enough for some people. Austin -- I'm pedaling as fast as I durn well please! There are no X characters in my address |
Ron McKinnon wrote:
road rage incident snipped Basically, and I hate to say it, he was acting like a big baby. Taking a fit when things weren't going his way and then sulking later. All road ragers are acting like babies. "I don't want things the way they are, and I'm going to blame you!" is written into each road rager's personality. Things like forgiveness and flexibility are not there. I doubt that I intimidated him, I'm don't look that imposing, but if I didn't know better I'd have thought he was scared. An immature person having a temper tantrum may in fact rely on him intimidating you. When that didn't work, he may have felt like his "big one" was taken away. How much room does someone need anyway? Is one lane not enough for some people? Judging by the number of cars I see in the ditch, especially in winter, I'd say entire roads aren't enough for some people. Austin -- I'm pedaling as fast as I durn well please! There are no X characters in my address |
Ron McKinnon wrote:
|| Basically, and I hate to say it, he was acting like a big baby. || Taking a fit when things weren't going his way and then sulking || later. I doubt that I intimidated him, I'm don't look that || imposing, but if I didn't know better I'd have thought he was scared. || || How much room does someone need anyway? Is one lane not enough for || some people? I suggest that, in the future, you do your best to avoid second encounters with stupid people driving cars (assuming the first encounter was forced upon you). It can't be good policy for a cyclist. |
Ron McKinnon wrote:
|| Basically, and I hate to say it, he was acting like a big baby. || Taking a fit when things weren't going his way and then sulking || later. I doubt that I intimidated him, I'm don't look that || imposing, but if I didn't know better I'd have thought he was scared. || || How much room does someone need anyway? Is one lane not enough for || some people? I suggest that, in the future, you do your best to avoid second encounters with stupid people driving cars (assuming the first encounter was forced upon you). It can't be good policy for a cyclist. |
The car was some souped-up muscle car ...
I caught up two lights later ... You should have asked him, if his car is so powerful how come you were able to catch up to him? If that's too subtle for him just tell him he has a small penis. |
The car was some souped-up muscle car ...
I caught up two lights later ... You should have asked him, if his car is so powerful how come you were able to catch up to him? If that's too subtle for him just tell him he has a small penis. |
"Roger Zoul" wrote in message ... I suggest that, in the future, you do your best to avoid second encounters with stupid people driving cars (assuming the first encounter was forced upon you). It can't be good policy for a cyclist. I think this is REALLY good advice. Stupid people only get stupider and possibly violent. Not worth it. Dave |
"Roger Zoul" wrote in message ... I suggest that, in the future, you do your best to avoid second encounters with stupid people driving cars (assuming the first encounter was forced upon you). It can't be good policy for a cyclist. I think this is REALLY good advice. Stupid people only get stupider and possibly violent. Not worth it. Dave |
Ron McKinnon wrote:
Basically, and I hate to say it, he was acting like a big baby. Indeed. I prefer the term "traffic tantrum" to "road rage" as it more accurately reflects the degree of maturity exhibited... Guy -- May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting. http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk 88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University |
Ron McKinnon wrote:
Basically, and I hate to say it, he was acting like a big baby. Indeed. I prefer the term "traffic tantrum" to "road rage" as it more accurately reflects the degree of maturity exhibited... Guy -- May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting. http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk 88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University |
"Roger Zoul" wrote in message ...
Ron McKinnon wrote: [...] I suggest that, in the future, you do your best to avoid second encounters with stupid people driving cars (assuming the first encounter was forced upon you). It can't be good policy for a cyclist. I agree. People are crazy. Its not even worth it (and not effective) to assert your rights to someone who is enraged about something else in their life and is taking it out on you with road rage. The fact that the guy had plenty of room to pass or at worst was slowed down for a couple of seconds demonstrates that this is not about traffic with the road-rager. He has something else going on, and it is best not to get involved in his problems. You won't "teach" him anything and risk more than you than expect. -H. |
"Roger Zoul" wrote in message ...
Ron McKinnon wrote: [...] I suggest that, in the future, you do your best to avoid second encounters with stupid people driving cars (assuming the first encounter was forced upon you). It can't be good policy for a cyclist. I agree. People are crazy. Its not even worth it (and not effective) to assert your rights to someone who is enraged about something else in their life and is taking it out on you with road rage. The fact that the guy had plenty of room to pass or at worst was slowed down for a couple of seconds demonstrates that this is not about traffic with the road-rager. He has something else going on, and it is best not to get involved in his problems. You won't "teach" him anything and risk more than you than expect. -H. |
Jorma wrote:
Probably was a cop. Definitely an asshole, and apparently a coward, so almost certainly not a cop. Asshole cops never run in fear from confrontation with unarmed peasants. An asshole cop would at least threaten to arrest him if he didn't get on the sidewalk where he belongs. Mitch. |
Jorma wrote:
Probably was a cop. Definitely an asshole, and apparently a coward, so almost certainly not a cop. Asshole cops never run in fear from confrontation with unarmed peasants. An asshole cop would at least threaten to arrest him if he didn't get on the sidewalk where he belongs. Mitch. |
Sadly, I think the "other thing" that many people have going on in their
lives is an underlying frustration with bicyclists who constantly ignore the rules of the road and are frequently a menace to drivers as they weave in and out of traffic, ride on the wrong side of the road, and blow through traffic lights. Most of my riding is done out here on the roads of Long Island, where nobody bothers to teach or learn the proper and safe way to ride a bicycle beyond the end of the driveway. As a result, I am constantly on edge while driving around town, waiting for yet another kid on a Mongoose to come flying off the corner on the left side of the road - or worse, an experienced adult rider with an expensive bike flying through a red light so as not to fall short of yesterday's time. It seems that most urban riders are much more aware of safe and legal riding techniques, but I've certainly seen a lot of oblivious peddlers in New York City. This ****es ME off -- and I'm a cyclist. I can't imagine how it irks a driver who only wishes he/she had a bicycle! "H" wrote in message m... "Roger Zoul" wrote in message ... Ron McKinnon wrote: [...] I suggest that, in the future, you do your best to avoid second encounters with stupid people driving cars (assuming the first encounter was forced upon you). It can't be good policy for a cyclist. I agree. People are crazy. Its not even worth it (and not effective) to assert your rights to someone who is enraged about something else in their life and is taking it out on you with road rage. The fact that the guy had plenty of room to pass or at worst was slowed down for a couple of seconds demonstrates that this is not about traffic with the road-rager. He has something else going on, and it is best not to get involved in his problems. You won't "teach" him anything and risk more than you than expect. -H. |
Sadly, I think the "other thing" that many people have going on in their
lives is an underlying frustration with bicyclists who constantly ignore the rules of the road and are frequently a menace to drivers as they weave in and out of traffic, ride on the wrong side of the road, and blow through traffic lights. Most of my riding is done out here on the roads of Long Island, where nobody bothers to teach or learn the proper and safe way to ride a bicycle beyond the end of the driveway. As a result, I am constantly on edge while driving around town, waiting for yet another kid on a Mongoose to come flying off the corner on the left side of the road - or worse, an experienced adult rider with an expensive bike flying through a red light so as not to fall short of yesterday's time. It seems that most urban riders are much more aware of safe and legal riding techniques, but I've certainly seen a lot of oblivious peddlers in New York City. This ****es ME off -- and I'm a cyclist. I can't imagine how it irks a driver who only wishes he/she had a bicycle! "H" wrote in message m... "Roger Zoul" wrote in message ... Ron McKinnon wrote: [...] I suggest that, in the future, you do your best to avoid second encounters with stupid people driving cars (assuming the first encounter was forced upon you). It can't be good policy for a cyclist. I agree. People are crazy. Its not even worth it (and not effective) to assert your rights to someone who is enraged about something else in their life and is taking it out on you with road rage. The fact that the guy had plenty of room to pass or at worst was slowed down for a couple of seconds demonstrates that this is not about traffic with the road-rager. He has something else going on, and it is best not to get involved in his problems. You won't "teach" him anything and risk more than you than expect. -H. |
Mike wrote:
Ken (NY) Bin Laden's plea to the US: "ANYBODY BUT BUSH!" Actually, the reverse is true. PArticularly if by "bin Laden" you mean the Saudi bin Laden family who are such good and loyal friends of Dubya that they were allowed to flee the country after 9/11 while just about everything else was grounded... Apparently the CIA were none too happy that they were not allowed to interview these folks. But hey, they couldn't possibly have been bad guys - they were Republican donors! Guy -- May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting. http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk 88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University |
Mike wrote:
Ken (NY) Bin Laden's plea to the US: "ANYBODY BUT BUSH!" Actually, the reverse is true. PArticularly if by "bin Laden" you mean the Saudi bin Laden family who are such good and loyal friends of Dubya that they were allowed to flee the country after 9/11 while just about everything else was grounded... Apparently the CIA were none too happy that they were not allowed to interview these folks. But hey, they couldn't possibly have been bad guys - they were Republican donors! Guy -- May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting. http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk 88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University |
|
|
Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
Mike wrote: Ken (NY) Bin Laden's plea to the US: "ANYBODY BUT BUSH!" Actually, the reverse is true. PArticularly if by "bin Laden" you mean the Saudi bin Laden family who are such good and loyal friends of Dubya that they were allowed to flee the country after 9/11 while just about everything else was grounded... Apparently the CIA were none too happy that they were not allowed to interview these folks. But hey, they couldn't possibly have been bad guys - they were Republican donors! This was one of the first and easiest of MM's lies to expose. From /59 Deceits/ by Dave Kopel (http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fift...enheit-911.htm): "No commercial planes, including chartered flights, were permitted to fly into, out of, or within the United States until September 13, 2001. After the airspace reopened, six chartered flights with 142 people, mostly Saudi Arabian nationals, departed from the United States between September 14 and 24. One flight, the so-called Bin Ladin flight, departed the United States on September 20 with 26 passengers, most of them relatives of Usama Bin Ladin. We have found no credible evidence that any chartered flights of Saudi Arabian nationals departed the United States before the reopening of national airspace. The Saudi flights were screened by law enforcement officials, primarily the FBI, to ensure that people on these flights did not pose a threat to national security, and that nobody of interest to the FBI with regard to the 9/11 investigation was allowed to leave the country. Thirty of the 142 people on these flights were interviewed by the FBI, including 22 of the 26 people (23 passengers and 3 private security guards) on the Bin Ladin flight. Many were asked detailed questions. None of the passengers stated that they had any recent contact with Usama Bin Ladin or knew anything about terrorist activity. The FBI checked a variety of databases for information on the Bin Ladin flight passengers and searched the aircraft. It is unclear whether the TIPOFF terrorist watchlist was checked. At our request, the Terrorist Screening Center has rechecked the names of individuals on the flight manifests of these six Saudi flights against the current TIPOFF watchlist. There are no matches. The FBI has concluded that nobody was allowed to depart on these six flights who the FBI wanted to interview in connection with the 9/11 attacks, or who the FBI later concluded had any involvement in those attacks. To date, we have uncovered no evidence to contradict this conclusion." But again, why let the truth intrude on your outrage? Bill "read the rest of it while you're at it" S. |
Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
Mike wrote: Ken (NY) Bin Laden's plea to the US: "ANYBODY BUT BUSH!" Actually, the reverse is true. PArticularly if by "bin Laden" you mean the Saudi bin Laden family who are such good and loyal friends of Dubya that they were allowed to flee the country after 9/11 while just about everything else was grounded... Apparently the CIA were none too happy that they were not allowed to interview these folks. But hey, they couldn't possibly have been bad guys - they were Republican donors! This was one of the first and easiest of MM's lies to expose. From /59 Deceits/ by Dave Kopel (http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fift...enheit-911.htm): "No commercial planes, including chartered flights, were permitted to fly into, out of, or within the United States until September 13, 2001. After the airspace reopened, six chartered flights with 142 people, mostly Saudi Arabian nationals, departed from the United States between September 14 and 24. One flight, the so-called Bin Ladin flight, departed the United States on September 20 with 26 passengers, most of them relatives of Usama Bin Ladin. We have found no credible evidence that any chartered flights of Saudi Arabian nationals departed the United States before the reopening of national airspace. The Saudi flights were screened by law enforcement officials, primarily the FBI, to ensure that people on these flights did not pose a threat to national security, and that nobody of interest to the FBI with regard to the 9/11 investigation was allowed to leave the country. Thirty of the 142 people on these flights were interviewed by the FBI, including 22 of the 26 people (23 passengers and 3 private security guards) on the Bin Ladin flight. Many were asked detailed questions. None of the passengers stated that they had any recent contact with Usama Bin Ladin or knew anything about terrorist activity. The FBI checked a variety of databases for information on the Bin Ladin flight passengers and searched the aircraft. It is unclear whether the TIPOFF terrorist watchlist was checked. At our request, the Terrorist Screening Center has rechecked the names of individuals on the flight manifests of these six Saudi flights against the current TIPOFF watchlist. There are no matches. The FBI has concluded that nobody was allowed to depart on these six flights who the FBI wanted to interview in connection with the 9/11 attacks, or who the FBI later concluded had any involvement in those attacks. To date, we have uncovered no evidence to contradict this conclusion." But again, why let the truth intrude on your outrage? Bill "read the rest of it while you're at it" S. |
On Wed, 01 Sep 2004 14:35:58 GMT, "NYRides"
wrote: It seems that most urban riders are much more aware of safe and legal riding techniques, but I've certainly seen a lot of oblivious peddlers in New York City. This ****es ME off -- and I'm a cyclist. I can't imagine how it irks a driver who only wishes he/she had a bicycle! I slightly disagree. In my experience, most drivers have very few encounters with bikers. I've been driving for 35 years and have rarely encountered a biker on the road, and never encountered one that irritated me for any reason; much the same way we hardly ever see an accident actually happen when driving, yet they're extremely common. However I get your point and don't have an argument with that. -B |
On Wed, 01 Sep 2004 14:35:58 GMT, "NYRides"
wrote: It seems that most urban riders are much more aware of safe and legal riding techniques, but I've certainly seen a lot of oblivious peddlers in New York City. This ****es ME off -- and I'm a cyclist. I can't imagine how it irks a driver who only wishes he/she had a bicycle! I slightly disagree. In my experience, most drivers have very few encounters with bikers. I've been driving for 35 years and have rarely encountered a biker on the road, and never encountered one that irritated me for any reason; much the same way we hardly ever see an accident actually happen when driving, yet they're extremely common. However I get your point and don't have an argument with that. -B |
On Wed, 01 Sep 2004 16:05:42 GMT, S o r n i
wrote: Just zis Guy, you know? wrote: Mike wrote: Ken (NY) Bin Laden's plea to the US: "ANYBODY BUT BUSH!" Actually, the reverse is true. PArticularly if by "bin Laden" you mean the Saudi bin Laden family who are such good and loyal friends of Dubya that they were allowed to flee the country after 9/11 while just about everything else was grounded... Apparently the CIA were none too happy that they were not allowed to interview these folks. But hey, they couldn't possibly have been bad guys - they were Republican donors! This was one of the first and easiest of MM's lies to expose. From /59 Deceits/ by Dave Kopel (http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fift...enheit-911.htm): "No commercial planes, including chartered flights, were permitted to fly into, out of, or within the United States until September 13, 2001. After the airspace reopened, six chartered flights with 142 people, mostly Saudi Arabian nationals, departed from the United States between September 14 and 24. One flight, the so-called Bin Ladin flight, departed the United States on September 20 with 26 passengers, most of them relatives of Usama Bin Ladin. We have found no credible evidence that any chartered flights of Saudi Arabian nationals departed the United States before the reopening of national airspace. The Saudi flights were screened by law enforcement officials, primarily the FBI, to ensure that people on these flights did not pose a threat to national security, and that nobody of interest to the FBI with regard to the 9/11 investigation was allowed to leave the country. Thirty of the 142 people on these flights were interviewed by the FBI, including 22 of the 26 people (23 passengers and 3 private security guards) on the Bin Ladin flight. Many were asked detailed questions. None of the passengers stated that they had any recent contact with Usama Bin Ladin or knew anything about terrorist activity. The FBI checked a variety of databases for information on the Bin Ladin flight passengers and searched the aircraft. It is unclear whether the TIPOFF terrorist watchlist was checked. At our request, the Terrorist Screening Center has rechecked the names of individuals on the flight manifests of these six Saudi flights against the current TIPOFF watchlist. There are no matches. The FBI has concluded that nobody was allowed to depart on these six flights who the FBI wanted to interview in connection with the 9/11 attacks, or who the FBI later concluded had any involvement in those attacks. To date, we have uncovered no evidence to contradict this conclusion." But again, why let the truth intrude on your outrage? Bill "read the rest of it while you're at it" S. While you may be right, anything that comes from the FBI has to be taken with a grain of salt. -- Bob in CT Remove ".x" to reply |
On Wed, 01 Sep 2004 16:05:42 GMT, S o r n i
wrote: Just zis Guy, you know? wrote: Mike wrote: Ken (NY) Bin Laden's plea to the US: "ANYBODY BUT BUSH!" Actually, the reverse is true. PArticularly if by "bin Laden" you mean the Saudi bin Laden family who are such good and loyal friends of Dubya that they were allowed to flee the country after 9/11 while just about everything else was grounded... Apparently the CIA were none too happy that they were not allowed to interview these folks. But hey, they couldn't possibly have been bad guys - they were Republican donors! This was one of the first and easiest of MM's lies to expose. From /59 Deceits/ by Dave Kopel (http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fift...enheit-911.htm): "No commercial planes, including chartered flights, were permitted to fly into, out of, or within the United States until September 13, 2001. After the airspace reopened, six chartered flights with 142 people, mostly Saudi Arabian nationals, departed from the United States between September 14 and 24. One flight, the so-called Bin Ladin flight, departed the United States on September 20 with 26 passengers, most of them relatives of Usama Bin Ladin. We have found no credible evidence that any chartered flights of Saudi Arabian nationals departed the United States before the reopening of national airspace. The Saudi flights were screened by law enforcement officials, primarily the FBI, to ensure that people on these flights did not pose a threat to national security, and that nobody of interest to the FBI with regard to the 9/11 investigation was allowed to leave the country. Thirty of the 142 people on these flights were interviewed by the FBI, including 22 of the 26 people (23 passengers and 3 private security guards) on the Bin Ladin flight. Many were asked detailed questions. None of the passengers stated that they had any recent contact with Usama Bin Ladin or knew anything about terrorist activity. The FBI checked a variety of databases for information on the Bin Ladin flight passengers and searched the aircraft. It is unclear whether the TIPOFF terrorist watchlist was checked. At our request, the Terrorist Screening Center has rechecked the names of individuals on the flight manifests of these six Saudi flights against the current TIPOFF watchlist. There are no matches. The FBI has concluded that nobody was allowed to depart on these six flights who the FBI wanted to interview in connection with the 9/11 attacks, or who the FBI later concluded had any involvement in those attacks. To date, we have uncovered no evidence to contradict this conclusion." But again, why let the truth intrude on your outrage? Bill "read the rest of it while you're at it" S. While you may be right, anything that comes from the FBI has to be taken with a grain of salt. -- Bob in CT Remove ".x" to reply |
Bob in CT wrote:
On Wed, 01 Sep 2004 16:05:42 GMT, S o r n i wrote: Just zis Guy, you know? wrote: Mike wrote: Ken (NY) Bin Laden's plea to the US: "ANYBODY BUT BUSH!" Actually, the reverse is true. PArticularly if by "bin Laden" you mean the Saudi bin Laden family who are such good and loyal friends of Dubya that they were allowed to flee the country after 9/11 while just about everything else was grounded... Apparently the CIA were none too happy that they were not allowed to interview these folks. But hey, they couldn't possibly have been bad guys - they were Republican donors! This was one of the first and easiest of MM's lies to expose. From /59 Deceits/ by Dave Kopel (http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fift...enheit-911.htm): "No commercial planes, including chartered flights, were permitted to fly into, out of, or within the United States until September 13, 2001. After the airspace reopened, six chartered flights with 142 people, mostly Saudi Arabian nationals, departed from the United States between September 14 and 24. One flight, the so-called Bin Ladin flight, departed the United States on September 20 with 26 passengers, most of them relatives of Usama Bin Ladin. We have found no credible evidence that any chartered flights of Saudi Arabian nationals departed the United States before the reopening of national airspace. The Saudi flights were screened by law enforcement officials, primarily the FBI, to ensure that people on these flights did not pose a threat to national security, and that nobody of interest to the FBI with regard to the 9/11 investigation was allowed to leave the country. Thirty of the 142 people on these flights were interviewed by the FBI, including 22 of the 26 people (23 passengers and 3 private security guards) on the Bin Ladin flight. Many were asked detailed questions. None of the passengers stated that they had any recent contact with Usama Bin Ladin or knew anything about terrorist activity. The FBI checked a variety of databases for information on the Bin Ladin flight passengers and searched the aircraft. It is unclear whether the TIPOFF terrorist watchlist was checked. At our request, the Terrorist Screening Center has rechecked the names of individuals on the flight manifests of these six Saudi flights against the current TIPOFF watchlist. There are no matches. The FBI has concluded that nobody was allowed to depart on these six flights who the FBI wanted to interview in connection with the 9/11 attacks, or who the FBI later concluded had any involvement in those attacks. To date, we have uncovered no evidence to contradict this conclusion." But again, why let the truth intrude on your outrage? Bill "read the rest of it while you're at it" S. While you may be right, anything that comes from the FBI has to be taken with a grain of salt. It comes from Dave Kopel, who hardly just accepts spoon-fed information, but rather appears to really investigate hard facts from many sources. Bill "anything that comes from MM has to be taken with a /pallet/ of salt" S. |
Bob in CT wrote:
On Wed, 01 Sep 2004 16:05:42 GMT, S o r n i wrote: Just zis Guy, you know? wrote: Mike wrote: Ken (NY) Bin Laden's plea to the US: "ANYBODY BUT BUSH!" Actually, the reverse is true. PArticularly if by "bin Laden" you mean the Saudi bin Laden family who are such good and loyal friends of Dubya that they were allowed to flee the country after 9/11 while just about everything else was grounded... Apparently the CIA were none too happy that they were not allowed to interview these folks. But hey, they couldn't possibly have been bad guys - they were Republican donors! This was one of the first and easiest of MM's lies to expose. From /59 Deceits/ by Dave Kopel (http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fift...enheit-911.htm): "No commercial planes, including chartered flights, were permitted to fly into, out of, or within the United States until September 13, 2001. After the airspace reopened, six chartered flights with 142 people, mostly Saudi Arabian nationals, departed from the United States between September 14 and 24. One flight, the so-called Bin Ladin flight, departed the United States on September 20 with 26 passengers, most of them relatives of Usama Bin Ladin. We have found no credible evidence that any chartered flights of Saudi Arabian nationals departed the United States before the reopening of national airspace. The Saudi flights were screened by law enforcement officials, primarily the FBI, to ensure that people on these flights did not pose a threat to national security, and that nobody of interest to the FBI with regard to the 9/11 investigation was allowed to leave the country. Thirty of the 142 people on these flights were interviewed by the FBI, including 22 of the 26 people (23 passengers and 3 private security guards) on the Bin Ladin flight. Many were asked detailed questions. None of the passengers stated that they had any recent contact with Usama Bin Ladin or knew anything about terrorist activity. The FBI checked a variety of databases for information on the Bin Ladin flight passengers and searched the aircraft. It is unclear whether the TIPOFF terrorist watchlist was checked. At our request, the Terrorist Screening Center has rechecked the names of individuals on the flight manifests of these six Saudi flights against the current TIPOFF watchlist. There are no matches. The FBI has concluded that nobody was allowed to depart on these six flights who the FBI wanted to interview in connection with the 9/11 attacks, or who the FBI later concluded had any involvement in those attacks. To date, we have uncovered no evidence to contradict this conclusion." But again, why let the truth intrude on your outrage? Bill "read the rest of it while you're at it" S. While you may be right, anything that comes from the FBI has to be taken with a grain of salt. It comes from Dave Kopel, who hardly just accepts spoon-fed information, but rather appears to really investigate hard facts from many sources. Bill "anything that comes from MM has to be taken with a /pallet/ of salt" S. |
On Wed, 01 Sep 2004 16:05:42 GMT, "S o r n i" wrote:
Thirty of the 142 people on these flights were interviewed by the FBI, including 22 of the 26 people (23 passengers and 3 private security guards) on the Bin Ladin flight. Many were asked detailed questions. None of the passengers stated that they had any recent contact with Usama Bin Ladin or knew anything about terrorist activity. ROTFLMAO Oh, so that's all right then. It doesn't even say they stated that they *hadn't* had contact with Bin Laden, or *didn't* know anything about terrorist activities. Just that the didn't say they *had* (I wonder if they were actually asked). ROTFLMAO some more. I can just picture the scene: Bush (to head of FBI) Just go and ask those Saudi folk about what they had for breakfast (in detail), and if they don't actually admit to chatting to Osama in the last few days, or engaging in terrorist activity, you can let them go. Bugs Bunny said it best: "What a maroon". -- Dave |
On Wed, 01 Sep 2004 16:05:42 GMT, "S o r n i" wrote:
Thirty of the 142 people on these flights were interviewed by the FBI, including 22 of the 26 people (23 passengers and 3 private security guards) on the Bin Ladin flight. Many were asked detailed questions. None of the passengers stated that they had any recent contact with Usama Bin Ladin or knew anything about terrorist activity. ROTFLMAO Oh, so that's all right then. It doesn't even say they stated that they *hadn't* had contact with Bin Laden, or *didn't* know anything about terrorist activities. Just that the didn't say they *had* (I wonder if they were actually asked). ROTFLMAO some more. I can just picture the scene: Bush (to head of FBI) Just go and ask those Saudi folk about what they had for breakfast (in detail), and if they don't actually admit to chatting to Osama in the last few days, or engaging in terrorist activity, you can let them go. Bugs Bunny said it best: "What a maroon". -- Dave |
Dave Mount wrote:
On Wed, 01 Sep 2004 16:05:42 GMT, "S o r n i" wrote: Thirty of the 142 people on these flights were interviewed by the FBI, including 22 of the 26 people (23 passengers and 3 private security guards) on the Bin Ladin flight. Many were asked detailed questions. None of the passengers stated that they had any recent contact with Usama Bin Ladin or knew anything about terrorist activity. ROTFLMAO Oh, so that's all right then. You snipped the claim that this was refuting. ("PArticularly if by "bin Laden" you mean the Saudi bin Laden family who are such good and loyal friends of Dubya that they were allowed to flee the country after 9/11 while just about everything else was grounded...") It isn't true. Bill "I know it doesn't please you to read facts" S. |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:17 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
CycleBanter.com