• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

9/11 Fund for Victims and Victim's Family

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
I'm sorry I thought the Oklahoma city bombing victims were taken care of. They should have been, in my opinion, especially since it was a Federal building.

You can't let the airlines go under. Too many people would lose their jobs, it would really hurt the economy.

The goverment and the airlines both are responsible for 9/11. The goverment didn't keep tabs on some of the hi-jackers that had expired visas. The airliners had terrible security, they don't care about anyone. All they want is $$.
 
and you keep asking for proof that skyscrapers are unsafe....are you old enough to remember the 1993 bombing of the WTC?
 
You can't let the airlines go under. Too many people would lose their jobs, it would really hurt the economy.

The goverment and the airlines both are responsible for 9/11. The goverment didn't keep tabs on some of the hi-jackers that had expired visas. The airliners had terrible security, they don't care about anyone. All they want is $$.



So your argument has now switched from "i deserve to be compensated because this was an act of terrorism" to "I deserve to be compensated so I wont sue the airlines and put them out of business?

Cmon, stop being ridiculous. Its sad if your father died, but if you are going to debate this please try and make some rational arguments. And I'm still waiting on links to your claims.
 


<<

<< they don't care about anyone. All they want is $$. >>



Sounds oddly familiar.... >>



wow, he has you on that one doomguy
 


<< Define a "Bad Neighborhood," then. Is it one where there's a lot of low-income housing? One with a lot of "ethnic" people? You're teetering on unsteady ground with this baseless argument. No one has any right to assume their safety anywhere. My office is dangerous, my house is dangerous, my bed is dangerous. You could die anywhere at any time.

Your father could have CHOSEN not to work in a skyscraper as easily as I could choose not to work in a bad neighborhood.....
Oh but that's no easy choice, now is it.....
>>



There you go again, putting words in my mouth. I define a bad neighborhood as one with a high crime rate. Very simple.

Answer my question, when have sky scrapers ever been unsafe? People know certain neighborhoods are bad. When have people known skyscrapers to be unsafe?

Luckster: Here's a nice read. http://www.dailynewstribune.com/news/local_regional/logan12012001.htm
 


<<

<<

<< they don't care about anyone. All they want is $$. >>



Sounds oddly familiar.... >>



wow, he has you on that one doomguy >>



Add to that I don't mean it to be a personal shot at doomguy, though. Spirited debate aside, I'm not in the buisness of making personal attacks 🙂
 


<< and you keep asking for proof that skyscrapers are unsafe....are you old enough to remember the 1993 bombing of the WTC? >>



My godmother was in the WTC during the 1993 bombing. Skyscrapers aren't bigger targets for bombing than other buildings as the Oaklahoma city bombing proved. Crappy arguement there, Luckster.
 
Answer my question, when have sky scrapers ever been unsafe? People know certain neighborhoods are bad. When have people known skyscrapers to be unsafe?


and let me ask again: ARE YOU OLD ENOUGH TO REMEMBER THE 1993 BOMBING OF THE WTC?
 


<< There you go again, putting words in my mouth. >>



I put no words in your mouth, I'm merely mirroring the fact that you somehow believe that one can escape death by avoiding bad neighborhoods anymore than they can escape death by avoiding skyscrapers. The entire concept is ludicrous. You're not going to tell a victim of a drive-by "Well, your loved one shouldn't have been there to begin with" any more than I'm going to tell you that your father shouldn't have been in the WTC to begin with.
 
doomguy, nice link, but:


Argenbright did not handle security for either of the hijacked air carriers - American Airlines and United Airlines


Also, none of the weapons used to hijack the planes were illegal to bring onboard at the time, so shoddy security isnt really to blame, is it?
 
doomguy, you are missing our point. there is no place that is safe. a high crime rate has nothing to do with it. if you owned and ran a liquor store in the lowest crime rate area in the world, and it was robbed and you were killed would you consider it safe? when i lived in minnesota a 16 year old girl was abducted and killed while working in a gas station off the freeway. place had never been so much as robbed and had highway patrol officers in and out of it all day and night long. crime rate was probably zero. but it wasn't safe now was it? NO PLACE IS SAFE.
 


<<

<< and you keep asking for proof that skyscrapers are unsafe....are you old enough to remember the 1993 bombing of the WTC? >>



My godmother was in the WTC during the 1993 bombing. Skyscrapers aren't bigger targets for bombing than other buildings as the Oaklahoma city bombing proved. Crappy arguement there, Luckster. >>





LOL. 🙂 So the fact that the building was previously part of a scheme to be blown up, topple into the other tower and killl thousands of people doesnt matter a bit, eh? You asked for evidence where skyscrapers have been shown to be targets for terrorism, I showed you. But thats not enough, is it?

As far as crappy arguments, why does your switch from deserving the money because it was terrorism to deserving the money so you wont sue the airlines and put them out of business?

 
http://www.thedailycamera.com/news/terror/oct01/30aair.html

<< United Airlines employs Argenbright Security Inc. at Denver International Airport. >>



http://www.newsday.com/ny-uslax142372597sep19.story



<< Washington - A security company that screens passengers at two airports where hijackers boarded planes last week was fined $1.5 million last year and placed on three years probation for allowing untrained employees, many with criminal backgrounds, to operate security at Philadelphia International Airport. >>



A company that cares about security:disgust:



<< doomguy, you are missing our point. there is no place that is safe. a high crime rate has nothing to do with it. if you owned and ran a liquor store in the lowest crime rate area in the world, and it was robbed and you were killed would you consider it safe? when i lived in minnesota a 16 year old girl was abducted and killed while working in a gas station off the freeway. place had never been so much as robbed and had highway patrol officers in and out of it all day and night long. crime rate was probably zero. but it wasn't safe now was it? NO PLACE IS SAFE. >>



No place is safe. But obviously some are more safe than others.
 
from that link:


There are no indications that Argenbright had shortcomings at Dulles and Newark airports, where hijackers boarded planes last week, smashing one into the Pentagon and crashing the other in Pennsylvania. The company does not operate at Logan International Airport in Boston, from which the two other planes were hijacked. And industry experts say Argenbright is no better or worse than the half-dozen other major airport-security firms.



and again, no matter what company screened or what their track record, the box cutters and knifes allowed on-board were legal and not banned by FAA guidelines. Screeners did their job in this case, they could not have prevented what happened on 9/11.



No place is safe. But obviously some are more safe than others.

And a skyscraper that was previously bombed is safer than the highway 7-11 where there has never been crime before?



You are understandably angry, but your anger is misdirected and your arguments are clearly not rational. I would sincerecly suggest you seek some counseling to talk over the issues that you (may) have.

Good luck.
 
security had nothing to do with it. the fact of the matter is that the hijackers did not have anything deemed "illegal" on the plane. you can't expect a screener to stop you from carrying an earring on board because you might take it and jab it into someone. they didn't blow up the plane with bombs, they did it using physical force and pocket knives, which were NOT illegal to carry on the plane at the time. do we have to psychologically evaluate every person that flies from now on to determine if they are a threat?
 
you were arguing that it was the airline's fault, now that is disproven and you blame the federal government. i am going to stop posting this thread and agree wholeheartedly with Luckster. I hope you get someone to talk this over with in a controlled setting. I'm sorry for your loss and good luck to you.
 


<< The box cutters should not have been legal. Why would anyone in their right mind allow them to be legal?

The hi-jackers should have been caught if the goverment did their job. Some of them had expired visas. http://www.jewishworldreview.com/1101/morris1.asp >>





putting aside the fact you refuse to respond/debate our arguments, the expired visa holders are still only 3/19 of the hijackers, if that report is true. And please, dont tell me you seriously thought people with box cutters would be able to kill 3K+ people pre-9/11. You didnt think it would happen, I didnt think it would happen, virtually no one did. Hindsight is always 20-20.

edit: Its obvious nothing will change your mind. Again, I will suggest that you seek some counseling or therapy. Im sure the red cross ca put you in touch with someone, probably for low-cost or even free. I will stop posting to this thread now.

Good luck.
 
I guess I did go overboard. I don't want money, I want my dad back🙁. But that isn't going to happen.
 


<< I guess I did go overboard. I don't want money, I want my dad back🙁. But that isn't going to happen. >>




Sadly, no. 🙁
 


<< I guess I did go overboard. I don't want money, I want my dad back🙁. But that isn't going to happen. >>



that is something we can understand, not relate to, but understand. I am sure i speak for all of us when i offer my deepest sympathies.

Good luck to you in the future...and i am sure we will run into eachother on AT again
 


<< I guess I did go overboard. I don't want money, I want my dad back🙁. But that isn't going to happen. >>



Sorry, I went a bit overboard, too. Like I said--spirited debate....this one is a tough cookie b/c we have a lot of emotional attachments about it.
No words I can say or any amount of money can ever recoup your loss, and for that, you've always got a place of honor in my heart.

 
err...6 billion?
Say there are 5,000 families at most in the WTC

6,000,000,000 divided by 5,000 is 1.2 million dollars per family.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top