Is It True That Signs Were Printed Up In Advance Of This Terror Alert.....

saying "No Liquids, Gels,etc"?

If that be the case - why did they spring this on the public the way they did? Why didn't they say something like - "Starting August 10, 2006 airline passengers will not be allowed to bring blah, blah, blah in their carry-ons.

The way this was handled - they created chaos at the airports. Delays. Caused people to dump perfectly good and in many cases expensive products. Even if the products were not expensive - if you have to dump basically all your toiletries - it adds up.

They could have avoided all this if they would have employed the 'media' to announce a day(s) or even a week in advance that you will no longer be able to take these items on board. They knew about it - they could have prevented all the hassles.

Then you sit back and say "Why would they do it the way they did?" and the only answer you can come up with is that it provides for the "maximum in fear". And the only conclusion you can draw is this whole incident is 'political'.

No wonder so many people are skeptical.

I went to pick up some family members at the airport and saw them. No way could all of that been done in such a short time.

the masses to their own best political interests. That isn't protection, it's manipulation. It shows a lack of respect for our time, our money, and our intelligence.

If we had any good journalists left in this country, they would have already picked up on this fact. (Exceptions to Helen Thomas, of course.)

and method of disclosure themselves. I believe it was done to exploit our fear, and use that fear for their political advantage:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2775206

TC

because they needed absolute evidence before they could go in and make any arrests.

Your tinfoil hat is wrapped too tight.

I heard no airline tickets had been purchased.

"Press accounts suggest that they had NOT bought airline tickets yet..."

http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/americaabroad/2006/aug/10/some_questions_points_on_terror_plot

" airline routes and apparently did not plan to purchase tickets until..."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/10/AR2006081000152.html?nav=hcmodule

Hmmmm. Still looking for that link?

Wake me when you find it. Frankly,
that sounds like something Rush or Hannity might say.

Please post a link as soon as possible.

With today's software and printers found in almost any fully equippped office, signs can be turned out in almost no time at all. Any office that is part of an organization dealing with crowds of people - like airport offices - surely have sign making capabilities.

Sorry, this doesn't prove anything to me.

worked on the signs well in advance of the alert. If anybody has that post bookmarked - could you please repost.

.... what I *am* saying is that the presence of the signs in and of themselves is weak proof - and probably no proof at all of advanced knowledge.

It doesn't disprove it either. I'm not arguing that point ..... just the finer point of the signs themselves.

and that the investigation was ended early and the arrests made before planed because they were afraid that tony or ..BUSH.. would blow the case for political gain before they could finish the investigation.

the arrests did came right after Chaney made a speech alluding to the case..

Google; BBC i dont have link.. i saw it on TV BBC news, and i am 'SURE' it wont be repeated

Didn't appear to be just a computer print downloaded. I'll admit I could be wrong but I'm just going on appearance. Looked like an official printing to me.

than half an hour.

In the end though, does it really matter? It won't be determined as evidence one way or another without knowledge and isn't really where people should be looking.

preceeded the signs; the signs became suspect only after theory formulation. Otherwise, no one would entertain the thought.

..... *any* adminstrative organization that deals with large crowds (like an airport authority) absolutely has the ability to print 'professional' signs in house on a moment's notice.

Once Lieberman lost (as he should of), the dogs were released.
The AM TV shows were ready with their Rovian analysis of the shift to the left (in their words) for the Democratic party.
"soft on terror: was a phrase heard and read many times.

I am absolutely convinced that this "liquid lunacy" was all staged.

Great OP on this here IMO

An Experiment in Sociology

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x1885359

attack revelation. Two (2) desperate political losers grasping to improve their poll numbers.

That's my bottom line. Personally I think it unnecessarily makes a lot of us look flaky if we can't hold onto those two thoughts simultaneously. It isn't hard to do. Of course this Administration times the release of Terror related information whenever it can, wherever it thinks it will serve it's political interests. Were signs made up ahead of this announcement? Maybe yes, maybe no, I don't think it really matters, we don't need to prove this instance to prove the pattern. The Bush Junta continually exploits the existence of real threats against America for partisan political advantages. They did it against Max Cleland back in 2002 and they never stopped. When there isn't a recent real threat handy when they really need it, sure they can always trump up a reason to elevate the Color Code to Orange on some stray pretext, but they jump all over any real threat also and send out fund raising letters that blame Democrats for coddling terrorists. 9/11 was real and it sure as Hell was exploited. That is where Democrats need to hammer at, that crass cynical Republican use of suffering and fear for political ends, that and the utter failure of the Bush Administration to deal with threats to America in a manner that increases rather than decreases American security.

A whole lot of the same posters who see every Terrorist threat against Americans as a fabrication from a Republican political conspiracy, also see the Iraqi insurgency as Freedom fighters resisting an Imperialistic American invasion and occupation that resulted in the deaths of thousands of innocent civilians. OK, so add up Two plus Two. Some of those insurgents are perfectly willing to blow up car bombs in public markets where women shop for food to feed their families, simply to spread chaos and terror to undermine what they perceive to be an American installed puppet Iraq regime. They are randomly blowing up their own neighbors, so don't you think some extreme Islamists aren't also capable of attempting to blow up random Americans on planes? Don't you think some might feel motivated enough to do so?

if there were choice A: that has a pretty good chance of succeeding, and choice B: that will fuck up royally and leave them looking like the asshats they are, they will inevitably choose B.

and even as the failure is exposed and in plain sight for all to see, the *cronies will insist on continuing to fail miserably, the media will trumpet their commitment in staying the course, we'll all be accused of unpatriotic questioning, and somewhere someone will get a medal/heck of a job there, etc...

dp