find someone who knows someone who was on the plane. ;-)

that's the only one that baffels me..

and again..

http://www.freedomunderground.org/memoryhole/pentagon.php#Main

Well, there have been a lot of conspiracy theories for 9/11. One of it what we in Pakistan (and other islamic countires) is that of the involvment of jews. Two questions in this regard that remain unanswered are:

1. Why did there was not a single jew in WTC on the day of 9/11?
2. Why did the owner (a jew) of WTC sold it just a couple of weeks before 9/11?

http://www.oilempire.us/bogus.html

oh come on, you must be kidding. Why do the jews always have to take the blame for everything. Well we (the biggest part) of the world think that the Muslim people are trying to get the world control. Taking over control from in your eyes "the nonbeleavers".

LoL,

dude ... no offense .. im not accusing anybody or any religon here. The people who can be accused are those who are hiding all the truth. In this case, the US government itself. The above wesite which i mentioned, its not a muslim or a christian or jew. Just mentions facts with reasoning.

This act was simply brutal and is highly condemnable.

I think what you mean is that the Boeing does not have a "digital fly by wire" system as the A320 or a "power by wire" system like the A380 however it still has a fly-by-wire system. Fly by wire was introduced during the 1940's in airplanes as these were becoming too heavy to stear. If you do not have a FCS you could not move the rudder of such a bulky aircraft which weighs up to 44 tonnes:

Analog fly-by-wire FCS
The fly-by-wire FCS eliminates the complexity, fragility and weight of the mechanical circuit of the hydromechanical FCS and replaces it with an electrical circuit. The cockpit controls now operate signal transducers which generate the appropriate commands. The commands are processed by an electronic controller. The autopilot is now part of the electronic controller.

It's been a while since I was checking out fly-by-wire systems in aircraft but if I remember things had changed (probably incorrectly) to identify two completely different things as fly-by-wire.

One is (correctly as bastard points out) a simple change from mechanical control to electronic 'assisted' control. This is the same kind of thing as next generation car prototypes are putting in where there is no longer any direct mechanical control of the vehicle (think F1 racing cars). This however does not necessarily mean that there is any remote way of accessing the system. My car uses certain amounts of 'drive-by-wire' technology such as power steering, however I'd be extremely impressed (and fairly terrified) if someone was able to take remote control of my steering wheel!

The second, and quite possibly what Cyzoonic was referring to, is the idea of fly-by-wire being that the aircraft can fly itself. This is done using GPS and ILS for take-off and approach as well as countless other systems and acronyms I do not know. I seem to remember that this is what the majority of people refer to when talking about aircraft fly-by-wire...

Either way, I don't believe that there are 'backdoors' into aeroplanes that allow their transponders to be shut off etc. I'm not saying it's not possible, just that there are deliberate precautions in place to prevent such things from being possible. I for one would like to believe (much as conspiracy theories interest me) that this is a load of hogwash.

bmacd many of the hijackers turned out to be living?!? and those visiting the flight schools were very bad pilots...

Now they trained on small plans.not on a boeing 757 anyway they managed to perform a very accurate attack...??

Agreed they would only have trained on light aircraft and not passenger jets but once the understanding of the principles of flight is gained, the rest can be learned from text books (especially if all you need to do is fly a jet into a building).

To be honest the best flight training you can get is playing flight simulators, that's how real pilots are trained after all. With the advancements in normal PC flight sims they can almost compete with a real hardware system!

Pilots---
ok, mguru is completely right in saying that the supposed hijackers were incapable of flying airplanes. Given that the apploach of the second plane was conducted at such precision which only experienced fighter pilots can achieve (statement from several US airforce pilots) it is highly unlikely that they did fly the plane. The CIA were even so conserned with this that they let a few train within military flight schools so that they could have a higher standard in florida. Furthermore, as mindlifter pointed out to me yesterday, it is very different to fly a large aircraft than a small one (could you comment mindlifter?). These aeroplanes flew outside of their parameters (these are given g-forces and flight paths which the pilot cannot axceed) meaning that someone had tampered with the system (flight computer). This is also an indication to that Mohammed Atta did not fly the aeroplanes - he would have had to have extensive knowledge of the FCS's and flight computer system to be able to do this and given the incapabilities of the lot i highly doubt it.

FCS---
bmd the DARPA project is widely known and discussed. You are correct in saying that one cannot take controll over your car however this is merely because your car is operated under direct hydraulics. Airplanes are controlled and operated through an indirect hydraulical system where movements from the rudder etc are fed through actuators and sensors into the flight computer which then relays the signals to the different functions. First then are hydraulics put into action. So if you would compare it to a car you would need to get hold of this one: http://europa.eu.int/comm/research/rtdinf23/en/innov2.html
but since it is a prototype it will be difficult... and furthermore it will probably not have special backdoors built in it by the DARPA team as to be honest neither you or your car are a strategic target for hijackers nor would DARPA give a shit ;-). Consider this... Lufthansa removed and replaced its FLC's (flight control computers) on certain US aircraft in the mid 90's for security reasons.

September 20, 2001, The Economist: "Robert Ayling, a former boss of British Airways, suggested in The Financial Times this week that aircraft could be commandeered from the ground and controlled remotely in the event of a hijack ..." - can someone get hold of this article either through the economist or FT...

If you want to find out more on the darpa project:
http://www.davidicke.net/tellthetruth/conspiracy/thedisaster.pdf

As I said at the beginning, I am not a conspiracy theory buff, nor am I extremely familiar with the events of 9/11 or the practical sides of flying passenger jets into tall buildings. I am just voicing my opinion that I think, while there may be more behind the 9/11 attacks than meets the eye, I do not believe the aircraft were remotely flown into the twin towers (or anywhere else for that matter).

The comments about the precision flying above are fully applicable the idea of flying the plane remotely. If such flying is only the realm of extremely experienced fighter pilots, then one of them would have to fly the machine remotely. But unless a setup could be made that mimicked the aircraft perfectly to allow the fighter pilot to actually realistically control the plane, I don't believe he would have been able to fly it that 'precisely'. As soon as you agree that such a setup would have been possible (which I have no doubt it would have been) then it comes to the same point that the hijackers could well have been trained using exactly such a setup, thereby completely invalidating the 'requirement' of an experienced fighter pilot!

As far as controlling my car is concerned, you're right - there's no reason that anyone would want to. But with a 'minimum' of effort it would not be difficult to. My point was not the technical difficulties in doing so but just because there is a way for electrical input to enter my car wirelessly (radio) it does not mean my car can be controlled wirelessly. You're right that the hydraulic systems in my car are completely different to those in a plane, yet it would not be difficult to for these to be controlled remotely (anyone want to explain how ABS works?) with the simple insertion of some small electronics...

My point is purely that just because it is possible, it does not mean it is done. I never denied that your story about using transponder frequencies to remote control an aircraft was possible, I just said that I do not believe that it is done (either in the past or now).

It gave me great pleasure and pause for thought. But please don't tell me you'd base any argument on a document that contains excerpts like this:

Also the odd quote, reference or even suggestion that any of this is based in provable fact would be nice. Might help dispell the overpowering feeling that 'this writer' is simply a paranoid mental hospital outpatient with a very, very powerful imagination and an equally powerful unwaving belief that the government is out to get him!

Now where did I put my black helicopters?

to be honest i did not actually read the whole pdf and now that i have its rediculous and i should not have posted it... If you want to have some more hard facts on the DARPA remote controlled aircraft theory i advise you to read some of the works of geheimdienstexperte and ex-bundesminister Dr. jur. Andreas von Bülow. Further readings include Joe Vialls "Home Run" and Carol a Valentine's "Operation 911 - No Suicide Pilots". You can also read some stuff that is on www.friendsofliberty.com especially "Two 911 Jetliners EXCEEDED Their Software Barriers". If you are really interested you can refer to Don de Grand Pré "the enemy is inside the Gates - Commercial Jets as guided Missiles". Chomsky is also a great read on the subject as well as many many more authors. Then there is a whole list of website that you can refer to to become more familiar with the topic. Here are some that are from the wikipedia list:
http://www.terrorize.dk
http://911physics.co.nr/
http://www.publiceye.org/conspire/Post911/dubious_claims.html
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/05/26/150221
http://911truth.org/
http://911busters.com/
http://stream.911truthradio.com/
http://www.gordonthomas.ie/104.html
http://www.cmaq.net/fr/node.php?id=20576
http://question911.com/
http://www.911research.wtc7.net/
http://www.justacitizen.org/
http://www.booktv.org/General/index.asp?segID=5677&schedID=362

A brief note on voicing of opinions... Opinions are fine, yes. However as soon as you start to blindly follow mainstream propaganda media your not voicing an oppinion but merely regurgitating what others tell you to. You said you were not informed on the topic... i strongly, no even very strongly suggest you read up on it as the west, which includes us indirecly, have started a war based on a great theatrical instigation. The shit which the US & UK has started is going to hit us hard in the face in the future - and its not going to taste nice i promice. The best part of the whole charade, mainstram media is playing along due to their own interests. Think about it next time you turn on
Fox empire - (Murdoc who is a neo-con),
Discovery Channel, National Geographic Channel, MSNBC, Universal Studios, Vivendi - (General Electric, large supporters of the Bush administration).
MTV, Nickelodeon, Black Entertainment Television, Paramount, (Viacom - Hyperneocons)
most of these want what is going on in Iraq currently. Its good for their owners (large industrials or organisations with industrial interest). If you go to the movies the next time remember that these listed above accounted for 94% of total box-office receipts for the year 2003. Now thats what i call mass manipulation starting with shitty movies like "war of the worlds" (which blantanly is a promotional movie for the war on terrorists as well as young people to join the army) and ending with even more stupid movies like "Natural Blonde" or whatever the fuck that movie was called. If you search for the truth (or whatever is meant by it) dont only stick to good ol' Bill O'Reilly's fu*ç"%ing "wanking points".

You're absolutely correct that blindly following the mainstream media can be a very dangerous mistake. Almost as dangerous and blindly assuming that the mainstream media is inherently corrupt and intent on misinforming the general public.

The thing about opinions is that you need to take in to account every different point of view in order to develop the best possible understanding of the situation and then formulate your own opinion. The outcome of this process is exactly that; an opinion. This does not mean fact, it means opinion. The mistake that a lot of conspiracy theorists make is assuming that those who choose to believe the officially reported accounts are just sheep being led by the corrupt mass media. This might not actually be the situation, instead these might actually be people who considered all different sides of the argument and decided that what they believed was effectively what was being reported by the main stream media. This is their opinion and as such is just as valid as anyone elses opinion - this is one of the fundamental principles of equality.

What I'm trying to say is that I appreciate your points, and believe me, conspiracy theories fascinate me, but do not for one second try to believe that just because you are contradicting what you consider to be the 'main stream opinion' that you are correct. You have just as much chance of being wrong as those that blindly follow the mass media. Again, many of the points raised in sites and reports above are fascinating and raise a lot of questions about the official reports and do question a lot of the justifications and explanations of certain events - however just because something has been printed/published, it does not make it fact! Do not fall into the trap of taking theoretical assumptions and wild speculation and turning it into fact! An intelligent and analytical person will always look at this kind of situation with an open mind and ask themselves what are the most realistic and plausible explanations for the incident and work from there.

the us mainstream media is owned by a very few corporations (5-7) which for logical reasons are not interested in reporting on serious issues which could damage the reputation of the corporations. I dont know what everyone knows about controlling the people even if they arent at work.
but here I can tell you that beginning of the 19th century when TV/radio was introduced it became and still is a very striving force behind it to get the people to be passiv and feed them with entertainment (which always considers the interest of the owners) so that the real important issues like enviroment, war, public health care can be put aside or only discussed in a matter which is "accepted". So the US media is targeting to controll peoples minds and thoughts. This is achieved by manufacturing consent. * Noam Chomsky literature or documentary*
If we accept this "Manufacturing Consent " to take place even here in Europe and in the rest of the world be are facing a tragic future.
bmacd; you are stating the the chances of being wrong when following the mass media is the same as if you search the internet for information. You can't be serious... mass media is not there anymore to educate people, it's there to manipulate people!
Hitler used his Reichstag fire (blamed the jews for it and then gained more power which the resulted in world war.
Bush used his ........ for creating a atmosphere of fear which then can be used for implementing Patriot Act, Homeland Security, 2 Wars, what a smart President!!! But hey the good thing; this is the beginning of the end of america

but if this ridiculous war that the US & UK have started does extend to poor little innocent Switzerland or nice neutral Sweden (I recall both actually did quite well out of the last war...) it really won't matter a hoot whether you are informed on the flying skills of the maybe-not-suicide bombers or whether Boeings made after a certain date can or can't be taken over by remote control. Although it is fascinating reading you all getting on each others' tits so much..

So how are you going to travel? you clearly can't want to fly or drive in case the terrorists take over control, trains aren't safe either (anyone noticed how the number of train accidents in India and Pakistan has dramatically increased recently? didnt think so) neither are buses (can you take those over too? or do the terrorists implant chips in the bus drivers that causes them to have a stroke and drive everyone off a cliff? might be worth investigating), bicycles can easily be steered by magnetic fields generated in underground bunkers, and even if you walk, on of those illuminati helicopters might decide to pick you up.

There is no escape, you just have to live with the fact that you will die sometime and there isn't much you can do about it (not that it will matter to you, you'll be dead anyway). Knowing the truth about every single disaster and conspiracy theory will not make you live longer, in fact by spending so much time publishing your theories on the internet you have actually made yourself a more likely target for persecution. So instead of ranting at people over the internet, go outside, enjoy the sunshine (it may be your last), have an icecream and come to terms with your impending doom.

people who shut their eyes to reality simply invite their own destruction- James Baldwin

but hey enjoy your icecream... and watch a lot of mass media, become passiv, ignorant and selfish.
I guess I will continue to be a internet lover :-) active, dedicated person, striving for a better future on our little planet

But it's fun so I'm going to continue ;o)

Mguru, yes, I am completely serious.

I am not saying for one second that I think the information I see when I turn on CNN is in any way completely impartial or unbiased, what I am saying is that you have to take everything with a pinch of salt.

Where there is one extreme there is another (the opposite). Believing either of these extremes is dangerous. To assume that everything is good or everything is bad is going to make it very difficult to actually get on with life. I am not saying that you are wrong, but I am also not saying that you are right.

Perhaps I am in the minority here but I like to actually consider all possibilities before making a decision. Normally I try to do as much research as possible to come to the best possible conclusions. It does however require a little more convincing base in fact than "my mates brother who works down the pub heard this bloke in the corner chatting to a fella in a suit who said that Bush caused 9/11 himself cos he wanted settle some childhood squabble he had with a camel that just so happened to be hanging around somewhere in the middle east"... The best thing about the Internet is also it's worst - the fact that anyone can publish anything! This means that we get fantastic unmoderated information that you wouldn't get any other way because of censorship or other factors, but it also means that we get the crazed thoughts of crackpots posing as official or reliable information. It is always important to consider your source, then consider your sources sources and so on until you are reasonably sure that what you have is based in fact and not just theory...

My biggest problem with the whole 9/11 conspiracy theory is this nagging thought that if the Bush administration (and whoever else you want to involve; MI6, Illuminati, New World Order, etc) were smart enough (and it really would take an impossible amount of chaos theory style planning) to actually deliberately achieve certain goals as is suggested by these theories, then surely they would have been smart enough to outsmart all these people posting the holes in the plans??? If' you've got the worlds best (and also most devious) planners in the world, surely you're not going to be stupid enough to plant the wrong kind of rubble, or create the wrong size hole, or collapse the building in the wrong way. It's quite frankly ridiculous to propose that a group in this position would have blown up the WTC in a way that was clear to anyone was not possible with the 'publicly accepted' way it had been achieved!

OK, since the majority of the blog users here seem to blindly follow the mainstream media i think it should be appropriate to provide a painful example of mass manipulation. The pentagon crash has baffeled most, especially how an airliner could dissapear into the building and break up into such small pieces (even the engine which holds a few tonnes of steel). Here is how the National Geographic channel, owned by General Electric (biggest arms technology mananufacturer)and Dow Jones (NY Stock exchange owner - remember the Dow Jones whent up as the war started...), explained the Pentagon insident...

Look at the wings, how they break up and miraculously get "sucked" into the Pentagon.

Then the speaker sais "investigators are able to build a clear picture of what whent on inside the Pentagon..." - WHATEVER
"What really happened is that the entire plane disintegrated as it whent through the building" - Aerm, where did you get your physics degree? Primary school?

The black box is the only recognisable part of the plane to survive...? Yea because you put it there...

See for yourself how mass media manipulates people...
http://www.terrorize.dk/911/pentagon2/911.pentagon.plane.destruction.ng.wmv

'active, dedicated person, striving for a better future on our little planet'

???

How you possibly think this can be attained by fighting for anarchy (which is effectively what you are doing unless your points of view are exteremly hypocritical), I don't understand... ;o)

I'm not closing my eyes, in fact quite the opposite. I'm simply refusing to accept the rantings of the discontented few as gospel. You might find there are one or two other groups of people who are renowned for doing just that: look-up the word 'sect' or 'cult'. You might find some of their 'facts' quite convincing too...

Hold on Bmacd. I am quite confused now. Are you saying you should research everything from every angle however if you believe anything other than the official story you are a proponent of anarchy??? I have to say you never stop to surprice me...

the result could be anarchy but I dont know what political/media system will be the dominating the future. All I know is that I will be working active and dedicated on fighting corporate america as well as the official lie of 9/11 which has enabled Orwells worst expectations.

Bonfadelli, Heinz (2004): Medienwirkungsforschung I. Grundlagen und Perspektiven. Konstanz: UVK Medien, Reihe Uni-Papers, Bd. 10, ISBN 3-8252-2502-X

For those not understanding how media is functioning. Enjoy!

Another example of media manipulation. We all saw how palestinine was embracing the attacks on the WTC... But/ was that really what happened. No, it turns out the camerateam which shot the video gave the women and children free candy and fruits and these in return shouted and cheered with happiness... Yet media used these images to futher blame the arab countries...

Here is the footage. Look at what is at the bottom of the picture. Thats right, the reporter is giving the lady fruits.
http://www.terrorize.dk/911/misc1/911.palestinian.hoax.wmv

I think I'm being misunderstood.

Bastard, yes, I am saying everything should be looked at from every angle but I am most definitely not saying that anything other than the official line regarding 9/11 leads to anarchy.

My comment regarding anarchy (and I'll remind everyone that it did have a smiley after it and as such was not actually meant as seriously as it could) related to Mguru's comment about 'fighting for a better world'. I was merely speculating that if - as seems to be the general feel in this discussion - we assume that all governments are inherently corrupt and intent on deceiving their populations for their own personal gains, then the only way forward is to remove all government (because surely any new governments would just have the same problem) and allow anarchy to reign!

My comments on the media seem to have been misunderstood too - I am not saying that people should believe everything they hear or see reported by the mass media outlets, but rather that people should not immediately jump to the conclusion that something is being deliberately covered up or that public is being intentionally deceived. This is not to say that examples of this have not happened in the past, purely that we should never assume things (especially things we choose to fight for or against) without first appreciating all possibilities and basing our decisions on as much evidence and fact as we can find...

Bastard, your previous example of media manipulation is exactly the kind of thing I was talking about.

So let's list our assumptions:

1. That film footage was deliberately taken and used in relation to the Palestinian reaction to the 9/11 bombings.
- This is an important point because from the clip there is no way to tell this is the case. This could have been filmed (and used) at a game show where people were cheering on a contestant and the person who posted it has deliberately mislead the audience by making them think that the devious mass media has been the ones misusing the clip (careful, we're getting into double-think territory here).

2. That what is seen being given out at the bottom of the picture is a piece of pineapple as a 'reward' for the woman's cheering.
- I can see something being offered to her, and it looks like a pineapple slice, but you might notice that she does not even think of taking it - is she holding out for a bigger prize, or is pineapple just not her thing???

Just taking these two assumptions (and believe me, a lot more have been made on this particular argument) puts the whole video in a different light if we stop for a second and question them.

The suggestion is that the this footage was deliberately taken so that it could be used to show Palestinian joy at the bombings. This is not to say that the people in the video knew this, just that the camera team knew what they wanted to show and what it was going to be in relation to. What if this video was nothing of the sort? What if this video was taken by somebody on a website to show an example of mass-media corruption but was in fact never shown in the context suggested? I see no time and date stamp on the footage, nor do I see a newspaper or any other indication of the current date or time. Are you not just doing exactly what you so vehemently hate and 'accepting what you are fed without questioning'?

I could go on but I suggest this type of discussion is better done in person instead of posted to a blog - especially when I'm being paid to do something else!

but hold your horses, you have a perfect good brain? and of course it's question of gender??? Come on... are you Einstein or Noamsky combined with a feministic ideology?

Everyone fights their own way and I respect your arguments and fight such as human interaction, humour, helping others etc. Furthermore I do love radiation caused by the sun "sunshine" but I do not like ice-cream. I like also to be sitting on my arse:-)

Hang on, I'm sure there's another post for the sexist argument.

Besides, I like sitting on my arse too...

i think what mguru wanted to say is "what the hell does gender have to do with this???"

....it is Noam Chomsky (not Noamsky).....that was my sexist comment to the debate...

;-)

http://www.chomsky.info/
http://www.chomsky.info/articles/20050704.htm
http://www.chomsky.info/articles/20030907.htm

I am very impressed. The whole situation seems so clear now. And I gotta say that I am relived that no plane ever hit the pentagon, really I am, I will sleep much better now. If you could just do me a favor and forward that information to a guy named Kyle Grormanski, I went to school with him and he lost both of his parents in that crash, he would be very relieved as well I am sure.

haha, :-)) thank you for correcting I get all excited about this little debate... while sitting on my arse

in that case, i don't see why they are so keen on hiding the material in relation to the crash, that's all that baffels me..

and a big plane like that should at least have been see flying so low by more people, yet noone has seen it..

please do prove me wrong..

and yes, everyone is still wondering where that plane went..

time for some ice cream ;-)

i still believe in the flights hitting the WTC were real AA flights though! ;-)

john f kennedy was shot by ONLY lee harvey oswald.. who believes in that? and what the hell is going on with the colours(background of blank) i get totally confused!!!

This comment was on the FP a second ago - someone has MOVED IT!!!

That's outrageous censorship, be careful everyone, we're being watched... They're everywhere - we've brought it on ourselves though. Didn't you know the NSA pays little Taiwanese children to scour the web searching for references to JFK - and now they're on to us!!!

But on a more serious note, everyone knows it was a heat-seeking stealth bullet that hit JFK... There was just a big cover-up to make it look like it was a simple shooting...

sorry about that..

but i think its easier to read now.. the old background image made it harder to read plain text,, IMO..

www.votergate.tv

check out the new voting machines they are using for electronic voting!

not so new if I remember correctly...

http://blank.antville.org/stories/966854/

yes but they haven't been using them as far as I can remember they use it only for "elections"

I can also recommend following speech by David Ray Griffin very good

http://question911.com/linkout.php?filename=David%20Ray%20Griffin%20CSPAN%20Speech%2004302005%20Part%201.wmv
http://question911.com/linkout.php?filename=David%20Ray%20Griffin%20CSPAN%20Speech%2004302005%20Part%202.wmv

perfectly good brain does NOT mean my brain is perfect and good, it is an expression for something that has been found to be quite adequate for the job needed.

No, I'm not Einstein (ok so the bad hair is similar) or Chomsky (although i guess the slavic background could confuse some) and i'm also not necessarily a feminist.

One further point I would like to make, before I go and catch some Strahlung, is that looking at SombreroSean's comment, I think you guys should grow up. I reiterate. Try it just once. Turn off your computer, leave the house, TALK TO PEOPLE, have a drink or a smoke or icecream or whatever and fucking lighten up. Are you really so arrogant to assume that your blog rant will change the world? pah.

SombreroSean's comment I read but particularly for people affected by this state sponsored terror attack should want to know why their are so many unanswered questions.
And for you chesty, I think I talk a lot to people especially always trying at least talk about some relevant issues like this one because it's affecting all our lives, if you believe it or not. Who wins bigbrother, idol, music star, Pimp my ride from MTV, Welcome to my home, etc. is just not what I care about. puh

again, you exceed yourself in statements of bigoted randomness.

BTW what is Welcome to my Home? i must remember to check that one out, it sounds just fab (nb: i am being sarcastic here). Can't say I've ever had a conversation about either of the other ones (except maybe pimp my ride) but then again I've also never had a conversation about fly-by-wire before so there's always a first time for everything.

I have however had conversations (today) about my bosses unborn baby who she has just discovered may be born with Down's (and if this is confirmed, could she bear to abort it), my work colleague's great-aunt who died this morning, and to be frank both have affected me more than all this pubescent rubbishmongering.

may be born with Down's sounds a little bit like may be pregnant...??? and come on great-aunt is at least in our family very far away, which means I don't even recall who is my great aunt. I mean ok it not nice when people die but you know what 3'000 people died on 9/11 and almost 2000 us soldiers have died in iraq and about 30000 iraqies have died since the war on terror has started so ...

Congratulations! you are an "active, dedicated person, striving for a better future on our little planet".

Shame that you are so "passiv, ignorant and selfish" from spending all your time on the internet that you don't even know who your grandparents' sisters are.