11/9/06
Here's a story posted by WCBS that smelled from the git, and finally struck me as utter horseshit, and me calling the author on it.
"New Fears Of Onboard Explosives Center On Food Services" (pops)
Dear Mr. Weinberger,
I had my doubts about your story from the first sentence: "Airplanes remain the terrorist weapon of choice." By what measure can you claim this? I haven't seen any flaming aircraft coming out of the sky lately, but devout militants have been certainly blowing themselves, and anything else nearby, into smithereens on a daily basis around the world. Are you saying they'd really -like- to turn airplanes into fuel-air bombs? Again, what would be your basis for this? There is a subtle but meaningful difference between wanting something and having it.
The real objection I take is with the idea that the food prep area must be secure from outsiders. How about the bakeries, the meat processing plants, the slaughterhouses, the farms? That seems silly, doesn't it? You never mention in your story what happens to the food service vehicles once they leave the plant and get on airport property, which makes the premise for your entire story silly. Actually, failing to follow the materials to their destination where they are supposed to be explosive-free lets the reader assume that you are merely spinning alarmist crap the likes of which one could find debunked on Snopes.com.
I suspect that if you were really concerned with the security of food transport at airports you would have finished the job; as it stands it appears that someone at Sky Chefs has pissed you off. Is it any wonder the bloggers are gaining credibility and Big News is losing?
Boston
Here's a story posted by WCBS that smelled from the git, and finally struck me as utter horseshit, and me calling the author on it.
"New Fears Of Onboard Explosives Center On Food Services" (pops)
Dear Mr. Weinberger,
I had my doubts about your story from the first sentence: "Airplanes remain the terrorist weapon of choice." By what measure can you claim this? I haven't seen any flaming aircraft coming out of the sky lately, but devout militants have been certainly blowing themselves, and anything else nearby, into smithereens on a daily basis around the world. Are you saying they'd really -like- to turn airplanes into fuel-air bombs? Again, what would be your basis for this? There is a subtle but meaningful difference between wanting something and having it.
The real objection I take is with the idea that the food prep area must be secure from outsiders. How about the bakeries, the meat processing plants, the slaughterhouses, the farms? That seems silly, doesn't it? You never mention in your story what happens to the food service vehicles once they leave the plant and get on airport property, which makes the premise for your entire story silly. Actually, failing to follow the materials to their destination where they are supposed to be explosive-free lets the reader assume that you are merely spinning alarmist crap the likes of which one could find debunked on Snopes.com.
I suspect that if you were really concerned with the security of food transport at airports you would have finished the job; as it stands it appears that someone at Sky Chefs has pissed you off. Is it any wonder the bloggers are gaining credibility and Big News is losing?
Boston
posted by Guynoir at 11:05 AM
0 comments
