ouibejamn daveklepper You would have to be about 95 years old to have personal knowledge of all this. Otherwise, you are no different than the rest of us with second hand info, ie, history.
daveklepper
You would have to be about 95 years old to have personal knowledge of all this. Otherwise, you are no different than the rest of us with second hand info, ie, history.
I believe Dave has a head start on the rest of us for the number 95, while not at the number he is closer than most on here.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
daveklepperI do have to point out that what my critic calls bigotry as result from old age migh just be a good memory of important events that may not even be considered by younger people. For example, the French resistance against the Nazi occupation was led by the Communists. But most French people were not and are not Communists. The USA State Department had selected Darlan as leader of the French Government in Exile, moved from London to North Africa, because Darlan, who had been appointed North African Governor by the pupit Vichy French Government, had taken his power from supporting Vichy and the Germans to suporting the Allies. But Eisnenhower and Roosevelt knew from intelligence that the Communists would fight a Darlan government and military forces with the same zeal they fought the Germans. So the State Department was overruled, and a more popular French leader, De Gaulle, was selected.
Electroliner 1935 daveklepper We know that he had lots of contact with terrorist groups, and that his own father had contacts with the Taliban. Dave. Can you supply the source of that statement "he had lots of contact with terrorist groups, and that his own father had contacts with the Taliban" I thought that was NOT the case. Except thaas his father emigrated from Afghanistan, he probably did have contacts before he left but are there known contacts since he left?
daveklepper We know that he had lots of contact with terrorist groups, and that his own father had contacts with the Taliban.
Dave. Can you supply the source of that statement "he had lots of contact with terrorist groups, and that his own father had contacts with the Taliban"
I thought that was NOT the case. Except thaas his father emigrated from Afghanistan, he probably did have contacts before he left but are there known contacts since he left?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/the-orlando-shooters-afghan-roots/2016/06/13/d89a8cd0-30e4-11e6-ab9d-1da2b0f24f93_story.html
Father and son both sound unstable. The son was born on LI in New Hyde Park in 1986. His Afghani parents seem to have come to the US in the early 1980s sometime after the Soviet invasion of 1979.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
Euclid The Attorny General has said that they will reveal the transcript of the Orlando shooter's phone calls, but they will edit out his pledging of allegience to ISIS. http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/06/obama-doj-edit-omar-mateens-phone-call-transcripts-will-delete-references-isis/
The Attorny General has said that they will reveal the transcript of the Orlando shooter's phone calls, but they will edit out his pledging of allegience to ISIS.
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/06/obama-doj-edit-omar-mateens-phone-call-transcripts-will-delete-references-isis/
The AG later released the full transcript with no redactions. Transcript
daveklepperWe know that he had lots of contact with terrorist groups, and that his own father had contacts with the Taliban.
If the window the FBI examined was from a southbound Acela how is it relevant to 188? Still leaves some questions unanswered.
Norm
The Acela car window was potentially important, because it was struck by an object near Frankford Junction the night of the crash. This window was examined on Sept. 28, the date of the email. Theretofore it remained unfinished business, I suppose, and needed to jibe NEGATIVE in order to 'closeout' the windshield story.
I too was confused as to which windshield they examined. Apparently it was two windshields, but that point is really obscure. The only clue that they examined the windshield of #188 is the reference to the “accident locomotive”. It refers to the investigation of Bostian’s windshield as follows:
“This email will serve as the closeout and for use in the NTSB docket that the accident locomotive windshield was tested for ballistic material on 5/18/2015 in Wilmington DE by the FBI with NEGATIVE RESULTS.”
I think it is rather odd. Here is the total document:
From:
To:
Cc:
Subject: DCA15MRO10 Amtrak PHL****ACELA WINDOW CLOSEOUT**
Date: Monday, September 28, 2015 1:54:59 PM
Attachments: image006.png
David and Ted,
Today I meet with FBI SSA Richard Marx of the Evidence Response Team Unit and a FBI ballistic specialist and a FBI photographer at the Amtrak Ivy City facility in DC.
A visual and chemical examination was done by the FBI on the damaged Acela window which was removed from a southbound (going to DC) Acela that sustained damaged in the same area and date and approximate time of the PHL Amtrak crash on 5/12/2015.
Upon completion of the examination, no chemical makers or physical indications were found to indicate any ballistic material had caused the damage to the window.
==================================
This email will serve as the closeout and for use in the NTSB docket that the accident locomotive windshield was tested for ballistic material on 5/18/2015 in Wilmington DE by the FBI with NEGATIVE RESULTS.
The Acela window was tested for ballistic material on 9/28/2015 in Washington DC by the FBI with NEGATIVE results.
FBI POC:
SSA Richard B. Marx
Evidence Response Team Unit
FBI Laboratory
=============================================OFUO===========================================
Regards,
Erik
=======================
Erik R. Grosof
Senior Advisor
Special Ops & Interagency Coordination
Office of the Managing Director (MD-1)
This is from the report Wanswheel posted.
So this window is NOT FROM 188's Acs64 and is not relevant to the issue of what might have affected Mr. Bostian. The speculation has not been comcluded.
It's the one linked in the message wanswheel posted. Click the link in the post, then the 'download' button in the docket for the 54kb PDF file (585236.pdf). Read it if you haven't already; perhaps I've misunderstood something.
Overmod it refers to an ACELA windshield.
Was this FBI investigation for the Philadelphia event or a different one
wanswheelThis email will serve as the closeout and for use in the NTSB docket that the accident locomotive windshield was tested for ballistic material on 5/18/2015 in Wilmington DE by the FBI with NEGATIVE RESULTS.
I was staying out of this, and it physically pains me to have to note this, but when you actually pull up the reference it refers to an ACELA windshield. They repeat this, so I doubt it is accidental, and even if there are physical similarities between the Acela and ACS64 windshield panels, it leaves me underwhelmed at the level of either documentary accuracy or common sense on the part of the people claiming any sort of "closure" on the subject.
BaltACD My observations from reading NTSB (and their predecessor) railroad accident reports for the past five decades is that in the past two decades the reports have become more political and agenda driven in the 'results' they portray. They have been reluctant to place blame on localities when blame is due.
My observations from reading NTSB (and their predecessor) railroad accident reports for the past five decades is that in the past two decades the reports have become more political and agenda driven in the 'results' they portray. They have been reluctant to place blame on localities when blame is due.
I see that too. It must have been a torturous process to get through this #188 investigation while pushing just the right buttons. Does the report elaborate on the recommendation of training engineers to better deal with distractions, as they suggested?
By ballistic material they may mean ONLY something from a firearm, not ncessarily rocks. And at this point I still mistrust the FBI in this case for reasons stated earlier.
EuclidI am not convinced of that. If you are, that's fine with me. You are free to imagine that the FBI can look at a hole and tell whether it is a gunshot hole. More important to me was the defensiveness of Sumwalt in denying the possibility of gunshots the day before the FBI was to investigate it. He said he wanted to tamp down the consideration of the possibility of gunshots.
I'm somewhat in agreement with Euclid on this matter. It would appear that Sumwalt did not want to panic the public or disparage the "City of Brotherly Love" at that point. Philadelphians throw rocks at trains? Nah. Never going to happen. (Sarcasm meter pegged out.)
After reading the email wanswheel posted I will accept what they said.
And, according to news reports, all references to "Islamic terrorism". Makes one wonder whose side our government is on.
Excerpt from email in the docket, Sept. 28, 2015
http://dms.ntsb.gov/pubdms/search/document.cfm?docID=436110&docketID=58167&mkey=91159
dehusman Euclid I cannot imagine the FBI reaching a conclusion about the involvement of either rocks or gun shots without a laboratory analysis of the windshield. Why on earth would they not do that? To be clear, I do not know if they did or not. Why? I would imagine that the FBI has seen hundreds of gunshot holes in windows and probably can just look at it an tell whether or not it likely was a gunshot hole. If it was obviously not a gunshot impact from field observations then there is no need to was time and funds on a laboratory analysis. Euclid 2) I feel certain that had they done such an analysis that proved the non-existance of gun shot evidence, the NTSB report would explicitly describe that process and its result. Why? Have you ever read an NTSB accident report where they exhaustively described something that was NOT a cause of the accident? I have not. Have you ever read a report where they spent manhours investigating something that wasn't relevant to the cause? I have not. They are charged with finding the cause. If something doesn't relate to the cause then they don't investigate it because its irrelevant, and they don't document it because it would detract from the final report. There was damage to the windhield. The NTSB investigated it, they called in the FBI to investigate concerns they were gunshot damage. The FBI determined they were not gunshot marks. Period. There is nothing else they need to report. The marks on the winshield were not relevant to the cause.
Euclid I cannot imagine the FBI reaching a conclusion about the involvement of either rocks or gun shots without a laboratory analysis of the windshield. Why on earth would they not do that? To be clear, I do not know if they did or not.
Why? I would imagine that the FBI has seen hundreds of gunshot holes in windows and probably can just look at it an tell whether or not it likely was a gunshot hole. If it was obviously not a gunshot impact from field observations then there is no need to was time and funds on a laboratory analysis.
Euclid 2) I feel certain that had they done such an analysis that proved the non-existance of gun shot evidence, the NTSB report would explicitly describe that process and its result.
Why? Have you ever read an NTSB accident report where they exhaustively described something that was NOT a cause of the accident? I have not. Have you ever read a report where they spent manhours investigating something that wasn't relevant to the cause? I have not. They are charged with finding the cause. If something doesn't relate to the cause then they don't investigate it because its irrelevant, and they don't document it because it would detract from the final report.
There was damage to the windhield. The NTSB investigated it, they called in the FBI to investigate concerns they were gunshot damage. The FBI determined they were not gunshot marks. Period. There is nothing else they need to report. The marks on the winshield were not relevant to the cause.
I am not convinced of that. If you are, that's fine with me. You are free to imagine that the FBI can look at a hole and tell whether it is a gunshot hole. More important to me was the defensiveness of Sumwalt in denying the possibility of gunshots the day before the FBI was to investigate it. He said he wanted to tamp down the consideration of the possibility of gunshots.
I have no theory about what caused the hole. But I refuse to accept the NTSB ruling out gunshots and thrown rocks. I am not obligated to believe the NTSB.
Considering that Sumwalt was distressed over the theory of gunshots or thrown rocks to the extent that he wanted it put to bed by an investigation by the FBI, I would expect him to close that loop with the details of the how the FBI reached their conclusion that dismissed the theory. That is what I expect. You, however, are free to "imagine" how the FBI reached their conclusion.
Incidentally, I find it interesting that as much as the NTSB was running away from gunshots or rocks, they did a U-turn and used the topic to explain that the engineer wrecked the train simply from hearing about a rocking of another train.
So the issue of gunshots and particulaly rocking was big factor in this investigation. It is not extraneous an unworthy of expenditure of money to investigate. I don't think that a Federal investigation that takes over a year has to pinch pennies. I would thus expect to see the details of how it was determined to dismiss these theories about gunshots or rocking.
EuclidI cannot imagine the FBI reaching a conclusion about the involvement of either rocks or gun shots without a laboratory analysis of the windshield. Why on earth would they not do that? To be clear, I do not know if they did or not.
Euclid2) I feel certain that had they done such an analysis that proved the non-existance of gun shot evidence, the NTSB report would explicitly describe that process and its result.
Dave H. Painted side goes up. My website : wnbranch.com
I do have to point out that what my critic calls bigotry as result from old age migh just be a good memory of important events that may not even be considered by younger people. For example, the French resistance against the Nazi occupation was led by the Communists. But most French people were not and are not Communists. The USA State Department had selected Darlan as leader of the French Government in Exile, moved from London to North Africa, because Darlan, who had been appointed North African Governor by the pupit Vichy French Government, had taken his power from supporting Vichy and the Germans to suporting the Allies. But Eisnenhower and Roosevelt knew from intelligence that the Communists would fight a Darlan government and military forces with the same zeal they fought the Germans. So the State Department was overruled, and a more popular French leader, De Gaulle, was selected.
Then when Paris was liberated, the Free French Forces, not the British or Americans, led the liberation, with the USA, Canada, and Britian providing back-up but not the photographed marches.
I tried to get Goerge Bush II to use this stratergy in Iraq, but he never even was permitted to get the message.
An Iraqi government-in exile shouild have been formed before the military effort, with power-sharing agreed in advance before risking USA and allied lives. And Bagdahd should have been liberated nominally by Free Iraqi Forces.
Some more "Bigotry?"
As long as we are way off topic here. Elliott Ness is credited largely in the Midwest with keeping Hoover's paranoid excesses in check during World War II when Ness was also put in charge of keeping an eye on the German Ethnic Groups in the Midwest. A lot of German Families remember him and the respect they were treated with during various counter intelligence investigations launched by the FBI during World War II.
Daveklepper, great book about Afghanistan called "The only thing worth dying for" wriiten by the SF ODA team that helped liberate the country and fought alongside Hamid Karzai (see link below, he is on the cover in the back center). Harmid Karzai and some of his closest friends were either Taliban or had close contacts with them. Some Taliban would switch sides weekly or monthly depending on what mood they were in, Taliban has always had issues with loyalty because Afghans give their first loyalty to cultural mores more than religious or political groups. It's not always black and white over there with who is the enemy and who is not.
The book written by a U.S. Green Beret:
https://www.amazon.com/Only-Thing-Worth-Dying-Afghanistan/dp/0061661236
Another article you should read which is really disgusting but also true and why some of our troops need mental counseling on return. It's just the tip of the iceberg with Child Abuse over there (Iraq has issues as well as Afghanistan but Afghanistan is worse) and why it was so Ironic that Orlando gunman was from an Afghan family.......
https://www.yahoo.com/news/taliban-child-sex-slaves-kill-afghan-police-031230996.html
I agree with you about hate groups. But the fact is that the Orlando bomber did state he was doing what he was doing to please his version of Allah. We know that he had lots of contact with terrorist groups, and that his own father had contacts with the Taliban. Obama's refusal to recognise the importance and impact of Islamic Fundamentalism and its great difference from the normative Islam that allowed Muslims, Jews, and Christians to coexist anywhere is costing lives, American lives, Palestinian lives, Israeli and other Jewish lives, and most important, the greatest number, lives of Mid-Eastern Christians.
The New Yorker had a factual piece on just who Obama hired to sell the Iran deal to the American public, and also the facts about influencing law enforcement agencies on the matter of not calling out Islamic Fundamentalism as a motive. Can you imaginie fighting WWII wihtout recognizing Naziism and the difference between Germans like Thomas Mann, Bonhaufer, and Neiburh and the Nazis? To paraphrase Obama, would not defining this difference have facilitated the normal Germannd to better influence the Nazis?
And Hasam El Husseni, whom the Brtitish placed as Jerusalem Mufti in 1926, was a close friend of Hitler, with the first corresponence between them in 1924. He is the one most responsible for the mess Islam is in today.
I am 84 and my physical life may be coming to an end soon, so I have decided to defend the truth whenever I see it attacked, and wherever I see it attacked.
daveklepperWhen I say Obama is wrong, and his error has diverted the FBI from doing the best and fairest job possible,
Dave, Having read many things about the FBI and some of J.E.Hoovers improprieties, I can have som concerns about their errors. But I fear that the authoritarian groups that preach hate and distrust are affecting the discorse in the country. If you remember, the Oklahoma bombing was first blamed on muslims and it turned out to be home grown antigovernment survivorlists. I suspect that the Orlando shooter was a man troubled by his sexuality and by having some extremest thoughts based on his reading of the news and lost his reason. So far, the press reporting has found no reason to suspect that he was radicalized by radical Islamic contacts. Fomenting more distrust only creates more hatedred of Islam which is not the enemy, radical Islamic teaching is what needs to be fought. As you learned in the New York Islamic Center, most muslems are peaceful and they do not need to suffer the injustices that are being inflicted on them by a fearful and incited American public.
Can we put the Philadelphia wreck to rest until more non-speculative material become known?
I and I believe many more would like to keep this about facts and truth and not inuendo and predudice.
Thanks.
Or do you still believe that Kennedy assination was masterminded by the Mafia. Just kidding.
Until recently, I had tremendous respect for the FBI. During WWII, a woman member of my (my parents') synagogue became a member of a German-American organization to report secretly to the FBI of any Nazi sympathies and any efforts of any other member to disrupt the war effort. I have no knowledge of anything she reported, and her involvement came to my notice many years later. At the time of the first Gulf War a Protestant Minister whose church had the very successful results of my firm's acoustical advise suggested I pray with the New York Islamic Center, then located in a converted Riverside Drive residence building. I ended up studying Islam a bit with Imam, Muhammed Osman, born in Egypt and a student in both Egyptian and Saudi schools. I learned. among other things, that an Observant Jew is a valid witness in an Islamic Court, and I was one of the two witnesses at an Islamic wedding where Imam Osman officiated. This was after the Center had moved to the really magnificent bulding, funded by Kuwait, at 96thStreet and 3rd Avenue. I have a pretty good grasp of what genuine Islam is and where Islamic Fundamentalism differs and why and who. I visited several other mosques, and the FBI interviewd me on my observations and also cautioned me concerning my identitiiy. I also reported after moving to Israel about the possibility of a terrorist attack at the subway station at Herald Square, and five or six months later, arrests were made in connection with such an attempt, although on the PATH level, not the IND level. When I say Obama is wrong, and his error has diverted the FBI from doing the best and fairest job possible, you can call me mistaken or misinformed or looking at only part of the evidence or whatever, but if you use the work bigoted, then I must describe you as a liar. I suggest the peace betwen us and the continuation of this thread is best served by your editing your post to delete the word bigoted, and I can then delete this and the previous sentence. Personal perjoritaves should be avoided, not only for members of the Forum, but even in describing owners, investors, operating people, government people, etc.
I dib't know why you consider any conspirancy theory as bigoted. The Canadians did uncover two plots to sabatogue passsenger trains, one being for the interiational Maple Leaf. I do not say that I am sure that it was a terrorist attack. I simiply say that any evidence that it may have been a terrorist attack has been overlooked or not considered in any way. I don't think I am bigoted. I am convinced tha Obama is 100% wrong in not believing that Islamic Fundamentalism is at war with Western Democracy, and I am also convinced that Federal Law Enforcement and Security Forces have been instructed never to consider Islamic Fundamentalism as a motivating ideology. There is ample evidence for both, and you can receive as return mail by cotaacting me at daveklepper@yahoo.com. Some State law-enforcement organizations do not follow this ruling and have clashed with Federal organizations on just this point.
No insults, just informed opinions, based on reading the report and from a clinical perspective.
The report is just that, a summary of findings and conclusions based on 1000s of pages from the investigation. Reports do not typically include those documents. That's not how it works. Perhaps you can request documentation based on FOIA.
schlimm Euclid Early in the investigation, there were two theories about the punctured windshield. One involved hand thrown or dropped rocks, and the other involved gun shots. There was enough perceived credibility for either theory to raise public pressure to investigate them. So, in response, Sumwalt announced that he was calling in the FBI to independently confirm or deny the involvement of gun shots. At the same time he announced that move, the impartial Sumwalt aggressively talked down the theory of gun shots. Why would he inject such a biased view during the announcement of seeking an unbiased opinion of the FBI? I cannot imagine the FBI reaching a conclusion about the involvement of either rocks or gun shots without a laboratory analysis of the windshield. Why on earth would they not do that? To be clear, I do not know if they did or not. However, the FBI did officially deny that gun shots played any role just a day or two after they were called in. I see two reasons to believe that they never did a laboratory analysis: 1) I doubt that it would have been completed in such a short time. 2) I feel certain that had they done such an analysis that proved the non-existance of gun shot evidence, the NTSB report would explicitly describe that process and its result. Obviously you will never accept the validity of any report that does not agree with your preconceived theories or fit in with your obsessive mentality. Perhaps we can excuse age as the reason for Klepper's bigoted conspiracy theories.
Euclid Early in the investigation, there were two theories about the punctured windshield. One involved hand thrown or dropped rocks, and the other involved gun shots. There was enough perceived credibility for either theory to raise public pressure to investigate them. So, in response, Sumwalt announced that he was calling in the FBI to independently confirm or deny the involvement of gun shots. At the same time he announced that move, the impartial Sumwalt aggressively talked down the theory of gun shots. Why would he inject such a biased view during the announcement of seeking an unbiased opinion of the FBI? I cannot imagine the FBI reaching a conclusion about the involvement of either rocks or gun shots without a laboratory analysis of the windshield. Why on earth would they not do that? To be clear, I do not know if they did or not. However, the FBI did officially deny that gun shots played any role just a day or two after they were called in. I see two reasons to believe that they never did a laboratory analysis: 1) I doubt that it would have been completed in such a short time. 2) I feel certain that had they done such an analysis that proved the non-existance of gun shot evidence, the NTSB report would explicitly describe that process and its result.
Early in the investigation, there were two theories about the punctured windshield. One involved hand thrown or dropped rocks, and the other involved gun shots. There was enough perceived credibility for either theory to raise public pressure to investigate them.
So, in response, Sumwalt announced that he was calling in the FBI to independently confirm or deny the involvement of gun shots. At the same time he announced that move, the impartial Sumwalt aggressively talked down the theory of gun shots. Why would he inject such a biased view during the announcement of seeking an unbiased opinion of the FBI?
I cannot imagine the FBI reaching a conclusion about the involvement of either rocks or gun shots without a laboratory analysis of the windshield. Why on earth would they not do that? To be clear, I do not know if they did or not.
However, the FBI did officially deny that gun shots played any role just a day or two after they were called in. I see two reasons to believe that they never did a laboratory analysis:
1) I doubt that it would have been completed in such a short time.
2) I feel certain that had they done such an analysis that proved the non-existance of gun shot evidence, the NTSB report would explicitly describe that process and its result.
Obviously you will never accept the validity of any report that does not agree with your preconceived theories or fit in with your obsessive mentality. Perhaps we can excuse age as the reason for Klepper's bigoted conspiracy theories.
I have no preconceived theories about either gun shots or thrown rocks. I am just expressing my opinion that the NTSB did have a preconceived bias against finding these factors to have been involved. In my opinion, Sumwalt sounded like he was bringing in the FBI only to give credibility to the preconceived bias of the NTSB. It sounded that way because of Sumwalt's obvious definsiveness toward the idea that thrown rocks and especially gun shots played any role.
I am completely comfortable with my opinion on this and find no need to insult others who have different opinions.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.