HuskyCaucasian Posted October 18, 2006 Share Posted October 18, 2006 WASHINGTON -- A Web site is claiming that seven NFL stadiums will be hit with radiological dirty bombs this weekend, but the government on Wednesday expressed doubts about the threat. The warning, posted Oct. 12, was part of an ongoing Internet conversation titled "New Attack on America Be Afraid." It mentioned NFL stadiums in New York, Miami, Atlanta, Seattle, Houston, Oakland and Cleveland, where games are scheduled this weekend. The Homeland Security Department alerted authorities and stadium owners in those cities, as well as the NFL, of the Web message but said the threat was being viewed "with strong skepticism." Homeland Security spokesman Russ Knocke said there was no intelligence that indicated such an attack was imminent, and that the alert was "out of an abundance of caution." "The department strongly encourages the public to continue to go about their plans, including attending events that involve large public gatherings such as football games," Knocke said. The FBI also expressed doubt about the threat. The nation's alert level remains at yellow, signaling an elevated risk of an attack. The threat level for airline flights is at orange, a higher level, where it has been since a foiled plot to bomb U.S.-bound commercial jets was revealed Aug. 10. Tony Wyllie, the vice president of communications for the Houston Texans, said the team has been in contact with the NFL regarding what security precautions would need to be taken for Sunday's game against the Jacksonville Jaguars. Wyllie said the NFL contacted the team's security people Tuesday night and informed them about the Web site, but he had no other details. Copyright 2006 by The Associated Press http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2631048 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
witesoxfan Posted October 18, 2006 Share Posted October 18, 2006 Thank God Buffalo's not on the list People are so f'in stupid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted October 18, 2006 Share Posted October 18, 2006 QUOTE(witesoxfan @ Oct 18, 2006 -> 03:43 PM) Thank God Buffalo's not on the list People are so f'in stupid. ^^ And that the Bears have a bye I hope no one has to say "oops" on Monday. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pale Hose Jon Posted October 18, 2006 Share Posted October 18, 2006 Dirty Bombs have gained much respect from the media, but a dirty bomb poses no threat to the public unless you stand at ground zero for years w/out moving. And even then your chance at radioactivite poisioning is still very small. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HuskyCaucasian Posted October 18, 2006 Author Share Posted October 18, 2006 QUOTE(Pale Hose Jon @ Oct 18, 2006 -> 04:55 PM) Dirty Bombs have gained much respect from the media, but a dirty bomb poses no threat to the public unless you stand at ground zero for years w/out moving. And even then your chance at radioactivite poisioning is still very small. exactly... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirty_bomb A test explosion and subsequent calculations done by the United States Department of Energy found that assuming nothing is done to clean up the affected area and everyone stays in the affected area for 1 year, the radiation exposure would be "fairly high". However, recent analysis of the Chernobyl fallout seems to show that many people are hardly affected over 5 years and more. Because a terrorist dirty bomb is unlikely to cause many deaths, many do not consider this to be a weapon of mass destruction. Its purpose would presumably be to create psychological, not physical, harm through ignorance, mass panic, and terror. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted October 18, 2006 Share Posted October 18, 2006 Dirty bombs may be much to do about nothing but, anyone want to bet there will be less than sell out crowds? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted October 18, 2006 Share Posted October 18, 2006 QUOTE(Athomeboy_2000 @ Oct 18, 2006 -> 05:12 PM) exactly... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirty_bomb exactly... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirty_bomb QUOTE A test explosion and subsequent calculations done by the United States Department of Energy found that assuming nothing is done to clean up the affected area and everyone stays in the affected area for 1 year, the radiation exposure would be "fairly high". However, recent analysis of the Chernobyl fallout seems to show that many people are hardly affected over 5 years and more. Because a terrorist dirty bomb is unlikely to cause many deaths, many do not consider this to be a weapon of mass destruction. Its purpose would presumably be to create psychological, not physical, harm through ignorance, mass panic, and terror. Alrighty then.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted October 18, 2006 Share Posted October 18, 2006 QUOTE(Steff @ Oct 18, 2006 -> 04:18 PM) Alrighty then.... Steff...it's unlikely to cause any more deaths than the fact that it is, um, a bomb. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted October 18, 2006 Share Posted October 18, 2006 QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Oct 18, 2006 -> 06:30 PM) Steff...it's unlikely to cause any more deaths than the fact that it is, um, a bomb. I know. I just thought it was an interesting choice of words. It's a bomb. Yet the details are put out there so blase... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NUKE_CLEVELAND Posted October 19, 2006 Share Posted October 19, 2006 QUOTE(Texsox @ Oct 18, 2006 -> 06:06 PM) Dirty bombs may be much to do about nothing but, anyone want to bet there will be less than sell out crowds? Who needs a dirty bomb? Last White Sox game I went to I was within the casualty radius of some fat dude's fart. I dont know what he ate or what crawled up there and died but it made several fans get up and leave for a while. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shipps Posted October 19, 2006 Share Posted October 19, 2006 (edited) The terroroists arent concerned as much for the amount of deaths.Just imagine the fear it would put in us as an american people even if it just killed a couple.Or not even kill anybody, just the fact that it could have killed somebody would scare us.It would be force fed all over the news , CNN and FOX would try to scare us even more with it.Fear sells just as much as sex. Edited October 19, 2006 by shipps Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted October 19, 2006 Share Posted October 19, 2006 QUOTE(Athomeboy_2000 @ Oct 18, 2006 -> 05:12 PM) exactly... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirty_bomb I am having a hard time believing this particular Wikipedia entry. Chernobyl killed a lot of people, and further, it maimed many more. How is it that the article can say many people weren't effected 5 years later? And furthermore, wouldn't the effective damage of a dirty bomb depend on how much and what type of radioactive material was used to blanket the explosive device? I recall reading years back that the Soviets had toyed with putting cobalt "jackets" on nukes. The first test they performed resulted in an area of Novaya Zemlya that is now devoid of virtually all life, and will be for some time. That was a nuke of course, but still, I am skeptical. I am no expert at all, mind you. I just have serious doubts about this particular entry. Maybe someone who knows a little more can clarify for me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted October 19, 2006 Share Posted October 19, 2006 QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Oct 19, 2006 -> 09:16 AM) I am having a hard time believing this particular Wikipedia entry. Chernobyl killed a lot of people, and further, it maimed many more. How is it that the article can say many people weren't effected 5 years later? And furthermore, wouldn't the effective damage of a dirty bomb depend on how much and what type of radioactive material was used to blanket the explosive device? I recall reading years back that the Soviets had toyed with putting cobalt "jackets" on nukes. The first test they performed resulted in an area of Novaya Zemlya that is now devoid of virtually all life, and will be for some time. That was a nuke of course, but still, I am skeptical. I am no expert at all, mind you. I just have serious doubts about this particular entry. Maybe someone who knows a little more can clarify for me. Remember its a wiki, if we all jump on and edit it to say that dirty bombs in NFL stadiums are 100 times more powerful than regular dirty bombs, it's true! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted October 20, 2006 Share Posted October 20, 2006 (edited) Hoax. You know, one of these times, there's actually going to be a real threat coming conveniently right before an election...and the rest of America's just going to laugh because they've heard the exact same thing so many times. Edited October 20, 2006 by Balta1701 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AngelasDaddy0427 Posted October 20, 2006 Share Posted October 20, 2006 ALL TERRORIST THREATS ARE HOAX'S! IT'S A PROVEN FACT! CASE IN POINT 9-11! WAS THERE A THREAT FIRST? HELL NO! THEY JUST WENT AHEAD AND DID IT! IF YOUR GUILLIBLE ENOUGH TO BELIEVE THE TERRORISTS ARE GOING TO GIVE US WARNING FIRST THEN YOUR IN TROUBLE! FROM YOUR OWN GUILLIABLITY... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted October 20, 2006 Share Posted October 20, 2006 QUOTE(Jeckle2000 @ Oct 20, 2006 -> 12:12 AM) ALL TERRORIST THREATS ARE HOAX'S! IT'S A PROVEN FACT! CASE IN POINT 9-11! WAS THERE A THREAT FIRST? HELL NO! THEY JUST WENT AHEAD AND DID IT! IF YOUR GUILLIBLE ENOUGH TO BELIEVE THE TERRORISTS ARE GOING TO GIVE US WARNING FIRST THEN YOUR IN TROUBLE! FROM YOUR OWN GUILLIABLITY... While it may be possible to state that all terrorist threats until today have been hoaxes,. it is impossible to predict the future. Plus, the statement is false to begin with. There have been many, many, threats and warnings that have come true. Kidnappings in Mexico city, bombs in the middle east and Ireland, come to mind. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted October 20, 2006 Share Posted October 20, 2006 QUOTE(Jeckle2000 @ Oct 19, 2006 -> 10:12 PM) ALL TERRORIST THREATS ARE HOAX'S! IT'S A PROVEN FACT! CASE IN POINT 9-11! WAS THERE A THREAT FIRST? HELL NO! THEY JUST WENT AHEAD AND DID IT! IF YOUR GUILLIBLE ENOUGH TO BELIEVE THE TERRORISTS ARE GOING TO GIVE US WARNING FIRST THEN YOUR IN TROUBLE! FROM YOUR OWN GUILLIABLITY... There were an unbelievable number of warnings intercepted before 9/11. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AngelasDaddy0427 Posted October 20, 2006 Share Posted October 20, 2006 Warnings yes... Threats HELL NO! The terrorists aren't going to tell you their plans before they do it... If you see a post about it on a message board or website... Then theres a 100 % chance it's bulls***... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoxFan1 Posted October 21, 2006 Share Posted October 21, 2006 QUOTE(Jeckle2000 @ Oct 20, 2006 -> 12:12 AM) ALL TERRORIST THREATS ARE HOAX'S! IT'S A PROVEN FACT! CASE IN POINT 9-11! WAS THERE A THREAT FIRST? HELL NO! THEY JUST WENT AHEAD AND DID IT! IF YOUR GUILLIBLE ENOUGH TO BELIEVE THE TERRORISTS ARE GOING TO GIVE US WARNING FIRST THEN YOUR IN TROUBLE! FROM YOUR OWN GUILLIABLITY... Did you know that gullible is not in the English dictionary? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NUKE_CLEVELAND Posted October 21, 2006 Share Posted October 21, 2006 Prankster thinks its funny. http://www.suntimes.com/news/nation/105457...tball21.article Lets see how hard you laugh when you spend the next 5 years getting pounded in the ass. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
witesoxfan Posted October 21, 2006 Share Posted October 21, 2006 QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Oct 21, 2006 -> 01:40 PM) Prankster thinks its funny. http://www.suntimes.com/news/nation/105457...tball21.article Lets see how hard you laugh when you spend the next 5 years getting pounded in the ass. federal pound in my the ass prison Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LowerCaseRepublican Posted October 21, 2006 Share Posted October 21, 2006 If they are so disgusted by the wasted resources towards this case then...why...are...they...wasting...resources...now with the FBI etc.? So, let's get this straight: Lie about the possible use of weapons of mass destruction, explicit details of where it would take place and how they'd be used -- start a war and it is seen as okay by 1/3 of the population currently. Lie about the possible use of weapons of mass destruction, explicit details of where it would take place and how they'd be used -- go on trial and possibly get a 5 year prison term. Add in the fact that Bush laughed at the fact we haven't been able to find WMD in Iraq during a press dinner and it looks like we've got some people here creating a double standard when the one standard would work just perfectly fine here. Either it is fine for both to lie and joke about it or it is okay for neither. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NUKE_CLEVELAND Posted October 21, 2006 Share Posted October 21, 2006 QUOTE(LowerCaseRepublican @ Oct 21, 2006 -> 05:15 PM) If they are so disgusted by the wasted resources towards this case then...why...are...they...wasting...resources...now with the FBI etc.? So, let's get this straight: Lie about the possible use of weapons of mass destruction, explicit details of where it would take place and how they'd be used -- start a war and it is seen as okay by 1/3 of the population currently. Lie about the possible use of weapons of mass destruction, explicit details of where it would take place and how they'd be used -- go on trial and possibly get a 5 year prison term. Add in the fact that Bush laughed at the fact we haven't been able to find WMD in Iraq during a press dinner and it looks like we've got some people here creating a double standard when the one standard would work just perfectly fine here. Either it is fine for both to lie and joke about it or it is okay for neither. Filibuster in 5.........4.........3......2..................1........... Lets see here. Some dumbass kid makes a phony bomb threat and you're trying to equate him to the President making a decision to go to war. It's not so much a double standard as it is you being opposed to the war and trying to equate anything that's wrong or distasteful to it in a vain attempt to make a point. /rolly Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LowerCaseRepublican Posted October 21, 2006 Share Posted October 21, 2006 QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Oct 21, 2006 -> 05:23 PM) Filibuster in 5.........4.........3......2..................1........... Lets see here. Some dumbass kid makes a phony bomb threat and you're trying to equate him to the President making a decision to go to war. It's not so much a double standard as it is you being opposed to the war and trying to equate anything that's wrong or distasteful to it in a vain attempt to make a point. /rolly No, I'm just making the moral equivalent that it is a dumbass politician making a phony threat to justify a nationalistic effort to secure oil supplies to the dumbass kid posting on the net. Either both lying are bad or neither is bad. Somehow, one is okay with 1/3 of the American public and the other is being seemingly over-zealously condemned. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NUKE_CLEVELAND Posted October 21, 2006 Share Posted October 21, 2006 QUOTE(LowerCaseRepublican @ Oct 21, 2006 -> 05:31 PM) No, I'm just making the moral equivalent that it is a dumbass politician making a phony threat to justify a nationalistic effort to secure oil supplies to the dumbass kid posting on the net. Either both lying are bad or neither is bad. Somehow, one is okay with 1/3 of the American public and the other is being seemingly over-zealously condemned. To secure oil supplies? Come on LCR. If that rediculous argument had any merit we would be talking about "the illegal, immoral, unjust, ( insert other ways to describe how horrible it is here )" invasion and occupation of Canada. If this were about oil as you incorrectly suggest then Iraq would have been way down the list. By the way. Only you and other leftists like you are calling Bush a liar. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.