Flight 93
Flight 93, the flight that crashed near some fields in the outskirts of Pennsylvania. But what was it doing there? What caused the plane to miss its target and crash? These answers may soon be revealed when detectives can finally examine the planes black box, found just recently. Many answers however can be found through other pieces of info that have come up along the way during the investigations.
For instance, the multiple calls made to family members as well as 911 from the frantic passengers. Mark Bingham for instance called 911, as well as his mom telling her he loved her and that the plane was being hijacked. Another man called 911 screaming that they were being hijacked and that he heard some sort of explosion and saw white smoke coming from the plane. Then there was Tom Burnett, who called his wife saying the hijackers had already stabbed to death one passenger and that he intended to do something about it. A Jeremy Glick called his relatives saying the same, that he and some other passengers were intending to fight the hijackers. These calls brought up the thought that perhaps some passengers on board had fought the hijackers, keeping them from controlling the plane, and sending it crashing to the ground.
Another theory is that the pilot, Jason Dahl might have purposefully crashed the plane to prevent the hijackers from taking it over. Or perhaps that Dahl had cut off the planes fuel with out the hijackers being aware. It was said that the plane looked like it went straight down; and that the plane had almost completely disintegrated on impact leaving a hole several feet deep.
Another theory was that perhaps the U.S. Military had shot down flight 93 as to prevent it from taking aim at another important government building. But these claims have been sharply denied by Pentagon officials. The FBI says to the question if it has been ruled out or not that it is “kind of a loaded question.
On 26 February 1993 at 12:17, a yellow RYDER van detonated on level B-2 of the World Trade Center North tower. What was first believed to be a below grade transformer explosion turned into an extensive test of New York Cities Incident Command capabilities. Everyone involved had an intricate part in handling this situation. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) was able to get all support assets there promptly to assist in rescue operations. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) discovered information on the vehicle used. The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) used all of the intelligence gathered to apprehend and convict those responsible. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) conducted cleanup of chemical and biological hazards that were left behind from the blast. Numerous agencies worked together to solve the first terrorist attack on American soil and clean up a disaster of epic proportions.
The media coverage seemed to focus on the individual hijacker because somehow it seemed as though we knew who he was and where he came from. Sometimes it seemed as though we knew why and most cases we did because that was their plan; they wanted the attention so they can give their list of demands.
Such as, did inside traders know about attacks before the event even occurred, Why did the world's most powerful air force fail to intercept any of the four hijacked planes, Why did the Twin Towers collapse so quickly and a good question is why was the crash site at Shanksville, Pennsylvania so small and why was the aircraft debris not visible. Many of these conspiracies got most of the world thinking about the tragic event that occurred on september 11, 2001 and if it was an event that was made up by the government to set up the terrorist and their
One theory is that the Twin Towers were destroyed by controlled demolition. Another idea of what happened is that planes did hit the towers, but they were remote controlled. A third theory is that Al Qaeda is not responsible for the September 11 attacks (The Top September 11 Conspiracy Theories, n.d.). And last, but certainly not least, is the theory that the 9-11 attacks were a false flag operation. When considering these theories, there are many different controversial areas that should be assessed to differentiate between fact and opinion.
“Death of Baruch College Freshman in Hazing Ritual Ruled a Homicide”, was the headline of the NY Daily News on February 14, 2014. According to the NY Daily News about 30 fraternity members were at a Pocono Mountains rental home on December 8th when Michael Deng died of severe head trauma after he was repeatedly tackled in a frozen backyard while blindfolded and lugging 20 pounds of sand in a knapsack playing the so-called “glass ceiling” game with his brothers. The hazing death is now officially a homicide with plenty of suspects, but as of February 14th there has not been a single arrest.
Hazing is an issue that has attracted much attention over the last few decades. College fraternities, high school programs, professional sports, and the military have all had their fair share of attention. The military is frequently held to a higher standard than these other organizations and has developed a bit of a black eye since the 1991 “Tailhook” scandal. Motion picture portrayals like that in the 1992 film “A Few Good Men” showed the public, not inaccurately, the dark side of command sponsored hazing. Hazing is not in keeping with the high standards of conduct that the U.S. Military aims to uphold and the ethical implications of these behaviors are diverse.
9/11 was one of the darkest days in America, but some say the government could have been part of these attacks. For many years people have debated about the 9/11 cover up. This theory cannot explain why the government would do this. Once people understand why the 9/11 cover up is fake, they will begin to see the answer to their problem, could the government have done this? This conspiracy theory is wrong because, terrorists admitted to the attacks, so many people died, and there's no evidence against the government.
In a TedTalk concerning the dubious reliability of an eyewitness at the scene of a crime, forensic psychologist Scott Fraser explores the conviction of Francisco Carrillo and the fallible nature of the brain in encoding, storing, and retrieving memories. With the use of critical thinking and research based knowledge, discussed are the speaker’s claims, reactions to the talk, and a personal evaluation of eyewitness memory.
...elying on the time, individual, subject and other factors. These findings have technically made a vital contribution to us. For instance, juries in judiciary of law usually take Eyewitness Testimony (EWT) really solemn. However, the usage of DNA technology recently has substantiated what some psychologists have alleged for a quite long periods that eyewitnesses can be incorrect. Although memories can be astonishingly true over long periods of time, it tends to be reconstructive rather than reproductive. Memory is able to compose broad idea of previous events, however it is much more simplified and is very biased and idiosyncratic among human beings. For that reason, we should be conscious of the memory subjectivity, particularly when we count on its authenticity and precision when scripting a history, in eyewitness testimonies or even scripting a memoirs or journal.
The man laid the paper down on his desk and then began to get up. "Well, what paper are you looking for and do you have an exact date?"
The growth in rail networks in Mexico during the Porfiriato was increased 4 times the number that had the country previously(economia en el porfiriato). In 1907 Porfirio had just finished expanding their project one of the largest telecommunication facilities in that era, the railway network, great boom in the economy on the ease of dealing with the raw materials that the country was at that time a network nearly rail 27000 kilometers (presidencia de la republica).
Sororities and fraternities developed under the traditions of brother/sisterhood. Unfortunately, as these organizations were forming, the tradition of hazing developed as well. Hazing is defined as, “…any action or situation, with or without the consent of the participants, which recklessly, intentionally, or unintentionally endangers the mental, physical, or academic health or safety of a student.” (“Hazing Awareness and Education”). Hazing became a part of early initiation processes as a way for new members to pr...
Specific examples of hazing include: whipping, beating, branding, forced calisthenics, exposure to weather, forced consumption of any food, liquor, beverage, drug or other substance, mental stress, deprivation of sleep, extended isolation, and any activity which seriously affects the health and well-being of an individual. Over the past thirty years there have been many fraternity hazing incidents, which now appear on the web.
From a legal standpoint, eyewitness memories are not accurate. Though they all illustrate the same concept, each paper described different ways eyewitness memories were altered. One’s memory can be misleading by their own attributions towards the situation, what they choose to see and not see, and if the individual has been through a single event or repetitive stressful events. As human beings, our memories on all matters are not concrete. When retelling stories, we tend to modify the situation and tailor certain events, making the information provided unreliable. An eyewitness testimony changes the track of a trial and information that is given to the court can be ambiguous and can cause bias towards the circumstances. Eyewitnesses can even be confident in their retelling of a situation and explain a complete event, when in fact, that particular event never
Hazing is defined as “any activity, required implicitly or explicitly as a condition of initiation or continued membership in an organization, that may negatively impact the physical or psychological well-being of the individual or may cause damage to others, or to public or private property” (Campo, Poulos & Sipple, 2005, p. 137). Often prevalent in a variety of student organizations on college campuses, hazing can have damaging physical and psychological effects, in some cases leading to serious injury or death. Several explanations have been offered for why the cycle of hazing tends to perpetuate itself in student organizations, and why a person would willingly conform to endure embarrassing, degrading, or dangerous tasks and situations. Both Owen, Burke, and Vichesky (2008) and Campo, Poulos, and Sipple (2005) evaluate the prevalence of hazing, what students recognize as hazing, the sociodemographic characteristics of those involved in hazing behavior, and the attitudes, behaviors, and factors related to hazing and towards possible intervention strategies. Raalte, Cornelius, Linder, and Brewer (2007) evaluate the claim that hazing is associated with increased team cohesion. In an effort to examine “whistle-blowing” intentions in Greek organizations, Richardson, Wang, and Hall (2012) researched the factors influencing a group member’s behavioral intent to report using the Theory of Reasoned Action model. Finally, Keating, Pomerantz, Pomer, Ritt, Miller, and McCormick (2005) assessed the functions of severe initiations within a variety of organizations as well as if hazing increased social dependency to the group, thereby creating a higher level of conformity and attraction within group members. Through the evaluation of the man...