Hijacked plane crash destroys Canary Wharf; Shocked Americans ask, `What's Canary Wharf?'

Stories

Diaries

Polls

Users

Web Adequacy.org

Home

About

Topics

Rejects

Abortions

This is an archive site only. It is no longer maintained. You can not post comments. You can not make an account. Your email will not be read. Please read this page if you have questions.

Hijacked plane crash destroys Canary Wharf; Shocked Americans ask, `What's Canary Wharf?'

Author:

Topic:

Conspiracy

Posted:

Sep 25, 2001

Comments:

LONDON (Adequacy News Service) - Today, in an apparent terrorist attack, a commercial airliner flew into Canary Wharf at 10:28 AM, causing its collapse an hour later.

One American who was in the vicinity had a minor injuries from flying debris; another one, who witnessed the attack, has been subsequently diagnosed with depression and prescribed Xanax. In addition, somewhere between 5,000 and 10,000 Brits died.

More stories by

	Yumi bai spikim Tok Pisin nau!
	The Adequacy.org Guide to Cheap Legal Highs: Garlic
	The Adequacy.org Guide to Cheap Legal Highs: Capsaicin
	German, the language of the Nazis
	Women responsible for society's ills
	Chile to bomb the U.S.A.
	Review: Fred Fortin, 'Le Plancher des Vaches'
	The Adequacy.org Guide to Airplane Hijacking in the Post-WTC Era
	Review: Willie Col?n, `Lo Mato'
	Starving Afghanis Flock to Bombing Targets for Free Food
	Genetic Warfare and Matrilineal Cultures
	Some major flaws in Evolutionary Theory
	Classic rerelases: Caf? Tacuba, Les Cowboys Fringants
	The sky: a revisionist examination
	The Adequacy.org Guide to the Cuisines of the World: Poutine
	The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, terrorism, and decolonisation
	An instance of Western cultural chauvinism
	On criminal language and the word `hacker'
	On why Pearl is not like natural language (Part I)
	World Music Review: Ozomatli, `Embrace the Chaos'

Across America, Americans were deeply confused by the attack. "What's Canary Wharf?" was the most common sentiment. "What's that? Something about birds?" asked Willie Stevens, resident of Omaha, Nebraska. "I don't even know what you're talking about, why should I even care?"

David Boroughs, a student at the prestigious Stanford University in Palo Alto, Califonia, demonstrated his mastery of British fluvial geography and his large latinate vocabulary by his reaction to the attack: "I don't see why we should make such a big deal out of a plane crashing into Thames-side aviary."

Catholics throughout the U.K. were bracing for the backlash from the attack. "Of course they should brace themselves!" said Dottie Smith of Jefferson, Texas. "They are polytheists and pagans. They worship the Virgin Mary and hundreds of saints, and submit to the authority of the Pope. They had it coming."

When asked about the prospect of lending military support to the British government in its mission to respond to this terrorist attack, Americans reacted very negatively. "No American troops should risk their lives on some place nobody in the country doesn't know nothing [sic] about," were the words in which Eladio Pérez of New York City put it. "Anyway, it's not like they blew up some huge building where tons of people work. It's just some shipdock."

	Yes (5.00 / 1) (#5)
	by nobbystyles on Tue Sep 25th, 2001 at 08:10:36 AM PST

	Terrible things that happen in the US are the only ones that matter at end of the day. Let foreigners sort out their own problems. No american soldier should die because of canary Wharf...

	re: (none / 0) (#28)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed Oct 10th, 2001 at 09:38:05 PM PST

	um.. just like no brits or aussies should die for any yanks?

	Americans are not that ignorant or uncaring (4.00 / 2) (#7)
	by Adam Rightmann on Tue Sep 25th, 2001 at 09:06:28 AM PST

	Why, I remember a few beery nights in tiny Irish pubs in Bostoni where we'd all pass that hat to help the Irish orphans in Belfast (orphanned due to the troubles, for you UKians in the house) and collect a lot of money for the local Shin Fane representative. A. Rightmann

	CNN News Flash: (4.00 / 1) (#8)
	by StrontiumDog on Tue Sep 25th, 2001 at 09:28:06 AM PST

	... minor surgery to remove an ingrown toenail. Tiger Woods is expected to resume active golfing tomorrow. I'm sure that this news will brighten the day of golf fans all over the world. And in today's other headlines, a spokesperson of the US Secretary of State conveyed the Bush administration's sincerest regrets to UK Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. "Our prayers go out to the American survivors of the disaster", the spokesperson added. "We are thankful that no-one was seriously hurt in the disaster." The Bush Administration has pledged $500,000 dollars in aid to Great Britain, although Congress is unlikely to approve that aid since Senator Jesse Helms attached a rider to the motion coupling the aid to the imposition of the death penalty on all convicted third-time marijuana users. More news and pictures of the site of the disaster will be shown on our Special Edition at 23.45 Eastern Time tonight. Raiders rookie Joe Velasquez surprised friend and foe today in the clash against the Rams in ...

	we should die for who? (5.00 / 2) (#9)
	by Mint Waltman on Tue Sep 25th, 2001 at 12:01:13 PM PST

	Yes, why should any Americans give their lives in defense of our former imperialistic oppressors? The British Empire has already done enough damage to our humble, God-fearing nation. We learned our lesson quite well when our bucolic land was devastated by Britain and her European rival in a rapacious land grab. Many of our lives and far, far too many of our beloved red-skinned brothers were lost when we were caught in the cross-fire. No thank you, but the shackles of empire were shrugged off long ago through the toil and blood of great patriots. I offer my sympathies as Britain crumbles, but let's face facts. Even a cursory look at British foreign policy will reveal that an attack like this was a long time coming. Other nations are but playthings to Her Majesty and her European rivals. No one clear suspect emerges as Britain has behaved so egregiously towards so many that, quite frankly, everyone must be considered. The hijackers could have been angry Argentineans, or the descendents of slaughtered Zulus. My pet theory is that they were Chinese still reeling from the subjugation and degradation meted out by drug-pushing Brits looking to line the pockets of Her Majesty's war machine. Precious little good has come from Britain (Her only decent export occured way back in 1620). When she wasn't busy waging war upon weaker nations she was providing a safe haven for Godless communists and exporting lewd comedy. I don't condone these terrorist attacks, but it's easy to see how anyone with a sense of justice could be driven to such acts.

	Not our thing (none / 0) (#10)
	by Dexter Descarte on Tue Sep 25th, 2001 at 02:12:47 PM PST

	Terribly sorry, but our good 'ole American boys will only lay down their lives if vital oil interests are in danger. Let us know if someone bombs a Unical pipeline, we could help you out then.

	This isn't even good satire... (1.00 / 1) (#12)
	by jwales on Tue Sep 25th, 2001 at 09:38:29 PM PST

	This isn't even good satire. Stop and think for a minute. If you want to make fun of Americans, it surely can't be for this. Perhaps you've forgotten the little matter of WWII and the United States role in the liberation of Europe from Hitler. Or consider our role in the Gulf War, and our ongoing role in keeping Saddam Hussein down to a dull roar. A better satire would poke fun at some foible that the Americans actually have. Accusing the American government of a disinterest in world affairs just doesn't ring true at all.

	yes it is (5.00 / 1) (#13)
	by jsm on Wed Sep 26th, 2001 at 12:07:34 AM PST

	It's very good satire indeed, and you know it. ... the worst tempered and least consistent of the adequacy.org editors ... now also Legal department and general counsel, adequacy.org

	I think his post was satirical too (5.00 / 1) (#15)
	by iat on Wed Sep 26th, 2001 at 05:56:41 AM PST

	Either Mr Wales was being satirical, or he truly believes the revisionist history of World War 2 that the US has fabricated with films like U-571. The role of the US in WW2 was so small as to be easily forgetable. Out of a sense of national shame that they did so little in WW2, the US has started re-writing history to overstate their role in defeating Hitler. The USian government's interest in world affairs is limited solely to self-interest. The "war" against Saddam Hussein which Mr Wales proudly proclaims as the US saving the free world, was nothing more than an attempt to protect USian oil interests. Saddam Hussein is nothing more than a convenient scapegoat who can be wheeled out whenever the US needs a villain (such as during Bill Clinton's impeachment). Adequacy.org - love it or leave it.

	Tongue-in-cheek? (none / 0) (#17)
	by hauntedattics on Wed Sep 26th, 2001 at 08:56:44 AM PST

	"The role of the US in WW2 was so small as to be easily forgetable. Out of a sense of national shame that they did so little in WW2, the US has started re-writing history to overstate their role in defeating Hitler." Boy, I hope this is tongue-in-cheek. While recognizing that (A) the Soviets took the brunt in the European theatre and (B) the U.S. media does tend to overplay our contribution, I doubt that many people would consider the U.S.'s role in WWII 'easily forgettable.' But maybe you should ask the Brits, the French, the Germans... oh, and oh yeah, the Japanese. In the meantime, I'll make sure everyone I know walks around with their heads perpetually held low, out of our 'sense of national shame' that we didn't do more during that vaunted conflict. Then I'll make sure we all beat our breasts in savage misery because we could have done more to rebuild an entire continent than just that lousy Marshall Plan...

	asia (none / 0) (#20)
	by alprazolam on Thu Sep 27th, 2001 at 11:03:06 AM PST

	oh, and oh yeah, the Japanese The establishment of the Japanese in southeastern Asia would have been much worse for the US than for Europe, who had more important things to worry about.

	The British Empire. (none / 0) (#23)
	by ucblockhead on Fri Sep 28th, 2001 at 04:08:46 PM PST

	Yeah, it's not like anyone in Europe really gave a shit about tiny little pieces of land like "Australia" and "New Zealand".

	Are you missing the word "starting"? (5.00 / 2) (#18)
	by Adam Rightmann on Wed Sep 26th, 2001 at 09:12:47 AM PST

	The role of the US in starting* WW2 was so small as to be easily forgetable.* There, that reads much better. For the younger, less educated readers of adequacy, World War II started this way: France, humiliated in WWI, imposes ruinious reparations and conditions on the fledgling Weimar democracy, leading to a ruined German economy and a desparate German people who follow any crazy demagogue who promised to restore their economy. Hitler marches into the Sudetenland, in violation of the Armistice. France is afraid to do anything, Britain has no stomach for bloodshed. Hitler takes over Austria. France does nothing, Chamberlain (PM of England) says okay. Hitler invades Poland, Stalin says okay. Finally, Britain and France realize that appeasing a bully doesn't work. Of course, after the war, the US graciously agrees to rebuild Europe and Japan, creating generations of resentful Europeans, resentful of US aid, and resentful that the US did not declare war on Germany in 1939. These same Europeans are the ones at the barricades in Genoa hoisting placards demanding that the US stop being the world's policeman. I suppose the message is that the US should not interfere in any other countrie's affairs, except when they should. A. Rightmann

	origins of WW2 (none / 0) (#22)
	by Anonymous Reader on Fri Sep 28th, 2001 at 02:38:43 AM PST

	Or the US screws up the peace treaty by putting in a load of high-minded guff without backing that idealism up with force Hitler gets to power because a significant no. of Germans are evil and/or stupid US buries its head in the sand until Hitelr goese mad and actually declares war on the US

	Yes it is, but... (none / 0) (#26)
	by FifthVandal on Sat Oct 6th, 2001 at 10:19:58 AM PST

	...The guy was just applying the Intolerant's First Rule of Satire: it's only funny if it's not aimed at you. And for what it's worth, I thought it was quad-ruler hilarious...and so close to the mark. --- I was the fifth vandal on the grassy knoll!

	Watch TV news? (5.00 / 1) (#16)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed Sep 26th, 2001 at 06:47:34 AM PST

	Accusing the American government of a disinterest in world affairs just doesn't ring true at all. I can't remember who said it, but the quotation goes along the lines of "anyone can do an amazing magic trick, just go to the USA, pick up a newspaper and watch your country disappear". I've spent some time in the USA (I'm from the UK btw) and you'd (as a non-merkin) would be amazed at how little news coverage there is of anything outside the USA. "International" news generally means a piece about Canada. Nary a mention of India, the Middle-East, Asia-Pac, Europe etc. I suppose I could find it understandable that, given the sheer size of the USA, there must be so many important things happening that there simply is not time to fit in other nations but even being charitable, I don't think thats the case. Of course, to be fair, the USA is not alone in being disinterested in the outside world, and I'm sure it's not really an issue to most people over there.

	*Learn to read* and think, dammit** (none / 0) (#21)
	by em on Thu Sep 27th, 2001 at 02:02:31 PM PST

	Accusing the USian government of a disinterest in world affairs just doesn't ring true at all. Please point out where in the article any reference is made at all to the USian government (and not fictional "men in the street"). --em Associate Editor, Adequacy.org

	*Learn to read* and think, dammit** (none / 0) (#27)
	by femtoamp on Wed Oct 10th, 2001 at 03:46:59 AM PST

	The British man in the street is actually just as bad. In an earlier era the Times is supposed to have included the headline "Storms in Channel: Continent cut off"

	Not a comment, but some links... (none / 0) (#19)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed Sep 26th, 2001 at 06:22:38 PM PST

	Here's an interesting one about the history of Propaganda. The link goes to the middle of the article but it's all worth reading. Also, this is interesting. If the link doesn't work, the first page is mirrored here and the last here (with possibly links to more pages). In case you think I'm being biased in any way, you can contrast with this (not nice). Here's something else to ponder (needs careful reading). And, finally, how about this? It's 15 years old. Read the end first...

	Plane crashes into Minot, ND in terrorist attack. (none / 0) (#25)
	by Anonymous Reader on Thu Oct 4th, 2001 at 10:30:30 PM PST

	One Norwegian who was in the vicinity had a minor injuries from flying debris; another one, who witnessed the attack, has been subsequently diagnosed with depression and prescribed Xanax. In addition, hundreds Americans died. Across the World, people everywhere were deeply confused by the attack. "What's a Minot?" was the most common sentiment. "What's that?" asked Cecil Jackson, resident of Siberia. "I don't even know what you're talking about, why should I even care?" When asked about the prospect of lending military support to the US government in its mission to respond to this terrorist attack, the French reacted very negatively. "No French troops should risk their lives on some place nobody in the country doesn't know nothing [sic] about," were the words in which Eladio Pérez of New York City put it. "Anyway, it's not like they blew up some huge building where tons of people work. It's just some little town in North Dakota. There are probably only 50 people living there anyway, all those towns are like that."

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest ® 2001, 2002, 2003 Adequacy.org. The Adequacy.org name, logo, symbol, and taglines "News for Grown-Ups", "Most Controversial Site on the Internet", "Linux Zealot", and "He just loves Open Source Software", and the RGB color value: D7D7D7 are trademarks of Adequacy.org. No part of this site may be republished or reproduced in whatever form without prior written permission by Adequacy.org and, if and when applicable, prior written permission by the contributing author(s), artist(s), or user(s). Any inquiries are directed to legal@adequacy.org.