OT:Prevent Airline Hijacking

[Pooh Bear]

Terry Given wrote:

Pooh Bear wrote:
Jim Yanik wrote:

snip

Planes need flight plans,clearance to enter the US.
Unknowns get intercepted by the military.


So buy an existing small operator. That'll give you more planes too.

One hopes that the 'intelligence' services are looking for this kind of thing.

Graham

based on their performance to date, they wouldnt notice it happening if
*they* sold the damned plane(s).

Errr.... Quite !

If I was a USian, I'd be mighty pissed about the piss-poor results
obtained from the insane quantities of money spent on intelligence,
followed by defense (what, hundreds of billions a year, and they havent
got enough armour? wtf?). What a waste of taxpayers money.

I heard that the CIA's office in Pakistan didn't have single local language speaker.
Are these guys just on holiday ?

NZ's intelligence agencies are likewise fucking morons, but at least
ours are 10,000 times cheaper.

And the UK has shit all over its face, too.

You mean the 'phoney Iraq briefing' ? That was Downing Street's spin on things. I
bet GCHQ Cheltenham knew better.

Actually, I think this all proves a point NASA so impressively
demonstrated - problems you dont look for are problems you dont find.

Hiding things from scrutiny mostly just allows fuckups to continue
unchecked.

Toujours la meme chose.

Graham

 

[Terry Given]

Pooh Bear wrote:

Terry Given wrote:


Pooh Bear wrote:

Jim Yanik wrote:

snip

Planes need flight plans,clearance to enter the US.
Unknowns get intercepted by the military.


So buy an existing small operator. That'll give you more planes too.

One hopes that the 'intelligence' services are looking for this kind of thing.

Graham

based on their performance to date, they wouldnt notice it happening if
*they* sold the damned plane(s).


Errr.... Quite !



If I was a USian, I'd be mighty pissed about the piss-poor results
obtained from the insane quantities of money spent on intelligence,
followed by defense (what, hundreds of billions a year, and they havent
got enough armour? wtf?). What a waste of taxpayers money.


I heard that the CIA's office in Pakistan didn't have single local language speaker.
Are these guys just on holiday ?



NZ's intelligence agencies are likewise fucking morons, but at least
ours are 10,000 times cheaper.

And the UK has shit all over its face, too.


You mean the 'phoney Iraq briefing' ? That was Downing Street's spin on things. I
bet GCHQ Cheltenham knew better.

they very probably did. But having suitable intelligence then ignoring
it is just as big a waste not getting it in the first place.

Actually, I think this all proves a point NASA so impressively
demonstrated - problems you dont look for are problems you dont find.

Hiding things from scrutiny mostly just allows fuckups to continue
unchecked.


Toujours la meme chose.

que? Alas, I dont speak any language other than english

Graham

 

[Pooh Bear]

Terry Given wrote:

Pooh Bear wrote:

You mean the 'phoney Iraq briefing' ? That was Downing Street's spin on > things. I
bet GCHQ Cheltenham knew better.

they very probably did. But having suitable intelligence then ignoring
it is just as big a waste not getting it in the first place.

Agreed.

Are you aware of the big fuss over the BBC's news item that ( anonymously - but he was
later served up on a platter and later comitted suicide ) quoted a British weapons
inspector who said that the briefing was - as it was reported - 'sexed up' ?

Actually, I think this all proves a point NASA so impressively
demonstrated - problems you dont look for are problems you dont find.

Hiding things from scrutiny mostly just allows fuckups to continue
unchecked.


Toujours la meme chose.

que? Alas, I dont speak any language other than english

It means 'nothing changes'. Literally 'everday the same thing'.

Graham

 

[Terry Given]

Pooh Bear wrote:

Terry Given wrote:


Pooh Bear wrote:


You mean the 'phoney Iraq briefing' ? That was Downing Street's spin on > things. I

bet GCHQ Cheltenham knew better.

they very probably did. But having suitable intelligence then ignoring
it is just as big a waste not getting it in the first place.


Agreed.

Are you aware of the big fuss over the BBC's news item that ( anonymously - but he was
later served up on a platter and later comitted suicide ) quoted a British weapons
inspector who said that the briefing was - as it was reported - 'sexed up' ?

yeah. fairly dodgy "suicide" too, eh wot?

I read the Guardian every day Friends of mine used to work there.

Actually, I think this all proves a point NASA so impressively
demonstrated - problems you dont look for are problems you dont find.

Hiding things from scrutiny mostly just allows fuckups to continue
unchecked.


Toujours la meme chose.

que? Alas, I dont speak any language other than english


It means 'nothing changes'. Literally 'everday the same thing'.

Graham

 

[keith]

On Wed, 25 May 2005 00:36:03 +0100, Pooh Bear wrote:

keith wrote:

Keith thinks pretty much what's already been said here, so hasn't added
any more. If you need a better explanation; *KILL* the bastards that
breach the cabin. THe flight crew stays in the cabing and bolts the door.
If there is *any* nonsense in the air, land the plane *now*, and deal with
the clean-up later. The cockpit crew's job is to fly the plane. If
anyone threatens that job, kill the bastard. ...yes, that includes the
drunk assaulting the cabin crew staggering towards the cockpit (though the
cockpit crew has better things to do at that point).

You might care to loosen up and note that no-one has attempted breaching a
cockpit door using a gun since way *before* 9/11 !

Irrelevant. The cockpit *has* been breached. Guns in the cockpit (and
not elsewhere *will* stop any more. It is the one solution that won't
bankrupt the airlines.

You sound like a crazy to me. Probably the last person on earth who ought to
have a gun actually.

It figures that a loonie leftie EUpeon would come up with such a sound
argument.

Sadly you have no laws in the US preventing crazies owning guns.

There are, in.ca>t. EUpeons aren't permitted to carry handguns.

--
Keith

 

[keith]

On Fri, 27 May 2005 11:29:01 +1200, Terry Given wrote:

Ken Smith wrote:
In article <pan.2005.05.24.01.26.20.824942@att.bizzzz>,
keith <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:

I've got a major "dog and pony show" coming up so I may not be back for
quite a while because I'm going to be very busy for a bit.

[...]

If you need a better explanation; *KILL* the bastards that
breach the cabin.


I agree with the idea of killing them if needed but I much prefer
preventing the breach in the first place. The strong
bulkhead and the "antiterrorist maneuovres" are for this purpose.

In the Brazil case in 1988, the cockpit breach had already happened.

[...]

The aircraft is in flight with the pilot in control and the pilot
becomes aware of an attempt to hyjack the aircraft. In that case, to
use a gun, the pilot has to open either the door or some port in the
door or bulkhead to be able to use the gun. This reduces cockpit
security.

Nope. THe crew's job is to get the plane on the ground. *NOW*. Deal
with the crap in the back later. The only reason for the gun in the
cockpit is to defend the cockpit. IMO, the reason for no gun elsewhere
is to make defending the cockpit easier.



So I guess we actually agree on the substance and that is where we can
leave it.


*ALL* of you have *completely* missed the point so ably raised by the
crazed ragheads on 9/11 - they plan on killing *everyone*.

No we haven't missed any point. Without gaining access to the cockpit the
baddies can at worst kill all on board and *maybe* a few on the ground.
They can't use the aircraft as a cruise missle.

Luckily for us they are all stupid, or they will figure out somthing
like this: 4 terrorists board a plane, carrying flammable liquid,
lighters and wearing a flame suit (a-la racecar drivers. racecar is a
palindrome). At a suitably time (eg overhead some costly infrastructure,
people etc) all nutjobs go to the loo(s) whereupon, in complete privacy,
they soak the loo and themselves in flammable liquid. unlock doors,
light loo, come out spraying burning fuel over seats. We all know how
well plastic foam burns, betcha that'll fuck the plane completely. and
tackling said nutter will be a lot more difficult. fire extinguishers
anyone?

Yes, and the aircraft crashes. It doesn't cause three-thousand deaths and
a trillion-dollar dent in the economy, on the ground.

or maybe this: hire a cargo plane, load up with suitable
nasty cargo
(hell, weight would do, but flammable is better), hijack cargo plane
when suitable, crash & burn (no passengers to worry about).

A 757 full of fuel is already a pretty big bomb. Yes, a cargo plane may
in some ways be easier, but the crew might notice an extra passenger on
board. It wouldn't be necessary to strip-search granny to find him.

Remember the 727(?) that went missing in Africa?

Shit, OBL has stacks of cash. Buy a plane.....

Sure. Because there is one security hole it makes no sense to ignore all
others. Tracking legitimite sales of aircraft doesn't seem to tbe an
impossibility either.

hands up who remembers the seoul train fire? flammable material + robust
source of ignition + suicidal nutjob = 400+ deaths.

....and your point is?

--
Keith

 

[Terry Given]

keith wrote:

On Fri, 27 May 2005 11:29:01 +1200, Terry Given wrote:


Ken Smith wrote:

In article <pan.2005.05.24.01.26.20.824942@att.bizzzz>,
keith <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:

I've got a major "dog and pony show" coming up so I may not be back for
quite a while because I'm going to be very busy for a bit.

[...]


If you need a better explanation; *KILL* the bastards that
breach the cabin.


I agree with the idea of killing them if needed but I much prefer
preventing the breach in the first place. The strong
bulkhead and the "antiterrorist maneuovres" are for this purpose.

In the Brazil case in 1988, the cockpit breach had already happened.

[...]


The aircraft is in flight with the pilot in control and the pilot
becomes aware of an attempt to hyjack the aircraft. In that case, to
use a gun, the pilot has to open either the door or some port in the
door or bulkhead to be able to use the gun. This reduces cockpit
security.

Nope. THe crew's job is to get the plane on the ground. *NOW*. Deal
with the crap in the back later. The only reason for the gun in the
cockpit is to defend the cockpit. IMO, the reason for no gun elsewhere
is to make defending the cockpit easier.



So I guess we actually agree on the substance and that is where we can
leave it.


*ALL* of you have *completely* missed the point so ably raised by the
crazed ragheads on 9/11 - they plan on killing *everyone*.


No we haven't missed any point. Without gaining access to the cockpit the
baddies can at worst kill all on board and *maybe* a few on the ground.
They can't use the aircraft as a cruise missle.

300+ people per suicide bomber is a pretty damn good return.

Luckily for us they are all stupid, or they will figure out somthing
like this: 4 terrorists board a plane, carrying flammable liquid,
lighters and wearing a flame suit (a-la racecar drivers. racecar is a
palindrome). At a suitably time (eg overhead some costly infrastructure,
people etc) all nutjobs go to the loo(s) whereupon, in complete privacy,
they soak the loo and themselves in flammable liquid. unlock doors,
light loo, come out spraying burning fuel over seats. We all know how
well plastic foam burns, betcha that'll fuck the plane completely. and
tackling said nutter will be a lot more difficult. fire extinguishers
anyone?


Yes, and the aircraft crashes. It doesn't cause three-thousand deaths and
a trillion-dollar dent in the economy, on the ground.

dont be so sure. toasting the plane above densely populated areas will
help increase the "collateral damage." Making 10 planes fall out of the
skies in a flaming heap, more-or-less simultaneously, will seriously
fuck up the aviation business, short-to-medium term - look at how hard
9/11 hit the aviation industry.

or maybe this: hire a cargo plane, load up with suitable

nasty cargo

(hell, weight would do, but flammable is better), hijack cargo plane
when suitable, crash & burn (no passengers to worry about).


A 757 full of fuel is already a pretty big bomb. Yes, a cargo plane may
in some ways be easier, but the crew might notice an extra passenger on
board. It wouldn't be necessary to strip-search granny to find him.

said passenger hiding in a box.....

Remember the 727(?) that went missing in Africa?


Shit, OBL has stacks of cash. Buy a plane.....


Sure. Because there is one security hole it makes no sense to ignore all
others. Tracking legitimite sales of aircraft doesn't seem to tbe an
impossibility either.

buy a real company, then buy a plane. find that.....

hands up who remembers the seoul train fire? flammable material + robust
source of ignition + suicidal nutjob = 400+ deaths.


...and your point is?

repeat 8 times in parallel (say 32 hijackers/arsonists) and voila, beat
the current terrorism world record.

Then, when a whole bunch of (ineffective? 2 days after 9/11, reports
circulated of the new key codes being written on doors at logan airport.
security staff get paid less than cleaners) measures have been
implemented to stop this happening again, the terrrrsts will think up
some other sneaky bastard trick. self-immolation in a crowded stadium
sounds like a good plan.

its a design problem. you guys add more constraints, they come up with
innovative solutions. On a technical basis, 9/11 was brilliant. Cheap,
easy and highly destructive. OBL's a civil engineer, perhaps he read
Irvine's "structural dynamics" ex.2.1, pp36-40 (worked example of plane
hitting building, complete with pictures

IMO the only real long-term fix is to remove the greivances behind the
terrorism.

Cheers
Terry

 

[Pooh Bear]

Terry Given wrote:

< snip >

IMO the only real long-term fix is to remove the greivances behind the
terrorism.

You can add my opinion to that. History tells us that anyway.

Graham

 

[Steve Sousa]

"Terry Given" <my_name@ieee.org> wrote in message
news:gg7me.3708$U4.522948@news.xtra.co.nz...

IMO the only real long-term fix is to remove the greivances behind the
terrorism.

Solving that leaves *just* religion as a source of conflict...

--
Steve Sousa

 

[keith]

On Sun, 29 May 2005 11:36:41 +1200, Terry Given wrote:

keith wrote:
On Fri, 27 May 2005 11:29:01 +1200, Terry Given wrote:


Ken Smith wrote:

In article <pan.2005.05.24.01.26.20.824942@att.bizzzz>,
keith <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:

I've got a major "dog and pony show" coming up so I may not be back for
quite a while because I'm going to be very busy for a bit.

[...]


If you need a better explanation; *KILL* the bastards that
breach the cabin.


I agree with the idea of killing them if needed but I much prefer
preventing the breach in the first place. The strong
bulkhead and the "antiterrorist maneuovres" are for this purpose.

In the Brazil case in 1988, the cockpit breach had already happened.

[...]


The aircraft is in flight with the pilot in control and the pilot
becomes aware of an attempt to hyjack the aircraft. In that case, to
use a gun, the pilot has to open either the door or some port in the
door or bulkhead to be able to use the gun. This reduces cockpit
security.

Nope. THe crew's job is to get the plane on the ground. *NOW*. Deal
with the crap in the back later. The only reason for the gun in the
cockpit is to defend the cockpit. IMO, the reason for no gun elsewhere
is to make defending the cockpit easier.



So I guess we actually agree on the substance and that is where we can
leave it.


*ALL* of you have *completely* missed the point so ably raised by the
crazed ragheads on 9/11 - they plan on killing *everyone*.


No we haven't missed any point. Without gaining access to the cockpit the
baddies can at worst kill all on board and *maybe* a few on the ground.
They can't use the aircraft as a cruise missle.

300+ people per suicide bomber is a pretty damn good return.



Luckily for us they are all stupid, or they will figure out somthing
like this: 4 terrorists board a plane, carrying flammable liquid,
lighters and wearing a flame suit (a-la racecar drivers. racecar is a
palindrome). At a suitably time (eg overhead some costly infrastructure,
people etc) all nutjobs go to the loo(s) whereupon, in complete privacy,
they soak the loo and themselves in flammable liquid. unlock doors,
light loo, come out spraying burning fuel over seats. We all know how
well plastic foam burns, betcha that'll fuck the plane completely. and
tackling said nutter will be a lot more difficult. fire extinguishers
anyone?


Yes, and the aircraft crashes. It doesn't cause three-thousand deaths and
a trillion-dollar dent in the economy, on the ground.


dont be so sure. toasting the plane above densely populated areas will
help increase the "collateral damage." Making 10 planes fall out of the
skies in a flaming heap, more-or-less simultaneously, will seriously
fuck up the aviation business, short-to-medium term - look at how hard
9/11 hit the aviation industry.

Planes *have* crashed in densly populated ares with minimal loss of life
on the ground. Your supposition is false.

The fact is that the people on-board can be considered dead in any of
these scenerios. This is *exactly* what changed on 9/11. Anyone
attempting a take-over of the cockpit is a lost soul. The flight crew
*must* protect the flight-deck. If that takes killing a few drunk
assholes that want to see the pretty blinkin-lights, so be it.

or maybe this: hire a cargo plane, load up with suitable

nasty cargo

(hell, weight would do, but flammable is better), hijack cargo plane
when suitable, crash & burn (no passengers to worry about).


A 757 full of fuel is already a pretty big bomb. Yes, a cargo plane
may in some ways be easier, but the crew might notice an extra
passenger on board. It wouldn't be necessary to strip-search granny to
find him.


said passenger hiding in a box.....

Arm the crews of cargo planes too? Is that too difficult to figure out?

Remember the 727(?) that went missing in Africa?


Shit, OBL has stacks of cash. Buy a plane.....


Sure. Because there is one security hole it makes no sense to ignore
all others. Tracking legitimite sales of aircraft doesn't seem to tbe
an impossibility either.

buy a real company, then buy a plane. find that.....

Oh, good grief! I guess we should all just give up?! What a maroon!

hands up who remembers the seoul train fire? flammable material +
robust source of ignition + suicidal nutjob = 400+ deaths.


...and your point is?

repeat 8 times in parallel (say 32 hijackers/arsonists) and voila, beat
the current terrorism world record.

I repeat; What a maroon!

Then, when a whole bunch of (ineffective? 2 days after 9/11, reports
circulated of the new key codes being written on doors at logan airport.
security staff get paid less than cleaners) measures have been
implemented to stop this happening again, the terrrrsts will think up
some other sneaky bastard trick. self-immolation in a crowded stadium
sounds like a good plan.

I see. You *want* it to happen again. ...no surprise here.

its a design problem. you guys add more constraints, they come up with
innovative solutions. On a technical basis, 9/11 was brilliant. Cheap,
easy and highly destructive. OBL's a civil engineer, perhaps he read
Irvine's "structural dynamics" ex.2.1, pp36-40 (worked example of plane
hitting building, complete with pictures

The point is to make it more expensive for *them*, not us. Yes, I'll
agree the government is handleing it badly. My solution is to *simply*
arm the flight-deck crew and *SHOOT*, without prejudice, anyone comming in
unnanounced. *DEAD*

No that doesn't cure all ills, but it buttons up a biggie.

IMO the only real long-term fix is to remove the greivances behind the
terrorism.

What a naive position. The only long-term solution, at least that is
compatible with western civilization is to *kill* the perps. ...and do it
where *they* live. If you want to die, please take a knife (I understand
that you NZ's, like your EUpeon brothers, are squeamish around guns) and
slit your own throat. I'll continue to try to live, supporting those who
want to take the fight to *THEM*.

--
Keith

 

[keith]

On Sun, 29 May 2005 02:32:19 +0100, Pooh Bear wrote:

Terry Given wrote:

snip

IMO the only real long-term fix is to remove the greivances behind the
terrorism.

You can add my opinion to that. History tells us that anyway.

It certainly worked in 1918, eh? What a fruitcake.

--
Keith

 

[Terry Given]

keith wrote:
[snip]

*ALL* of you have *completely* missed the point so ably raised by the
crazed ragheads on 9/11 - they plan on killing *everyone*.


No we haven't missed any point. Without gaining access to the cockpit the
baddies can at worst kill all on board and *maybe* a few on the ground.
They can't use the aircraft as a cruise missle.

300+ people per suicide bomber is a pretty damn good return.



Luckily for us they are all stupid, or they will figure out somthing
like this: 4 terrorists board a plane, carrying flammable liquid,
lighters and wearing a flame suit (a-la racecar drivers. racecar is a
palindrome). At a suitably time (eg overhead some costly infrastructure,
people etc) all nutjobs go to the loo(s) whereupon, in complete privacy,
they soak the loo and themselves in flammable liquid. unlock doors,
light loo, come out spraying burning fuel over seats. We all know how
well plastic foam burns, betcha that'll fuck the plane completely. and
tackling said nutter will be a lot more difficult. fire extinguishers
anyone?


Yes, and the aircraft crashes. It doesn't cause three-thousand deaths and
a trillion-dollar dent in the economy, on the ground.


dont be so sure. toasting the plane above densely populated areas will
help increase the "collateral damage." Making 10 planes fall out of the
skies in a flaming heap, more-or-less simultaneously, will seriously
fuck up the aviation business, short-to-medium term - look at how hard
9/11 hit the aviation industry.


Planes *have* crashed in densly populated ares with minimal loss of life
on the ground. Your supposition is false.

and the converse has also occurred.

The fact is that the people on-board can be considered dead in any of
these scenerios. This is *exactly* what changed on 9/11. Anyone
attempting a take-over of the cockpit is a lost soul. The flight crew
*must* protect the flight-deck. If that takes killing a few drunk
assholes that want to see the pretty blinkin-lights, so be it.


or maybe this: hire a cargo plane, load up with suitable

nasty cargo
(hell, weight would do, but flammable is better), hijack cargo plane
when suitable, crash & burn (no passengers to worry about).


A 757 full of fuel is already a pretty big bomb. Yes, a cargo plane
may in some ways be easier, but the crew might notice an extra
passenger on board. It wouldn't be necessary to strip-search granny to
find him.



said passenger hiding in a box.....


Arm the crews of cargo planes too? Is that too difficult to figure out?


Remember the 727(?) that went missing in Africa?



Shit, OBL has stacks of cash. Buy a plane.....


Sure. Because there is one security hole it makes no sense to ignore
all others. Tracking legitimite sales of aircraft doesn't seem to tbe
an impossibility either.

buy a real company, then buy a plane. find that.....


Oh, good grief! I guess we should all just give up?! What a maroon!


hands up who remembers the seoul train fire? flammable material +
robust source of ignition + suicidal nutjob = 400+ deaths.


...and your point is?

repeat 8 times in parallel (say 32 hijackers/arsonists) and voila, beat
the current terrorism world record.


I repeat; What a maroon!


Then, when a whole bunch of (ineffective? 2 days after 9/11, reports
circulated of the new key codes being written on doors at logan airport.
security staff get paid less than cleaners) measures have been
implemented to stop this happening again, the terrrrsts will think up
some other sneaky bastard trick. self-immolation in a crowded stadium
sounds like a good plan.


I see. You *want* it to happen again. ...no surprise here.

not at all. merely pointing out that when you shut off one avenue,
they'll simply think of another. what, you think they will simply give
up and go home?

its a design problem. you guys add more constraints, they come up with
innovative solutions. On a technical basis, 9/11 was brilliant. Cheap,
easy and highly destructive. OBL's a civil engineer, perhaps he read
Irvine's "structural dynamics" ex.2.1, pp36-40 (worked example of plane
hitting building, complete with pictures


The point is to make it more expensive for *them*, not us. Yes, I'll
agree the government is handleing it badly. My solution is to *simply*
arm the flight-deck crew and *SHOOT*, without prejudice, anyone comming in
unnanounced. *DEAD*

Actually, I am astounded that all planes dont have stout doors and armed
pilots, its simple and easy to do.

No that doesn't cure all ills, but it buttons up a biggie.


IMO the only real long-term fix is to remove the greivances behind the
terrorism.


What a naive position. The only long-term solution, at least that is
compatible with western civilization is to *kill* the perps. ...and do it
where *they* live. If you want to die, please take a knife (I understand
that you NZ's, like your EUpeon brothers, are squeamish around guns) and
slit your own throat. I'll continue to try to live, supporting those who
want to take the fight to *THEM*.

what about when the west are the perps? statistically speaking, sooner
or later its bound to happen.

 

[Pooh Bear]

Steve Sousa wrote:

"Terry Given" <my_name@ieee.org> wrote in message
news:gg7me.3708$U4.522948@news.xtra.co.nz...
IMO the only real long-term fix is to remove the greivances behind the
terrorism.

Solving that leaves *just* religion as a source of conflict...

Not entirely by any means but certainly a potentially major one.

Graham

 

[Jim Yanik]

Terry Given <my_name@ieee.org> wrote in
news:9Sdme.3771$U4.530471@news.xtra.co.nz:

keith wrote:
[snip]
*ALL* of you have *completely* missed the point so ably raised by
the crazed ragheads on 9/11 - they plan on killing *everyone*.


No we haven't missed any point. Without gaining access to the
cockpit the baddies can at worst kill all on board and *maybe* a few
on the ground. They can't use the aircraft as a cruise missle.

300+ people per suicide bomber is a pretty damn good return.



Luckily for us they are all stupid, or they will figure out
somthing like this: 4 terrorists board a plane, carrying flammable
liquid, lighters and wearing a flame suit (a-la racecar drivers.
racecar is a palindrome). At a suitably time (eg overhead some
costly infrastructure, people etc) all nutjobs go to the loo(s)
whereupon, in complete privacy, they soak the loo and themselves in
flammable liquid. unlock doors, light loo, come out spraying
burning fuel over seats. We all know how well plastic foam burns,
betcha that'll fuck the plane completely. and tackling said nutter
will be a lot more difficult. fire extinguishers anyone?


Yes, and the aircraft crashes. It doesn't cause three-thousand
deaths and a trillion-dollar dent in the economy, on the ground.


dont be so sure. toasting the plane above densely populated areas
will help increase the "collateral damage." Making 10 planes fall out
of the skies in a flaming heap, more-or-less simultaneously, will
seriously fuck up the aviation business, short-to-medium term - look
at how hard 9/11 hit the aviation industry.


Planes *have* crashed in densly populated ares with minimal loss of
life on the ground. Your supposition is false.

and the converse has also occurred.


The fact is that the people on-board can be considered dead in any of
these scenerios. This is *exactly* what changed on 9/11. Anyone
attempting a take-over of the cockpit is a lost soul. The flight
crew *must* protect the flight-deck. If that takes killing a few
drunk assholes that want to see the pretty blinkin-lights, so be it.



or maybe this: hire a cargo plane, load up with suitable

nasty cargo
(hell, weight would do, but flammable is better), hijack cargo
plane when suitable, crash & burn (no passengers to worry about).


A 757 full of fuel is already a pretty big bomb. Yes, a cargo plane
may in some ways be easier, but the crew might notice an extra
passenger on board. It wouldn't be necessary to strip-search granny
to find him.



said passenger hiding in a box.....


Arm the crews of cargo planes too? Is that too difficult to figure
out?


Remember the 727(?) that went missing in Africa?



Shit, OBL has stacks of cash. Buy a plane.....


Sure. Because there is one security hole it makes no sense to
ignore all others. Tracking legitimite sales of aircraft doesn't
seem to tbe an impossibility either.

buy a real company, then buy a plane. find that.....


Oh, good grief! I guess we should all just give up?! What a maroon!


hands up who remembers the seoul train fire? flammable material +
robust source of ignition + suicidal nutjob = 400+ deaths.


...and your point is?

repeat 8 times in parallel (say 32 hijackers/arsonists) and voila,
beat the current terrorism world record.


I repeat; What a maroon!


Then, when a whole bunch of (ineffective? 2 days after 9/11, reports
circulated of the new key codes being written on doors at logan
airport. security staff get paid less than cleaners) measures have
been implemented to stop this happening again, the terrrrsts will
think up some other sneaky bastard trick. self-immolation in a
crowded stadium sounds like a good plan.


I see. You *want* it to happen again. ...no surprise here.

not at all. merely pointing out that when you shut off one avenue,
they'll simply think of another. what, you think they will simply give
up and go home?



its a design problem. you guys add more constraints, they come up
with innovative solutions. On a technical basis, 9/11 was brilliant.
Cheap, easy and highly destructive. OBL's a civil engineer, perhaps
he read Irvine's "structural dynamics" ex.2.1, pp36-40 (worked
example of plane hitting building, complete with pictures


The point is to make it more expensive for *them*, not us. Yes, I'll
agree the government is handleing it badly. My solution is to
*simply* arm the flight-deck crew and *SHOOT*, without prejudice,
anyone comming in unnanounced. *DEAD*

Actually, I am astounded that all planes dont have stout doors and
armed pilots, its simple and easy to do.


No that doesn't cure all ills, but it buttons up a biggie.


IMO the only real long-term fix is to remove the greivances behind
the terrorism.

So,you argue for APPEASEMENT? Any terrorist gins up a claim,and we have to
give them what they want? That is what you seem to be saying.
I wonder if you belive that the Israel/"Palestine" conflict is somehow the
only reason Islam is acting up?

When Islam reforms and drops their oppressive,intolerant beliefs,then there
may be room for give and take.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net