Man in Cargo Plane Exposes Security Gaps

TMOliver wrote in message ...
[snip]
Sadly, because it's philosophically and fiscally such a grim and seemingly
fruitless task, the guy you love to hate, old Dubya, probably has the best
theory, the old root and branch approach.....


He's got about as much chance of eliminating organized crime. You
can go "git" OBL, Sadam, any number of bad guys. They exist for
a reason and getting rid of them doesn't get rid of the reasons.


the fewer trained
new terrorists, less well able to communicate and discombobulated from a
traditional organizational and planning structure, the less effective
missions can they devise and execute....

The first step is to stop approaching it as a war and start thinking
of it as fighting crime.

you may not like it, but two years
in, the "stats" lend some weight to that approach.


Hardly. It was what, 8 years between WTC I and WTC II? 2 years,
don't mean diddly. And in the mean time you've had incidents like
Bali.

TMOliver wrote:

And if you think the Bush admin has done a good job with air
travel and air security since 9-11, read (and respond to) this
you bu****e:

One request...

Please provide number of terrorist attacks on US domestic flights since
9/11..

The shoe-bomber for one. In which case it was the action of fellow
passengers against him that was critical. Indicating AGAIN that
passengers need to be told to act against people like the shoe bomber
and the "magnificent 19". Such pre-flight directives are clearly
necessary (1) as time goes on and people begin to forget how important
it is.

It is clear that (2) passenger pro-action has been proven to be an
effective last resort on a plane taken over by hijackers. Even more
effective at preventing hijackings than screening at security arches
is a hijacker knowing he faces a plane-load of passengers that are
told before each flight to stop him at all costs once he reveals his
intentions. I further claim (3) that the Bush admin and the FAA have
shown incompetence at implimenting this proven and highly effective
measure.

I further claim that the FAA and the Bush admin have failed miserably
at securing airplanes and air travel for the reasons described in this
story (4):

http://www.usatoday.com/usatonline/2...5/5380309s.htm

Either shut up, or respond to items 1, 2, 3 and 4.

...but then one who believes that the FAA could have called
the "airphones" on the hijacked flights can't be expected to
comprehend either fact or logic.

United was in intimate contact with the FAA and knew certainly at the
same as the FAA, if not before, that their planes were in trouble.
United certainly has the power and ability to access the Airfones on
THEIR FREEKING PLANES in emergencies. Too bad nobody thought of it.

I admire and would certainly urge the same sort of reponse which
occurred on the flight over PA, but as you may have noticed

Noticed? Noticed what?

different groups react to crises in quite different fashions.

Explain. Which different groups are you refering to? Those on the
other 3 planes apparently never tried to contacted family or friends
on the ground using airfones. I'm betting that if they had, they'd
have reacted just like those on the PA plane.

Few of us, even those who have been in situations which
required or drew violent reaction, predicting how folks
will respond is less science than luck.

I'm betting that unless the plane is full of little old ladies, any
random group of passengers would have reacted the same way given that
they know they're on a plane destined for a controlled crash.

You are a bit thick between the ears...

At least I don't have to resort to personal attacks when I can't
defend my point of view...

Meghan Powers wrote:
TMOliver wrote:
Please provide number of terrorist attacks on US domestic flights since
9/11..

The shoe-bomber for one.

It was an inbound international flight. US airport procedures were
irrelevant.

miguel
--
Hit The Road! Photos and tales from around the world: http://travel.u.nu
Site remodeled 10-Sept-2003: Hundreds of new photos, easier navigation.

Meghan Powers vented spleen or mostly
mumbled...

TMOliver wrote:

And if you think the Bush admin has done a good job with air
travel and air security since 9-11, read (and respond to) this
you bu****e:

One request...

Please provide number of terrorist attacks on US domestic flights since
9/11..

The shoe-bomber for one.

I see you can't read either. Do you comprehend "domestic" or are three
syllables just too many?


Incidentally, most of the passenger calls were not on airphones but cell
phones (and the phones don't belong to UA or AA, but a private contrctor).
The only direct contact that an airline has with a flight is the company
radio frequency, button tuned on one of the cockpit radios.

I'm not even sure that the airphones, now thankfully gone from most a/c as
too little used for profit, can receive calls...

Does anyone here know?

TMO

It is clear that (2) passenger pro-action has been proven to be an
effective last resort on a plane taken over by hijackers. Even more
effective at preventing hijackings than screening at security arches
is a hijacker knowing he faces a plane-load of passengers that are
told before each flight to stop him at all costs once he reveals his
intentions. I further claim (3) that the Bush admin and the FAA have
shown incompetence at implimenting this proven and highly effective
measure.

I further claim that the FAA and the Bush admin have failed miserably
at securing airplanes and air travel for the reasons described in this
story (4):

http://www.usatoday.com/usatonline/2...5/5380309s.htm

Either shut up, or respond to items 1, 2, 3 and 4.

...but then one who believes that the FAA could have called
the "airphones" on the hijacked flights can't be expected to
comprehend either fact or logic.

United was in intimate contact with the FAA and knew certainly at the
same as the FAA, if not before, that their planes were in trouble.
United certainly has the power and ability to access the Airfones on
THEIR FREEKING PLANES in emergencies. Too bad nobody thought of it.

I admire and would certainly urge the same sort of reponse which
occurred on the flight over PA, but as you may have noticed

Noticed? Noticed what?

different groups react to crises in quite different fashions.

Explain. Which different groups are you refering to? Those on the
other 3 planes apparently never tried to contacted family or friends
on the ground using airfones. I'm betting that if they had, they'd
have reacted just like those on the PA plane.

Few of us, even those who have been in situations which
required or drew violent reaction, predicting how folks
will respond is less science than luck.

I'm betting that unless the plane is full of little old ladies, any
random group of passengers would have reacted the same way given that
they know they're on a plane destined for a controlled crash.

You are a bit thick between the ears...

At least I don't have to resort to personal attacks when I can't
defend my point of view...

Meghan Powers wrote:

TMOliver wrote:


And if you think the Bush admin has done a good job with air
travel and air security since 9-11, read (and respond to) this
you bu****e:

One request...

Please provide number of terrorist attacks on US domestic flights since
9/11..


The shoe-bomber for one.

Wromg... Guess again.;
The show bomber was on an international flight from Paris to Miami.
Nothing the TSA is doing today could have stopped him, since the TSA
doesn't do security screening in Paris.

Meghan Powers writes
It is clear that (2) passenger pro-action has been proven to be an
effective last resort on a plane taken over by hijackers. Even more
effective at preventing hijackings than screening at security arches
is a hijacker knowing he faces a plane-load of passengers that are
told before each flight to stop him at all costs once he reveals his
intentions.

Both are important. As an untrained civilian I could see myself clear to
take on a hijacker armed with a box cutter or a single shot non metallic
weapon. I'd feel a bit intimidated by a man with a machine pistol.

If passengers want to have a go at hijackers, it's pretty essential that
the hijackers aren't permitted to bring serious weapons on board.

I'm betting that unless the plane is full of little old ladies, any
random group of passengers would have reacted the same way given that
they know they're on a plane destined for a controlled crash.

Evidently you don't know the same little old ladies that I know!
--
Simon Elliott
http://www.ctsn.co.uk/

and you hit right to the heart of the issue - keep the heavy stuff off the
aircraft and I'M SURE the situation will be DEALT WITH (perhaps not to the
liking of the perps)

"Simon Elliott" wrote in message
...
Meghan Powers writes
It is clear that (2) passenger pro-action has been proven to be an
effective last resort on a plane taken over by hijackers. Even more
effective at preventing hijackings than screening at security arches
is a hijacker knowing he faces a plane-load of passengers that are
told before each flight to stop him at all costs once he reveals his
intentions.

Both are important. As an untrained civilian I could see myself clear to
take on a hijacker armed with a box cutter or a single shot non metallic
weapon. I'd feel a bit intimidated by a man with a machine pistol.

If passengers want to have a go at hijackers, it's pretty essential that
the hijackers aren't permitted to bring serious weapons on board.

I'm betting that unless the plane is full of little old ladies, any
random group of passengers would have reacted the same way given that
they know they're on a plane destined for a controlled crash.

Evidently you don't know the same little old ladies that I know!
--
Simon Elliott
http://www.ctsn.co.uk/

Earlier I challenged:

[ alleged: that a war would start within the West if we nuked Mecca ]

: Yeah? With whom, specifically? And realistically, who within the
: West could possibly take us on? Belgium?


Miguel Cruz replies:

I imagine it going like this:

1. Geoff Miller, who wasn't even running, becomes president
after a fluke in the new electronic polling machines. His
administration is widely seen as a disaster from day one,
and he decides to boost his sagging popularity by waging
war on Arabs and Asians.

Boosting my popularity by waging war? You mean like Clinton
did?

And where do Asians enter into this?


2. Miller blows up Mecca and Medina.

Right so far.


3. Everyone from Canada and the UK on down the line cuts
the US off.

That's just silly. They want our good old American dollars
badly enough to separate commerce from politics. And your
typical Europeon [sic] is craven enough to do just anout
anything in order to avoid unpleasantness of the military
kind.


4. The entire middle east and half of Asia declares war on
the US.

Pfffft! Aside from the ChiComs, they have no way of reaching
us. And the ChiComs know better than to try. We'd scorch
their chop suey something good.


5. The EU issues some mamby-pamby condemnation, with the UK
abstaining. The EU sells weapons and provides logistical
support to the global coalition against terror that is
facing off against the US.

Nice run at irony, with the idea of a "global coalition against
terror" facing off *against* the U.S. Of course, it plays fast
and loose with the distinction between "terror" and "war." You
see, if the U.S. were to nuke Mecca and Medina, it would be in
(belated) recognition that we were, in fact, embroiled in a war
-- whether we wanted to be or not.


6. The US attacks the EU for providing aid and comfort to its
enemies.

That might be possible, given the earlier parts of the scenario.
But if it happened, I doubt it would pregress beyond a series
of warning attacks, pinpricks really, probably with conven-
tionally-armed cruise missiles, into a prolonged conflict.
Let alone into a global war.

The European countries are simply no match for the U.S. mili-
tarily. Their armed forces are both defensive in nature and
relatively small, and lack anything close to the sophisticated
weapon systems of the American military.


I don't imagine Belgium launching a seaborne invasion force on
its own, no. I do imagine many countries joining the fray
though. They'd have no moral choice. Together the rest of the
world in fact can stand down the USA, believe it or not.

Naah. In a conventional war divided among a multitude of
theaters, perhaps in theory. But in any scenario in which
the rest of the world were pitted against the U.S., you can
bet your fundament and fedora that we'd go nuclear in a New
York heartbeat. It'd be difficult for "the rest of the world"
to maintain its resolve with so many major cities turned into
radioactive glass bowls.


Especially since at least half of the US population -
hopefully closer to 95% - would be in open revolt.

"Hopefully?" You're crossing the line from objective
speculation to partisanship and wishful thinking.

Actually, I suspect that if there were another 9/11,
we'd witness a national blood-lust the likes of which
the world has never seen before. And it'd be perfectly
justified, too.


It's also foolish to believe that's going to have a
significant deterrent effect.

Well, it's true that Moslems have a fascination with
the concept of martyrdom. But it seems more than
likely to me that if martyrdom started involving
not just discrete volunteers but the populace at
large, and people started dying wholesale in vast
numbers like stalks of wheat being cut down with a
scythe, they'd inevitably start rethinking concept's
desirability.


Meanwhile I leave you to your fantasies of genocide.
Enjoy.

There's nothing inherently wromg with genocide, and it's
a pity that it's taken on such a negative image over the
years. Mean Mr. Mustache got a bad rap for genocide
because he went after the wrong people. Collectively,
Jews are an asset to humanity. They make up less than
one percent of the human race, and yet they've been
awarded some wildly disproportionate number of Nobel
prizes.

On the other hand, I can think of several nationalities
and ethnicities that the world would be better off without,
including (but not limited to) the Serbians, the Palestinians,
and the North Koreans. All these people are good for is
displacing air, and they should be sent up the chimneys for
the good of humanity.

On the other hand, I say we take off and nuke 'em from orbit.
It's the only way to be sure.



Geoff

--
"Drugs are a vital part of the national economy, like Boeing.
The difference is that drugs have a future." -- Fred Reed

Geoff Miller wrote:
Earlier I challenged:

Boosting my popularity by waging war? You mean like Clinton
did?

Which war was this?

Geoff Miller wrote:
There's nothing inherently wromg with genocide

I see.

miguel
--
Hit The Road! Photos and tales from around the world: http://travel.u.nu
Site remodeled 10-Sept-2003: Hundreds of new photos, easier navigation.