TromboneAl
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
- Joined
- Jun 30, 2006
- Messages
- 12,880
Is it clearcut that the amount of explosive in the underwear would have brought down the plane?
Is it clearcut that the amount of explosive in the underwear would have brought down the plane?
Is it clearcut that the amount of explosive in the underwear would have brought down the plane?
Is it clearcut that the amount of explosive in the underwear would have brought down the plane?
I don't think it is clear at all what damage could have been caused.
Did you see the demo video of a 12oz bomb that the UK gummit put out when they foiled the plot to use liquid bombs?
I don't think it is possible to say. Major factors would include the effectiveness/efficiency of the initiator (apparently the major weakness in the present plot.), tamping used, the location of the blast, etc.Is it clearcut that the amount of explosive in the underwear would have brought down the plane?
I also don't think the issue is terribly significant. The individual obviously intended to down the aircraft,
I'm probably missing your point. As far as I can see, the ability of this particular device to destroy an aircraft could be significant only in terms of prosecuting this person (to prove both capability and intent). I don't think anybody believes this is the most dangerous device that could be brought aboard an aircraft given the present security posture, or that these guys have thought up some new technique, etc, that exploits a previously unidentified weakness in our defenses, etc. If any of that stuff were true, then the question would have value in terms of improving our procedures.In terms of terrorism and airline security, isn't it of critical significance?
After the passengers of Flight 253 deplaned in Detroit, they were held in the baggage area for more than five hours until FBI agents interviewed them. They were not allowed to call their loved ones. They were given no food. When one of the pilots tried to use the bathroom before a bomb-sniffing dog had finished checking all the carry-on bags, an officer ordered him to sit down, according to passenger Alain Ghonda, who thought it odd. "He was the pilot. If he wanted to do anything, he could've crashed the plane." It was a metaphor for the rest of the country: Thank you for saving the day. Now go sit down.
.............. Thinking about the apparently-absurd practice of requiring pilots to go through gate security, it occurred to me that a rogue pilot would have to overcome the resistance of his colleague on the flight deck, and a weapon would certainly facilitate this......................
In terms of terrorism and airline security, isn't it of critical significance?
I guess my point was that the main thing that people are taking away from this episode seems to be "OMG, the screening failed, the government failed, and terrorists can blow up planes at will." But if the explosive that got through couldn't really have done much damage, then the system worked.
.
Thinking about the apparently-absurd practice of requiring
pilots to go through gate security, it occurred to me that a rogue pilot
would have to overcome the resistance of his colleague on the flight
deck, and a weapon would certainly facilitate this.
Hahaha, I just had a good laugh at the idea of terrorists saying, darn ( or some similar Farsi phrase) all we have to do is buy a ticket with a credit card, buy it roundtrip and carry lots of luggage.It is almost a guarantee that the next airline terrorist will not pay cash for his ticket, buy a one way ticket, and will have luggage! Any more things we are looking for that we would like to put on the news?
A dumb question: Why are we so worried about security on planes and forgetting about cinemas, theaters, malls, stadiums, queues fior the buses, stations...etc etc?