McCain-warns-there-will-be- war

[Amianthus]

Regular pre-flight sweeps of the planes with X-rays or other metal-detecting devices, controlled access by workers who are subject to 24-hour video surveillance, controls requiring them to shower and don controlled uniforms before accessing the planes, etc.

Where is there an x-ray machine big enough to run a 747 through? And how do you use a metal detector on a plane that is made of metal? And who would subject themselves to 24 hour video surveillance?

Do you really think things through?

[Plane]

Regular pre-flight sweeps of the planes with X-rays or other metal-detecting devices, controlled access by workers who are subject to 24-hour video surveillance, controls requiring them to shower and don controlled uniforms before accessing the planes, etc.

Where is there an x-ray machine big enough to run a 747 through? And how do you use a metal detector on a plane that is made of metal? And who would subject themselves to 24 hour video surveillance?

Do you really think things through?

I have seen an X-ray machine made for fighter aircraft which gives instant results , it is really neat , too expensive to use every week but we run every F-15 thru to find lost wrenches. It gets used about twice a month.

To detect small weapons hidden on an aircraft with a simular device would be orders of magnitude outside of practical.

But criticism doesn't need to be practical , real action does.

[Michael Tee]

<<Where is there an x-ray machine big enough to run a 747 through?>>

I don't know, but I had envisaged devices smaller and more portable using X-ray or other technology to detect stashed weapons on planes. 

<<And how do you use a metal detector on a plane that is made of metal? >>

If not a metal detector, a similar quality device that would detect blades stashed in seats, overhead compartments and other places where "terrorists" would likely access them.  Manual sweeps if not possible electronically.

<<And who would subject themselves to 24 hour video surveillance?>>

I meant the planes are under the 24 hr video surveillance, and the activities of anyone who enters them.  I obviously didn't mean 24 hrs on each individual worker.

In addition to the fuck-ups on failing to prevent the weapons being stashed on or carried onto the planes, there were further fuck-ups in not assigning marshalls to flights and not having a practical shoot-down program in place.  Also in not securing the pilot cockpits.  The failures of the Bush administration were multiple and across the board.  Unfortunately, the idiot still has his defenders.  Logic and common sense mean nothing to them.  Nitpicking and naysaying mean everything.  We can send a man to the moon, but stopping one man from carrying a box-cutter onto a plane?  IMPOSSIBLE.  Yeah, right.

<<Do you really think things through?>>

Yeah, I do.  Your problem is that you have confused nit-picking with thinking.

[Plane]

<<Where is there an x-ray machine big enough to run a 747 through?>>

I don't know, but I had envisaged devices smaller and more portable using X-ray or other technology to detect stashed weapons on planes. 

<<And how do you use a metal detector on a plane that is made of metal? >>

If not a metal detector, a similar quality device that would detect blades stashed in seats, overhead compartments and other places where "terrorists" would likely access them.  Manual sweeps if not possible electronically.

<<And who would subject themselves to 24 hour video surveillance?>>

I meant the planes are under the 24 hr video surveillance, and the activities of anyone who enters them.  I obviously didn't mean 24 hrs on each individual worker.

In addition to the fuck-ups on failing to prevent the weapons being stashed on or carried onto the planes, there were further fuck-ups in not assigning marshalls to flights and not having a practical shoot-down program in place.  Also in not securing the pilot cockpits.  The failures of the Bush administration were multiple and across the board.  Unfortunately, the idiot still has his defenders.  Logic and common sense mean nothing to them.  Nitpicking and naysaying mean everything.  We can send a man to the moon, but stopping one man from carrying a box-cutter onto a plane?  IMPOSSIBLE.  Yeah, right.

<<Do you really think things through?>>

Yeah, I do.  Your problem is that you have confused nit-picking with thinking.

All of the things you menton are extremely hard to do and impossible to do very thouroughly so s to prevent the one in a billion that wll cause the harm.
Invadeing the home of the hijacker is actually easyer,............and more satisfying to the public.

[The_Professor]

I don't care how much money you spend, there will always Bea way terrorists can achieve their purpose, if not all the time, but sporadically. Examples incldue plastic weapons, weaponry assembled in many innocuous pieces, explosive liquids in ever-smaller quantities and so on.

What you implement are measures that are prudent and logical and hope for the best. As technology provides common sense improvements, then you implement them and still hope and pray for the best.

[Amianthus]

We can send a man to the moon, but stopping one man from carrying a box-cutter onto a plane?  IMPOSSIBLE.  Yeah, right.

Absolute security is impossible. That is a correct statement.

There is no such thing as a lock that be picked or broken, there is no such thing as data encryption that can't be decrypted, there is no surveillance that can't be bypassed. Anybody who thinks differently is deluding themselves.

[Michael Tee]

<<All of the things you menton are extremely hard to do and impossible to do very thouroughly . . . >>

Yes, I quite understand.  It is impossible to seat marshalls on flights.  The little bastards just won't sit still long enough!  Impossible to manually sweep the plane for stashed weapons.   Everyone's afraid of pricking themselves.  Glove technology just hasn't evolved enough.  Impossible to tell when a plane is deviating from a flight path and heading towards a major target and equally impossible to shoot it down, although the U.S. has no problem in shooting down Iranian civilian airliners it can't even see.  Impossible for cabin attendants to signal to pilots when to activate cockpit-sealing devices.  The development of that technology alone would cost more than the entire Manhattan Project.

Honest to God, never seen a sillier bunch of lame and pathetic excuses in my life, all in defence of the indefensible.  Your "President," for Christ sake, failed to prevent the hijacking of four airliners by men armed with box-cutters, three of which were flown into extremely high-value targets.

[Michael Tee]

<<Absolute security is impossible. That is a correct statement.

<<There is no such thing as a lock that be picked or broken, there is no such thing as data encryption that can't be decrypted, there is no surveillance that can't be bypassed. Anybody who thinks differently is deluding themselves.>>

All of that is very true.  However, we are not speaking of a failure to provide "absolute security."  We are not faulting the "President" for failing to install infallible impenetrable security. 

The problem is simply that the schmuck failed to prevent 19 guys from hijacking four airliners with box-cutters.  Holy fucking shit, that should not require divine intervention.

[Amianthus]

The problem is simply that the schmuck failed to prevent 19 guys from hijacking four airliners with box-cutters.  Holy fucking shit, that should not require divine intervention.

Preventing hijacking IS providing impenetrable security. Hijackings have been around since there have been vehicles, and it will continue to be around as long as we continue to use vehicles. The only way to prevent a hijacking is to provide impenetrable security, which is tantamount to wishful thinking.

[Michael Tee]

<<Preventing hijacking IS providing impenetrable security. Hijackings have been around since there have been vehicles, and it will continue to be around as long as we continue to use vehicles. The only way to prevent a hijacking is to provide impenetrable security, which is tantamount to wishful thinking.>>

This particular hi-jacking was easily preventable.

[Amianthus]

This particular hi-jacking was easily preventable.

Not by the US government. Prior to 9-11, security for the airlines was handled by the airlines.

[Plane]

<<Preventing hijacking IS providing impenetrable security. Hijackings have been around since there have been vehicles, and it will continue to be around as long as we continue to use vehicles. The only way to prevent a hijacking is to provide impenetrable security, which is tantamount to wishful thinking.>>

This particular hi-jacking was easily preventable.

No , the people involved that could have done something were deep in Catch 22 territory.

Some suspicion was raised by Mausoui 's capture and some other indications , but there was a firewall between the various agencies that each had an incomplete picture of the oncoming tragedy , we have always had a deep suspicion of government and hobbles on enforcement agencies were supposed to keep them from becoming intrusive and pervasive in our daily lives.

Passengers and crew were instructed not to resist a hijacker , docility continued until the passengers on one of planes learned what the other planes were doing. Up till then there was an attitude of letting the professionals handle the criminals , rescue could happen after the plane landed. Richard Reeve landed on the wrong side of this changing and when his intended victims realized what he was up to they took effective action to save themselves.

Having people remove their shoes , drop fingernail files in bins , carry no more than a few oz. of fluid is an inconvenience to millions but not an insurmountable barrier to the few mischievous enough to devote lots of thought to it. Imagine that you have to find a small knife on my person , you could search me until you found it no matter how well I had hidden it , but finding a small knife on me when I am in a stream of millions of persons is a very diffrent challenge.

Air Marshalls ride on flights all the time , but how many air marshalls can there be?   There are not enough to ride on every flight and there is nowhere to go and get that many , a better idea was arming the Aircrews , but even this was fought very severely by political entities that can't believe that the presence of a gun is ever a good thing.

If you had gotten onto one of those aircraft right behind Mohamed Atta , what would have tipped you off so easily that he had a weapon smaller than a house key and suicidal , murderous plans?

[Michael Tee]

<<Not by the US government. Prior to 9-11, security for the airlines was handled by the airlines.>>

Also Bush's fault.  If each airline sets its own security, there will be varying levels of standards and execution.  Shoulda been taken over immediately.  Nobody on his team even evaluated the threat.  The whole airline security thing was just off their radar screen.  There's no getting around it - - the cities were at risk from hijacked planes and Bush was at the helm for almost eight months, during which virtually nothing was done to address the problem.

[Amianthus]

There's no getting around it - - the cities were at risk from hijacked planes and Bush was at the helm for almost eight months, during which virtually nothing was done to address the problem.

He at the helm for almost 8 months, and his first budget had yet to be submitted. Also, Bush cannot rewrite federal law by himself, and 8 months is not enough to get the laws pertaining to a major industry changed.

I notice you have no criticism for the previous administrations, who had over 50 years to do the same thing...

[Rich]

>>Also Bush?s Fault ? the cities were at risk from hijacked planes and Bush was at the helm for almost eight months, during which virtually nothing was done to address the problem.<<


It never ends does it. I imagine will go on for decades. The left never seems to tire of lying about Reagan, Bush, hell they even lie about Nixon!

After eight years of President Bush I have to say that if nothing else, he?s exposed these people for what they are. Hopefully some of them will seek medical attention, but more than likely they are part of the 46 million uninsured.

Seriously folks, airline security, prior to 9-11 is President Bush?s fault because ? I guess he was supposed to over haul the entire airline industry in less than eight months. Remember now, you don?t just snap your fingers, especially when it comes to the government. Meetings, hearings, more meetings, more hearings, votes, amendments, more votes, more amendments, a final vote ? and then it?s off to the Senate! For hearings, meetings ?. You get the picture. But hey! Bush, idiot that he is, should have seen the future. He should have known.

Pardon me while I go puke.