Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Jimellow
The only real difference I see between boxcutters/plastic knives (a "successful" hijacking weapon in 9/11) and these chemicals are the the latter doesn't rely on involving/threatening others on the plane directly to get results.
Prior to 9/11 a similiar article could have been written stating how ineffective a mere boxcutter would be against a plane filled with numerous people, that ultimately would be able to overpower and restrain an assailant. Yet, that has proven to not be the case at all.
|
Yes, but it won't happen again. The reasons 9/11 was successful was because, paradoxically, of the
humanity of the people and crew aboard those planes. We are led to believe that the doors to the cockpit were opened (in some circumstances) because the terrorists were murdering people outside, demanding access.
Also, the only flight where people fought back was Flight 93. On all others, the crew and the passengers believed it was a "regular" hijack. Indeed, up to 9/11 air-crew were generally trained to obey hijackers, as are robbery victims in banks to this day.
Flight 93 was different because the passengers had been in contact with the ground and knew what was going to happen. This is why they fought back.
So, I don't believe a similar hijacking could occur today. Horrible as it may sound, you can be sure that the pilots will not open the doors even if someone is having their throats cut directly outside. They know that there is more at stake than just the lives of the people on board. And many pilots are now armed.
9/11 was terrible, but it really was a "once off" attack. Hence the new liquid explosive bomb plots we are hearing about today.
Quote:
|
Studying and intense examination is easily done on paper, or in an article, after the threat has been neutralized, but in reality the chemicals the terrorists had, if they hadn't been caught, could certainly have caused harm in my opinion.
|
No one is disputing that fact. Indeed, the article expressly says that an explosion could happen that would kill the terrorists and probably several passengers. But that "mass murder on an unbelievable scale" was probably unlikely.
Quote:
|
It's easy to write articles that make light of people smuggling chemicals onto planes, comparing their plots to those of a Hollywood director, and generally making it seem like the smuggling was totally benign, but if the same article were to be written after an identical chemical attack was successful, the article would never reach publication, and if it did, the author would be crucified by the mass populace.
|
Well, the use of satire and sarcasm are proud traditions in British journalism. Perhaps they are not so common in the US. And, I have no idea where you inferred the article was implying the smuggling was benign.
I found the article interesting. It shows that the use of TATP is not as easy as it all seems. Remember all the hysteria about "dirty bombs"? No one hears much about these today, because even the US military and intelligence services, let alone most independent commentators (obviously
not including Fox et al) now accept that the concept of a "dirty bomb" is nonsense.
I don't believe the concept of liquid explosive is nonsense. And I'm
happy to go through the increased security. But I'm also interested in an alternative viewpoint that shows liquid explosive is not the most dangerous thing out there, and that it's not as easy or as dangerous as implied by the popular media. As the article says, someone with dimethylmercury in an aerosol vector could do a lot more harm. And that's not too hard to come by either...
Mr Mephisto