Airline Terror Plot Disrupted

[Mr Cat Dog]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4778575.stm

I dread to think what would have happened if this alleged "plot" had run its course... potentially it could have been worse than 9/11.

[Conan-san]

That being said, it's been stated that we're not quite clear yet...

And you know some radical will take solistace of all the chaos that has happened as a resut of the police starting this. It's pritty lose all round.

At least there hasn't been any fatilites, yet.

[Lord Dalek]

It's an interesting idea though, pontentially harmless household objects being used for dastardly means. I'm not advocating this at all, but I do find it fascinating.

[sun]

I heard this story on the radio.......
..Says more than 50 might be involved..
..Think about that for a moment?
....How did the London police get their tip to break this case?
....Does that mean that someone in that group was monitered and that person's conversations were overheard?
...Or does that mean that one in fifty could not keep a secret, and told someone, who notified the police..Just a guessing game, or maybe even, that one in fifty felt bad about the consequences that were about to happen, and went to the police on their own? That is possible too....I wonder if we will ever know?....(on second thought, I suppose the huge number of people who will know the how and why, well they will not be able to keep the secret too)(we probably will find out how the poice broke the case).........Stuart

[Zach Logan]

From MSNBC, it is said only NINE planes would have been involved (blown up simultaneously). The nation is on a Red alert for the first time since Homeland Security began the color-coded system. United, British Airways, and Continental were the intended targets, mostly from Hethrow Airport...

[Lord Dalek]

What's ironic is this happens exactly one week before I'm flying to Columbus. >_<

[tucsoncoyote]

It's funny.. this particular thread comes up and no one wants to use the Politics Forum board (as this is a Defense Issue, even though it's common news.)

For Future Reference there is a Politics Board here at TZ.net, and I feel this is where this particular subject needs to go. It's located Here: http://tzpolitics.suddenlaunch3.com/ (And this would go under the "Defense Issues" thread.. that way if you want to interject any politics into this, then you could. otherwise i feel and can sense someone bringing up politics here.)

(Could some Moderator Please Close the thread? Please and Thank you..)

:coyote:

[Mr Cat Dog]

This isn't a political thread, this is a current events thread detailing a current event. If this thread was discussing the implications that this would have on politics, what political parties are doing about said situation or anything else political, then I would be in line to agree with you, and wouldn't have created this thread. I'm pretty sure that members here can keep discussion without having to go to the roots of politics to form arguments and replies to this thread.

[Dr. OneWay]

Ugg, just say the news. This could have been really bad! And traveling from Windsor to Detroit is a nightmare, because they have to search like every car. It's supposedly a 60-90 minute extra wait to get from place to place. Stupid terrorists.

[Peter Paltridge]

Apparently, bugging phone lines--the much-reviled and kind-of-illegal practice--was directly responsible for our catching these guys before they struck.

It works? We'll never get rid of it now....

[sun]

Apparently, bugging phone lines--the much-reviled and kind-of-illegal practice--was directly responsible for our catching these guys before they struck.

It works? We'll never get rid of it now....

According to CNN...It was stopped by a British undercover agent..being reported now, .9:45pm.central time,.hard undercover work, or someone letting the secret out..that usually is it......not this bugging...I'm outahere....Coyote is right,,,this should be at the TZ Politics Board...

[Dr. OneWay]

According to CNN...It was stopped by a British undercover agent..being reported now, .9:45pm.central time,.hard undercover work, or someone letting the secret out..that usually is it......not this bugging...I'm outahere....Coyote is right,,,this should be at the TZ Politics Board...

WHY should it be on the politics board!? It doesn't have anything to do with politics! It's a matter of life or death. A threat. On our nation. :mad:

[Anyone00]

Next the public and the authorities will have to be on the lookout for people who walk funny in the airports.

I really do wish that was purely a joke :(

[MM54]

http://threeminds.organic.com/images/snakesandplanes_1.jpg
Were there...snakes involved?

Seriously, though, that's terrible. Thank God for homeland security. :rolleyes2:

[Conan-san]

WHY should it be on the politics board!? It doesn't have anything to do with politics! It's a matter of life or death. A threat. On our nation. :mad: Casue it threatens to involve *He who must not be named* and anythign that threatens to sully the name of *He who must not be named* is banned from Toonzone.

*He who must not be named* was exactly why Politics was banned in the first place. (and, damnit, it's the only vice I have about Toonzone, bless it otherwise).

and MM54, that's just off beat.

[tucsoncoyote]

Coyote is right,,,this should be at the TZ Politics Board...

Thank you oldtoonguy for those words.. and now I'm going to show why this needs to go to the Politics board. and it involves this incident.

Well now from what i have heard on both CNN and Fox and all the major networks (including MSNBC), and this might be a surprise.. if you want to now take a drink onto an airplane... get ready for the major let down... because of this plot.. a lot of folks in the US homeland security are now talking to take away your right to have as much as a bottle of soda in your luggage or maybe even a baby bottle. So if you got infants.. get ready for the shock of your life.

I guess you haven't heard what they were planning to do did you?

These (now) 24 terrorists were planning to slip Explosive Liquids that are inert until you combine them through the security check points by means of slippinig them through as ordinary beverages in ordinary beverage cans...(that they would carry on board the planes, then once on board they would bring the chemical containers together and create the liquid explosive..(Shades of Die Hard 3 wouldn't you say?)

Believe me if I was clever enough (and I can be at sometimes) what these terrorists were planning was in fact bloody brillaint but how did they get caught? Wasn't with wiretapping but rather good old undercover work by Scotland Yard and UK Security..

so what does this mean for us travelers now that this plot has been unraveled.. well it means that now they'll stop you if you carry as much as a beer bottle or a soda bottle, or even a fruit juice box onto a plane and check it for Explosives..

so yeah these guys may have been clever but they got caught due to old fashioned undercover work, but in the end, they really just wrecked the idea of "Freedom to travel" (And freedom is what this is all about, right? (Hence Political)

in otherwords.. watch what happens next... Airlines are going to forbid passengers from carrying on anything including baby bottles..

(yes watch, someone will come up with that idea, slipping an explosive liquid through a security checkpoint, inside an ordinary baby bottle! (Hey, if I could think of a way to slip an explosive liquid or solid through a security check polint, then so could any logical thinking terrorist who could as well. so remember if I can think of it.. so can any other logical thinking person, including a terrorist with a high enough IQ. After all, terrorists are not dumb folks, they're perhaps the most clever and creative people on the planet. Now if we could only take all that evil and turn it into creative goodness for the benefit of humanity.)

(so to all those parents out there, here's my comment: Gee how would you feed that infant of yours? Breast feeding? How quaint...)

and I still say that this is gonna get political with people ranting and raving about the religious aspect of it.. so I still say this will end up going over to the Political boards. or get closed off. Nuff said.

:coyote:

[solarflere]

Well now from what i have heard, and this might be a surprise.. if you want to now take a drink onto an airplane... get ready for the major let down... because of this plot.. a lot of folks in the US are now talking to take away your right to have as much as a bottle of soda in your luggage or maybe even a baby bottle. So if you got infants.. get ready for the shock of your life. Listen to the news, baby bottles, and formula and anything that has to do with infants/children is allowed, so was declared in the White House Press Conference.
It was declared yesturday, that if presented to the security, baby bottles will be permitted as a carry on. And no airport security can go against the White House orders.

[tucsoncoyote]

Listen to the news, baby bottles, and formula and anything that has to do with infants/children is allowed, so was declared in the White House Press Conference.
It was declared yesturday, that if presented to the security, baby bottles will be permitted as a carry on. And no airport security can go against the White House orders.

Ah and that my friend is the chink in the armor.. just watch.. and wait.. sooner or later someone will do it.. It's just a matter of time...

After all if any intellgent person can turn a plane into a flying destructive pilotable missile, they surely just as well, can sneak an explosive liquid through a security checkpoint in a baby bottle!

:coyote:

[solarflere]

Ah and that my friend is the chink in the armor.. just watch.. and wait.. sooner or later someone will do it.. It's just a matter of time...

After all if any intellgent person can turn a plane into a flying destructive pilotable missile, they surely just as well, can sneak an explosive liquid through a security checkpoint in a baby bottle!

:coyote:You have such good faith in our system, it makes me want to cry. Besides, taking a sip from the bottle (by parent) should disprove anything that should not be in a bottle.

[Harley]

Enough with the discussion of which forum this thread belongs on. That's for the mods to decide. Based on current information, this is still a current events thread until someone here makes it political. If someone chooses to walk down that path, this thread will be closed and they'll get a warning for it too.

Back on topic.

[Conekiller]

*cough* back on topic*

I have a friend who's flying into town today, and while she's a bit agitated that she can't pack makeup or shampoo she told me she'd gladly wait in a line for an extra hour and a half if it meant she had a better idea that her plane wouldn't be blowing up.

I gotta say I agree and would think the same if I were travelling.

[Clayface]

Based on current information, this is still a current events thread until someone here makes it political.

Exactly. The thread will stay open and here at the Cafe unless and until people start going down the politics path.


You have such good faith in our system, it makes me want to cry. Besides, taking a sip from the bottle (by parent) should disprove anything that should not be in a bottle.

Doubtful. Most, if not all, of the components used in this sort of explosive are fairly benign by themselves. Taking a sip from it wouldn't kill ya. At worst it would make you sick - something I'm sure anyone bent on self destruction would gladly suffer through to get to their martyrdom. And you'd most likely only get sick if you left it in your stomach for some amount of time - there's nothing stopping the individual from taking a sip, passing through security, and then going into a bathroom and vomiting it back up.


*cough* back on topic*

I have a friend who's flying into town today, and while she's a bit agitated that she can't pack makeup or shampoo she told me she'd gladly wait in a line for an extra hour and a half if it meant she had a better idea that her plane wouldn't be blowing up.

I gotta say I agree and would think the same if I were travelling.

The problem is, these restrictions aren't doing anything to make us safer or prevent this sort of bomb from being assembled and used on board a plane. The amounts of liquid needed to assemble the bomb are very small. One could very simply put the liquid into a plastic zip-lock bag, stuff it down the front of his/her pants, and get it easily past security. These new restrictions aren't doing a dang thing but making life miserable for the regular joe and providing a false sense of secruity.

[solarflere]

Doubtful. Most, if not all, of the components used in this sort of explosive are fairly benign by themselves. Taking a sip from it wouldn't kill ya. At worst it would make you sick - something I'm sure anyone bent on self destruction would gladly suffer through to get to their martyrdom. And you'd most likely only get sick if you left it in your stomach for some amount of time - there's nothing stopping the individual from taking a sip, passing through security, and then going into a bathroom and vomiting it back up.
True, but Baby formula or milk or other baby food that comes in a baby bottle will be very distinguishable by color, Usualy white, yellowish maybe.



The problem is, these restrictions aren't doing anything to make us safer or prevent this sort of bomb from being assembled and used on board a plane. The amounts of liquid needed to assemble the bomb are very small. One could very simply put the liquid into a plastic zip-lock bag, stuff it down the front of his/her pants, and get it easily past security. These new restrictions aren't doing a dang thing but making life miserable for the regular joe and providing a false sense of secruity.

Very true, that's what I have been telling people, this only makes our lives miserable with out making anything better. All we do is surrender willingly our civil liberties little by little until they are gone. its not like they imposed a temporary ban on liquids, it will probably stick for years. We still take our shoes off at the airport, no one knocked down that one and it has been several years since the initial incident.

[One Radical Dude]

I have to say that the ban (temporary or permanent) on liquids, toothpaste, and so on is the dumbest thing I've ever heard. I realize that they're being cautious, but come on! I am glad, however, that a terror plot was thwarted. Still, I don't get the latest restrictions on some of the essentials for travel.

[The Guitar Slayer]

Hmm. Good show for the Brits. My personal concern is regarding laptops -- I'm heading to the UK for a year, and I need my computer. It's not a problem going over, but rather coming back. I can take it in the compartment on my outbound US flight, but on the way back, I can only have the plastic bag gig. You can't exactly stow those things, so it's either shipping or buying one over there. Or everything could relax and I won't have a problem at all. Hoping for the best. If they don't fix it, I'll just tell them to sit me in the lap of the US Marshal (that is supposed to be there) to make sure I don't try anything funny.

As the the liquids thing, it's not that big of a deal. Chuck your cup before you get on the plane and then go get your free drinks service; I usually go for a Bloody Mary after take-off. Vodka for the nerves and tomato juice for the antioxidants and vitamins. Virgin Atlantic provides its passengers with a care kit which includes free toothpaste. If you're not on Virgin, once you land, there is a Boots chemist (pharmacy) right in Heathrow and you can buy your duty free toothpaste to your heart's content.

Baby bottles -- I doubt terrorists would take their children on a plane just to blow it up with a baby bottle (you are required to have a baby if you have a baby bottle). If they have a family, the suicide bombers are likely doing it for money that will be sent to their family after their death as compensation for their loss. So why blow up the family you're trying to provide for? Terrorist organizations aren't stingy when it comes to their dead; they take care of their own. If they didn't, they wouldn't have such strong support and willing volunteers.

[tucsoncoyote]

Exactly. The thread will stay open and here at the Cafe unless and until people start going down the politics path.



Doubtful. Most, if not all, of the components used in this sort of explosive are fairly benign by themselves. Taking a sip from it wouldn't kill ya. At worst it would make you sick - something I'm sure anyone bent on self destruction would gladly suffer through to get to their martyrdom. And you'd most likely only get sick if you left it in your stomach for some amount of time - there's nothing stopping the individual from taking a sip, passing through security, and then going into a bathroom and vomiting it back up.



The problem is, these restrictions aren't doing anything to make us safer or prevent this sort of bomb from being assembled and used on board a plane. The amounts of liquid needed to assemble the bomb are very small. One could very simply put the liquid into a plastic zip-lock bag, stuff it down the front of his/her pants, and get it easily past security. These new restrictions aren't doing a dang thing but making life miserable for the regular joe and providing a false sense of secruity.

And that's also why I stressed the issue with baby bottles (and yes even diabetic kits will have an issue (you could easily slip this liquid into an inuslin bottle (or in this case, bottles) and slip it on board saying you're diabetic (I doubt any security officer would like to have to stop a diabetic and force him (or her) to take an insulin shot in the gut (how do I know this? My roommate I live with is a diabetic and has to do this every day..

(and this brings up the issue about terrorists, they will do anything just for the sake at Succeeding at their "Mission". After all some folks say that 30 to 90 minutes to wait in line for an inspection doesn't mean that it can't happen.

(Heck I remember that Old Gallagher joke where Gallahger pulls out a Solid rubber wrench and comments aobut how he could slip that through secuirty..(Makes you really wonder the reason for these Terrorists that they could do the same ..

but in the end, this is indeed making our lives miserable because now this incident will affect not only infants, and young kids, but elderly and disabled (such as diabetic Patients) alike

so Like I said, it's going to come down to the point that in one day in the furure, it'll be so hard to take the plane folks will finally slow down and take a bus or train (if domestic) or a ship (if going abroad) to get to where their going.. it's all just a matter of time.

:coyote:

[One Radical Dude]

Well, the thing is, tc, terrorists are going to attempt to strike anywhere, not just air (that's just one place). They will try busses, trains, Wal-Marts Targets, movie theatres, malls -- anywhere with a large group of people. These guys hate Western culture, and they will continue to do everything they can to destroy us. At the same time, though, I'm going to enjoy my life, not to let these guys win (though recognize the threat of future attacks are real).

[Mr Cat Dog]

The planes were going to tourist hotspots: New York City, Washington D.C. and I believe Los Angeles (or possibly San Fransisco, but definitely in California), but if intelligence is to be believed then the planes would have been blown up over the ocean, and not actually hit US soil.
My personal concern is regarding laptops -- I'm heading to the UK for a year, and I need my computer. It's not a problem going over, but rather coming back. I can take it in the compartment on my outbound US flight, but on the way back, I can only have the plastic bag gig. You can't exactly stow those things, so it's either shipping or buying one over there.Sorry if this sounds a bit weird, but can't you just put it in your suitcase?

[solarflere]

Sorry if this sounds a bit weird, but can't you just put it in your suitcase?Laptops can not be X-ray-ed, nor they can not sustain any violent shaking that the luggage personnel might inflict on your suitcase.

[Conan-san]

In any case, we've gone from Critical to the one bellow so at least some hand luggage will be allowed in the forseable future.

[The Guitar Slayer]

Laptops are now fine, according to my father (who works the tech end of Bear Stearns), but liquids for the foreseeable future are a no-no much like the sharp stuff that was banned after 9/11. In short, I'm off the hook.

I think the British have a better attitude about this type of thing than the US. After the July 7 bombings, they simply said, "We have to keep going." They'd been through the Blitz and the IRA, so they have this attitude of "keep moving on." After September 11 in the US, everyone stopped flying. We essentially let the terrorists win because we changed our lifestyles -- we drove, we took boats, we did anything but fly. The British were the ones who saved most of the Floridian economy because they were the only ones still flying and carrying on as normal. The day after the Tube bombings, they just went back on because it was their normal way of life. They could have walked, taken a taxi, drove -- but that would have compromised their lives and their freedom of time.

So Tuscon, even if the US scares itself into walking everywhere and banning any sort of mass transportation, I'm quite sure the British will continue to fly, take the train, take the bus, whatever.

[Mr Cat Dog]

If anything, with all the extra checks and stuff, the days after the alleged plot would have been the safest time to travel. Sure, there would have been hours of delays, but you could guarantee that the plane would be completely safe.

[Clayface]

Baby bottles -- I doubt terrorists would take their children on a plane just to blow it up with a baby bottle

Unfortuantely, I think you greatly underestimate the determination and insanity of the people we're dealing with. The latest news: at least one of the suspects had a baby, and the police seem to think it was going to be used in the suicide bombing (http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,20116279-5001021,00.html).


If anything, with all the extra checks and stuff, the days after the alleged plot would have been the safest time to travel. Sure, there would have been hours of delays, but you could guarantee that the plane would be completely safe.

I would say that's a very false assumption. As I stated above, the new restrictions put into place have done nothing to make us any more secure. There is absolutely no way to guarantee the plane would be completely safe, because it was, and still is, easy to sneak a liquid on board by securing it on your body. The only way to prevent it would be to strip search each and every passenger. And even then, you still wouldn't be guaranteed safety, because you've always got the possibility of the terrorists having an "insider". For example, it is reported that one of the suspects that was taken into custody worked at Heathrow, and even had a security pass to let them into most areas of the airport. Someone like that could easily sneak the components in, and hand them off to the suicide bomber after he/she has passed security.

Oh yeah, and then you've got security holes that let something like this (http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/europe/08/16/uk.terror.boy/index.html) happen. Nope, I really don't think we're any safer now than we were 4 weeks ago.

[tucsoncoyote]

Unfortuantely, I think you greatly underestimate the determination and insanity of the people we're dealing with. The latest news: at least one of the suspects had a baby, and the police seem to think it was going to be used in the suicide bombing (http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,20116279-5001021,00.html).

I would say that's a very false assumption. As I stated above, the new restrictions put into place have done nothing to make us any more secure. There is absolutely no way to guarantee the plane would be completely safe, because it was, and still is, easy to sneak a liquid on board by securing it on your body. The only way to prevent it would be to strip search each and every passenger. And even then, you still wouldn't be guaranteed safety, because you've always got the possibility of the terrorists having an "insider". For example, it is reported that one of the suspects that was taken into custody worked at Heathrow, and even had a security pass to let them into most areas of the airport. Someone like that could easily sneak the components in, and hand them off to the suicide bomber after he/she has passed security.

Oh yeah, and then you've got security holes that let something like this (http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/europe/08/16/uk.terror.boy/index.html) happen. Nope, I really don't think we're any safer now than we were 4 weeks ago.

See this is why I initially stated in my last post that indeed this kind of thing could happen (and I would like to thank Clayface for supporting the Baby Bottle issue, after all if I could think of it or if Clayface could, then any terrorist with enough sense to think like a rational human being then any logical thinking terrorist can do this.

(Just remember September 11th, 2001. Some of the people who did Hijack those flights that crashed into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon were in fact not only pilots, but also structural Engineers. Also they used something no one else has considered.. Using a Flight simulator you can buy out in any electronics store (Every hear of Microsoft Flight simulator 2000?) . They knew what a Plane could do at those speeds and at those angles. and of course "Ground Zero" is the result of all of this planning.

So Clayface, I give you two thumbs up on your remarks.

Also Clayface is right about "Insider" Security at any airport, I mean besides the scenario Clayface describes, one of the people who are on the inside, could just as easily put a bomb inside a suitcase or some other piece of luggage that isn't going to be picked up on the receiving end, set a timer, zip it up and put it on the conveyor belt for the flight to be targeted..(Another logical bit of thinkiing on Clayface's part I might add). and in fact there are a myriad of things so call "Ground personnel could do (And i don't mean Luggage handlers either.. I mean people like fuelers and even maintenance personnel..

so there's a lot of loopholes. and no real way to plug them all up.

(Also i read that story clayface reported (the One about the 12 year old boy who almost got to Portugal without a passport). Now I can say this that before 9/11/01, on any Greyhound bus, if you were over 12, you could just pay for a ticket and ride.. in fact all you would need to get into Canada or Mexico on said same bus, would be to provide proof of Birth (By Birth Certificate plus any necessaray passports, and in fact I've heard a couple stories where folks have had to be removed from buses for this (And now the same holds true for planes.)

So in a major way, Clayface is spot on in his observations here.. that 1) if anyone can think of a way to sneak or smuggle an explosive on a plane, they will, 2) That security at airports while still tight still have loopholes in them, and 3), if not observed, undesirables could board a plane and avoid security checks..

(so good call on all of them Clay, after all you are 'spot on'.)

Now as for Terrorism as a whole I was wondering if Anyone read this story (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14387455/) in today's news about a suspicious device that was found on a Sydney bound flight that originated in of All places Fiji... and yes Even in Fiji there are extremist terrorists.. so really Like Clayface stated, there's no way in heck you can make a plane absolutely safe..(and even if you could make it safe, the actual plane probably would not be able to take off).

If we had to use stronger materials like Iron and Steel instead of Aluminum...well then planes can't fly. (That is until someone some day can create a carbon-fibre/aluminum structure that will be strong enough to resist explosive stresses on it.. but until then, you're only as safe as the plane you are flying on)..

Also as a Final note to those who might have Dell Laptops and are planning to travel, did anyone hear about the Recall of specific models of Dell laptops due to the fact of the Defective Battery (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14350403/)That could explode or catch fire? 4.1 million units in all..



Nuff said.

:coyote:

[Conan-san]

Also as a Final note to those who might have Dell Laptops and are planning to travel, did anyone hear about the Recall of specific models of Dell laptops due to the fact of the Defective Battery (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14350403/)That could explode or catch fire? 4.1 million units in all.. Y'know, somehow I always knew that Dell would be responicible for the painful ends to mass lives.

[Storm Eagle]

What's ironic is this happens exactly one week before I'm flying to Columbus. >_<

I got back from Colorado yesterday, and it actually happened on the day I went over there. I had a 6:05am flight there at LaGuardia Airport here in New York, and as I'm waiting on the checkpoint line, one of the guards announces that we can no longer carry liquids on the planes. I saw some people were upset about it, but things seemed to still go smoothly.

[Storm Eagle]

Laptops are now fine, according to my father (who works the tech end of Bear Stearns), but liquids for the foreseeable future are a no-no much like the sharp stuff that was banned after 9/11. In short, I'm off the hook.



If it should get to the point that we can no longer have electronic devices on the planes, I don't think I'll ever travel by plane again.

[James]

I think the move that many airports have to make is the move from security checks at the airside point to the gate departure. Some airports do this already. I can recall one European airport doing this and - I think - Orlando.

Beyond the issue of liquid explosives, there is very little stopping people purchasing sharp objects in duty free that is often located beyond security checkpoint and the gate. Move security to post duty free, scanners are far more effective. It would also disperse security controls influx of passengers moving through security from checkin. This has been a major problem for London Heathrow with the extra checks.

The only issue would be - as far as I can see - is reeducating the passengers that there is a further slow down BEYOND duty free airside, otherwise one could risk more delays by people leaving duty free last minute.

There is no such thing as a safe flight. I recall a security lecture I once attended offering such a point. And I doubt we will see MAJOR changes until there is an incidence that retrospectively requires one. Why? Because any shift in policy creates industrial chaos.

In the end, it is down to a balance between neccessity, risk factors and personal ideology. I find it odd people will find the risk of flying based on the terrorist risk validated when they travel in a far more risky vehicle: the car. The comparative mortality risks favour the plane by a fast amount.

[tucsoncoyote]

I think the move that many airports have to make is the move from security checks at the airside point to the gate departure. Some airports do this already. I can recall one European airport doing this and - I think - Orlando.

Beyond the issue of liquid explosives, there is very little stopping people purchasing sharp objects in duty free that is often located beyond security checkpoint and the gate. Move security to post duty free, scanners are far more effective. It would also disperse security controls influx of passengers moving through security from checkin. This has been a major problem for London Heathrow with the extra checks.

The only issue would be - as far as I can see - is reeducating the passengers that there is a further slow down BEYOND duty free airside, otherwise one could risk more delays by people leaving duty free last minute.

There is no such thing as a safe flight. I recall a security lecture I once attended offering such a point. And I doubt we will see MAJOR changes until there is an incidence that retrospectively requires one. Why? Because any shift in policy creates industrial chaos.

In the end, it is down to a balance between neccessity, risk factors and personal ideology. I find it odd people will find the risk of flying based on the terrorist risk validated when they travel in a far more risky vehicle: the car. The comparative morality risks favour the plane by a fast amount.

You make some very valid points here James and in fact i tend to agree, but then like you said "No airline flight is indeed safe, and it's not only from the aspect of the terrorism either. other factors come into play including weather related incidents (such as Icing and Microbursts Such as Air Florida 90 and that Delta flight into Dallas during a thunderstorm), and also Mechanical failure of the jet engines (After all remember American 191 and that one flight that crashed in Sioux Falls Iowa, United 232?), these were not terrorism related, but Mechanical in nature.

but yes here's the key here, Industrial Chaos. and that's what Terrorism is always going for. after all Terrorism can upset flight plans, they can force ships at sea to be checked throughly, they can even force major changes in policy not only on planes but other modes of transportation (Including buses and trains). But the ultimate goal here of any terrorist plot or plan is alway to throw some sort of Chaos into the gears of humanity much like throwing a Monkey Wrench or a wooden shoe into a machine (after all where do you think the word 'Sabot-age' came from (this is a word where Dutch workers would throw wooden shoes known as 'sabots' into machines causing industrial Chaos)..

and I feel that yes you are right traveling by car isn't safe, in fact over 50,000 people die every year in traffic accidents (a vast majority of them within 25 miles of home)

but until policy changes again and something else happens, this is just "The Status quo." and is completely normal to have these hassles whether it is for International or Domestic flights (Like today on a Untied Flight a woman was escorted off the plane in Boston due to her behavior.. (Here's the story (http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=519&e=6&u=/ap/20060817/ap_on_re_us/flight_diverted)..)..

:coyote: