This will close the thread, if nothing does! (finger poised over Submit Reply button...)
This whole issue of security has become confused with the fear and paranoia apparent in the way the US is fighting “terrorism,” and in the process, offending almost the entire rest of the world. “Do it our way, or the highway”. “If you want to fly to the US, follow our rules or don’t come.” Never mind that it is the passengers who are being put off from flying, and if there are no passengers to be carried, the airlines will not WANT to fly to the US.
The attack of 9/11 was very carefully planned, and a team was assembled that was willing to give up their own lives for the cause of religious fanaticism. It took a lot of time, planning and dedication for the plot to work, and they took advantage of some loopholes in security to do so. They needed flights that took off around the same time, were lightly loaded but had full fuel tanks, and could be coordinated for the attack on the WTC and government buildings. It is doubtful that something like it could be done again, since it worked mainly by the element of surprise. There is a story that the US Administration was warned that terrorists intended to take over passenger airplanes and use them to attack targets on the ground. Since the administration refuses to release documents that would prove or disprove this claim, it suggests it might be true.
Had this information been released prior to 9/11, and pilots made aware of the danger, then no flight deck doors would have been opened, and the terrorists would have been denied access, or at least there would have been time for the flight crews to make a Mayday call, alerting others. At the time, the FAA (and therefore the world’s) policy for hijacking was cooperation. Training films were circulated showing terrorists on the flight deck, negotiating with the ground, the Captain participating, in order to save lives. If there had been any idea in the minds of the pilots that there were people out there as evil and suicidal as those on 9/11, they would never have opened the door, no matter the threat.
“But if ground security was any good, the pilots would not have been faced with this decision, so lets give up our rights and freedoms, let them push us around and treat us like criminals, so at least we will be safe!” Never mind that the 9/11 terrorists did not break any rules, and would not have been stopped at security even if it was perfect. They were in the country legally (some had overstayed, but that is not a cause for concern about terrorism) and their weapons were not banned at that time. Even if they had had guns or knives, they had a good chance of getting them through. The private screeners were detecting about 75 percent of all guns and 60 percent of all knives that were taken through by testers, and even the much-vaunted TSA has improved only a few points. Real life guns and knives would be broken down, made of ceramics and hidden from X-ray, so there would be little chance of detection, but the hijackers did not need guns or knives, they only needed a strong will to succeed. Look at the hijackings that took place last year; none used real weapons, apart from a small pocketknife on one flight (unsuccessful). The items used included chopsticks, asthma inhaler, bottle of gasoline, TV remote control (the only one that was successful) and simply fists. Even the shoes of Richard Reid were probably not going to work, since he could not manage to light the fuse, despite several attempts, and nobody knows if they had enough power to do any damage, since the FBI destroyed them before they could be examined. Note that no nail files, computers, cell phones, keys or scissors were used, then or ever. Simply put, perfect ground security is impossible and the effort should be to make security as effective as it can be without disrupting the traveling process.
It is a small step from assuming everyone is a potential terrorist to treating them as the real thing. It is the easy way, of course, and why would we expect the authorities to do it differently? Don’t forget that their bosses are politicians, who by definition are not working for our interests, but their own. Concentrating on objects rather than people is another dead end. Never mind if a few “weapons” get through, it is the person’s intent that matters, not the thing in his bag. When the attack comes, we need the support and cooperation of the passengers. If we have them cowed and beaten before they even step aboard, we are wasting our best resource. Giving women and kids, people in wheel chairs, old men and women and such a hard time is counter-productive. It is obvious to anyone who has a brain bigger than that of a flea that these people are not a threat, and if the resources are wasted this way, the real terrorist will be able to go through with a smile. Proper security does not need this odious, obtrusive pressure, it needs persons with intelligence, who will stand back and observe, sending the hit team in when it is needed, which will not be very often at all. Use the resources where they will be most effective, and this will usually mean out of sight. Of course the authorities do not want their efforts to be invisible; they could not build up their budgets as easily that way.
Only the front gate of the airport is locked. Those thousands of persons who work at the airport, many of whom have direct access to the airplanes, do not go through a comparable level of security. Of course the terrorists know this, so why would they try to gain access or put weapons aboard by going in the front way? Al Gore was given the full treatment on a flight he took, and his aides said he was “happy” to do his bit; “nobody should be exempt.” He had a good opportunity to point out how stupid it all was; if Al Gore is a threat to security then we have already lost. Send Osama a ticket to Washington and a key to the White House. Let him run the insane asylum. He could do no worse.
Commercial aviation has never been safer; even if the numbers killed in the WTC as well as on the four airplanes brought down on 9/11 are included in the stats for 2001, they cause hardly a blip (Much more than a blip to those affected, of course. I can hardly think of that day even now without breaking down). Much more money and effort has been put into “protecting” us from this threat than it needed, and most of it in the wrong places. The only tangible result has been the imminent destruction of the airlines, serious damage to international relations, and encouragement of the paranoia and fear of the population of the USA. It is perhaps time they gave up their claim to be the “home of the brave and land of the free.”
I doubt the real reason for all the changes to security are in our interests; I cynically believe they are for the good of the administration and the government of the US. We have seen the establishment of the world’s largest department, modeled after the similarly named Homeland Security Department of the Nazis in the late 30’s, and restrictions on aviation that have, several times, led to the imminent demise of airlines and airline travel. We all know many people who refuse to fly any longer, and refuse to fly to the US. The rise of Airbus shows the effect on US businesses, and this is only the tip of the iceberg. Have there been any improvements made? Of course, things such as stronger flight deck doors are positive. But even so, they can be circumvented easily, unless the crew is extremely vigilant. Putting a meal cart across the door every time a pilot needs to use the toilet is as stupid as I can imagine. It advertises that the door is going to be opened, and do the pilots have to adjust their bladders to the meal service times? What about the smaller airliners that do not have extra cabin crew? Or even a place to fit a door? Much more thinking needs to go on here, but meanwhile the only safety we will see is due to the fact that now we know what these savages are capable of, and we, the flight crew and passengers, will never let it happen again.
Richard Reid’s shoes would not be detected if he were flying today, since they would not set off an X-ray detector, having no metal. There are still no nitrate detectors in use that would do so. Yet millions of people all over the world have to take off their shoes in order to board an airplane. Stupidity does not cover it well enough. Check in baggage is now X-rayed in the concourse area of many airports, and if the explosives detector shows a ‘hit’ the bag is taken to a table and opened by a TSA operator who is ill-trained to handle bombs, and who uses only rubber gloves as an aid, rummaging around in the bag looking for the explosive device. If there was such a device, this type of handling would be bound to set it off, right there in amongst the thousands of milling passengers. LAX had a Crazy shooting at passengers at the El AL check in counter, and he was stopped not by the TSA, or airport police, but by private airline security. Have we learned from this? Not yet. On arrival at LAX you will see that every person employed there in uniform has a gun on his or her hip (sometimes very ample hip, pardon my lack of PC, but it shows a lack of fitness and readiness to use the gun correctly). But on departure, which is not subject to Customs or Immigration supervision, there are no guns. So let’s imagine that a terrorist is stopped at the metal detector with an Uzi? Is he going to say “Woops” and surrender? No, he is going to whip it out and spray everyone around him, and thanks to the system, there will be hundreds of targets for him. How will the TSA react? Do they have a SWAT team ready to go? Maybe they do, but how does it get into the crowded hall, and how do they take down the terrorist without shooting the innocents around him? Does anyone in authority have any brains?
Now we see High Tech passports, restrictions on visas, fingerprinting and photographs (after landing? How does that help?), rules against congregating near the toilets (terrorists are only going to congregate AFTER they take over the airplane. Will they then sit down when the hostess makes the standard announcement?), airplanes “escorted” by F16s (presumably to be shot down if they stray. Tell me again how that makes us safer), huge No-Flying zones around the Pres and others, seemingly in fear of his subjects, that disrupt general aviation to the point that many operators have gone out of business, pilots have lost their jobs, many training establishments have no students (since those students cannot obtain visas), sensitive information is being sent out ahead of flights into the US, demands on foreign airlines to carry armed marshals (we go to so much trouble to keep guns off airplanes then we put some on board? Who thinks of these things?), canceling flights because someone on board has the same name as a terrorist suspect, and so on, ad Nauseum.
Either the authorities come to their senses soon, or the people force them to do so, or we might as well give up now and save ourselves the grief that is to come.