Airport security was lax and they knew it.

Career Prole

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Apr-13-04 05:26 PM
Original message

Airport security was lax and they knew it.

It was a right-wing talking point, in fact. They wanted to know why Linda Daschle at FAA didn't fix it. They wanted to know, of all asurdities, why John Kerry didn't fix it.:wtf:

In light of the August 6th PDB:
<snip>
We have not been able to corroborate some of the more sensational threat reporting, such as that from a ---- service in 1998 saying that Bin Laden wanted to hijack a U.S. aircraft to gain the release of "Blind Sheikh" Omar Abdel Rahman and other U.S.-held extremists.
Nevertheless, FBI information since that time indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York

...I want to know why friggin' bush* didn't fix it! :grr:

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Columbia

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Apr-13-04 05:28 PM
Response to Original message

1. There was no prohibition against

Knives or box-cutters back then.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Career Prole

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Apr-13-04 05:36 PM
Response to Reply #1

3. Why does it seem common sense to me

that box-cutters and knives should have been prohibited from passenger cabins long ago given these can be considered weapons and given no one stocks shelves or whittles while flying?

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Columbia

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Apr-13-04 05:43 PM
Response to Reply #3

5. You can use anything as a weapon

A pointy stick is just as if not more effective than a box-cutter. Even if they prohibited those too, hands and feet are also excellent weapons. I have no doubt that the 9/11 hijackers could have improvised an attack even without box-cutters back then.

It's more of an attitude thing now, no one is going to let hijackers take over a plane no matter what weapon they have.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Career Prole

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Apr-13-04 05:57 PM
Response to Reply #5

8. I ate a Big Mac at the San Ysidro McDonald's the day before

the massacre. The thought kept running through my head the next day...how could they just sit there and wait for him to aim at them? They must have been awfully intimidated by the weapon.
I don't think anyone could command enough fear with a pointy stick or bare hands to paralyze a cabin full of people into inaction.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Columbia

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Apr-13-04 06:03 PM
Response to Reply #8

9. Did they know they were going to be flown into buildings?

Edited on Tue Apr-13-04 06:04 PM by Columbia

Hijackings in those days rarely resulted in deaths. The standard procedure for hostages is to comply with their demands and wait for authorities to do the negotiating. Only until people told the passengers on Flight 93 about what happened to the other planes did they attempt to retake the aircraft. And the only reason they were able to find that information was because Flight 93 took off late.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Career Prole

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Apr-13-04 06:18 PM
Response to Reply #9

11. Once they started killing people up front it was a tip-off

that it wasn't the run-of-the-mill hijacking, if there is such a thing. Once the flight crew's dead the passengers are pretty much screwed, but it's a lot harder to kill a flight crew when you can't slash their throats. The box-cutters should have been in the cargo hold, and not in anyone's pocket. It's not much to ask, it's no inconvenience, and it might have worked.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Columbia

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Apr-13-04 06:27 PM
Response to Reply #11

12. I doubt it

But if it makes you feel better, you can believe that.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Career Prole

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Apr-13-04 06:33 PM
Response to Reply #12

13. Thanks...appreciate it. n/t

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

stopthegop

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Apr-13-04 05:28 PM
Response to Original message

2. because the Dems would have screamed...along with

everyone else...face it...people complain about searches now...before 9-11 it would have been politically impossible...an inconvenient (yet true) fact...

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Career Prole

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Apr-13-04 05:37 PM
Response to Reply #2

4. Wouldn't take a cavity search to spot an edged weapon.

A simple walk-through metal detector would do.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

DoYouEverWonder

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Apr-13-04 05:44 PM
Response to Original message

6. On August 28th, 2001security wasn't just lax, there wasn't any

On August 28th, 2001 at LaGuardia Airport, in NYC, I was able to board a plane without a ticket.

Not only did no one check my ticket or boarding pass, they let everyone else on the plane without checking any of them in either.

When I asked the woman at the gate, didn't she want to see my ticket, she told me, they were in a hurry to turn the plane, just get on.

This was the level of security two weeks before 9-11. In other words, there was no security.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Snow

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Apr-13-04 05:44 PM
Response to Original message

7. What would've stopped the highjackers?

More to the point, why would we put security in place now to stop something that already happened. Because it'll happen again in the same way? The whole airport security thing is useless, wasteful, ineffectual bombast. The whole and entire point of all of it is to make people feel something's being done. Okay, there might be more to it than that, but it's certainly not about stopping 9/11 type highjackers, assuming such persons actually existed.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Career Prole

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Apr-13-04 06:10 PM
Response to Reply #7

10. When I was younger the standard hijacking consisted of

the threat of a weapon, and a "Take this plane to Cuba!" or words to that effect. No one got hurt, just inconvenienced...but even then the FAA should have stopped allowing weapons on board. I'm sorry, but I can't get past the plain sense of it. Without a weapon the hijacking plan faces serious difficulties.
"Take this plane to Cuba!"
"Why?"
"Um...because I said so?"

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

DU AdBot (1000+ posts)

Wed May 01st 2024, 01:23 PM
Response to Original message

Advertisements [?]

Top

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.