Judah wrote
Basically, a building that was built only 30 years ago was being insured,
but the insurance company felt no need to investigate the structural
integrity of the building. Even after a bomb was exploded in the building,
the insurance company felt no need to investigate the possibility that a
fire on an upper floor would cause the entire building to collapse.

And how much damage did that bomb do again?

The planes that were used on 9/11 were vehicles of destruction, no doubt.
But they did not cause the building to collapse. They just started the fire
that did.

Was there a way to cause the fire without using large airplanes to
deliver thousands of pounds of combustible fuel to the top stories?

Nuclear plants are designed to withstand the impact of an airliner
precisely because breaching the containment vessel endangers lots of
people outside the plant. How many people outside the WTC buildings
were killed?

By your own analogy, just as the operators of Nuclear Power
Plants should be responsible for the security of their own buildings and
equipment, so should the operators of the World Trade Center have had
responsibility to ensure its security and safety.

Yes - with respect to innocent bystanders. I'm not saying that those
passengers that died in the airplanes (or their insurers) have a
reasonable case against the airlines. They got on the planes
themselves. The people in the buildings also went into the buildings
of their own volition.

Residential and office buildings are not made tough enough to
withstand the impact of a kiloton-range cruise missile. That's simply
not reasonable. What is reasonable is that if you own a kiloton-range
cruise missile (and airliners qualify) you are responsible for keeping
it out of the hands of unauthorized people.

Had the terrorists fielded an army of thousands to storm the airport
and take the planes, I would not claim that the airlines were
negligent. Nobody can reasonably protect against that kind of threat.
Couple dozen guys with boxcutters? That's another story.

On the other hand, you make no mention of all of the other hazardous
vehicles, for example commuter trains.

You're right, I didn't mention them. It wasn't part of the
discussion. I concur that the security procedures followed by their
operators are inadequate.

I also disagree with your comments regarding airline approaches to
hijackers. They are self-contradictory. First you say that the pilot has no
business going into the back to solve problems. Then you inidicate that
security would be improved if the pilot could carry a gun. What would he do
with it if he was not allowed to leave the cockpit?

Defend the cockpit. Once again - the people I am trying to protect
are NOT the ones who boarded the plane. They accepted the risk. It's
the innocent bystanders on the ground who are deserving of protection.
If the terrorists kill the passengers on board, or even blow up the
plane, that's one thing. When those planes are used as weapons
against people on the ground, that's another matter entirely.

You claim that prohibited items are routinely carried through the security
screens, but you fail to realize that it is irrelevant because the
boxcutters that they used to take over the planes were not long enough to
be prohibited at the time. In other words, the ridiculous security systems
that have been put into place to attempt to divert the "casual" hijacker or
airplane bomber will never actually stop the organized terrorist, who will
always find a way to accomplish their goal by either bypassing or using the
system to his/her advantage.

I concur. You can't protect the plane or the passengers with anything
short of the ElAl system. That's not the point. The passengers can
decide if they are willing to pay the cost (in time and money) to fly
in the ElAl style, or if the lower cost and lower hassle is worth the
extra risk to them. But the cockpit MUST be protected, because not
protecting it puts people on the ground at risk, and they did not
consent to the risk.

Assault rifles - now THAT'S national security! I think they should allow
assault rifles on airplanes - in fact I think they should pass them out to
anyone who wants one. Imagine what kind of terrorist would get up with a
boxcutter on a plane full of well-armed civilians!

That's the Archie Bunker solution. I agree with it. Make the cockpit
door bulletproof (already done) and pass out guns to the passengers.
Works for me.

Michael