American and United Airlines and others sued alleging their negligence allowed the deadly hijackings

"Michael" wrote:
I find it highly
unlikely that widespread terrorist attacks against chemical plants are
in the cards. The operators of these plant are already taking most
reasonable measures to prevent accidents, and that includes adequate
security to keep people who don't belong out of the plants. The
larger and more hazardous the plants, the greater the care taken.

Man, you and I hve *definitely* been frequenting different chemical
plants. Two of our industrial customers keep scads of truly nasty
chemicals on their sites. Their security consists of rent-a-cops
checking id's, handing out passes and raising gates you could knock down
with a Honda Civic. A terrorist driving a bomb truck could roar through
the gates of one of these places and detonate it next to a tank of
enough evil stuff to create another Bhopal in south Alabama. I'll bet
many more such circumstances exist along the Houston ship channel. Why
Al Qaeda hasn't taken advantage of this is a mystery to me, but then why
they haven't attempted any attack at all in three years is mysterious.

Security at a chemical plant is NOT a joke - it's serious. Getting in
without proper identification and a reason for being there most likely
won't happen, and you won't be bringing much of anything with you.

That's assuming you're polite enough to stop and get your cute badge and
wait for your escort, not just bust in driving a 2 1/2 ton truck full of
a fertilizer bomb. At a plant in Mississippi which I shall not name,
there is a narrow maze of concrete barriers at each entrance road,
built, one assumes, on the theory that terrorists would never simply
break through the adjacent chain link fences and drive in off-road.

The driving force is risk management - insurance. Some plants carry
insurance, others (generally owned by the very largest conglomerates)
are self-insured, but in either case there are professional risk
managers reviewing the operation, including security, with an eye
towards reducing the probability of an accident.

They're worried about their employees screwing up or a visitor wandering
around and getting hurt. They know they have no hope of stopping a
determined terrorist attack without turning their plants into nuke
plant-like fortresses, which I've seen no sign they are willing to do.

--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

On Mon, 13 Sep 2004 19:52:40 -0500, "Dan Luke"
wrote:

I'm assuming that Michael been having a bad week. He's been bickering
with Honeck about how a nice paint job means that an airplane is a
piece of crap, now it appears that he feels that there is some merit
in the suit discussed in this thread.

It's his opinion, and he is entitled to it.

My opinion is slightly different.

Despite what any practicing attorney will tell you, suits of this type
serve one basic purpose-they generate income for attorneys. If you
(collective you, nothing personal) think ANY "legal team" gives a
flying pock about anyone's pain-and-suffering, there is a fundamental
difference in our opinions that will never be bridged.

I've been hanging around airports most of my life. It sounds like you
(personal you this time) have been around a couple chemical plants.

If we could be somehow transformed into the mindset that the 9-11
terrorists were in, I doubt if any private company or government
agency could stop us from causing chaos, terror, and death.

Israel has been trying to do so for years. I'm sure they've had some
successes, but reading the newspaper, it seems like they've had some
failures also.

I'm curious-in Israel, if a bus gets blown up by a suicide bomber,
does the bus line and the manufacturer of the bus get sued?

Anyone, I repeat anyone, who thinks that "liability" in the 9-11
scenario can be placed on anyone except the poor misguided sick and
twisted motherpockers that convinced themselves that they were doing
"the right thing", is someone that I will always have a fundamental
disagreement with.

It doesn't mean I'm "wrong", nor that they are "wrong".

Just means that I've been having a bad week too.

Regards;

TC

snip

Man, you and I hve *definitely* been frequenting different chemical
plants. Two of our industrial customers keep scads of truly nasty
chemicals on their sites. Their security consists of rent-a-cops
checking id's, handing out passes and raising gates you could knock down
with a Honda Civic. A terrorist driving a bomb truck could roar through
the gates of one of these places and detonate it next to a tank of
enough evil stuff to create another Bhopal in south Alabama. I'll bet
many more such circumstances exist along the Houston ship channel. Why
Al Qaeda hasn't taken advantage of this is a mystery to me, but then why
they haven't attempted any attack at all in three years is mysterious.

snip

We must be sharing the same week -- your comments all makes sense to me too.

--
Jim Carter
wrote in message
...
On Mon, 13 Sep 2004 19:52:40 -0500, "Dan Luke"
wrote:

I'm assuming that Michael been having a bad week. He's been bickering
with Honeck about how a nice paint job means that an airplane is a
piece of crap, now it appears that he feels that there is some merit
in the suit discussed in this thread.

It's his opinion, and he is entitled to it.

My opinion is slightly different.

Despite what any practicing attorney will tell you, suits of this type
serve one basic purpose-they generate income for attorneys. If you
(collective you, nothing personal) think ANY "legal team" gives a
flying pock about anyone's pain-and-suffering, there is a fundamental
difference in our opinions that will never be bridged.

I've been hanging around airports most of my life. It sounds like you
(personal you this time) have been around a couple chemical plants.

If we could be somehow transformed into the mindset that the 9-11
terrorists were in, I doubt if any private company or government
agency could stop us from causing chaos, terror, and death.

Israel has been trying to do so for years. I'm sure they've had some
successes, but reading the newspaper, it seems like they've had some
failures also.

I'm curious-in Israel, if a bus gets blown up by a suicide bomber,
does the bus line and the manufacturer of the bus get sued?

Anyone, I repeat anyone, who thinks that "liability" in the 9-11
scenario can be placed on anyone except the poor misguided sick and
twisted motherpockers that convinced themselves that they were doing
"the right thing", is someone that I will always have a fundamental
disagreement with.

It doesn't mean I'm "wrong", nor that they are "wrong".

Just means that I've been having a bad week too.

Regards;

TC

snip

Man, you and I hve *definitely* been frequenting different chemical
plants. Two of our industrial customers keep scads of truly nasty
chemicals on their sites. Their security consists of rent-a-cops
checking id's, handing out passes and raising gates you could knock down
with a Honda Civic. A terrorist driving a bomb truck could roar through
the gates of one of these places and detonate it next to a tank of
enough evil stuff to create another Bhopal in south Alabama. I'll bet
many more such circumstances exist along the Houston ship channel. Why
Al Qaeda hasn't taken advantage of this is a mystery to me, but then why
they haven't attempted any attack at all in three years is mysterious.

snip

wrote:

Anyone, I repeat anyone, who thinks that "liability" in the 9-11
scenario can be placed on anyone except the poor misguided sick and
twisted motherpockers that convinced themselves that they were doing
"the right thing", is someone that I will always have a fundamental
disagreement with.

Makes sense to me.

George Patterson
If a man gets into a fight 3,000 miles away from home, he *had* to have
been looking for it.

"Dan Luke" wrote taken.
Man, you and I hve *definitely* been frequenting different chemical
plants.

Quite possible. I've mostly dealt with major plants operated by the
major refiners.

A terrorist driving a bomb truck could roar through
the gates of one of these places and detonate it next to a tank of
enough evil stuff to create another Bhopal in south Alabama.

The only question is - how many people live there? Is that Bhopal
going to claim thousands (the way the real Bhopal did)?

If that's the case, then I see a lawsuit in their future as well.

Security at a chemical plant is NOT a joke - it's serious. Getting in
without proper identification and a reason for being there most likely
won't happen, and you won't be bringing much of anything with you.

That's assuming you're polite enough to stop and get your cute badge and
wait for your escort, not just bust in driving a 2 1/2 ton truck full of
a fertilizer bomb. At a plant in Mississippi which I shall not name,
there is a narrow maze of concrete barriers at each entrance road,
built, one assumes, on the theory that terrorists would never simply
break through the adjacent chain link fences and drive in off-road.

Also assuming, of course, that the truck won't get stuck in the bog
that is 'off-road' in Mississippi. I've been to more than a couple of
chemical plants in Mississippi (including the hell that is
Chevron-Pascagoula) and I must say that off-roading in a truck full of
explosives would not be practical anywhere I've been. That's the norm
all along the Gulf Coast.

The driving force is risk management - insurance. Some plants carry
insurance, others (generally owned by the very largest conglomerates)
are self-insured, but in either case there are professional risk
managers reviewing the operation, including security, with an eye
towards reducing the probability of an accident.

They're worried about their employees screwing up or a visitor wandering
around and getting hurt.

Actually, they're more worried about the surrounding population.

They know they have no hope of stopping a
determined terrorist attack without turning their plants into nuke
plant-like fortresses, which I've seen no sign they are willing to do.

Well, I've visited a couple of nuke plants. Yes, I must say their
security is better. I expect that this will become the norm for the
real dangerous chemical plants located in populated areas.

Michael

"Michael" wrote in message
om...
"Dan Luke" wrote taken.
Man, you and I hve *definitely* been frequenting different chemical
plants.

Quite possible. I've mostly dealt with major plants operated by the
major refiners.

I ain't naming names! Anyway, there are enough low rent, half assed plants
around to make the U.S. a target rich environment.

A terrorist driving a bomb truck could roar through
the gates of one of these places and detonate it next to a tank of
enough evil stuff to create another Bhopal in south Alabama.

The only question is - how many people live there? Is that Bhopal
going to claim thousands (the way the real Bhopal did)?

If that's the case, then I see a lawsuit in their future as well.

That's what bankruptcy and reorganization are for - just ask Monsanto.

Security at a chemical plant is NOT a joke - it's serious. Getting in
without proper identification and a reason for being there most likely
won't happen, and you won't be bringing much of anything with you.

That's assuming you're polite enough to stop and get your cute badge and
wait for your escort, not just bust in driving a 2 1/2 ton truck full of
a fertilizer bomb. At a plant in Mississippi which I shall not name,
there is a narrow maze of concrete barriers at each entrance road,
built, one assumes, on the theory that terrorists would never simply
break through the adjacent chain link fences and drive in off-road.

Also assuming, of course, that the truck won't get stuck in the bog
that is 'off-road' in Mississippi

Depends on how the weather's been lately.

I've been to more than a couple of
chemical plants in Mississippi (including the hell that is
Chevron-Pascagoula)

Now, that's a hell of a coincidence, but I said I wasn't naming names...

and I must say that off-roading in a truck full of
explosives would not be practical anywhere I've been. That's the norm
all along the Gulf Coast.

A little careful reconnoitering is all it would take, with maybe a sapper
squad to blow the fence.

The driving force is risk management - insurance. Some plants carry
insurance, others (generally owned by the very largest conglomerates)
are self-insured, but in either case there are professional risk
managers reviewing the operation, including security, with an eye
towards reducing the probability of an accident.

They're worried about their employees screwing up or a visitor wandering
around and getting hurt.

Actually, they're more worried about the surrounding population.

That's the "employees screwing up" part. It's something they're pretty good
at controlling.

They know they have no hope of stopping a
determined terrorist attack without turning their plants into nuke
plant-like fortresses, which I've seen no sign they are willing to do.

Well, I've visited a couple of nuke plants. Yes, I must say their
security is better. I expect that this will become the norm for the
real dangerous chemical plants located in populated areas.

I guess I hope so, but at what cost? Sounds like another good reason to move
plants and jobs overseas.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

"Dan Luke" wrote
Quite possible. I've mostly dealt with major plants operated by the
major refiners.

I ain't naming names! Anyway, there are enough low rent, half assed plants
around to make the U.S. a target rich environment.

And after the first of them becomes a target, the insurers will clean
house. At least assuming the lawsuit happens, and we don't have
people arguing that half-ass security is reasonable and should not
imply liability.

If that's the case, then I see a lawsuit in their future as well.

That's what bankruptcy and reorganization are for - just ask Monsanto.

And that's a problem. But that's a problem of not enough liability
rather than too much.

I've been to more than a couple of
chemical plants in Mississippi (including the hell that is
Chevron-Pascagoula)

Now, that's a hell of a coincidence, but I said I wasn't naming names...

No, it's not. We work in an incestuous little industry. Everyone
winds up spending time at Chevron-Pascagoula eventually.

and I must say that off-roading in a truck full of
explosives would not be practical anywhere I've been. That's the norm
all along the Gulf Coast.

A little careful reconnoitering is all it would take, with maybe a sapper
squad to blow the fence.

Reconnoisance teams? Sapper squads? Come on - now we're in the range
of a military operation, not a few guys with boxcutters. It's not
reasonable for a civilian installation to be hardened like a military
target. But if it falls to a handful of guys with hand tools, we have
a problem.

Well, I've visited a couple of nuke plants. Yes, I must say their
security is better. I expect that this will become the norm for the
real dangerous chemical plants located in populated areas.

I guess I hope so, but at what cost? Sounds like another good reason to move
plants and jobs overseas.

Like they need another reason? If you have a system where capital is
free to move anywhere but labor is stopped at the border, you are
guaranteeing an inequitable system. Foreign trade and foreign
investment are not the same thing.

Michael