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

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

(Michael) wrote in
om:

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?

It killed 6 people and wounded just over 1000. It also was documented that
the goal of the bombers was to topple the towers. So in other words, the
insurance companies even had warning of the intent of an enemy to destroy
the buildings. And yet they still failed to verify the structural integrity
and capacity of the building. After all, if the airlines were supposed to
have been able to predict the 9/11 attacks, why shouldn't the insurance
companies have been able to as well?


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?

I can think of numerous ways that an equivalent or even more damage could
have been inflicted. It's irrelevant - was there a premise to assume that
an airplane would be used as a missile prior to 9/11? Notwithstanding, of
course, the expressed dreams of a pair of psychotic teenagers from
Columbine...

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?

I'm not certain. Are you?

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.

Please document a premise wherein a jet airline qualifies as a kiloton-
range cruise missile, prior to 9/11.

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.

Again, by what premise was the SOP negligent? The SOP was defined becuase
prior to 9/11, the safety of the passengers, crew, and surrounding
civilians was best kept intact by appeasing the hijackers until the plane
was on the ground. It is not negligence, it is abuse of the SOP by the
terrorists in a manner that was previously humanly inconceivable, and
reserved only for Hollywood scripts.

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.

Neither was your example of Nuclear Power Plants. But I believe my example
to be more accurately representative of your case. And it falls short.
Either the security procedures are inadequate, or your case is.

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.

I guarantee you that you have no idea what happened in the cockpit on that
day. And I guarantee you also that you have no way of knowing what the
results would have been if the pilots were armed, which, incidentally,
prior to 9/11 would have been criticized also as being "the Archie Bunker
method"...

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.

This point I agree with. But life is full of tragic, unfortunate accidents
that happen to people who did not consent to the risk. That doesn't justify
a handful of attorneys and insurance companies making boatloads of money at
the expense of people who were not responsible for the tragedy. Especially
considering the fact that the responsibility of the beneficiaries could
just as easily be represented.

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

"Judah" wrote in message
...
(Michael) wrote in
om:

Judah wrote
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?
:
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.

Please document a premise wherein a jet airline qualifies as a kiloton-
range cruise missile, prior to 9/11.

Watching a programme about the plane that hit the Pentagon, they said
that the explosion was equivalent to around 500kg of high explosive. So
about half a ton. Not really close to the "kiloton-range".

As was pointed out above, it wasn't the explosion that caused the towers
to collapse, it was the combination of the explosion/erosion of the
fire-proof material and the subsequent fire.

Paul

Judah wrote
And how much damage did that bomb do again?

It killed 6 people and wounded just over 1000.

I meant to the building. And I believe the answer is "minor damage."

Those building were tough and well-designed. They stood up to a truck
bomb that wounded hundreds just fine. A small plane crashing into
them, regardless of how it was loaded, would barely make a dent.
Nothing short of a large, heavy aircraft could possibly deliver the
payload necessary to take it down. Hell, the buildings withstood the
impact. It was the tons of combustible fuel that did them in.

The military complexes of all the advanced sector nations in the world
can't be wrong - there is no substitute for large heavy aircraft for
delivering death and destruction to a city. When you own and operate
an aircraft that carries as much and goes as fast as a heavy bomber,
you have a certain responsibility over and above the usual.

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

I can think of numerous ways that an equivalent or even more damage could
have been inflicted. It's irrelevant

Bull****. It's relevant. Name ONE that does not involve use of
military equipment.

was there a premise to assume that
an airplane would be used as a missile prior to 9/11?

There was a novel on just this.

How many people outside the WTC buildings
were killed?

I'm not certain. Are you?

A small handful - the ones who stayed to gawk, and the ones who risked
their lives rushing in to help.

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.

Neither was your example of Nuclear Power Plants. But I believe my example
to be more accurately representative of your case. And it falls short.
Either the security procedures are inadequate, or your case is.

I just told you - I concur that the security procedures are
inadequate.

I guarantee you that you have no idea what happened in the cockpit on that
day.

I guarantee that I know enough - hijackers gained access to the
cockpit. Should never have happened.

And I guarantee you also that you have no way of knowing what the
results would have been if the pilots were armed

No, I don't. Armed people have been overpowered before. But the
question is - do you have a better chance of defending yourself with a
gun or without? I suppose being a Texan, I consider the question
rhetorical.

which, incidentally,
prior to 9/11 would have been criticized also as being "the Archie Bunker
method"...

And as I've told you before, I'm not opposed to it in principle.

Michael

(Michael) wrote in
om:

snip
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.
snip

I've flown El Al. The terrorists only steer clear of El Al flights because
the Flight Attendants are so rude...