It was really close...

I don't have a problem with an ADIZ. The problem I have is that
airliners which can carry more explosives than a Ryder truck are
allowed to fly in it, but GA planes are not.

Commercial air carriers have tightened their security to the point
where (I suspect) it would be impossible for a 9/11-style attack to
succeed again using commercial airliners as weapons.

Not to mention the fact that the passengers would immediately and
violently resist, as opposed to the pre-9/11 hands-in-your-lap approach
to a hijacking.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Jay Honeck wrote:
I don't have a problem with an ADIZ. The problem I have is that
airliners which can carry more explosives than a Ryder truck are
allowed to fly in it, but GA planes are not.

Commercial air carriers have tightened their security to the point
where (I suspect) it would be impossible for a 9/11-style attack to
succeed again using commercial airliners as weapons.

Not to mention the fact that the passengers would immediately and
violently resist, as opposed to the pre-9/11 hands-in-your-lap
approach
to a hijacking.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"


All they have to do is get a pilot trained and working for an airliner!
Sounds silly but they are just that patient! As for as the
passengers, they won't know a thing till they see the Washington
monument go by the wing, then it will be too late!

On 16 May 2005 13:40:21 -0700, Sport Pilot wrote:

All they have to do is get a pilot trained and working for an airliner!

heck. they have the money for their own airline.
operate some years .. build up trust. then, one day there will be some
jumbos heading to their targets on the same time ... this isn't really a
big deal. maybe they already operate their airline.

and it would be an even better idea to attack littletown in nowhere, too.
because then _nobody_ will feel safe any longer at any place. shock and
awe, you know.

#m

--
http://www.hotze.priv.at/album/aviation/caution.jpg

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
oups.com...

I don't have a problem with an ADIZ. The problem I have is that
airliners which can carry more explosives than a Ryder truck are
allowed to fly in it, but GA planes are not.

Commercial air carriers have tightened their security to the point
where (I suspect) it would be impossible for a 9/11-style attack to
succeed again using commercial airliners as weapons.

Come on Jay, you can't really believe that. There are so many holes in the
window dressing security you can drive a Ryder through them.

What are you smoking?

The ramp people working for these "secure" airlines have again and again
shown to be the weak link. The TSA/FAA/et.al. haven't shown that hi-jackings
aren't still possible, only tougher to accomplish.

There is no real security on these big airliners.


"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
oups.com...

I don't have a problem with an ADIZ. The problem I have is that
airliners which can carry more explosives than a Ryder truck are
allowed to fly in it, but GA planes are not.

Commercial air carriers have tightened their security to the point
where (I suspect) it would be impossible for a 9/11-style attack to
succeed again using commercial airliners as weapons.

Not to mention the fact that the passengers would immediately and
violently resist, as opposed to the pre-9/11 hands-in-your-lap approach
to a hijacking.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Jay,

Commercial air carriers have tightened their security to the point
where (I suspect) it would be impossible for a 9/11-style attack to
succeed again using commercial airliners as weapons.

Not to mention the fact that the passengers would immediately and
violently resist, as opposed to the pre-9/11 hands-in-your-lap approach
to a hijacking.


Sorry, but me thinks you live in a dream world. The "security" is window
dressing, nothing else. It looks good to voters. That's it.

When have you last flown commercially?

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

"Thomas Borchert" wrote in message ...

Sorry, but me thinks you live in a dream world. The "security" is window
dressing, nothing else. It looks good to voters. That's it.

When have you last flown commercially?

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)


We all need to get the word out to the voters that this IS window dressing and nothing more. The threat is from the
person, not the aircraft or the box cutter. Good police work is the key here, not mass searches and detainments. We need
to know who the bad guys are; they definitely are not us!

On 16 May 2005 13:34:12 -0700, "Jay Honeck"
wrote:


I don't have a problem with an ADIZ. The problem I have is that
airliners which can carry more explosives than a Ryder truck are
allowed to fly in it, but GA planes are not.

They have made it inconvenient enough I refuse to fly commercial.

The they implement a security system bass ackwards.
They have a watch list.
They wait for someone on the watch list to try to board a plane.
If the terrorist doesn't get on a plane the list does nothing.
If the terrorist strikes a non aviation target the list doesn't work.

Were it me (and I'm already paying for it) why not investigate the
people on the list? Clear the ones proven not to be a threat and go
after the ones who are. I'd like to get something for my money.

If you read the security journals you see how many things we have
implemented from over reaction. Things where the investment far
outweighs the return.

Here are a couple of links related to security, national id cards
better know as the uniform drivers license act, and secure flight.
:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:h.r.00418:
http://www.schneier.com/crypto-gram-0502.html#1
http://www.schneier.com/crypto-gram-0410.html#3

This guy puts out a pretty good news letter.

It's a *lot* of reading, but for those interested in security on
multiple levels it should prove interesting.


Commercial air carriers have tightened their security to the point
where (I suspect) it would be impossible for a 9/11-style attack to
succeed again using commercial airliners as weapons.


There are those who would share a difference of opinion here. Yes, it
would be more difficult.

Not to mention the fact that the passengers would immediately and
violently resist, as opposed to the pre-9/11 hands-in-your-lap approach
to a hijacking.

I think you give the average citizen far, far to much credit.

It takes some one with a fair amount of aggression, or some one really
scared to fight. Now, on a good sized airliner I would assume there
would be enough of such individuals to take down one, maybe two
individuals even if they are armed with something sharp.

One thing most people don't realize is when faced with a fight for
your life (guns fight, knife fight, some one trying to hijack the
plane you are on.. just pick a situation), your fine motor skills
desert you like rats leaving a sinking ship. Not realizing what is
happening many people just cease to function at that point. It's not
really by choice either. For a person who has never experienced it
the first time is much like being in one of those dreams where trying
to catch some one or something, or running from some one or some thing
and every thing seems to be in slow motion along with a feeling of
futility. Not that things happen in slow motion, but it's about the
best analogy I can think of at 3:00 AM.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com