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

Michelle P wrote in message k.net...
What a crock of SH**! The airlines are not responsible for security, the
US Government is, Sue them. The airlines have never made the rules
either. Blame the government.
Michelle

I agree with you but technically in pre-9/11 days, the airlines were
in charge of security. The airport screeners, etc were contracted by
the airlines. The Feds had little say in airport security before 9/11.

-Robert

"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

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

"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