news media attacking GA again

[goaliemn]

A 135 op is inherently more secure than GA. The majority of passengers flying charter are either known to the pilot or to a "lead" passenger. This fact simply makes it more secure than some random GA pilot who has a death wish or the airlines where any crazed terrorist may be lurking.

I don't know if I'd say 135 is more secure than GA. I can tell you, every time I've taken off with a passenger, I've known the person. Using a "135 is inherently more secure" because the passengers are known to the pilot or a passenger works for little planes as well.

 

[avbug]

The measures you propose could by no means produce an impenetrable blanket of security.

Nor did I ever remotely suggest such a thing, in any way, shape, or form. I stated exactly the contrary; anything is a step in the right direction, and there are literally thousands of ways that security can be improved...presently there is none.

(By the way, I think it's quite remarkable that you even predicted the aircraft TYPE for 9/11.)

I didn't "predict" jack. It was inevitable. If I were a terrorist, I would have used an aircraft such as a 757 or 767 to strike one of the most obvious and distinctive targets I could. The WTC was it. Then again, so was the Pentagon. That's not a prediction; it was an obvious choice, and it was all but inevitable.

I'll go you one further. Frequently when flying, or jumpseating, I carried five blades or more with me, all legal to pass through security. A small folder, a leatherman, a swiss army knife, and the ever present spyderco cricket. (which TSA ironically confiscated, last year). I frequently questioned the efficacy of allowing blades through security.

I was always told that nobody could do damage with a short blade. What a silly notion, I was told. I noted that a pencil will do the same damage as a handgun if you know how to use it. My assertion was then, and was borne true, that short blades make ideal weapons in a rapid tactical takedown...and they do.

I've said it since. You're probably one of the brightsparks that feels a takedown can't happen today, because the passengers will heroically rise up and defend, that doors are inpenetrable. What a stupid, naive notion, but a commonly held one all the same. A ribbon charge stored in a shoe will surgically remove the door, neater than cheese. One or two others using the fatal funnel concept can hold the aircraft while the door is being blown...the design of the interior of all airplanes makes this possible. And blades still work wonders...cut the first few wide, and the others slip in the blood, recoil at the sight, and the bodies pile in the funnel to form a defensive barrier.

I said that blades were a threat before, and they are now. Metal doesn't pass security well, but carbon fiber does. A credit card will work, too. The threat is still there. That's no prediction. That's stating the obvious. I didn't predict 09/11. It was **CENSORED****CENSORED****CENSORED****CENSORED**ed obvious. If it wasn't obvious to you, it's not lack of predictability; it's naivete and blindness.

Then again, six months before we ever thought of 09/11 and Afghanistan, I could clearly see that we were preparing for war there. And I said as much. When we began to villify the Taliban and begin to work the public up against the Afghanis in the media in the months preceeding 09/11, it was obvious. Only because we set it up...but it was obvious that the public was being primed for it. A blind man could see that.

OH, and after we ground the GA fleet, we should go after the REAL threat - - Experimentals ! !

Probably goes without saying, but experiemental aircraft are part of general avaition.

The terrorists have already beaten some of us.

Speak for yourself.

 

[PsubS]

Oh, please...

Then again, six months before we ever thought of 09/11 and Afghanistan, I could clearly see that we were preparing for war there. And I said as much. When we began to villify the Taliban and begin to work the public up against the Afghanis in the media in the months preceeding 09/11, it was obvious. Only because we set it up...but it was obvious that the public was being primed for it. A blind man could see that.

BULL **CENSORED****CENSORED****CENSORED****CENSORED**, Avbug.

Show me a link to your post from before 9-11 indicating we were preparing to attack Afghanistan.

"Only because we set it up." Uh, what do you mean? We set up the Afghanis, or set up 9-11? Both concepts are equally ludicrous.

Knowledgeable about aviation you are.

Sanctimonious and condescending as well..did you forget how to act humble and forgiving during your "four years of seminary" that you say you did?

Off topic, yes, but I had to rebut your obvious hot air expulsion.

I must, at least, acknowledge a couple of things.

Yes, our aviation security system is far from complete. Are we safer? A little bit. No, we are not immune from another attack. In that much we agree.

But not much more.

 

[Jedi_Cheese]

avbug
Then again, six months before we ever thought of 09/11 and Afghanistan, I could clearly see that we were preparing for war there. And I said as much. When we began to villify the Taliban and begin to work the public up against the Afghanis in the media in the months preceeding 09/11, it was obvious. Only because we set it up...but it was obvious that the public was being primed for it. A blind man could see that.

Are you suggesting that the US goverment set up 9/11?

avbug
I was always told that nobody could do damage with a short blade. What a silly notion, I was told. I noted that a pencil will do the same damage as a handgun if you know how to use it. My assertion was then, and was borne true, that short blades make ideal weapons in a rapid tactical takedown...and they do.

I've said it since. You're probably one of the brightsparks that feels a takedown can't happen today, because the passengers will heroically rise up and defend, that doors are inpenetrable. What a stupid, naive notion, but a commonly held one all the same. A ribbon charge stored in a shoe will surgically remove the door, neater than cheese. One or two others using the fatal funnel concept can hold the aircraft while the door is being blown...the design of the interior of all airplanes makes this possible. And blades still work wonders...cut the first few wide, and the others slip in the blood, recoil at the sight, and the bodies pile in the funnel to form a defensive barrier.

I said that blades were a threat before, and they are now. Metal doesn't pass security well, but carbon fiber does. A credit card will work, too. The threat is still there. That's no prediction. That's stating the obvious. I didn't predict 09/11. It was **CENSORED****CENSORED****CENSORED****CENSORED**ed
obvious. If it wasn't obvious to you, it's not lack of predictability; it's naivete and blindness

First, any fixed defense can be defeated. Thinking that the doors will do anything except slow down hijackers is wishful thinking. This doesn't mean that they aren't a form of protection.

But, any defence by the terrorists is doomed to failure. The reason is because they won't have the weapons to overcome the superior numbers that the passengers can assemble. Remember, the passengers are going to overrun the defences with wave attacks. People only fall down and die when stabbed in the movies.

I have seen a mob attack a chain link fence that was buried 3 ft into concrete and overrun it like it was a piece of paper. The people in front were crushed but the concept still applies, the passengers can take deaths at 5:1 or greater and still win.

This is in addition that every second that the pilots can stall the terrorists is another one that the passengers can counterattack. Plus, if the terrorists are attacking the pilots, they still have to fight the passengers and thus have to split their forces. Any hijacking will be over in under 5 minutes and the outcome will be decided within the first minute.

 

[TonyC]

Originally posted by avbug 04-28-2004 19:25CDT

Originally posted by TonyC
(By the way, I think it's quite remarkable that you even predicted the aircraft TYPE for 9/11.)

I didn't "predict" jack. It was inevitable. If I were a terrorist, I would have used an aircraft such as a 757 or 767 to strike one of the most obvious and distinctive targets I could. The WTC was it. Then again, so was the Pentagon. That's not a prediction; it was an obvious choice, and it was all but inevitable.

Originally posted by avbug 04-25-2004 19:06CDT
Then again, so many said the same when I expressed my belief that eventually a 757 would be used to strike the WTC.

Wiggle between "expressed my belief that" and "predicted" if you like, but you'll only make yourself look silly.

Originally posted by avbug
Frequently when flying, or jumpseating, I carried five blades or more with me, ... I frequently questioned the efficacy of allowing blades through security.

If you used the word efficacy like you used it just now, you made yourself look silly then, too. Efficacy means "the power to produce an effect." Now, you might have thought to yourself, I really sound smart using fancy words. But in reality, you just made yourself look like a - - what's that word you use?? - - brightspark - - for using a word for which you didn't know the meaning. (HINT: Try "wisdom" next time. )

Originally posted by avbug
You're probably one of the brightsparks that feels a takedown can't happen today, because the passengers will heroically rise up and defend, that doors are inpenetrable. What a stupid, naive notion, but a commonly held one all the same.

See, there's that brightspark again. I feel better knowing I'm just "probably" one, though. Actually, I don't think that at all. In fact, I would be silly to rely on passengers - - since I carry none - - and I think the door is a farce. I would prefer that people NOT be lulled into a FALSE SENSE OF SECURITY that any of the measures now in place, or any measure we could possibly conceive, can make us absolutely secure. The more secure these false measures make us feel, the less vigilant we will become. And the only defense we can absolutely rely on is vigilance.

That's why I'm opposed to any across-the-board restrictions that would unnecessarily encumber general aviation while not adding a scintilla of actual protection. Make it more cumbersome, and many people will think we're safer, and they'll let down their guards.

Originally posted by avbug

The terrorists have already beaten some of us.

Speak for yourself.

If you don't mind, please don't mix my quotes with the quotes of others (this one wasn't mine). Not that I necessarily disagree with this one, but there's a principle involved. Thanks.

 

[TonyC]

Was it something I said?

Sorry, didn't mean to render everyone speechless.