BF2S Forums Russia

Dilbert_X wrote:

MOAB wrote:

European airlines don't have armour plated doors and security guards at the cockpit.

They do keep the door locked though, and never allowed knives in the cabin.

Actually, knives were allowed prior to 9/11. I've carried one on airlines in Europe multiple times.

Dilbert_X wrote:

MOAB wrote:

doc I watched a while back said something like the WTC were designed to withstand a 707 I think it was, which was the largest aircraft at the time the towers were designed. The ones that hit the towers were bigger, heavier planes

Not much, and it was the burning fuel not the weight of impact. Who knows if a marginally smaller plane might not have blown off the inadequate fire insulation. They were 'designed' to resist the impact, but the design was inadequate, I vaguley remember something about the insulation not being the right grade or misapplied.

All of which is overlooking the fact that the building was designed back in the 60's to withstand an airliner impact. Just not under the circumstances on 9/11.

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

'The report you people keep pointing to talked about hijacking. That's it. The entire history of hijacking in the world prior to 9/11 involved demands, not guided missile-like usage.

As pointed out already, AQ had never taken hostages, issued demands, just carried out spectacular mass casualty suicide attacks - the threat of hijackings related to AQ specifically. Someone needed to join the dots. Shame there was no-one smart enough in the room.

AQ had never taken hostages and they had never hijacked an aircraft, either. Once again, you are ignoring completely the context of the time and using what happened afterward--which NO ONE knew would happen--and justifying your revisionist position with it.

Basically, you're saying that, absent any evidence of AQ doing something different, decades of experience with Islamic fundamentalist terrorists hijacking airliners should have been ignored and someone should've seen that the situation would be completely different than every single hijacking the world had seen prior to 9/11. All because people went through mountains of evidence after the fact, knowing exactly what to look for and spotted signs that should have led one to know what would happen had one known exactly what would happen.

Your argument is a self-licking ice cream cone.

Dilbert_X wrote:

And it was known well prior that terrorists were considering using aircraft as missiles.

Only not so much. Certainly not prior to 9/11. Maybe after knowing exactly what they did and reviewing the evidence from that perspective. Which is a pointless argument about prevention of 9/11, but is critical in trying to prevent another one.

Dilbert_X wrote:

I'm not saying the WTC was designed to take a direct hit from an airliner as a suicide attack, just that using aircraft as missiles was a known threat.

See above. That was not a "known threat".

Dilbert_X wrote:

Its not much to do with us Europeans if aircraft boarded at foregin airports were hijacked.
All the internal European flights I'd been on prohibited knives, US internal flights didn't even check ID.

And all the internal European flights I was on prior to 9/11 only prohibited knives of a certain length...just like in the US.

I've never...NEVER...been on an internal US flight that "didn't even check ID". Making shit up doesn't help your argument one bit.

Dilbert_X wrote:

While the 9/11 hijacks were under way aircraft were instructed to lock the cockpit doors, if that had been SOP maybe 9/11 would not have happened.

The SOP prior to 9/11 was protection of the passengers. The SOP prior to 9/11 was to basically give the hijackers what they wanted in the air and let the situation get resolved on the ground.

The international SOP, that is.

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

I guess it's a good thing you're not in a decision-making position on national security threats...

If I were I reckon 9/11 would have been averted or mitigated, you idiots wouldn't STILL be bogged down in Afghanistan and wouldn't have gone into Iraq at all.
You'd be trillions of dollars richer and not trying to rebuild your army.

Of course, if the government had the 9/11 Commission Report in their hands prior to 9/11, they could have prevented it too. That's basically what you're claiming.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Lewl

yep.  you're a fake.  you act like you know what you are talking about, yet really dont.  i always knew it, but sadly people on this forum defend you and believe you.  you have just proved that you dont know anything that you cant cut and paste from the internet.

You've made it clear you're not willing to listen or even entertain opposing views, despite facts supporting those views.

Just saying you will doesn't mean shit. You have to actually DO it.

Braddock wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Braddock wrote:

It is a very weak argument FEOS is putting forward on this particular aspect of the argument to be honest. Implementing a new zero-tolerance policy on dangerous implements, incendiary devices and liquids doesn't require a big fat cheque, it just requires certain people to pay more attention to their work, If I had a report on my desk telling me domestic airliners were at risk then implementing these measures would have been the least I could have done and I wouldn't have needed a major attack to make me do it.

On a side note, I used to work for a security company affiliated with the people in charge of many US airport's security and supposedly they had been continually asking for security to be tightened on domestic flights, stating that the situation as it was was far too open to serious attack. We used to have a newspaper clipping relating to the story up in the office.

How many reports do you think they get saying domestic airliners are at risk for hijacking? What was the predominant nature of hijacking prior to 9/11?

You people with your 20/20 hindsight are incredible. You take something that provides nothing actionable, then filter it through what has been learned since then...completely ignoring the state of things at the time and all the trend data associated with it at the time.

So, if you completely ignore the reality of the context of the report and resultant decision, then assume they should've known something that had never happened would happen in a way that was totally inconsistent with all experience prior to that....well, gee I guess you're right.

The worst part is you don't even realize what you're doing and think it's a valid argument.

You guys should just stop wasting money on intelligence reports if you're just going to ignore them. What an utter fucking waste of time, effort and money... and life.

Eh? Exactly what was ignored?

But then again, according to several here, we should be ignoring all intelligence reports because they are never right...except when it suits their argument, of course.

USM wrote:

yep.  you're a fake.  you act like you know what you are talking about, yet really dont.  i always knew it, but sadly people on this forum defend you and believe you.  you have just proved that you dont know anything that you cant cut and paste from the internet.

Epic lulz

FEOS wrote:

Braddock wrote:

FEOS wrote:

How many reports do you think they get saying domestic airliners are at risk for hijacking? What was the predominant nature of hijacking prior to 9/11?

You people with your 20/20 hindsight are incredible. You take something that provides nothing actionable, then filter it through what has been learned since then...completely ignoring the state of things at the time and all the trend data associated with it at the time.

So, if you completely ignore the reality of the context of the report and resultant decision, then assume they should've known something that had never happened would happen in a way that was totally inconsistent with all experience prior to that....well, gee I guess you're right.

The worst part is you don't even realize what you're doing and think it's a valid argument.

You guys should just stop wasting money on intelligence reports if you're just going to ignore them. What an utter fucking waste of time, effort and money... and life.

Eh? Exactly what was ignored?

But then again, according to several here, we should be ignoring all intelligence reports because they are never right...except when it suits their argument, of course.

What was ignored? ...errr, the intelligence report detailing how Osama Bin Laden was "determined" to strike within America using domestic airliners, that's what. Apparently unless an intelligent report contains step by step instructions on how to act accordingly it is not worth paying heed to. You have harped on about people speaking in hindsight in this particular thread, well what about asking why your leaders had such a complete lack of foresight?

Yay here we go:

In April 2001, NORAD ran a war game in which the Pentagon was to become incapacitated; a NORAD planner proposed the simulated crash of a hijacked foreign commercial airliner into the Pentagon but the Joints Chiefs of Staff rejected that scenario as "too unrealistic"

In July 2001 at the G8 summit in Genoa, anti-aircraft missile batteries were installed following a report that terrorists would try to crash a plane to kill George Bush and other world leaders.

On the morning of September 11, 2001, the National Reconnaissance Office, who are responsible for operating U.S. reconnaissance satellites, had scheduled an exercise simulating the crashing of an aircraft into their building, four miles (6 km) from Washington Dulles International Airport.

Seems like plenty of advance knowledge which might have encouraged the 'intel' community to at least suggest locking cockpit doors?

FEOS wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Yay here we go:

In April 2001, NORAD ran a war game in which the Pentagon was to become incapacitated; a NORAD planner proposed the simulated crash of a hijacked foreign commercial airliner into the Pentagon but the Joints Chiefs of Staff rejected that scenario as "too unrealistic"

In July 2001 at the G8 summit in Genoa, anti-aircraft missile batteries were installed following a report that terrorists would try to crash a plane to kill George Bush and other world leaders.

On the morning of September 11, 2001, the National Reconnaissance Office, who are responsible for operating U.S. reconnaissance satellites, had scheduled an exercise simulating the crashing of an aircraft into their building, four miles (6 km) from Washington Dulles International Airport.

Seems like plenty of advance knowledge which might have encouraged the 'intel' community to at least suggest locking cockpit doors?

"too unrealistic". That should have ended the discussion right there.

Remind me never to appoint you head of a security department should I ever make it in politics... it wasn't too unrealistic, it was very fucking realistic as it turns out. This wasn't a plan to anticipate the attack of aliens or large sea creatures, it was a plan to anticipate airplanes being hijacked and they took their eye right off the ball. Airplanes have been getting hijacked for years and the US security services were happy to sit their complacently in some sort of false sense of invincibility allowing all and sundry to board planes with all manner of devices. 9/11 should not have been 'necessary' to get airline security up to scratch.

M.O.A.B wrote:

Braddock wrote:

FEOS wrote:

"too unrealistic". That should have ended the discussion right there.

Remind me never to appoint you head of a security department should I ever make it in politics... it wasn't too unrealistic, it was very fucking realistic as it turns out. This wasn't a plan to anticipate the attack of aliens or large sea creatures, it was a plan to anticipate airplanes being hijacked and they took their eye right off the ball. Airplanes have been getting hijacked for years and the US security services were happy to sit their complacently in some sort of false sense of invincibility allowing all and sundry to board planes with all manner of devices. 9/11 should not have been 'necessary' to get airline security up to scratch.

What about Lockerbie?

Lockerbie was another omen the US could have paid attention to pre 9/11.

Braddock wrote:

M.O.A.B wrote:

Braddock wrote:

Remind me never to appoint you head of a security department should I ever make it in politics... it wasn't too unrealistic, it was very fucking realistic as it turns out. This wasn't a plan to anticipate the attack of aliens or large sea creatures, it was a plan to anticipate airplanes being hijacked and they took their eye right off the ball. Airplanes have been getting hijacked for years and the US security services were happy to sit their complacently in some sort of false sense of invincibility allowing all and sundry to board planes with all manner of devices. 9/11 should not have been 'necessary' to get airline security up to scratch.

What about Lockerbie?

Lockerbie was another omen the US could have paid attention to pre 9/11.

And so could everyone else, but they didn't. People are aiming blame solely at US airlines, comparing them to European airlines as being defunct and unsafe when the reality is that any airliner anywhere in the world at the time could have suffered because of it.

M.O.A.B wrote:

Braddock wrote:

M.O.A.B wrote:

What about Lockerbie?

Lockerbie was another omen the US could have paid attention to pre 9/11.

And so could everyone else, but they didn't. People are aiming blame solely at US airlines, comparing them to European airlines as being defunct and unsafe when the reality is that any airliner anywhere in the world at the time could have suffered because of it.

Domestic flight security in the US was ridiculously lax, and by the sounds of things it still is - my friend is an illegal alien in the US and travels on domestic flights without any hassle whatsoever. The point is the history of danger was there, the intelligence reports were there, the list of enemies willing to do it was there, the only thing not there was the desire among security officials to plan accordingly for such an event. You are the most militantly active and aggressive Western country in the world, I can't believe you let your guard down so badly.

meh, airline security is a fucking joke....


i could get a knife on ANY airliner in the world....even in Israel, and it doesnt get much more secure than that.