Originally Posted by
medic51vrf
<sigh>
Ok, let me see if I can explain this to you in a way that you will understand.
When a person possesses detailed plans on how to commit a criminal act (in this example making a bomb and blowing up an aircraft) and then places themselves in a position where that act can be committed (on an aircraft) the people hired to protect the asset (the plane) from the act (blowing it up) will (rightly or wrongly) view this as a potential threat due to multiple (if not all) of the elements of the crime being present.
Clear enough?
I'm confused, are you now questioning my ability to comprehend things, such as a person with a book being dangerous when that clearly is not the case, or do you just enjoy being condescending?
Your explanation doesn't hold water.
Just knowing something doesn't indicate intent. Many of us know how to fire a weapon. Does that make us a murderer? Hardly. I can carry my weapon with me, albeit concealed, and I have never shot a person while doing so. I have the skills and means but intent to break the law is missing.
Even if a person knew how to build a bomb, took their notes with them on a flight, they still don't have the immediate means to do any harm by having those notes. If the do have the means then every penny ever spent on TSA has been wasted, although I think TSA is a waste anyhow.
I'm not suggesting that a person skilled in bomb building could not at some time in the future be a threat but having a book on the matter does not present an immediate threat of any kind.