|
Originally Posted by Pesky Monkey
(Post 18337412)
With what we know now, an airliner can't be turned into a missile without the complicity of the pilots, crew, and passengers. it's not a viable threat vector.
|
Originally Posted by InkUnderNails
(Post 18337712)
Automobiles, rental trucks, semis, vans, Amish buggies, covered wagons, the Oscar Meyer Wienermobile, hot air balloons, tractors pulling slurry tanks, gasoline and diesel fuel trucks, general aviation aircraft, traffic helicopters, parade floats, UPS and FedEx planes, blimps that cover sporting events even in the ridiculous case that the events are in domed stadiums, dry bulk haulers, and many other conveyances can be rigged with explosives and used as a portable delivery device. Does that mean that people not in these vehicles and potentially victims of these criminals have an enforceable legitimate interest that the drivers and passengers in said vehicles be checked before driving, riding in or otherwise moving said vehicles by a Federal employee before doing so? If the answer is "no" please supply a logical reason why airplanes are different except that commercial airliners go a long way, carry lots of fuel and travel very fast (all at least partially covered in some of my examples). If "yes," how do you propose that these conveyances be checked and under what authority?
|
Originally Posted by InkUnderNails
(Post 18339134)
In 1982 or 1983, I upgraded my HP technical computer, a 9826, with an external 10 Mb hard drive unit that included dual 3.5" FD's. As I remember the unit was about $1000. I also upgraded my ram, adding 4 Mb that came as 4 full size cards, $800 per card, $3200 total, that each took up an expansion slot.
|
Originally Posted by cestmoi123
(Post 18339263)
Get six people into first class, with handguns, sufficient ammunition, and a crowbar, and then could have a reasonable shot at taking the plane.
|
Originally Posted by Caradoc
(Post 18339420)
...and detecting any of those those doesn't require body scanners - in fact, WTMDs are are lot better at detecting metal objects carried on the person than the body scanners, as shown by Seņor Corbett's video antics (to the great dismay of the TSA and anyone with a financial stake in them.)
|
Originally Posted by Caradoc
(Post 18339420)
...and detecting any of those those doesn't require body scanners - in fact, WTMDs are are lot better at detecting metal objects carried on the person than the body scanners, as shown by Seņor Corbett's video antics (to the great dismay of the TSA and anyone with a financial stake in them.)
|
Originally Posted by cestmoi123
(Post 18336457)
Agree with you to a degree, but the fact that planes _can_ be turned into missles means that even people not on the planes have a legitimate interest in airlines having sufficient security to make that scenario at least very difficult.
|
Originally Posted by mahohmei
(Post 18340056)
This, unfortunately, is used constantly by the pro-TSAers. Don't you dare say we need to stop the gropings and NoSes...what about the people in the twin towers? I watched that plane smash into the tower on TV...don't you dare say we'd be OK with pre-9/11 airport security, which was directly responsible for 9/11! :rolleyes:
Item A was already gone halfway through the AM of 9/11 (UA 93), and B has been fixed for years. The problem was never at the checkpoint, but that's what all the effort has been on "fixing." |
Originally Posted by cestmoi123
(Post 18340420)
The problem was never at the checkpoint, but that's what all the effort has been on "fixing."
|
Originally Posted by Caradoc
(Post 18340902)
This bears repeating.
So you get the TSA, which is the "actually doing something" layer of security. Even the most ardent pro-TSAers will admit it: You: The TSA fails over half of undercover tests, so it's obvious that if someone wants to get a gun or knife onto an airplane, they will. Given this fact, how do you explain that there has not been a single successful aircraft hijacking or bombing since 9/11? Pro-TSAer: You have to layer security. If a terrorist manages to make it through the TSA checkpoint layer, the cockpit doors and policies to resist hijackers are the last line of defense. You: But given the fact that terrorists have a greater than 50% chance of getting their guns and knives through the checkpoint, it's not even a remotely effective layer! Pro-TSAer: I'm not talking about this. |
Originally Posted by mahohmei
(Post 18341017)
Unless there's an actual incident, people don't see any action being taken and "Durnit! We need to do everything we can to keep the terr'ists from repeating 9/11!".
It's like saying that we should do everything we can to prevent rape - including pharaonic circumcision. The TSA is a much bigger problem that what it is supposedly "fixing." |
Originally Posted by cestmoi123
(Post 18339286)
You've answered your own question. Only commercial airliners go fast enough, are flexible enough in where they go, and, in the absence of security, can be entered easily enough by the general public to create a viable threat of mass casualties beyond those on board the conveyance to justify the associated security.
The fact that it is a commercial airliner in no way requires a greater surrender of liberty than is required for any other means of delivery. Yet, that is what have decided to do. I am not against security. I am against forced security gained at the loss of liberty. Loss of life is a very serious matter. Protection of innocent life is likewise serious. However, neither is serious to the point that a total surrender of liberty is necessary to provide a reasonable means to mitigate the danger and potential of these losses. That is the all or nothing choice we are given. Surrender totally, or do not fly. It is this to which I disagree. |
Originally Posted by Caradoc
(Post 18334691)
Heh. Some of us used to cheat and hold down the key to load the BIOS config instead of waiting for the complete boot sequence.
|
Originally Posted by SirFlysALot
(Post 18349136)
Now you tell us? :p
|
Originally Posted by cestmoi123
(Post 18340420)
Sadly (and other adjectives not appropriate for a family website), they correctly identify that there was a hole in security, which the hijackers exploited, and then proceed to completely misidentify that hole. The gap was a combination of (a) passenger/flight crew assumption that the safe approach during a hijacking is to cooperate, and (b) an accessible cockpit.
If the passengers led a revolt on previous hijackings, the flight may have ended up like United 93 with everybody dead, instead of almost everybody ALIVE like most resolutions of pre-9/11 hijackings. Nevertheless, by the time of United 93, passenger revolt was the correct gamble to make, and likely will be that way for the foreseeable future. |
Originally Posted by cardiomd
(Post 18349549)
I would argue that it wasn't even a gap in security back then, but was a rational decision. Before 9/11, cooperating with hijackers (to some degree obviously) was probably the right / smart thing to do, and saved lives in that terrible situation.
What would have been the paradigm if non-suicidal hijackers had been unable to gain access ? I don't know, but I doubt that executing cabin crew or passengers would have brought the pilot out. It's not as if all hijacks ended without innocent murders. |
Originally Posted by mahohmei
(Post 18334311)
Did anyone here ever experience that?
While the term "security theater" is a post-9/11 term, wasn't pre-9/11 security just as much a show? |
Originally Posted by Caradoc
(Post 18335424)
That's a 3.5" HD. Anyone else remember the 8" 180k, or the 5.25" 360k?
I also used the rare 1MB-on-double-density Commodore drives, and the pretty common later 1.2MB "high density" 5 1/2 (they were ubiquitous on the IBM AT and various clones.) Also the 720-800k double-density 3.5". I am familiar with in principle, but never used, the 2.88MB "quad density" 3.5" ones IBM introduced with some of the late PS/2 systems. The only 8" ones I used were very late 8" ones and held a lot more than 180k... around 1MB, I think.
Originally Posted by YCTTSFM
(Post 18335813)
But wasn't the 1.4mg 3.5" FD a late improvement in capacity?
|
In the early 1990's. I used 3.5" FD's in my Spectral Dynamics 385 spectrum analyzer. It was a modified TEAC drive that would get about 1Mb in a special SD format. When I would baseline a new press, I would store point by point data on these disks for later retrieval and review. I would buy them several hundred at a time. I still have them filed away. There are probably thousands of them. But, I still have the SD 385, and I may want to look at them some day. :p
It probably does not even work. It has been stored for at least ten years. I've still got the disks though. |
I've heard of CBP agents seizing incoming laptops for running Linux, since, well, if you're using Linux, you're up to no good. I hope nobody ever finds out that's what I'm using to write this post... :rolleyes:
Originally Posted by nkedel
(Post 18352986)
Yes. Also experienced security guys who were baffled by a laptop not running a GUI operating system.
|
Originally Posted by mahohmei
(Post 18334311)
As I'm reading the threads, it made me think of a question that I'm way too young to vividly remember.
I had heard stories that, before 9/11, travelers with laptops would be told, by screeners, to take the laptop out of the bag, turn it on, and show a working laptop, simply to prove to the screener that it's a laptop and not a cache of explosives cleverly packed into a gutted laptop chassis. Did anyone here ever experience that? I also had a screener think they had a big catch of a fake item--a SLR without the lens attached. |
Originally Posted by Caradoc
(Post 18335424)
That's a 3.5" HD. Anyone else remember the 8" 180k, or the 5.25" 360k?
|
Originally Posted by mahohmei
(Post 18353102)
I've heard of CBP agents seizing incoming laptops for running Linux, since, well, if you're using Linux, you're up to no good. I hope nobody ever finds out that's what I'm using to write this post... :rolleyes:
|
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 5:11 am. |
This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.