The practices in place as of 9/11 are completely different than today, and thus the comparison is not valid.

Number one, pilots were coached to cooperate with hijackers to avoid loss of life. They never expected planes to be turned into bombs.

Number two, cockpit doors have been reinforced, and procedures are in place to prevent access to the cockpit by would-be terrorists.

Number three, pax on planes will NOT allow the plane to be hijacked. 9/11 taught them that much.

With that in mind, why escort a plane with a hysterical pax?

Nothing but conjecture, for those were the days before airlines and government officials could routinely get away with exhibiting batsy behavior.

The "moron who allegedly disrupted the flight knowing full well that the airlines and security officials are on a hair trigger" didn't authorize the diversion and post-diversion nonsense.

Don't know about water, but it is rumoured, that she might be capable of producing breast milk. We al know that terrorist will try to disguise their liquid bombs as bfreast milk. :D

Actually it's hydrogen hydroxide. :D

I was thinking of this story (http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/1,7...286966,00.html) which lowers the credibility of Reuters to almost nil.

If so, and given her physical condition, the President should give her or her doctor a medal. :D

What did you wager, Wally? Hope it was good as you are totally right. She had NONE of those things. She was clausterphobic (so... get on a transatlantic flight, good plan) and became distraught. Sad how our people can't handle something like this without scrambling fighter jets and diverting an entire flight's worth of people.

The over-reacting continues unabated...

Hindsight is 20-20; foresight is priceless.

As long as your going to provide your invaluable insight ex post facto, I'm sure you'll look like a genius every time.

Actually, it was more like this:

Passenger: Flight Attendant...please tell the pilot that we have eliminated a possible terrorist attack and that he needs to land the plane ASAP.

FA: Are you sure?

Passenger: Yep...this lady that looks like an Arab terrorist started yelling when me and my friend confronted her for reading those AlQaeda Arabic newspapers. Since she resisted, she is definitely trying to hide something. She is probably the diversion, so we need to land the plane immediately.

Fox News, National Review, New Republic, CNN, CBS, and most others have been had before too. :eek: Doesn't lower the credibility to almost nil, but then again -- unlike some government officials and leaders, starting from the top -- I don't get spoonfeedings or have a dedicated wet-nurse either.

Neither did the US government, the British government, or United Airlines authorize her pre-diversion nonsense.

I think you have a future in Homeland Security...

The US government authorized the diversion too.

The country (and officials) are behaving like a bunch of brainless knee-jerks and going off their rocker whenever some individual goes off their rocker yet doesn't pose a clear and imminent danger to the plane. Don't you expect more of the government and flight crews than of individual nuts? I do.

Hindsight is not 20-20. Look at the last couple of days of knee-jerk responses to a threat that was known to exist for quite some time. Seems like our government leaders don't even have 20-20 hindsight, but seem more blind than anything. :eek:

It's a hell of a lot easier to make that charge from the comfort of your armchair after the fact when the airplane is safely back on terra firma.

On the flipside, it is awfully difficult to read the mind of a disturbed passenger from afar.

Maybe the usual cadre of complainers would get more slack if we all didn't know that they would be the first to be levying charges of incompetence and criminal negligence at the government if and when one of these threats turns out to be real.