'Plot Would Have Killed Thousands'

Reply Subscribe

Thread Tools

Search this Thread

Aug 8, 2007 | 11:09 am

#76

exerda

Moderator, Omni, Omni/PR, Omni/Games, FlyerTalk Posting Legend

Join Date: Oct 2004

Location: Between DCA and IAD

Programs: UA 1K MM; Hilton Diamond

Posts: 72,609

Quote:

Originally Posted by ND Sol

Couldn't one set the barometric altimeter such that when it reached its trigger point of 8,000', that instead of detonating an explosive it could trigger a timer that would start an hour (or whatever time frame) countdown that would then trigger the explosive at cruising altitude? If only all air cargo was screened.

You could indeed, though adding the timer does make it a bit more complicated, and thus introduces more potential for failure.

Aug 8, 2007 | 11:54 am

#77

Wally Bird

Join Date: Jul 2003

Location: Salish Sea

Programs: DL,AC,HH,PC

Posts: 8,972

Quote:

Originally Posted by bocastephen

...it's a regional airport with limited commercial service and unlikely to be a terrorist target.

Yes, so far the terrorists have not demonstrated an ability to think 'outside the box'. Which is fortunate, because I don't think the DHS has either.

Attacking a 2nd-tier airport would probably generate more terror than attacking one of the likely targets. Shows you're not safe anywhere.

Aug 8, 2007 | 5:45 pm

#78

law dawg

Join Date: Aug 2004

Posts: 4,704

Quote:

Originally Posted by GUWonder

Interesting, learn a new thing everyday about airports in the US at least.

[He did say (with bold added for purposes of demonstration): "The highest commercial service airport that I know of is Denver, which is comfortably below 5,500ft."]

Out of the airports above, I've flown into only three of those and only one of those commercially.

I've landed and taken off from higher airports -- for Asia, in India, China and Tajikistan; for South America, in Argentina, Chile and Peru.

La Paz, Bolivia. It was like being punched in the stomach.

Aug 8, 2007 | 5:58 pm

#79

msv

FlyerTalk Evangelist

Join Date: Dec 2006

Posts: 21,648

I saw this on the news and when they said 3.5 oz was immediately determined as safe all's I could think of how many 3.5 oz containers I could stuff in my 1 quart baggy. I don't understand if you can buy a larger container after the security checkpoint.

Aug 8, 2007 | 6:27 pm

#80

Lonely Flyer

Join Date: Jan 2006

Location: OOL Australia

Programs: QFF (Gold), Skywards, Rapid Rewards,United, Velocity, Hilton Silver

Posts: 2,440

Quote:

Originally Posted by Superguy

Who said I was making it up? I was asking.

Link please to their charges and status of their trials. Show me YOU'RE not making it up.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lonely Flyer

What memory. Do not make it up!!

16 of the 24 questioned have been charged. 2 of these discharged last November and the remaining 14 to go to trial in 2008. On remand and in custody.

Remember police found explosive materials and detonators in their homes.

One of the higher ups was caught in Pakistan and others are still loose

Quote:
Originally Posted by Superguy
Just to refresh my memory ... weren't they all released?

When you use the phrase in red you are implying that you have a vague memory of them all being released and want someone to confirm. Is that not making it up when in fact they were not all released and there is no source to back it up.

I suggest you do a google search for "British Airline Bombers" and read some of the articles including this one in the NY Times which you cannot deny is a liberal paper and therefore not conservative propaganda

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/28/wo...rssnyt&emc=rss

Aug 8, 2007 | 6:41 pm

#81

Lonely Flyer

Join Date: Jan 2006

Location: OOL Australia

Programs: QFF (Gold), Skywards, Rapid Rewards,United, Velocity, Hilton Silver

Posts: 2,440

Quote:

Originally Posted by GUWonder

Out of the individuals arrested in the UK at the time for this "plot would have killed thousands", how many have been convicted for the plot itself and/or are still sitting in a jail/prison since the moment they were initially rounded up by the police in the UK last year?

Did you actually read my post? The answer is already there.

This is not "Law and Order" where you go to trial within a few weeks for the sake of completing the story in an hour long TV show. Depending on the complexity of the case defendants can wait a long time to go to trial. The British system has a preliminary hearing phase and later a jury trial. The authorities can bypass the prelim and issue an exofficio indictment which may be what happens here. This trial or these trials could go many months.

read the NY Times article linked in my preceding post

Aug 8, 2007 | 11:28 pm

#82

ylwae

Join Date: Jul 2004

Programs: AC.SE

Posts: 2,584

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lonely Flyer

No. Having a vague memory but admitting uncertainty is a far cry from complete fabrication.

Aug 8, 2007 | 11:48 pm

#83

Superguy

FlyerTalk Evangelist

Join Date: Jan 2005

Location: BWI

Programs: AA Gold, HH Diamond, National Emerald Executive, TSA Disparager Gold

Posts: 15,180

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lonely Flyer

When you use the phrase in red you are implying that you have a vague memory of them all being released and want someone to confirm. Is that not making it up when in fact they were not all released and there is no source to back it up.

No, it's not making it up. It's asking a question based on information I thought I had read. It's called uncertainty and asking for clarification.

Making it up: Making a statement of fact I know to be false. I didn't do that.

I guess in your world, asking a question is making something up.

Quote:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/28/wo...rssnyt&emc=rss

You have anything newer than 1 YEAR ago? Of course they weren't released right away.

I'll dig around later, but it's almost 2am and I need to get to bed.

Super