3 ms·

I think he nailed it right here: In my boyhood, there were signs on English buses that declared, in bold letters, "No Spitting." At a tender age, I was able to

I think he nailed it right here: In my boyhood, there were signs on English buses that declared, in bold letters, "No Spitting." At a tender age, I was able to work out that most people don't need to be told this, while those who do feel a desire to expectorate on public transport will require more discouragement than a mere sign. But I'd be wasting my time pointing this out to our majestic and sleepless protectors, who now boldly propose to prevent airline passengers from getting out of their seats for the last hour of any flight. Abdulmutallab made his bid in the last hour of his flight, after all. Yes, that ought to do it.

ghshephard 17y ago
Note - the rule about people standing up wasn't done to prevent Mad Bombers from doing so. It was to quickly identify which people _might_ be a mad bomber to the Air Marshals and Airline Staff. Remember this rule had to be put in place quickly (And also note, for a limited period of one week) - while we tried to figure out if another attack was imminent. Think about how stupid we'd all be feeling if someone else had run _the exact same attack_ - we may not be able to defend against the unknown. But at least we can avoid handing out the freebies.
- drewr 17y ago
  As I understand it, the terrorist was the only one in the NWA indident who did not stand up. He sat there while others got out of their seats to try and stop him. How does the policy address this scenario?
  - ghshephard 17y ago
    It prevents people from going and taking something out of Carry-On, or going to a bathroom, just prior to landing - giving everyone else a chance to see him doing this and stopping him. Presumably, the concern was that there would be a repeat of this attempt to set a bomb off _just prior to landing_. One of the major reasons why the Christmas underwear bomber was stopped was he was in his seat. The next bomber would probably have been better served by trying to set off a bomb in the bathroom. The rules in place for the next week are to call attention to those people.
    - electromagnetic 17y ago
      > The next bomber would probably have been better served by trying to set off a bomb in the bathroom. That would have been the logical from the start, with the shoe bomber. However, intelligence and committing a suicide bombing appear to be mutually exclusive, in that there doesn't appear to have been a single intelligent suicide bomber to date. If any of these terrorists were intelligent, they could have rigged a time bomb from a damn cellphone, laptop or any carry on electronic device that allows timed outputs. Yet the suicide bombers climbing onto planes appear to have forgotten a few steps in their devices, like blasting caps or remote detonation. Being next to the bomb and surrounded by people kind of make it difficult to perform a detonation, especially when you're trying to light your heels on fire. Consider this, the TAPT placed in the shoes would have detonated just as readily if he'd banged the heels of his shoes together like he was trying to clean them, and no one would have suspected a thing, but common sense doesn't exist when you're trying to blow yourself up for illogical reasons. [Edit: IIRC knocking was the primary cause of premature detonation in improvised explosives, so why this wouldn't be your plan for detonation if it works too well already is beyond me]
- ekanes 17y ago
  Trying to find terrorists based on whether or not they are standing up makes no sense at all. If you actually tried to "run" that scenario, you'd be tackling a lot of people who just couldn't hold their pee anymore.

ghshephard 17y ago

Note - the rule about people standing up wasn't done to prevent Mad Bombers from doing so. It was to quickly identify which people _might_ be a mad bomber to the Air Marshals and Airline Staff. Remember this rule had to be put in place quickly (And also note, for a limited period of one week) - while we tried to figure out if another attack was imminent. Think about how stupid we'd all be feeling if someone else had run _the exact same attack_ - we may not be able to defend against the unknown. But at least we can avoid handing out the freebies.

drewr 17y ago
As I understand it, the terrorist was the only one in the NWA indident who did not stand up. He sat there while others got out of their seats to try and stop him. How does the policy address this scenario?
- ghshephard 17y ago
  It prevents people from going and taking something out of Carry-On, or going to a bathroom, just prior to landing - giving everyone else a chance to see him doing this and stopping him. Presumably, the concern was that there would be a repeat of this attempt to set a bomb off _just prior to landing_. One of the major reasons why the Christmas underwear bomber was stopped was he was in his seat. The next bomber would probably have been better served by trying to set off a bomb in the bathroom. The rules in place for the next week are to call attention to those people.
  - electromagnetic 17y ago
    > The next bomber would probably have been better served by trying to set off a bomb in the bathroom. That would have been the logical from the start, with the shoe bomber. However, intelligence and committing a suicide bombing appear to be mutually exclusive, in that there doesn't appear to have been a single intelligent suicide bomber to date. If any of these terrorists were intelligent, they could have rigged a time bomb from a damn cellphone, laptop or any carry on electronic device that allows timed outputs. Yet the suicide bombers climbing onto planes appear to have forgotten a few steps in their devices, like blasting caps or remote detonation. Being next to the bomb and surrounded by people kind of make it difficult to perform a detonation, especially when you're trying to light your heels on fire. Consider this, the TAPT placed in the shoes would have detonated just as readily if he'd banged the heels of his shoes together like he was trying to clean them, and no one would have suspected a thing, but common sense doesn't exist when you're trying to blow yourself up for illogical reasons. [Edit: IIRC knocking was the primary cause of premature detonation in improvised explosives, so why this wouldn't be your plan for detonation if it works too well already is beyond me]
ekanes 17y ago
Trying to find terrorists based on whether or not they are standing up makes no sense at all. If you actually tried to "run" that scenario, you'd be tackling a lot of people who just couldn't hold their pee anymore.