5 ms·

I don't wish for anything like that to happen, but sometimes I wonder what if a terrorist would just detonate a bomb before the security lines, between the wait

I don't wish for anything like that to happen, but sometimes I wonder what if a terrorist would just detonate a bomb before the security lines, between the waiting people... didn't something similar happen in Belgium? It's great that we reduced the risk of a highjacking so much in the last decades, with security checkpoints and hardened cockpit doors. But in sum, I don't really feel safer while flying.

yoo1I 10y ago
That's exactly what happened in Brussels. "And besides, if we made airplanes completely safe, the terrorists would simply start bombing other places that are crowded. Porn shops, crack houses, titty bars, and gangbangs. You know, entertainment venues." George Carlin, 1999
- PeterStuer 10y ago
  Exactly what happened in Brussels. There the bombs were detonated in the check in departures hall before the security area. What happened afterwards is even more absurd. They organized a security check before entering the departures hall, leading to massive 3 hour waiting lines outside the building. Clearly protecting the building is far more important than the security of the people in the waiting line.
  - ramblerman 10y ago
    As ridiculous as that was I can't blame the politicians for that kind of absurdity. The media would eat them alive if they weren't shown to be 'active' and god forbid something happens again and nothing had changed. It's a sad situation, modern democracy and twitter have merged into a flurry of overactivity and fake outrage.
    - tudorw 10y ago
      I can, a politician without the mettle to stand up to the media is doing their supporters a disservice, the media does not run the country, well, not legally, not yet.
    - lgas 10y ago
      I wish the media would eat them alive for doing stupid things like just relocating the place where people will be blown up to outside the building.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
    - bogomipz 10y ago
      I'm pretty sure twitter and modern democracy have nothing to do with this. Where did that even come from?
  - janekm 10y ago
    For what it's worth, that is what countries with competent security do (Israel, China whenever/wherever there are security concerns), multiple stages of security checks (but of course the earlier ones are designed to minimise queuing to avoid that exact issue). Typically there will be one security check on the road before cars enter the airport (this can be just a drive-by check for anything suspicious), then either scanner or explosive chemicals check at the entrance doors. Also, the area in front of the security check is arranged with a large "buffer space" not allowing anyone without a boarding pass to get close to the security check lines (and again with guards looking out for anything suspicious).
throwanem 10y ago
> what if a terrorist would just detonate a bomb before the security lines I gather the idea is that, while a bomb in the security cattle chute might kill hundreds, it's still preferable to a hijacked aircraft which can be used to kill thousands. Of course the dichotomy is false for all manner of reasons. But that seems to be the underlying concept.
- notahacker 10y ago
  That and the likelihood that terrorists will be considerably less likely to bother to attack targets that don't look particularly soft, or at least the general public will think that.
- ceejayoz 10y ago
  > it's still preferable to a hijacked aircraft which can be used to kill thousands Not anymore. That ship sailed with 9/11. Passengers aren't going to sit quietly and wait for SWAT to negotiate/rescue at an airport these days.
  - a_c_s 10y ago
    On 9/11 4 aircraft were hijacked, only 1 had passengers resist. For the sake of argument if we take this as a representative sample, there's only a 25% resist rate: very pretty thin evidence to argue that a fundamental behavior shift has taken place.
    - ceejayoz 10y ago
      > On 9/11 4 aircraft were hijacked, only 1 had passengers resist. Few had much inkling 9/11 was a terror attack until the second flight hit WTC at 9:03 am, so it's really one of two. The Pentagon flight hit at 9:37 am and passengers weren't aware of the WTC attacks until Barbara Olson's call between 9:16 and 9:26. ~10 minutes isn't much time to process, plan, and react. Post-9/11, attackers in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001_failed_shoe_bomb_attempt https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001_failed_shoe_bomb_attempt and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northwest_Airlines_Flight_253 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northwest_Airlines_Flight_253 were both subdued rapidly by passengers, as have a variety of disruptive/suspicious non-terror incidents.

yoo1I 10y ago

That's exactly what happened in Brussels. "And besides, if we made airplanes completely safe, the terrorists would simply start bombing other places that are crowded. Porn shops, crack houses, titty bars, and gangbangs. You know, entertainment venues." George Carlin, 1999

PeterStuer 10y ago
Exactly what happened in Brussels. There the bombs were detonated in the check in departures hall before the security area. What happened afterwards is even more absurd. They organized a security check before entering the departures hall, leading to massive 3 hour waiting lines outside the building. Clearly protecting the building is far more important than the security of the people in the waiting line.
- ramblerman 10y ago
  As ridiculous as that was I can't blame the politicians for that kind of absurdity. The media would eat them alive if they weren't shown to be 'active' and god forbid something happens again and nothing had changed. It's a sad situation, modern democracy and twitter have merged into a flurry of overactivity and fake outrage.
  - tudorw 10y ago
    I can, a politician without the mettle to stand up to the media is doing their supporters a disservice, the media does not run the country, well, not legally, not yet.
  - lgas 10y ago
    I wish the media would eat them alive for doing stupid things like just relocating the place where people will be blown up to outside the building.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - bogomipz 10y ago
    I'm pretty sure twitter and modern democracy have nothing to do with this. Where did that even come from?
- janekm 10y ago
  For what it's worth, that is what countries with competent security do (Israel, China whenever/wherever there are security concerns), multiple stages of security checks (but of course the earlier ones are designed to minimise queuing to avoid that exact issue). Typically there will be one security check on the road before cars enter the airport (this can be just a drive-by check for anything suspicious), then either scanner or explosive chemicals check at the entrance doors. Also, the area in front of the security check is arranged with a large "buffer space" not allowing anyone without a boarding pass to get close to the security check lines (and again with guards looking out for anything suspicious).

throwanem 10y ago

> what if a terrorist would just detonate a bomb before the security lines I gather the idea is that, while a bomb in the security cattle chute might kill hundreds, it's still preferable to a hijacked aircraft which can be used to kill thousands. Of course the dichotomy is false for all manner of reasons. But that seems to be the underlying concept.

notahacker 10y ago
That and the likelihood that terrorists will be considerably less likely to bother to attack targets that don't look particularly soft, or at least the general public will think that.
ceejayoz 10y ago
> it's still preferable to a hijacked aircraft which can be used to kill thousands Not anymore. That ship sailed with 9/11. Passengers aren't going to sit quietly and wait for SWAT to negotiate/rescue at an airport these days.
- a_c_s 10y ago
  On 9/11 4 aircraft were hijacked, only 1 had passengers resist. For the sake of argument if we take this as a representative sample, there's only a 25% resist rate: very pretty thin evidence to argue that a fundamental behavior shift has taken place.
  - ceejayoz 10y ago
    > On 9/11 4 aircraft were hijacked, only 1 had passengers resist. Few had much inkling 9/11 was a terror attack until the second flight hit WTC at 9:03 am, so it's really one of two. The Pentagon flight hit at 9:37 am and passengers weren't aware of the WTC attacks until Barbara Olson's call between 9:16 and 9:26. ~10 minutes isn't much time to process, plan, and react. Post-9/11, attackers in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001_failed_shoe_bomb_attempt https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001_failed_shoe_bomb_attempt and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northwest_Airlines_Flight_253 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northwest_Airlines_Flight_253 were both subdued rapidly by passengers, as have a variety of disruptive/suspicious non-terror incidents.