4 ms·
It's hard to fly a train into a building. (That doesn't excuse the TSA's security theater, obviously.)
by patrickmay 10y ago
It's hard to fly a train into a building.
(That doesn't excuse the TSA's security theater, obviously.)
- scrollaway 10y agoIt's also easier to stop a train, get off a train, or prevent collateral damage in case of malice/accident. Survivors are also a lot more likely if there is an accident, mostly because of gravity.
- jagger27 10y agoVery true. Even in the worst train derailments you never hear that there were no survivors.
- Declanomous 10y agoAssuming passenger trains of course. I think a freight hijacking is far more likely. The danger posed by a hijacked freight are evident from the huge numbers of lives lost from exploding petroleum trains over the past few decades.
- hueving 10y agoTSA isn't really for hijack protection, that was solved quite quickly after 9/11 with effectively impenetrable cockpits. It's really for preventing destruction of the plane itself. A large bomb on a train underground could cause way casualties, which is why the strictness of the TSA is puzzling.
- joering2 10y agoIf it really puzzles you then read a little bit on Michael Chertoff and immediately all pieces of the puzzle will click. Hint: its all about money. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Chertoff https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Chertoff Google is your friend but this is good piece: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/31/AR2009123102821.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12...