4 ms·
Because other forms of mass travel such as trains and buses, which barely have any security checks, rarely get blown up by bombs smuggled on to them, or hijacke
by abdullahkhalids 2y ago
Because other forms of mass travel such as trains and buses, which barely have any security checks, rarely get blown up by bombs smuggled on to them, or hijacked by guns smuggled onto them.
- shiroiushi 2y agoThat's because you can't really drive trains into buildings, and while you could technically do it with a bus, it's not that feasible nor that damaging. Flying a huge intercontinental airliner fully loaded with fuel into a building is quite different. There's very good practical reasons the terrorists chose airplanes and not trains or buses.
- abdullahkhalids 2y agoThat is already completely mitigated by the fact that cockpit is sealed now days, so hijackers cannot kill/disable the pilots and take over.
- shiroiushi 2y agoThat door isn't invincible: the pilots have to go to the toilet sometime.
- actionfromafar 2y agoAlso passengers will fight back now. Before 911, the advice was, stay calm and do what the hijackers tell you to do. And things would work out for the most part.
- tokai 2y agoRail related terrorism is not uncommon. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents_involving_railway_systems https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents_in...
- shiroiushi 2y agoSome of those were at train stations, not in trains. The same type of terrorism would work any place you find dozens or hundreds of people in close proximity. The whole reason the terrorists in all these incidents targeted trains or train stations is because a somewhat-large number of people were gathered there. If you want to destroy skyscrapers (and maybe kill thousands or tens of thousands in the process), and not just murder a few dozen people, train-related terrorism isn't going to work for you.