Personal patches

[Allan Bowhill]

On  0, Paul Robinson <paul at iconoplex.co.uk> wrote:

<snip>

:>Actually, the "preferred method" is to highjack U.S. jets fully-loaded
:>with fuel that leave U.S. airports bound for other destinations in the
:>U.S. The fact they are loaded with fuel is what makes them a bomb rather
:>than a projectile, which is why it's the "preferred method".
:
:You are out of date, which suggests you don't really know what is going 
:on. Yes, that is how 9/11 was conducted.

I don't pretend to have inside information into current the plans of
terrorists. I can only go on what I read in the papers, and hear on the
radio and TV. Online Brit papers and broadcasts included.

On the other hand, if you have inside information about what the 
terrorists are plotting next, don't hold back...

:However, British Airways and Air France has been cancelling flights left 
:right and centre over the last couple of weeks. The main reason is that 
:on a long-haul flight from Heathrow or Paris to LA, the aircraft still 
:has plenty of fuel when it gets to the US borders - in fact it has about 
:the same amount as a flight leaving NYC would have heading to LA. And it 
:normally has plenty of US citizens on it to boot. The plan is also to 
:detonate an explosive on the plane without warning apparently.

Explain how a 747 or 777 has more fuel on crossing the borders of the
U.S. on it's way to LAX than a 747 or 777 has before taking off from
JFK to LAX.

My understanding is a large percentage of fuel is used just to get to
cruise altitude and speed. Then there is the jet stream to fight in that
direction. Then there is the fact (or so I was told by a Bombardier
pilot) that sometimes long-haul flights do not have all that much fuel
left when they arrive at their destination. But that was a small jet.
But I don't think planning all that much different in principle for
larger jets.

The plan you mention doesn't seem to jibe with the fact that there is
plenty of fuel on board on arrival. If there was, why woudn't a
terrorist highjack the plane as it approached its destination? The
payoff would be to take down buildings, not just blow the plane up.

Anyway, if your fuel claims are true, then the simple answer is to
ban flights from LAX to European destinations. It's better than 
trying to finger passengers.

:One BA flight was cancelled last week because it was suggested a female 
:passenger was going to explode a device that she was carrying through 
:security concealed inside her vagina. I think there might be some FUD 
:going on here, but the threat now seems to be from EU airlines. Like I 
:say, we're used to it though, which is why we're not sending over flying 
:bombs...

Glad to hear that.

:>I expect if an international flight was highjacked just before landing
:>we would force it to land somewhere else, or simply shoot it down. Not
:>a pleasant prospect, but within our right to do so.
:>
:
:No, they'd just explode it without warning. No hijacking required.
:So, how exactly does fingerprinting at borders help there then?

By the terrorist plans you cited above, it would be your responsibility
to identify and screen passengers. You can do this with red tape, index
cards, or whatever. If electronic fingerprinting solutions and databases
give you the willies, you don't have to use them.

-- 
Allan Bowhill
abowhill at blarg.net

"Not only is this incomprehensible, but the ink is ugly and the paper
is from the wrong kind of tree."
                -- Professor W.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 187 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-chat/attachments/20040107/bd70f877/attachment.bin