Terrorist probes on airplanes?

[Kelshara]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/national ... -1508r.htm

Flight crews and air marshals say Middle Eastern men are staking out airports, probing security measures and conducting test runs aboard airplanes for a terrorist attack.
At least two midflight incidents have involved numerous men of Middle Eastern descent behaving in what one pilot called "stereotypical" behavior of an organized attempt to attack a plane.

Lots more in the article. Interesting read, but I wonder how much of it is just people being paranoid about middle easterners. I know when I have been flying I have seen people get all jumpy if ONE middle eastern man enters a plane.

Also, for some reason I kind of doubt them going for airliners again. Part of the reason 9/11 got so big was the shock effect of it being new.

[Voronwë]

There is an editorial on on incident like this on the Women's Wall Street Journal website. http://www.wwj.com i think

it is pretty ridiculous that we have not adopted the same level of security in our airports that they have in Europe. All this shit could happen all over again. It is pretty scary.

[Psyloche]

I was eating dinner with my family the other day when my brother mentioned a story just like this. He's in the air force and apparently one of his friends was coming back from India. I don't know how true it was, but I'm fairly certain he wasn't just pulling my leg, but who knows! While it sounds almost like an urban legend starting, it didn't stop me from thinking about the flight I'm taking across country to California in September.

[Kilmoll the Sexy]

One difference is that armed and undercover federal marshals are on board. If you think they do not target planes with multiple middle eastern passengers to have armed feds on board, you are crazy.

The one incident mentioned that there were multiple marshals on the plane from the women's wsj article. They just do not want to blow identities of undercover officers until there is an incident that requires it.

[Aslanna]

Also, for some reason I kind of doubt them going for airliners again. Part of the reason 9/11 got so big was the shock effect of it being new.

I wouldn't go that far. Airliners continue to make good targets.

[Lalanae]

Also, for some reason I kind of doubt them going for airliners again. Part of the reason 9/11 got so big was the shock effect of it being new.

I wouldn't go that far. Airliners continue to make good targets.

I agree. I don't think they are concerned as much with creativity in execution as they are in simply executing. They may shift focus to another form of execution because of increased security/heightened awareness, but I doubt it has anything to do with "the shock effect of it being new."

[Winnow]

There are plenty of other targets in the United States that are less protected for terrorists.

I'd expect something along the lines of a chemical or biological attack of some sort or an attempt to damage our power grid.

[Hesten]

Why bother to attack your power grids? I mean, Bush's rich friends already made horrible attacks on that for profit.

[Thess]

Let's be fair - As soon as they were caught doing it, Bush stopped being their friends.

[Etasi]

it is pretty ridiculous that we have not adopted the same level of security in our airports that they have in Europe. All this shit could happen all over again. It is pretty scary.

I'm curious if maybe there's more behind the scenes security stuff going on in European airports, because the last few times I've been there, it's all seemed about the same to me (though the security in Charles de Gaulle aiport is pretty bad as you don't have to go through a security check until you're literally 10 feet from the set of gates), and passport control was definitely less strict. I've never had my passport scanned through a scanner machine, nor have I been asked about my final destination, reason for visiting, or the duration of my stay.

Obviously some of that is due to my having an American passport, but it's definitely a change from the massive scrutiny in both Canada and the US. The US-only passport lines in US airports on busy days take 100x longer to get through than any of the European passport controls I've been in so far.

My point is just that US airports might be more secure than people give them credit for. It's certainly more of a hassle to get through a security checkpoint at any of the US airports I've been to (they make you take a lot more things off, including shoes, that you don't have to in other places, for one thing), passport control is very strict, and so far the US is the only place I've seen armed soldiers wandering around near security (though how much this helps, I have no idea).

If something like Sept 11 could happen again, I'd say it's much more likely to be due to safety on the planes themselves, rather than in the airports. I know there are places in the world with even more secure airports than the US, but US airports are definitely a great deal more secure now than they were in 2001.

[Chmee]

Also, for some reason I kind of doubt them going for airliners again. Part of the reason 9/11 got so big was the shock effect of it being new.

I wouldn't go that far. Airliners continue to make good targets.

I don't think airliners really are that great of a target anymore. Using an airliner as a flying bomb to attack a building lost most of its viability before 9/11 was even over (ie. flight 93). One of the big reasons why 9/11 worked is previous to then, the rational thing to do in a hostage situation is to not confront the hijackers. In most cases the hostages would eventually be released. So attacking the 5 terrorists isn't a good risk. 9/11 however changed that equation. If there is a substantial risk that all the passengers are going to die if they let the terrorists have control, then not confronting them becomes a very poor risk. And in that case, 5 or so terrorists, even armed, against 50-100 passengers, are going to lose. I am not saying its impossible that it wouldn't happen. You might possibly get a flight that is deserted enough, or up the number of terrorists or some other factor that might give the terrorists a chance of getting control of the plane. But the chances of it happenning are drastically lower.

Of course, the terrorists could try to just blow up the plane. But the amount of people that would be killed doesn't seem like it would be much greater than in the case of many ground based targets. There might be some additional psychological effect to an airliner going down, but also it seems like far more security would have to be penetrated.

Not to say an attack on an airliner can't happen of course (although I think the chances of puling off another 9/11 style attack are low). But I do think that airliners aren't nearly as prime as targets as were pre - 9/11.

[a_guide]

My point is just that US airports might be more secure than people give them credit for. It's certainly more of a hassle to get through a security checkpoint at any of the US airports I've been to (they make you take a lot more things off, including shoes, that you don't have to in other places, for one thing), passport control is very strict, and so far the US is the only place I've seen armed soldiers wandering around near security (though how much this helps, I have no idea).

When I was still a tender youth (summer of 1998) I took a trip to Germany and I remember being shocked by the sight of the guards armed with huge guns and attack dogs roaming all through the airport. That was honestly the image that first made me realize I was definitely in a foreign country. Fast-forward to about 4 months after 9/11, I was flying home to visit my family and saw a carbon copy of the guards I had seen in Frankfurt combing through Sea-Tac. I actually felt physically disoriented at first because the moments were both so similar I thought maybe I was seeing things. Since then I've become accustomed to having guards in airports but there are not as many as there were immediately following the attacks, whereas in Germany they had security like that years before hand. From my experience I'd say they have had and still do have a more secure environment.

[Sirton]

Completely agree with Chmee on this.....The terrorist know the passengers will cause the plane to crash or will never allow it to be taken over in any similar fashion again..

Just look at all those reports of crazy people getting wrestled down after 9/11...even if they started towards doors.

Flight 93 just right after hearing of 9/11 from love ones changed how the common man deals with hijackers in the US and will be the best defense we can think of.

What Im worried about with Planes is that I think we need to be careful about making the doors unbreakable and then arming the pilots....If I was a terrorist then Id work years getting a pilot trained and armed or breaking that system...Then you have some dead pilots in a cockpit one terrorist in there with a gun and a barred door where the passengers (your best defense) cant get in.

I remember shortly after 9/11 reports of terrorist already trying to do this and some pilot suits missing.

[Raistin]

Did you know we spend 2 days worth of money in Iraq, for what we spend on homeland security a year?

[Chmee]

Did you know we spend 2 days worth of money in Iraq, for what we spend on homeland security a year?

This does not appear to be correct. Budget for homeland security for last year was 22 billion dollars. Your statement would imply that we are therefore spending roughly 4 trillion a year in Iraq (that is twice the entire U.S government budget). No estimate I have seen ever comes even vaguely close to that number.

[Kylere]

Did you know we spend 2 days worth of money in Iraq, for what we spend on homeland security a year?

This does not appear to be correct. Budget for homeland security for last year was 22 billion dollars. Your statement would imply that we are therefore spending roughly 4 trillion a year in Iraq (that is twice the entire U.S government budget). No estimate I have seen ever comes even vaguely close to that number.

ARRRGHHH RUN AWAY

LOL 34987402873 points to Chmee, negative 593823243624363476 to Raistlin for being a dumbass on top of his unoriginal name

[Tegellan]

I have a bit of insight into the security of the airport in Copenhagen, and i know there is a lot of behind the scenes security there, they monitor you through one way walls (I actually honestly thought they were mirrors until my friend corrected me) in the places you need to pass to get to gates, etc etc.

They also have lots of cameras and will generally follow or keep an eye on anyone they think behave suspiciously, the security might not be visible, but it is there and Copenhagen is hardly the most secure airport in Europe.

Also remember that asking someone a few questions isn't really security, if you are a trained terrorist or whatever, you will have good cover stories anyway so i hardly think that makes much of a difference.

[Mplor]

Security in Rome and Paris seem about the same as at any US international airport these days.

Amsterdam, however, was locked down like a military installation. I've never seen anything quite like it. And the burly guy who interrogated me prior to letting me board was so intimidating I just about admitted to stealing candy once when I was 8.

[Sionistic]

One way walls? I must see this, that sounds awesome

[Dregor Thule]

One way walls? I must see this, that sounds awesome

I'm sure you've seen it many a time in movies. Think James Bond. Large, mirrored wall with the evil villain standing behind it watching the daper super spy. One way mirrors, just the wall-sized version.

[Sionistic]

What I mean is that do they look like actual walls, or just walls that you can easily tell are one way?

[Dregor Thule]

I imagine they look like mirrors.

[Etasi]

Also remember that asking someone a few questions isn't really security, if you are a trained terrorist or whatever, you will have good cover stories anyway so i hardly think that makes much of a difference.

Interesting info, that's the kind of thing I was curious about. You're right about questions not doing a whole lot for security. It was mostly the fact that my passport never got scanned into a machine that surprised me. I'm sure they can figure out who entered the country when based on flight rosters and so forth, but it does seem like it would be a lot harder to keep track of people without scanning their passport.

Just to be clear though, my point wasn't really to make a statement about the overall level of security in European airports, but simply to point out that US airports, on average, are probably just as secure as your average European airport.

[Kelshara]

Pre-9/11 security was way tighter in European airports than at American Now afterwards I would probably give a slight advantage to European airports for a few reasons:

- Usually smaller airports. The larger the airports the harder it will be to secure them.

- Longer experience of running airport security at a high level.

- Longer experience of dealing with terrorists (at least for some European countries).

A lot of what you see at an airport has really not all that much to do with security. The guards carrying M16s at the metal detectors? Window dressing. The questions you are asked? Heh I've been asked them so many times I don't even listen anymore and just say "Yes I packed it myself, no did not leave it out of sight, no I am not carrying anything for anyone". And as for immigration checks at US airports.. they vary so much it isn't funny. I've faced everything from people checking my visas in detail, asking questions, checking old passports etc to the guys who never even look at my visas, check signatures etc.

[Silvarel Mistmoon]

I remember arriving in Frankfurt when I was about 7 years old, my dad had been sent to Germany and that is where we flew in. Everyones bag was gone through, every one even myself was scanned with a wand.

Of course that was back in the early "70's and Frankfurt use to be a favorite airport for terrorist to bomb.

I think that at every airport in the US everyone should be searched and their bags. That means the ones that you check also.
Not just a few random checks but everyone. And the same should be done for anyone wishing to fly in to or over the US.

[Zaelath]

Well.. I'm not sure about Germany in the 70's, but in the US in the 00's there's something like 19-20,000 *flights* per day.

There's simply not time to give every passenger an anal cavity search, and people don't really want that.. they will, and have, put up with a lot of "shit" to feel safer, but there's a breaking point eventually.