Does anyone agree with me on this...

[tracys2cents]

These so-called "terrorists" did not have airline tickets and many did not even hold a passport.

They are smarter than we give them credit for. And we are DUMBER than our Homeland Security Dept would have us believe.

They want us focusing all our interest on AIRLINERS. Hmmmmm....I wonder what they might be cooking up next???? An airline disaster? I DON'T THINK SO!!! Can you say "diversion"?

When our ports and our busses and our hotels are all so vulnerable, and our planes are so difficult to penetrate, does our idiot HOMELAND SECURITY really think they're going after the airlines again??????

 

[ducklite]

These so-called "terrorists" did not have airline tickets and many did not even hold a passport.

They are smarter than we give them credit for. And we are DUMBER than our Homeland Security Dept would have us believe.

They want us focusing all our interest on AIRLINERS. Hmmmmm....I wonder what they might be cooking up next???? An airline disaster? I DON'T THINK SO!!! Can you say "diversion"?

When our ports and our busses and our hotels are all so vulnerable, and our planes are so difficult to penetrate, does our idiot HOMELAND SECURITY really think they're going after the airlines again??????

Agreed. I think our ports and rail system are at a FAR greater risk.

If the Northeast corridor rail system is disrupted in Northern NJ and Southern CT (where it would be actually quite easy for this to happen) the results would have a far greater financial impact and possible loss of life than a plane or even two or three or four. Same thing for the cummuter rail system in Atlanta (MARTA)--taking those out at specific high impact stations would cripple the ability of our workforce to get to work and have immeasurable financial impact.

The Northeast corridor rail line also is a HUGE shipping line, and even short term destruction of it would cause quick shortages of various goods.

Anne

Anne

 

[PortieOwner]

Agreed. I think our ports and rail system are at a FAR greater risk.

You need a few ounces of explosive to bring down an airplane with 300-400 people on board. You need several tons of explosives to bring down a rail bridge and even then you'd be very lucky to kill 100 people on a train. Losing a dozen airliners with 350 people on board would be a spectacular attack and create quite a mess over the ocean--there is not enough equipment in the world to search all those crash areas and recover all the wreckage of a dozen planes from the bottom of the Altantic.

Portie

 

[PortieOwner]

They want us focusing all our interest on AIRLINERS. Hmmmmm....I wonder what they might be cooking up next???? An airline disaster? I DON'T THINK SO!!! Can you say "diversion"?

There may well be a "Plan B" but the terrorists are obsessed with downing planes. They have tried and failed many times, and tried and succeeded many times.

 

[tracys2cents]

Who needs explosives to bring down an airplane? Just open the exit door!

 

[ducklite]

You need a few ounces of explosive to bring down an airplane with 300-400 people on board. You need several tons of explosives to bring down a rail bridge and even then you'd be very lucky to kill 100 people on a train. Losing a dozen airliners with 350 people on board would be a spectacular attack and create quite a mess over the ocean--there is not enough equipment in the world to search all those crash areas and recover all the wreckage of a dozen planes from the bottom of the Altantic.

Portie

It wouldn't be all that difficult, or require all that much explosives to make a mess of the Northest corridor. There are long stretches of unguarded and very lonly track that would be easy to disrupt.

They could also plant bombs on trains in backpacks/briefcases, which are not checked at all. A bomb that goes off on a train as it's in a tunnel would disrupt transportation for days or even weeks in and out of NYC.

It would be a lot easier for suicide bombers to simultaneously blow up two dozen trains up and down the Northeast corridor than to take down one plane--and the overall financial cost would probably be higher.

Anne

 

[CarolA]

You need a few ounces of explosive to bring down an airplane with 300-400 people on board. You need several tons of explosives to bring down a rail bridge and even then you'd be very lucky to kill 100 people on a train. Losing a dozen airliners with 350 people on board would be a spectacular attack and create quite a mess over the ocean--there is not enough equipment in the world to search all those crash areas and recover all the wreckage of a dozen planes from the bottom of the Altantic.

Portie

So it appears you think that ONLY planes are a valid target.

Tell that to the family members of people who died on the London public transport or the people still dealing with the life altering impact of thier injuries..... It's not always about HOW many they kill it's about the TERROR it creates. (Hence Terrorists!)

Why wouldn't the NY or Atlanta subway be a good target (And while I know nothing about the NY subway, ATL is an EASY target. Their idea of security is broken cameras and unattended stations etc.....)

 

[TravelinGal]

Not that the terrorists are stupid and can't figure things out, but is it necessary to list all our nations weak spots to give them ideas for attack?

 

[PortieOwner]

It would be a lot easier for suicide bombers to simultaneously blow up two dozen trains up and down the Northeast corridor than to take down one plane--and the overall financial cost would probably be higher.
Anne

It might be easier but the cost of 12 attacked trains would be much, much lower than the cost of 12 exploded planes. Air travel is a much bigger mode of travel for most of the country. There are something like 20 million rail passengers (Amtrak) per year versus 2 million domestic air passengers each day.

Rail carries about 2 percent of all inter-city passenger traffic in the US each year. In terms of revenue or nearly any other economic measurement air travel dwarfs not just rail but buses, local mass transit, commuter trains, etc. all put together.

I can give you some more numbers if you like. Remember the terrorists do have people with accounting, business and economics training working for them, but that doesn't mean they are rational.

Portie

 

[CarolA]

Not that the terrorists are stupid and can't figure things out, but is it necessary to list all our nations weak spots to give them ideas for attack?

The Atlanta subway is so weak that only a real idiot wouldn't be able to figure it out.

The MORNING of the London Bombings, they had a train break down. I called to see why the train was late, that lead them to discover that my station had no working speakers or cameras. And there was not ONE security or even a general employee at the station. And half the time you didn't even have to pay to get in, the gates were broken....

Then on the nightly news they kept talking about the "stepped up security" WHERE? Saw it the next day, it was folks like me wearing vests. YEP, basically they took the office staff and stuck them on the trains!!!


(We have gotten fancy new gates, I give them six months!)

 

[PortieOwner]

So it appears you think that ONLY planes are a valid target.

Tell that to the family members of people who died on the London public transport or the people still dealing with the life altering impact of thier injuries..... It's not always about HOW many they kill it's about the TERROR it creates. (Hence Terrorists!)

Why wouldn't the NY or Atlanta subway be a good target (And while I know nothing about the NY subway, ATL is an EASY target. Their idea of security is broken cameras and unattended stations etc.....)

Did I say anywhere in my post that they will only attack airplanes? I said they had an obsession with planes and planes at 40,000 feet are very fragile.

And don't wave the terror victim flag in front of me lady. I knew 7 people, including several close friends, killed on Sept. 11.

I suspect Atlanta's subway is a harder target than you think. Georgia has good carry laws and there are probably a number of men on each train with concealed handguns.

Portie

 

[CarolA]

Did I say anywhere in my post that they will only attack airplanes? I said they had an obsession with planes and planes at 40,000 feet are very fragile.

And don't wave the terror victim flag in front of me lady. I knew 7 people, including several close friends, killed on Sept. 11.

I suspect Atlanta's subway is a harder target than you think. Georgia has good carry laws and there are probably a number of men on each train with concealed handguns.

Portie

Yeah, after the bomb goes off they can shoot. You seem to think there's an "Early warning system" or maybe they should just start shooting folks that "look bad" Or maybe the terrorist could RIP the guns out of the "right to carry" guys hands. (And well over HALF of any of my train cars are women I guess they couldn't have a handgun however?) Once again is REACTIVE vs PROACTIVE. (And even Marta admits it's an easy target they keep asking for more money, but....)

I didn't discount the terrorist attacks on other targets YOU did so I don't think that I was 'waving the flag' You are the one obsessed with airplanes NOT the terrorists was the point I was making. The terrorists are obsessed with creating terror. You seem to think that the terrorists are ONLY going to target a plane. LOOK AROUND, there's a target right near you and it's NOT in the air!

 

[Suzanne74]

Wow - I made a comment that I agree with the OP and I get "if you would have read my previous comments" from someone else??

Yikes! First off, I didn't read one response and looking thru 4-5 pages of replies for every OP I post to would leave me on the DIS all day. Second off, now that I did read a few comments (and nasty they are getting by the way) I would have never even posted since it seems everyone opinions are either being laughed at or slammed on this thread.

I guess if people want to keep complaining about the new regulations, they can stop flying and drive or ride a train instead.

And terrorists can strike anywhere at anytime, we all know that so why are you all fighting about where it is going to be next Whether their plan was to blow up planes or divert us, the fact that they are captured should make us all feel a little safer. Maybe if you think about how quickly terrorists can take our lives, you would be a little more grateful of the government instead of slamming it and maybe even be a little nicer to one another here on the DIS.

 

[ducklite]

It might be easier but the cost of 12 attacked trains would be much, much lower than the cost of 12 exploded planes. Air travel is a much bigger mode of travel for most of the country. There are something like 20 million rail passengers (Amtrak) per year versus 2 million domestic air passengers each day.

Rail carries about 2 percent of all inter-city passenger traffic in the US each year. In terms of revenue or nearly any other economic measurement air travel dwarfs not just rail but buses, local mass transit, commuter trains, etc. all put together.

I can give you some more numbers if you like. Remember the terrorists do have people with accounting, business and economics training working for them, but that doesn't mean they are rational.

Portie

Uh, over two million people a day use the NYC subway system. That does not include NJ Transit, Metro North, and LIRR. I have no idea how many use the Chicago or Atlanta systems, but the numbers must be very high as well.

If a terrorist took out a subway train and tunnel in NYC, it would possibly cost more to get it back up and running than the cost of one plane, depending on the level of damage. Our subways/commuter trains are largely undefended, and an incredibly easy target for a suicide bomber. The loss of one plane would have an overall lesser financial effect than the loss of one major subway tunnel.

Anne

 

[ducklite]

I suspect Atlanta's subway is a harder target than you think. Georgia has good carry laws and there are probably a number of men on each train with concealed handguns.

Portie

And you think there aren't in NYC?

And that will do what against a suicide bomber wearing a backpack full of explosives with a detonation device like an iPod? No one would even know that he was a threat until it was too late.

Anne

 

[ducklite]

And the "security" at WDW is even more of a a farce than at airports--it would be pretty darn easy to carry in a backpack with explosives wrapped in foil in a collapsable cooler made to look like sandwiches and detonate it in the middle of a large but compact queue.

There are a lot more vulnerable targets than our skies that are a lot easier to get at.

Anne

 

[Mickey-4-Me]

I've gotta say that I am willing to do ANYTHING asked of me to keep my family safe while traveling.

These terrorist put every waking moment of their lives into these plots and plans, they have no regard for themselves or anyone else. We have NO IDEA what they could have created, or tested. These terrorist are NOT dumb, and they absolutely believe that we shoud DIE for our beliefs. Maybe they can put something into a chapstick that can be combined with something in our hair gel that will explode!

We don't know what they are capable of and its the unknown that has brought these safety measures to the extreme,

I cannot believe the comments on here on some minor inconviences or a little replanning. I just ask people to remember history and help to not let it repeat itself!!!!

BUT of course everyone is entitled to their opinion.

I agree completely. It seems my bags, my purse, my person, my shoes, etc are searched nearly every time I fly. No complaints here. I would do anything for me or my family to be safe flying at 30,000 feet and 600 mph.

Perhaps these people are just chronic complainers and are just jumping on to another hot topic to argue until their hearts are content?!?!

 

[seashoreCM]

What if you simply do without the expensive cosmetics? I don't think your teeth will suffer if you buy cheap toothpaste at your destination.

I would make do with a cheap polyester suit if I anticipated baggage problems. I do feel that a cheap suit carried in a shoulder bag and put on later will look better than a nice wool suit that I wore onto the plane.

Disney hints:
http://members.aol.com/ajaynejr/disney.htm

 

[bavaria]

What if you simply do without the expensive cosmetics? I don't think your teeth will suffer if you buy cheap toothpaste at your destination.

While this may be directed at leisure travellers, I don't think that this is a fair comment to the road warriors. I spend more time on the road than at home each year; my clothes and toiletries at home are the not-so-nice ones; the good stuff comes with me.

 

[ducklite]

What if you simply do without the expensive cosmetics? I don't think your teeth will suffer if you buy cheap toothpaste at your destination.

I can't use "just any" toothpaste. Toothpaste is an asthma trigger for me. (Yes, really!) There are only two types I can use without having an attack. Fortunately one is plain old Colgate paste, although it's not always avaiable in hotel gift shops and such.

Anne