On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 07:47:52 -0800 (PST), you wrote: > > >On Fri, 11 Feb 2005, lazarus wrote: > >> The only reason we're safer now is that the paradigm shifted. Before >> 9/11, everyone knew the best way to survive a hijacking was to sit >> still and wait it out. > >Not quite everyone, if I understand correctly that the govt received >dozens of warnings of hijacking threats to commercial airliners during >the summer of '01, and that the danger of "spectacular" suicidal crashes >was understood in that context. (I'm unaware how distributed, >overlapping, and credibly sourced the two sets of information were.) > Yup, lots and lots of warniings. And Condi's claim that "nobody ever imagined" using planes as missiles is rather specious, considering an exercise of that very scenario was underway on the morning of 9/11. >I also was under the impression that if hijackers were able to >gaining control of the cockpit in a lightning strike, it would all be >over, given the reinforced door. (And that it wasn't clear that the >heroic passengers on the downed flight succeeded - that contention among >the hijackers may have been the reason for the crash - anyone know the >latest on that question?) Lots of different theories. I'm of the opinion that we shot that one down, then came up "Let's Roll" because some heroes were needed.