Well at last....an intelligent reply. Now if I could only be as eloquent.
I see what you are saying about UAL #93 and you do raise a good point. However, I still stand behind my comment about how it was still a lost battle as the plane still crashed. But to their credit, as you pointed out, SOMETHING was done. So those people are to be commended. I guess the loss of that plane in a rural field sure beats a lost plane AND the White House (and everyone in it). But I feel that it was a rather unique situation. It begs the question of why didn't anyone on the other three planes try and thwart or divert the attack?
because the folks on #93 had been tipped off as to what was going on. They knew (unlike the other three planes) that they weren't going to be flown to Cuba and held for ransom. It is my belief that had they not known the true intent of the hijackers, then there is a better than 99% chance the either the White House or The Capitol would've been levelled as well.
i didn't make the rules, and it's not like me opening my mouth would change anything about it
Well it could and it couldn't. But isn't it at least worth a try? No one ever got anything done by doing
At the very least, even if The Fed doesn't budge on this, at least you can say you tried. You are surrendering without a fight so to speak. Not to digress too much, but that's the same attitude that is behind voter apathy and low turnout:
"I'm just one person. My vote won't make a difference. So why bother?"
the fact that you started out bashing us spotters for 'complaining' about security measures, and then you turn around and contradict yourself and complain about them, really says something...
I'm not really sure where exactly I contradicted myself. All I said is that spotters have no reason to complain about the loss of their hobby if at the same time they are saying that security is too loose. To use a hypothetical example, it would be like someone complaining that their auto insurance was too expensive, even though they have 2 DUI's, 5 speeding tickets, and 3 at-fault accidents to their credit. I don't have any issues with spotters themselves as you imply. Like I said, I was once one too. For many many years.
i'm sure all plane spotters are just cowards and we would all run for our lives like you said
I never said that
ALL spotters are cowards. Sure if there happen to be 30 or 40 of them gathered at an airport, then it's entirely probable that they would try and storm a would-be assasin. There's that whole strength-in-numbers thing.
But if there's only a few of them, and suddenly some rogue shows up with an uzi, I doubt that anyone toting a Nikon would be brave (or stupid) enough to try and stop him.
Spotters may be a unique breed. But they are still human.
if terrorists really want to do something, then they will...that goes without saying...flying will most likely never be 100% secure...all that can be done is do the best we can to try and make it better...
I agree with you all the way. But still, here in 2002, we can do better than what we are doing. As noted above, this sad state of affairs is PC gone way too far. Instead of punishing 99.9999999999999999999999999% of the people because of the actions of the other .0000000000000000000000001%, why not do a better job of sceurity long before the airport? Why not be a little more picky on who we roll out the welcome mat to? Why not do things a-la El Al and actually profile?