Next alleged terror plot "bigger" than 9/11; okay, what could possibly be worse?

Random thoughts:

  1. My dad works for Dominion Power. I recall him saying a few years ago that there are only 3 major grids in the US. One would think a carefully placed strike could keep California in the dark for more than an hour every afternoon.

  2. I took a tour of the Naval base in Norfolk, Va 2 years ago. While I was on the train, the tour guide proudly showed us the aircraft carriers, stating that “This is only the 3rd time in history all of the (eastern fleet) carriers had been in port at one time”. I (being the smart ass I am) asked if that was not somewhat akin to placing all of your eggs in one basket so to speak. To which he replied, “We try not to think of those things”. I would certainly hope that we are no longer as careless.

  3. I have a major gripe with airline “security”. Anyone can get a gun on a plane. ANYONE. I only talk about this, because I have been trying to raise awareness about this simple plan. 1) Buy a notebook computer. Hell steal it. 2) Take it apart. 3) Place a .25 baretta in the hollowed out case. 4) Walk up to airport security. Smile and carry on polite conversation. When asked to look inside your bag, show them your shiny new notebook computer. 5) Board the plane without any problems…Morbid, but true.

I think airport security people are preventing this sort of thing by making people TURN ON any laptop computers or other electronic gadgets, so they can show the guards that it’s a real working device. I’ve been asked to do this at airports even before Sept. 11. Not sure if the policy is being applied consistently, though.

That is all that is needed to squelch the plan. (Forgot to mention the solution) However, I was watching security the other day while waiting on my Mother’s flight, and never saw anyone be asked to prove the computer worked.

Yeah I know but they weren’t targets.
Also I may be wrong but I haven’t heard ofkidnapping as one of their tools

Hmm…at least in my experience, security always asks me to switch my laptop on–a difficult thing to do if you’ve hollowed out the works. (But I suppose it’s still possible to rig a machine that looks like a laptop, displays something at the touch of a button to spoof secuity, and still has room to hide nasty stuff.) Also, security usually swabs down my Playstation to check for gunpowder or explosive residue–hope nobody fired the gun that you’re trying to hide.

No, I’m not watching the airports for the next scary thing: I’m watching college campuses. Security is sooo lax at schools of higher education. Anyone under 28 with a backpack and messed up hair looks like a student. So, why not wipe out a massive state school with several well-placed bombs during a busy time of day, or take down the Ivy League?

Justwannano said:

I know! The Al-Queda kidnaps the Bush twins. Osama vows to publically execute one if the US doesn’t slack off on the war agaisnt Afghanistan. What happens then?

And, Justwannano, I could get snippy here and remind you that EVERYONE, including children, on those airplanes, was a target, but I’m too much of a lady to use harsh language.

.:Nichol:.

Here’s two things, one that could run up as much of a body count…the other more lasting damage.

  1. Coordinated attacks using trucks with inflammable and or explosive materials to seal both ends of major road tunnels with one or more bombs or toxic material carriers inside.
    Add in for fun false ambulances with explosives on nearby bridges to completely gridlock the system and keep rescuers from the tunnels.
  2. Good old fashioned eco-terrorism involving a ship and an off-shore drilling platform or two. Hell, even a USS Cole style attack on a supertanker or two.
    As far as attacks on universities, I go to Ohio State University. Any given day, about 50,000 people on main campus. Three dorms with over a thousand students each and one with over two thousand. Over a half dozen more with between five to eight hundred students.
    On football Saturdays our stadium, which holds one hundred and nine thousand people, is usually full.

Yes these are easy pickens, but you can’t let it stop your life. Just because it could happen doesn’t mean it will.

(Personally I find Rosie running through times square naked much more scary :smiley: )

Billions of years from now, our hydrogen-depleted sun will engulf the inner planets of this solar system, reducing them to flaming cinders.

Does that count?

I would think knocking a hole in a supertanker would probably not be the greatest plan for these guys. One of their goals is to get support for their “cause”. Since some of the americans who might see the warped point of view they have, would also most likely be environmentalists, releasing a few million barrels of oil into the ocean might not be the best idea. Likewise, doing some damage on a college campus would also destroy (literally and figuratively) the support of the 20 something set.


~Blame us 'cause we are, what we are… -Better Than Ezra

The one thing that becomes very obvious in this thread is that it is impossible to protect everything. If a bunch of untrained people like us can come up with hundreds of possible scenarios, imagine what those lunatics are coming up with. Ultimately, it is the perfect explanation of why we have to take the fight to them and stamp out terrorism wherever it exists. If not, we might as well just sit around and wait for the next disaster.

I also love how everybody gets hung up one small facet of a very large problem. For example, I’ve seen the media worry for weeks about how to stop terrorists from getting on planes. Do they think that the terrorists are just going to do the same thing over and over again? Especially when there are so many other targets of opportunity? The terrorists don’t even have to be on board an airplane to create all kinds of trouble. I have yet to see anybody wonder about how to stop terrorists from shooting airliners down. You can build the most secure airport in the world, but there is nothing to stop a lunatic terrorist from standing just outside the fence and nailing an airplane with an RPG just as it takes off. Imagine what would happen to air travel if a few of these attacks occurred on the same day.

Its OK to get snippy here. Some kinda treat it as a sport.

Strictly speaking the twin towers were the target. The people on the planes were sort of collateral damage.I’m pretty sure they would rather have stolen planes without passengers to muck up their plans.

jarbaby, I’ve read in other threads about your reaction to the attack.

I hope I’m not overstepping my bounds as a stranger to you, but I’d suggest strongly that you stop reading this thread. It’s not helping you. This goes for DarkWriter too.

From what I understand from 60 Minutes, crashing 50 Learjets (or Gulfstreams if you prefer) into 5 concrete reactor housings will end up with 5 badly scorched concrete buildings and a lot of pieces of corporate jets everywhere. Those reactor buildings are some of the most hardened structures ever built. I saw one test where they flew a F-4 Phantom into a sample wall. The plane desintigrated and only penetrated a few inches.

Terrorist attacks are simple. Hijack a plane and crash it into a building. Park a truck or boat full of explosives next to a target and detonate. Mail anthrax to people. So don’t expect anything fancy like unleashing gas in the Sears tower or rigging this or that up to blah blah blah.

-Attacking a port is ineffective because a port is well, mostly water, some docks, and some large dispursed ships with small crews.

-Crashing a 747 into a carrier on active duty would not work because it would be shot down miles away. Carrier battlegroups tend to watch for incoming aircraft, civilian or not.

-The nuclear power plant thing is worrysome simply because of the possible consequences. Same for a checmical plant.

-Sports arenas are potential targets because of all the people but how do you attack it? They are big and open and you couldn’t bring in enough explosives or gas to do more than create a lot of panic. Probably no worse that a European soccer riot and hardly on par with the WTC.

-Send hundreds of terrorists to randomly terrorize and blow stuff up a la ‘Invasion USA’ (a Chuck Noris classic)?

IMHO, the WTC has kind of raised the bar for terrorists. After that, car bombs and embassy bombings kind of pale in comparison.

No offense, jcmckaig, but I seriously doubt this is one of their goals (at least, in America). They want the US out of the middle east. They want the US to stop supporting Israel. They want fundementalist Islamic regimes like the Taliban in every nation in the Arab world.

They don’t care if any American supports any of these ideas. They don’t care what American public opinion thinks of them.

They do want to hurt America and Americans enough to convince the US to withdraw from their area of interest.

The manner of the attacks on 9/11 is evidence enough of the above. These are not people who care about PR in America.

The only opinion or sympathy they care about is that of people who may be recruited to be future terrorists, such as those in the religious schools in northern Pakistan, or those who might bankroll their efforts, such as wealthy Muslims in the Middle East.

The current airline restrictions are a joke. The last hijackings took place with utility knives. Do you know how EASY it is to get a utility knife onboard? How small a blade is for one of those?

Give me half an hour, and I’ll make a utility knife that I’d be willing to bet $1000 of my own money that I could get through security, even if they knew I was a high risk to be carrying a weapon. The removable blade gets slid into my laptop between the metal RF shield and the plastic case. It won’t show up on an X-ray. The handle for the knife is made out of a couple of snap-together plastic parts. I’ll slide them inside a 3.5" floppy disk, and put the disk in the laptop.

Using this technique, I could get 5 or 10 utility knives on board in a single laptop, and distribute them to my compatriots on board.

Need some more weapons? No problem. First, take the battery pack out of your laptop, and install some smaller batteries wired in parallel so that the laptop still works when switched on (for about 10 minutes). The rest of the hollow space is lined with steel to prevent an X-ray shadow of what’s inside (laptop batteries are opaque to X-ray, which is why they are making people turn them on - the contents of the battery is not knowable). The hollow space inside the battery pack would be small enough for a .25 caliber automatic pistol.

Need some more weapons from your laptop? No problem. A couple of windings of wire around the inside of the case, with loops on the end for some toggles, and I have a garotte that will kill you faster than the utility knife will.

More weapons? No problem. Tell me what you need, and I’ll figure out a way to get it on board. Hypothetically, of course. Don’t try this at home, kids.

You can never ensure your security this way, if you define security as the requirement to get rid of the type of weapons the terrorists used, and other weapons of similar lethality. It is literally impossible. Hell, the arm of my eyeglasses would make a fine dagger. Just remove the plastic ear guard, file the metal to a sharp point, and put the guard back on. When you get aboard, you bend the glasses in half between the lenses so that the arm sticks out past the end. Wrap a piece of wire around it to hold it in place, and you have an instant weapon.

Hell, you don’t even need a metal knife. Take a laptop, and just scribe a line on the inside of case in the shape of a sharp pointy thing. Get on the plane, and flex the case - the plastic will break on the scribed lines, and you have an instant weapon - a nice hard plastic blade that will easily penetrate a human.

This whole enhanced security thing is a HUGE waste of resources. The best security change for the airlines we got for free, when the passengers of flight 93 brought that plane down. The terrorists know that they’ll never get away with another hijacking like that, because the passengers will fight them to the death. So it ain’t going to happen. We’re just wasting our money, and focusing all of our attention on the LAST weapon. That’ll give us a false sense of security so that we’ll be even more unprepared for the next attack.

We’ve had discussions here many times on gun control. The Antis seemed to think that getting rid of guns would solve all our problems. And now we have a bunch of neanderthals that have brought back a weapon that has killed more humans than all the guns ever manufactured.

**

From what I read in The Nation, it’s much easier than that. It’s unclear to me which source I should believe.

**

You mean kind of like the scenarios I described?

**

If they can pull off 9/11 and create weaponized anthrax, what’s so difficult about releasing cesium dust in the Sears tower?
For that matter, who is to say that a determined multimillionaire with legions of suicide sleeper agents, who has already shown a great ability for planning complex attacks using advanced technical skills, couldn’t rig “this or that up to blah blah blah”? It seems to me that by your logic, before 9-11 you’d be saying that terrorist attacks involve blowing up an embassy, but they couldn’t possibly know enough about microbiology to do something complicated and science-fictiony like use weaponized anthrax.

Realistically, we only have a tiny inkling of what Al Qaeda is capable of. The only attack that would surprise me is if Bin Laden did something that we had already thought of in this thread.

-Ben

You could say that

Whoops. Start again…

You could say that if it’s in this thread, it probably won’t happen. Whoever planned the 9-11 attacks obviously sat down and asked “what WON’T they be expecting?” these guys’ imaginations are vivid as well as evil…

  • eco-terrorism, corrupting the food chain somehow?
  • simultaneous explosions on 20 different subway systems in several different western countries?
  • electro-magnetic pulses?

[Quote]

…, what could possibly be worse?

[Quote]

It really depends what you mean by worse.
The way I look at it Bin’s boys were targeting something that was a sign of US might.In their minds the people were secondary.

During the Viet conflict the enemy knew that if the people were against the war the military would have a hard time getting funding. I can already hear a few familiar anti war statements. The Press asking again and again why we aren’t doing more faster.How much is this costing?
Comments about colatteral damage,civilians being hurt,killed etc.The poor Afgan civilians having to suffer.

What could be worse???IMHO if we don’t see this to its finish.