Re: [Staffslug] Nothing really to do with Linux.
On 04/07/07, ArchLinuxUser dick_turpin <dick_turpin(a)archlinux.us> wrote:
I don't know if it was a serious, terrorist, attack however if it
had of got
through the doors/glass (Which is what they intended as far as I'm aware)
with a packed terminal I think we could have been looking at something along
the lines of twin towers. Consider not just the people queuing at the
check-in, what about those lovely planes full of fuel that we all look at
from the waiting area many of which are parked very close to the terminal.
An exploding gas canister will go through a 5" inch thick concrete wall not
to mention how fast fire can spread.
I'm far from convinced about that. They *might* have killed a lot of
people in the terminal, maybe. But, I'm not convinced the gas
canisters would have exploded, even with no intervention.
If they did explode, I'm far from convinced that it would go through a
5" concrete wall - explosions have very poor armour-penetrating
performance (except in the special case of HEAT/HESH rounds, which are
far from simple explosions). Consider that a flak jacket (light enough
to be worn) is generally proof against shrapnel, and that's a lot
thinner & lighter than a 5" thick wall.
And yes, fires can spread very fast. But, on the other hand, every
airport has fire crews on site, and I don't think it would have caused
a huge fire. The IRA exploded a 3,300 lb bomb in Manchester in 1996,
which caused a lot of damage, but I don't remember any reports of huge
fires, and I can't find any mention of fires in the reports.
Having said that, with my Mr cynical hat on, the UK government loves
these
so called attacks;
1. Unpalatable laws can be rushed through under the guise of anti-terrorism.
2. We can sit comfortably in the White House while asking for a handout
because we are under attack as well.
3. It takes the public's mind off all the other problems this country is
facing.
4. The police love it too, it means they get to walk around with machine
guns and blow up cars that "Look suspicious" how you can tell a suspicious
car is beyond me?
I'll not argue about those points.
Oh and I'm not convinced about Al-Qaeda either its easier to just
tell
people it was them than say "It was the Judean Peoples Popular Front" or
"The Surrey and Lambeth Ferreters Association".
Al-Qaeda is now the bogey man for 2007 I wonder who it will be in 2008/9?
Well, Al-Qaeda have been around for a long time. I remember them being
implicated in attacks in Clinton's day. But yes, they are a handy
bogeyman.
On the whole, I agree with Bruce Schneier when he says that we should
"refuse to be terrorised" [1], even if he does spell it wrong ;-)
Russ
[1] http://www.schneier.com/essay-124.html